hinman

<p><br /><strong>#3 Colors In Darkness</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7656/26908080201_c6fd7f7b5a_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /><br /><br /></strong></a><br> <strong><br /></strong>I saw quite a few discussions on bokeh rings that is oval or the preferred type of circular. I went to my archive of photos and I do see circular and ovals (cats eyes) in others. The above was shot with Voiglander 40mm f/1.4, likely wide open -- I saw both with only circular in the middle ones while the rest seems like oval shape. I love my FA 43mm f/1.9 but the bokeh rings have edged shapes like a hexagon and I prefer the FA 77 as they come out more rounded and smooth. I still remember the cats eye bokeh rings from my past Cosina 50mm f/1.2. They are all different and I actually don't mind the cats eyes bokeh rings as long as they are smooth and not distracting.</p>

<p><strong><br />#2 Pink Thistle</strong></p> <p><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7267/26727144490_af3c6103ef_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="685" /></a><br /> K10D and Tamron LD Di 70-300mm</p> <p>This was an ancient photo of mine shot in 2008 with K10D. I re-edit with Color Efex Pro and I think I try either Velvia or Provia. Now that I stare at it for minutes, I wish I remember the film that I choose on emulation. And I miss the funky and fringy zoom with Tamron as I occasionally love the on-the-mood type of shots on close up. Now that I don't have any zoom as I sold my DA 55-300 and DA 60-250 preparing myself to get the DA 55-300 with WR, I am free to revisit my long zoom need. </p>

<p><strong><br />#1 Sentimental with Past & Present<br /><br /><br /><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7150/26942975936_72f361c60f_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></a><br /></strong><br />I saw a wall of big photos capturing the Smith Corona typewriter and that really got a kick of my memory admiring how fast my brother typed with the old mechanical typewriter. I treasure the greatness from past and present but mindset always stay in the past. Hence the antique liking soul in me with b&w film photos.<br /><br /><br />Apology of non-Pentax picture posting. I thought I shot it with K-5 and Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4.0 and I did shoot with the gear but the above was shot on a different time with A7 and Tokina 20-35. I had actually shot better and memorable pictures from K-5 and Tamron. It was a mood thing and sometimes my photos don't come out with a good vision and it has the least effect with the gear but more on the lighting and my vision and state of mind. The above was in trash bin state in my LR catalog until I turn B&W in Nil correction likely with Kodak Tri-x 400.</p>

<p>This is quite a lens for portraits or tele use. It is lacking two things in not having a focus limiter and it does not help when aperture ring is absent in the DA series lens. I am old fashioned with A setting on the ring most of the time but having a aperture ring wins in my book as it can be adapted easily to other platforms. But when I put into into portrait shooting, not having the focus limiter doesn't hinder the tele use. AF is louder like other DA lenses but the image quality really pays off. The build is excellent. And having WR is big plus for one of those rare moments that you shoot macro after the rain or a portraits in the beach or a foggy coastline. <br> <br /><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1613/26377773660_a061b64536_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="678" /><br /></a>f/5.6, iso 125, 1/60 sec, K-5</p> <p><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7212/26823894851_d6262b6788_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="1024" /></a><br> f/2.8, iso 2000, 1/125 and K-5</p>

<p>This thread may be of interest, will look it more in detail when time allows</p> <p><a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/305561-pixel-shift-k3-ii-test-v-canon-6d-print.html">http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/305561-pixel-shift-k3-ii-test-v-canon-6d-print.html</a></p>

<p>@Nick, sorry to hear about your 17-70. If it is under warranty or if the lens can be returned, I will fix or return it. Fixing SDM cost too much money, I think. Converting it to screwdrive will be the next option that I will consider. <br /><br />For 17-70, I am biased and I like the Sigma Contemporary lens with Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.0 and I know constant aperture always best the variable one but I take the opposite pick on Sigma as I love my experience with the 1st version of Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 and it is a great walk-around lens and with good close up. </p>

<p>Thanks everyone on the inputs. It warms my heart to see inputs more than waiting for the lens to come. The lens will come in UPS and I don't like the brown truck delivery as past absence at home cot me great pain with UPS. <br /><br /><br /> Everyone's liking and preference are different. I prefer quiet focusing and it is especially useful when situation dictate. It also calms my nerves when it is quiet. I now shoot with Sony mirror-less and most E mount lenses are dead quiet and they hardly make a noise. The shutter in Sony is nothing like the Pentax, loud and intrusive in a quiet place. The Pentax shutter is much preferred by me. SDM with a quiet shutter in Pentax strike good for me. <br /><br /><br />I look forward to trying out DC on either 18-135 or 16-85 as that would be a lens in my distant future, or maybe the 28-105 new full frame, does the new zoom use DC motor, I need to look that up. The older FA 28-105 is quiet compact and small but its AF is loud and wild in ring movement. </p>

