photom

<p>To get very accurate and consistent colors, YES, it is difficult. It can be done, but extra effort, knowledge, skills, etc. is required. To get decent, OK, color is not very hard. This is another of the reasons that direct digital capture is taking over.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Key light places 2X amount of light on the lit side of the face. The Fill light adds 1X of light to the shadows AND 1X amount of light to the lit side of the face. 2 X plus 1X equals 3X amount of light on the lit side of the face and 1X amount of light on the shadow side of the face for a ratio of 3:1 and the Key kight (2X) is one stop brighter than the Fill light (1X)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is a very interesting discussion. Obviously the most important ratio is the brightness difference on the subject which would be measured by a flash or regular incident meter at the subject.</p>

<p>The second newer ratio sounds like a light power ratio for studio use if you have a key light and a fill light in an all dark studio. However, lights of this type are very directional and you do not know how much bounce will occur from the studio. So, the actual ratio on the subject from two equal distant flash sources with a 2:1 power ratio may still not be quite 3:1 for light measured at the subject. This is because some of the fill light is shaded on the other side of the face for example in portraits. I guess if you had fill and key at 180 degrees from each other on a flat plane then the power ratio and the light ratio on the subject would be the same (in a black painted studio).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Robert Goldstein said >> I find this completely mystifying. When I process files in Dxo Optical Pro 5.3 for DNG output and then import them to Lightroom, they look just as detailed and as sharp as they do in DxO and much better than the same files brought directly into LR. If I then export to Photoshop, they lose nothing in IQ.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Is there a great advantage to output from DxO as another raw file - DNG - rather than a TIFF file?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only reservation that I have with the program is the color rendering for the K10D. I have learned to leave all of the DxO color modules disabled and then to process the files as DNGs to be imported subsequently into Lightroom, where I prefer the color rendering and adjustment tools. This extra step adds a little time to my workflow, but I consider it well worth doing. Color rendering is a matter of personal preference, and you may not find DxO's to be objectionable.<br>

Rob</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rob, try making an ICC camera profile with Profile Prism or other lower priced software and you can customize the color as to how you like it. Portrait, landscape, sunny, shade, etc.</p>

<p>Bill, </p>

<p>Keep in mind Pentax cannot grow if all they do is design products for legacy customers. The also have to think about people that have never owned a Pentax which is a market several hundred times larger. I they do not constantly keep up with technology, then Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus will get those new customers.</p>

<p>How much does a battery grip cost? It goes with the camera when you sell it again. Battery grips wear too and need to be replaced occasionally.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>I don't think maintaining current k mount flange distance in a smaller body would be that difficult. "</em> </p>

<p>No, it's not difficult. Olympus and Panasonic do that already with K lenses and everything else under the sun. But it makes a small camera gross, like mounting a Canon FD lens on a screw mount Leica (it can be done, but it's ridiculous).<br>

You have to add the mirror box's depth to the lens. Yes, it works, but adding bulk to the camera to accommodate it defeats the original purpose (the whole idea is to get away from DSLR bloat). In any case, Pentax is in the business of business...there's no more reason to adapt K lenses to a smaller camera than there is to adapt 6x7 lenses to K...it can be done, but it doesn't serve any business or serious photo purpose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>NO, Oly and Panny do not keep K mount flange distance. They have a much shorter flange distance and an adaptor is required for K mount lens to be used. This is not what the poster was saying. He was suggesting keep the same current K mount flange distance, but try to make a smaller body than K7 because mirror and prism will be gone.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Don't you folks have feet?</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Not that I use zooms a lot, but I keep seeing this advice and it's not as good as people who insist on giving it think it is: sometimes you may not have the space to move and moving also changes your perspective of the subject. In particular, if you're shooting something higher or lower and you want to keep your angle, it's not enough to move back - you also have to move to a lower or higher position, respectively. Zooms *are* useful.<br>

To convince yourself, try the following test: put a bowl of fruit on a table in front of you below waist level, then shoot it at 35mm standing straight. Now take a 135mm and see how easy it is to shoot the bowl with it so that you maintain the same angle of view that you captured with the 35mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course the 135 on the zoom will not do any better than the prime for your example. You are right, using your feet does not often fix the need. What the poster should have said is, "Don't you guys know how to change a lens?".</p>

<p>The problem is things have changed. Yes, in the old days Pentax could afford to spend money focusing on great lenses, and if the body was decent you could compete. Everyone had the same film (sensor) after all.</p>

