jptreen

<p>Sounds great to me. I'd be upgrading from the K10D, and so I'm pretty sure I'd notice the difference!</p>

<p>Thumbs-up Justin and thank you, Hannah.</p>

<p>I am looking forward to Justin's in-depth review later, but the hands-on still makes interesting reading. Like a lot of people, I'm holding out for the first price dive - I just hope Justin doesn't come up with too much of a rave or I'll be head-over-heels down the shops for one...</p>

<p>Bill, that's odd - really odd - in the UK it's only about £250 in the few places that stock it. I guess Samsung are even less together than Pentax!</p>

<p>I've seen one used NOT SELL for £100 - I really kicked myself for forgetting to bid on that one! If you find it on fleabay, not a lot of people know what it really is and they can come in real bargins.</p>

<p>Andrew, it is the latest <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/07/boot-camp-ii-assignment-2.html">Strobist Boot Camp II</a> Assignment.</p>

<p>Very good fun for learning about off-camera flash use, and you get to see a lot of other people try the same - which gives you yet more good ideas!</p>

<p>Thanks for the pointers guys, a really interesting heads-up. Am going through the photo again for my own satisfaction and it's been helpful both in honing my brain as much as the photo itself!</p>

<p>Best wishes, and all the best on finding something else to occupy your tme!</p>

<p>Damn it Steve, I hadn't even noticed them! You have sharp eyes!</p>

<p>I'll give that a go...thanks!</p>

<p>Took this shot yesterday, and am having trouble deciding which version I like more...(they're both up on flickr for the latest strobist boot camp assignment)<br>

<a href=" Honey</a><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2507/3687317714_75480285ab.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="393" height="500" /></p>

<p>I then thought I'd reprocess it a bit to bring out the logo...<br>

<a href=" Honey II</a></p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3686913897_b865194809.jpg?v=0" alt="" /></p>

<p>For a while I thought #2 was the winner - now I think it may be too dark. It doesn't help that I am doing this on a laptop screen, which while calibrated, has always been a bit lacking in DR.<br>

In this case, I'm going to throw it open, I or II?</p>

<p>Get a D-Xenon 35mm f/2. It's the same lens rebadged by samsung. You can certainly still find these!</p>

<p>Hey guys!<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3561/3689217075_b0563d1971.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="500" height="335" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3625/3689217423_89138f4d10.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="375" height="500" /></p>

<p>John, I disagree that 50-135 on one and 50/1.4 on the other is redundant. It really depends on your style of shooting. I have commonly used 18-50/2.8 on one camera with attached flash and a 50/1.4 on another shooting available light. It's a system that works nicely for me, enabling me to get good 'coverage' shots, and then have the 1.4 handy for 'romantic' shots, or the like. I do have to say though, that since getting a Sigma 24/1.8, I've found my use of the 50/1.4 has dropped off. Getting closer with a wider lens is surely good advice, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a pointless combo.<br>

As for the better DoF with a shorter lens, if you're shooting a photo of three guys with the same f/stop filling the same amount of the frame, the DoF will be the same and you'll still have some out of focus - if you're shooting flash, the advantage of being able to drop the shutter speed lower on a wider lens is lost because you're probably dragging it below the 'red line' anyway to pick up the ambient - you may get sharper backgrounds, but I'd say the difference is marginal. I'd say get close because close makes for interesting photos, not because it'll give you more DoF. You still need to manage the flash issue.</p>

<p>Damn, that 31mm Ltd story sounds poor, but I'm going to try not to jump to any conclusions...</p>

<p>A multi-page thread already, damn. I would say that no-one on that thread seems to see that the equivilent cost of Pentax competitors lenses is still above Pentax prices in pretty much every department. Now when I say this, I mean Pentax 16-50 beats out Nikon 17-55mm F2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX (by about 20%) and the Canon equivilent seems to be in a dead heat, but that depends where you look.<br>

looking around, i guess I'd forgotten just how bloody expensive everyone else was, and even with a 65% price hike, Pentax is *still* pretty much the cheapest - and if you factor in the cost of bodies, Pentax still has the whip hand. I guess some accountant a Hoya looked it up and said 'guys, we're the cheapest, right? well, i've calculated that if we raise our prices 60% across the board we'll still be the cheapest. Only just, but if people are the kind that looks around prices they'll choose us anyway because we win, and if people want cool, we've got our new K-7, so we still win!'<br>

If it stays like this then, I think 90% of people will stick around, we'll get a small new influx with the new body, the old guard will feel pissed at Pentax for the price rises, and everyone will buy fewer lenses.<br>