<p>In hiking, I preferred lighter gear. Not because it is more capable but it helps me to have a small single-lens kit tucked in my backpack. When I manage to get K-3 or K-3 II (or even a K-5 II), it would be used in more serious shooting as in events and the occasional birding and casual sports.</p> <p>This one is a slight crop<br /> <a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7363/26918507576_51396ef91d_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p> <p>It was not sharp in the original picture, the lens is a bit soft in f/6.3, maybe I shot it with some slight movement. I use pre-sharpener in Nil collection to help.</p> <p>In the mother day hiking, I have a small Lowepro bag tucked in my back-pack with one camera and two lenses. The small prime cost $25.00 with Fujian 35mm f/1.7 in C-mount and the zoom that shot all pictures in this post was the $150 sony 55-210mm f/4.5-6.3 kit zoom. I was shooting at its weakest wide open aperture -- I am not complaining about the lens but the guy who goes for the bokeh. </p>

<p>The above are not a crop. I was the lucky bastard getting this close to a hawk, feel like in 20 feet. I think I shot most in the 190mm of a 55-210mm kit zoom from Sony. All settings were actually wrong as I worked all Saturday -- the silly me and managed to muster the last ounce of energy to go hiking after church and lunch, yes I labored for the lunch before hiking. I was DEAD tire and I saw my most hated drink in my fridge -- the non-sugar kind of red bull and <strong>I had to give in for the mother day hike.</strong> </p> <p><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7359/26859869371_3e4ed74c3f_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p> <p><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7611/26866041771_33c32cdce0_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p> <p>It was great experience except I was not ready for this hawk. My sons ahead of me walking up-hill ran to me and said "Daddy, we saw this daring hawk not moving on the tree." I shot great series before he left as another group close by with a stroller. I shot it likely wrong in f/6.3 as I was after the softer bokeh in still pictures. When it flapped its wings, I was too late to switch to Action kind of mode. </p> <p><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7430/26933766455_a523161519_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p>

<p><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7603/26866042441_4d6afdf1b5_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p> <p>Once the hawk leaves the trees, all shots are bad and not worthy to post or edit. I was totally bumped as I should have turned to the custom mode that I setup for action. With K-3 or K-3 II, I would shoot it with my F* 300mm or wait to re-get 60-250 or a sigma 100-300. </p>

<p>I like the previous one better </p> <p><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7139/26851551512_f9e9000216_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></a></p>

<p>Thank you Douglas and Andrew for the inputs. I will look into K5 II more and I have not spent the quality time to look into pixel shift. I recall seeing impressive threads with photographers printing out large on landscapes with improvements closing the gaps with full frame. And the recent camera store comparison with four 24-70 with full frames in Nikon, Canon, Sony and the K-3 II is intriguing from Petaxpixel in <a href="http://petapixel.com/2016/05/04/sony-canon-nikon-pentax-duke-24-70mm-lens-shootout/">http://petapixel.com/2016/05/04/sony-canon-nikon-pentax-duke-24-70mm-lens-shootout/</a> . </p> <p>One expectation on K-3 and K-3 II is on AF improvements over the previous body. My Sony A6000 has 10 frames per second and the lock-on AF is impressive with 170+ af points. The newer version with A6300 has 400+ PDAF points. But even with all the tech, there is no substitute for experience and readiness to shoot. I was hiking on Mother day with family and we saw the red tail hawk not afraid of us and it lets us close in and I have my Sony A6000 and a 55-210mm kit zoom. The zoom costed me $150 in a bundle. I was not ready to capture the BIF moment, I have all the wrong settings such as JPG, AF-S, A mode, AF flexible points, but I managed to shoot it before leaving the tree<br> <br /><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7707/26851519232_cd59ef2c86_b.jpg" alt="" /></a></p> <p>If my search into Astro shooting with K-3 and K-3 II, I will share back my findings as Astro interest me even though I don't have the experience shooting at night time. The gps will come in handy. </p>

<p>It is bummer to have an issue with lens. My dealing with Pentax repair was with CRIS and it is all different with current Precision. CRIS has handled it well in two repairs with one done in warranty with white Pentax K-x with faulty SD card reader and one done out-of-pocket when my k20D dies right after my 3-year extended warranty was out.</p> <p>In the case with Pentax K20D, the mirror box and shutter control was unresponsive and the parts needed to come from Japan to US repair shop, the shipment took about 3 to 4 weeks and the parts shipment came by sea. The overall repair took 5+ weeks. It seemed reasonable now but when you don't have a working gear, you will be the one that feels the most pain. I now highly praised what CRIS has done in the handling, not only do they go out their way in communication, their service was great and got my K20D back from graveyard. <br /><br />But precision may likely be different story, I hope for the better but you should not count on my experience as the two companies differ. Pentax service center is another story that is more on the negative side for me, they didn't feel my pain in both instances that I chatted with them. I got more sympathy from CRIS than the Pentax rep on service center. Your mileage will vary with the representative on Pentax end that take care your case. A good rep makes the world of difference for me.</p> <p> </p>

<p>@Ross, thanks for your insightful inputs. I missed the deal on the converted screwdrive and I have sent out money for the SDM one. I am half-excited about the lens as that is only the tool that I will pick when serious work demanding faster speed. I much prefer lightweight gear as in Sigma 17-70 or the Sigma 17-50 with SDM but the color rendering as well as WR are the reasons that I go for the DA*. Thanks!</p>