<p>Now, the sensor and other electronic features are at least as important as the quality of the lenses. Also, sensors change so fast a company is compelled to change the body almost every year (more pressure). This was not the case in the good old days. You can have the best lenses in the world but if you sensor lags the competition you will have trouble selling. This has forced Pentax to use a holistic approach to balance the quality of the lens with more investment in body/sensor. Also, people expect great, fast, quiet AF now. This is a whole new area that Pentax did not have to mess with in the past and they appear to still be playing catch-up. Also, more resources get soaked up and another area of comparison that gives Pentax nicks.</p>

<p>Leica has suffered financially for exactly the same reasons. They are riding a fading wave of photogs that love their lenses and overall quality (and a few that have money to burn). Maybe this wave will go on for ever.</p>

<p>So, upstream and downstream is marketing speak for price segments I guess.</p>

<p>To Michael:</p>

<p>Most Med. Format digital sensors are smaller than 42x56 so there is a "crop factor".</p>

<p>John Kelley wrote:<br /> "EVF is a loser conceptually. even if it was improved tremendously from today's lousy quality. It's way downstream photographically (operationally) both from SLR form factor and bright-frame optical finder finder. It's only a marketing accommodation to people who imagine "SLR" is the ideal for all situations."</p>

<p>I cannot understand anything from this. EVF, conceptually is a winner, but its the implementation that is a loser. Downstream photographically? Never heard of that. RE SLR form factor, if anything, EVF cameras are still through-the-lens viewing but with electronics instead of a mirror, if that is what you meant by a form factor. I admit I am slow sometimes.</p>

<p>I guess from your earlier post you think it would be better if Pentax made a more traditional rangefinder, but with a digital sensor. The main problem with a rangefinder camera for mass appeal, is the rangefinder. It limits the use of the camera, although within that range of use it is great.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Scott M. said ><br>

"I would jump at the chance to use the small pentax primes on a m4/3 body (with AF), especially if they were released so as to not require an adaptor. As much as I like the current m4/3 cameras, there are not many AF lenses, especially wide primes.<br /> Scott"</p>

<p>Well if it is m4/3, then an adapter would be required by definition of what m4/3 is, even if it is a new Pentax version. However, the good news is that adapters for Pentax are already being made or planned for. So, you can have your wish (except for the adapter) and not even have to buy a Pentax camera.</p>

<p>Maybe what you want is the smallest no mirror type camera they can design that can use KMount directly. This might be a APS-C sensor version of this type of camera. Samsung has begun this journey, and I believe that this is actually what Pentax is thinking about.</p>

<p>I would treat it somewhat similar to a studio, other than you will be using all portable equipment. The main difference is that you cannot rely on light bouncing on ceiling, wall, floors. However, you can bring reflectors, bounce aids, etc. if you feel the need. The lighting angles, lighting the background stage, etc. should be very similar to a studio setup. Just one opinion.</p>

<p>I guess I assumed this would be at night. For daytime or late afternoon then, you will have to work with the angle of the sun, and possibly setup some shading device.</p>

<p>Make sure you compare the scans with all optons off such as IR dust removal (ICE), sharpening, grain reduction, etc.</p>

<p>I assume you did this just thought I would mention. Vuescan does not use ICE but its own version with differenct strength levels which may not be the same as Nikon.</p>

<p>One other variable is the focus point. Make sure it is the same and autofocus is on.</p>

<p>It could be you like ICE better than Vuescan version of IR dust removal.</p>

<p>I happen to like Vuescan grain reduction style a little better than Nikon version. 'But not all scans need grain reduction.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>First, if you are not trying to make money with your camera there is really no such thing as relevant or not relevant. It is all about personal taste and what you enjoy.</p>

<p>If you ARE trying to make money, for <em>most</em> types of money making opportunities, YES, medium format film is not practical and is a poor business choice. However, there are some lower volume shooting needs, but with higher quality (special look/style) required where medium format film still works best. This might be certain types of landscape, large group portraits, individual portraits, B&W film, numerous other low volume niche areas. If you are dong studio work with these same areas AND can also crank out high volume then med. format digital makes sense instead. Film still has advantages for rough field work conditions when the highest quality is also needed. Also, many landscape photo artists do not trust long exposure to digital. But med. format competes with large format here.</p>

<p>I would be surprised if very many photographers make a living with nothing but medium format film today. More of a hybrid business model makes more sense with smaller format digital filling the volume where it can be used, and med. format film for the lower volume, special needs as mentioned above.</p>

<p>Matt Said > Fred - you should check out Sigma's 50/1.4 HSM, if you're all about the bokeh and wide-open sharpness. Nikon's 50/1.4 AF-S has a slight, marginal edge on full-frame sharpness when stopped well down, but shooting in low light, the Sigma's better - and the bokeh's delicious. Of course, the lens is a tank, by comparison.</p>