Shame.</p>

<p>Beth, Maria has rather hit it on the head!</p>

<p>Dingy wedding receptions do not always yeild the best technical shots - and I would say it's just as, if not more important to get the feeling right. Take the shot below...shot with a 20ft roof in a huge room that was dimly lit by an even mixture of tungsten and florescent lighting.<img src="http://www.jptreen.com/sites/default/files/images/about_me/a%20question%20of%20taste.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="732" /></p>

<p>Three shots, grabbed the first one because I thought something nice might happen - stayed on track for the second, and got the money shot with #3. It was a terrible photograph, right? Direct flash, (Metz 54-AF1 - main head bounced, for all the good it did, and secondary reflector straight at them.) White Balance so screwed (3 radically different light sources, foreground WB very different to background WB) that I was forced to convert to WB, and a messy carpet background to distract from the final image.</p>

<p>Sure, but what <em>did </em> I have? f/4, enough to give me a decent DOF for the shot, flash to freeze, slow enough shutter to burn the background burn in, and ISO400 to keep the grain down, shooting the flash in 'A' mode.</p>

<p>Looking at it now I see I could've moved for a better composition, but that's not your question. Can you use Pentax kit in a speedy way to take improvised shots in the gloom? Yes you can. It'll take a bit of playing around to find which settings work in which situations, but doing that will just make you better at it for next time - <strong>just know that you can go and play with your Pentax kit now in the certain knowledge that what you are after is possible!</strong></p>

<p>True, Mike - it was tongue-in-cheek, but at the same time, having a lens jump 75% in under a week! I have not even really tested it yet and suddenly I own a lens I could never afford to buy! I was, and still am, wondering if anyone has seen these kind of price jumps before...</p>

<p>Well, I'm not sure if this is a global issue, but I bought (in the UK) the 50-135 for £549 last year and the 16-50 for £475 last week. I check on the dealer I use this morning (SRS Microsystems, massive reputation, reputable from tip to toe.)</p>

<p>DA* 16-50 - £835 (up £360, or 175% of last weeks price)<br>

DA*50-135 - £919 (up £370, or 167% over the past year)</p>

<p>They are not the only two, either - My DA Ltd's have suddenly appreciated by a good amount too...</p>

<p>Now, this concerns me as much as it pleases me, (I think, if the retail price sticks, and there was a market, I could make well over £1000 on top of my initial investment in Pentax glass at the moment.)</p>

<p>My worry is 'if there is a market'. I'm not planning on cashing in, but I bet this would set alarm bells ringing for quite a few people who are with Pentax with Bang for Buck in mind. Looking at Pentax prices compared to my domestic Canon and Nikon (hey, if lens prices almost double, that leads me to look at the competition) and for all my directly comparable lenses, Pentax is still cheaper (except for the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, which is about £30 cheaper., but no longer by such a large amount.<br>

Now, I've only been taking photos for a few years - I first got on the SLR bandwagon with the EOS 300D, <br /> Digital Rebel, and I want to know from some of you clear-headed veterans whether this kind of price hike has precedent (I've not been able to see one in my brief searches, but searching for 'lens price hike' introduces one helluvalotta nose.). I for one worry that if the price incentive to go Pentax is reduced like it just has been, it'll discourage existing users from jumping ship back, and new users from coming on board in the first place.<br>

On the other hand - I've just theoretically made a 75% return on my investment within a week - Pentax lenses kick the stock market out of the park! :-)</p>

<p>Grips balance larger lenses nicely, but to be honest because of the no AF button on grip thing I have ended up using my K10D with grip but without using the grip buttons - a bit of a waste but hey...the K7 grip is a must-have for me, I feel that with long DA* zooms the camera holds better - but then I wonder, is $200+ a fair price to pay for 'a little bit more solid in the hands'?</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell is an interesting place to start - he debunks a lot of nonsense right from the get go. It might be that it's all you need to get started. If you have any further questions about that kind of thing, then technique primers are everywhere on the internet.<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/howto.htm</p>

<p>As for the lenses, the Sigma 18-50 comes in a few forms, but it's a decent lens for learning if you want to get deeper into photography. I'd just stick that on for now and see if you like it. Don't be too concerned with how 'good' your photos are to start with, just shoot and learn. It's an interesting field that you can spend half your life with and still have much more to learn!</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>That is a kit that would please many many a photographer.<br>

I would ask, with a camera kit like that it would help to know what lenses you were given at the same time (if any). It would really help in deciding whether you might need any more to get you started.<br>

For learning on, the Digital *Ist DL should enable you to learn very quickly from your mistakes and is a very small and handy digital camera.<br>

I would certainly keep the K1000 and the MZ-5, play with them when you want, because sometime later in your development you may really want them. I envy such a start up kit, you are very lucky indeed.<br>

As for getting suckered into buying more and newer cameras and lenses, be secure and confident that it will probably take you years to get the most out of your current kit.<br>

But most of all, start taking photos and see if you like it. There's a friendly bunch here who are happy to critique if you want to share, and a weekly 'POW' where people can put photos up of anything just to show each other where we are at the moment. Don't be afraid to ask silly questions, and...</p>

<p>...Welcome to the forum!</p>

 

<p>Good work as usual guys, just read the guidelines...let's see what I can do...<br>

<img src="http://jptreen.com/gallery/d/338-2/The+South+Tyrol.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="430" /><br>

K10D - DA 70mm Ltd. From a walk in the South Tyrol...</p>

<p>Justin, I think it was probably the miniaturization that did for the door mechanism. If the primary design brief was to 'make he damn thing smaller' then that would be a prime example of things that would have to go.</p>

<p>I think it's just the same as not being able to have that small and light 50mm f/1.0 that focuses like a breeze and has old 'M' style manual focusing...sucks, but that's life.</p>

<p>it's a big fat hoax, guys...</p>

<p>that's it Dave, Paul's shown it's the perfect combo! I'll expect all your shots from now on to be shot at least above 0.2 meters in focal length or above!</p>

<p>Not started one of these before, I've always been too late - and I've been out of the loop for a bit recently.<br>

<br /> I posted a few weeks ago that I was going away for about six months to Italy for walking. Well, our planning could have been better so we're back in the UK after a short while sorting our lives out before heading out again. Here's a couple of shots from the first, abortive leg!<br /> <img src="http://www.jptreen.com/gallery/d/205-2/Buy+Pen.JPG" alt="" width="640" height="427" /></p>

<p><img src="http://www.jptreen.com/gallery/d/199-2/The+Tyrol+in+Spring.JPG" alt="" width="640" height="427" /> <br /> ...and then the standard 'annoyingly tilty' shot :-)<br /> <img src="http://jptreen.com/gallery/d/208-2/River.JPG" alt="" width="427" height="640" /><br>

Enjoy!</p>

<p>The pentax kit lens is pretty good, but then that's already been said. What you get with the Ltd primes is sometimes only the fact that 'it's smaller so I could afford the weight and bring it with me', and you're testing in pretty simple conditions here, but at the same time I doubt the softness on the 35ltd at f/4.5 - I have real-world shots taken with that lens at 2.8 that are sharper in the middle. As for the 15, I have no experience, but the 70 is spot on. Awesome lens.</p>

<p>I must say, the first time I upgraded from the kit lens, it was because I had looked around on the forums and thought 'ooh, damn, everyone's saying prime lenses are much better.' and I was using Canon at the time, so I bought the EF 50mm f/1.8.<br /> <br /> My eye and my brain were not trained enough at that point to really 'get' what I was doing, but the canon 50/1.8 was the cheapest EOS fitting I could find and I wanted to ponce around with a fast lens to make me 'better' than the other morons out there who didn't understand. I didn't understand. REALLY didn't understand. I was just trying the classic 'buy more kit and your photos will get better' method, and just like with everyone else it failed.<br /> <br /> I didn't learn anything about photography (and I'm not half-as-far along as a lot of people here!) until I ran out of money and sold my Canon DSLR and lenses to my dad. He clearly felt bad for me and gave me his old Ricoh K-mount with a 50/2, and a CZJ20mm/2.8 M42 with a K adapter, and after a while I added an ebay Vivitar 135/2.8. For about two or three years that was it, popping off occasional rolls of B+W and generic 400. I still didn't learn too much, but that accidental downgrade to film and primes in my time of low-budgetedness taught me what I <em>like </em> about photography, and <em>why </em> I wanted to do it. From there, when I got a bit of money again I looked around, unconvinced. I didn't even know Pentax still existed! I then had a look on pnet, and heard about this strange camera from this fringe brand that took lots of old lenses...<br /> <br /> I think most first upgrades from the kit are based on false thought processes because they are generally one of our first steps to trying to be more than just a snapper. It's not that it makes us more than just a snapper, but it often hints at the dream that one day we could be. There are some awesome kit lens photographers out there, don't get me wrong, just for me at least, every time I buy a new lens/body/etc I go back to that first upgrade and I wonder if it's just pretence and whether I can really use it effectively. I hope that will never go away. It's that self-doubt that keeps me from going broke!<br /> Alas, nothing is going to stop me buying the K-7!</p>