<p>The newly designed Nikon 50 1.4 appears to be much improved in the wide apertures (less than 2.8). See this: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4g_n15/page4.asp.</p>

<p>It appears that Nikon may have lagged in updating primes and excelled in the new zooms so, perhaps no real prime advantage except for speed and maybe bokeh for some lenses.</p>

<p>For Canon, the fast versions of the prime lenses 24, 35, 50, 85, 135 are all better at any aperture than the zooms. They may be better than the Nikon zooms as well but difficult to test across systems.</p>

<p>I thought that most quality lens testing is done using manual focus or live view with multiple shots until the best resolution is achieved (eg slrgear.com). Of course, accurate AF is very, very important, but are they testing AF or the lens? I hope that the two are done separately.</p>

<p>Regarding Steve M. comment above: "This indeed is one reason I am so wary of any test site, purely because they often make huge assumptions about products on such tiny samples...and statistically speaking you simply cannot do that, it makes the testing regime poor and not of valuable use."</p>

<p>Since nobody is going to test 100 lenses (accept maybe the manuf. but they will not release data), how do we ever get reliable information about a particular lens? Should we instead go by comments of other people such as "Seems very sharp to me"?</p>

<p>From a technical stand point your comments really make no sense what so ever. It almost sounds like comments from someone that is bored of the average photography in general and is trying to pick on a scapegoat, knowing the average, lower budget photographer will be using umbrellas from time to time.</p>

<p>"But at this point in time, I have seen nothing but flat, boring, pedestrian, predictable, unassuming, dull and flat out knock me out with a VALIUM the size of a HOCKEY PUCK images."</p>

<p>What I mean by your comments make no sense is, for example, the use of the word "flat" which means very low contrast. A single off-camera axis umbrella usually has the problem of too much contrast, which is why they invented soft boxes. I know you are stirring up conversation here. Obviously, if umbrellas were so great, people would not spend 10 times the price on softboxes (and the numerous other light modifiers) would they? Perhaps you meant to say that umbrellas often give a look that is very unnatural, harsh, unflattering, or something of this sort. OK, common, average, or boring. I do not believe, flat is the correct word.</p>

<p><img src="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/ceH8ZEK47qmx4qbQLGQanw?feat=directlink" alt="" /></p>

<p>Here is adjusted jpg for Erik. I believe my monitor is close to accurate but someone may diagree. Sorry if the latter.</p>

<p>OH, sorry. I missed reading the other post above that did the same thing. Much appologies.</p><div></div>

<p>Erik your colors look off to me. In PS color balance move about 5 notches to Magenta and 5 to Blue and 3 to Red (for mid tone). Highlights and Shadows same directions but less amounts. Just my opinion.<br /> = Tom</p>

<p>I will try to upload sample later if I can.</p>

<p>For negative color film try taking a shot of a gray step scale and color checker chart in the same lighting (make a standard target). Every time the type of lighting changes you need a new target shot. It wastes a frame or two per roll but it is the only way to get color close to correct (sometimes you can clone it out later). Of course you will need to know how to adjust curves in PS using the target frame and applying the adjustments to all of the other shots on the roll. AND, need to do color reversal of raw scan in a consistent manner for each shot. Accurate color is the challenge of color negative film. I believe it was also a challenge during the days of enlargers and color filter heads. Actually, I think people were not quite as critical in most cases and were happy just to have good looking color even if not perfectly accurate.</p>

<p>K7 is clearly a better value if you add up all of the additional design features. The price difference is $650. I think someone earlier said $800 which is incorrect. BUT, if these numerous body and function features are not important to you to take good photos (for example landscape shots only with tripod) then the $650 in features will not mean much to you and it is probably a waste. The sensor image quality by itself will not enable you to justify the cost difference.</p>

<p>You may consider using a different lens for some of your reception shots. You mentioned everything being 50mm or longer.</p>

<p>31mm lens at 12 ft. from subject, at f2.0 aperture gives DOF of 3.71 feet which should be good for many small group shots.</p>

<p>I think S. Brown pretty much summed it all up very accurately.</p>

<p>Justin said:<br>

"BTW, I'm not in love with the Tokina 11-16. Seems like a lens with a lot of flaws. If it was a f/4 it probably would get called out a lot more on those flaws. Not saying it's a dud, just saying I don't think it's the cats meow (or the dogs woof for fido lovers).0"</p>

<p>Not sure there is a cats meow in ultra wide, or ever will be. Photozone shows some very good numbers for this UW Tokina lens. http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/379-tokina_1116_28_canon?start=1</p>