<p>@Andrew Gilchrist, much thanks for the inputs. I like my K-5 and it will be sweet to get its AF improved. And between the K-3 and K-5, I prefer the lighter weight on the K-5. But it won't make great sense for me to upgrade with a used K-5 II. I hear from many K-5 or K-5 II users that K-3 doesnt actually improve on image quality but they do shoot faster and have better AF overall. Hence I ask the question on pixel shift on K-3 II. <br /><br /><br> I actually feel my K-5 to be alright in indoor event shooting and I don't feel underwhelmed in AF. Extreme low light will be a different area that I have not shot a lot and I am sure that the new models will do better. I need better AF in shooting wild life and sport action, I do have troubles with my K-5 in shooting baseball and birds in flight. Some have to do with my techniques and lack of practices but some have to do with small number of AF points and inadequate tracking in AF. </p>

<p>Most of my answers are in imaging resource. I will need to read up more in<br> <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k3-ii/pentax-k3-iiTECH2.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k3-ii/pentax-k3-iiTECH2.HTM</a></p>

<p><br />My current 21 is faster but it can't work on my Pentax. <br /><br /> <a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7545/26876613195_5e22ccd8ed_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="680" /></a></p> <p>And I have sold my DA 21 alernate with <strong><a href="http://www.techtheman.com/2012/02/old-friend-with-spiratone-plura-coat.html">Spiratone 20mm f/2.8</a></strong> that is in K-mount. The Spiratone is reasonable but the DA 21 is better. <strong>I need the 16-50 for serious shooting. </strong>Please feel free to recommend others. I don't like DA 17-70 but I can be convinced, and I actually have thought of Sigma 17-70. But the WR and faster constant speed is what attract me for a used copy that is low-budget type.<br /> <br /><br /><br /> <a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7454/26267093133_04e661a0b2_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="1024" /></a></p> <p><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7211/26872308565_0ab1210401_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="680" /></a></p>

<p>If I am the professional getting paid for gigs, I would have gotten both deals. It may not be a bad idea to have 2 instead of 1. For a total of $800, you get two. But I am not professional getting paid for gigs, I need to choose wisely. I need to make up my mind by Tuesday.</p> <p><strong>@Justin</strong>, you need to help me confirm if you still have interest on my FA 35. At the moment, I decide to keep my DA 35 f2.8 macro as a pair to go with DF-A 100mm WR macro. When it comes to getting the minimal ideal, my DA 35 f/2.8 macro limited will be the next candidate to go. For now, I will keep the two macros as pair. I wish I have not let go my 21mm as I do miss it on the Pentax gear list. I sold it stupidly thinking I got it all covered with 15. I love the 15 more but the 21 is sweet on aps-c.</p>

<p><strong>#5 Kodak Elite Chrome 100</strong></p> <p><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7262/26822872041_cf91ba459d_b.jpg" alt="" width="678" height="1024" /></a></p> <p>The color may come out too saturated and red, but life is good when you dare to try out something different in post processing. I love the free Nil Collection from Google and I used the Color Efex Pro 4 with Detail Extractor and Modern Film look with Kodak Elite Chrome 100.</p>

<p><br /><strong>#3 Street Performance</strong></p> <p><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7113/26617481570_326bf1f368_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="678" /></a><br /> Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 and K-5<br /> f/5.0, 35mm, 1/80 sec, iso 100<br /><br /><br />We were supposed to play in the gym but the high school messed up the schedule. It was a small band that my younger boy recently joined over a month. He has been playing with the trombone and I love the attitude of his teacher. He gathered the troop and played it street-style right in front of the gym who was occupied by volleyball play. The outside happened to be a sweet performance for casual listening and we all enjoyed it. I wish I have a better and faster lens as in 16-50 f/2.8 as it was starting to get darker at 7:00pm. I should have dialed in fixed iso at 400 and stopped down a bit.</p>

<p><strong><br />#2 My Desktop Snack Riser</strong><br /> <br /> <a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7506/26822809501_11f182bb7f_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="678" /></strong></a><br /> Pentax DF-A 100mm WR Macro and K5<br />f/2.8, iso 2500, 1/125, 100mm -- wide open testing</p> <p>See why I have problem with glucose. I use my monitor riser for snack storage. I did not clear up the fringing at all and I leave it there on the left monitor. This is a casual impromptu test shot of the lens. That macro is great even for portrait and food pictures, but it does have fringing characters.<br /><br /></p>

<p><strong><br />#1 Lunch Plate</strong><br /> <br /><br /><a href=" src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7078/26856669316_4414e62974_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="1024" /></a><br /> <br />with Pentax DF-A 100mm WR macro and K-5 <br />f/2.8, iso 2000, 1/125 sec, 100mm</p>

<p>The problem is that I actually like the SDM on my 50-135. The SDM has worked fine for me. Though a bit slower, the quiet AF is a big plus for me when I shoot events in a conference room. Of course, the frequent failures on SDM is something that I need to consider.<br /><br /><br /> When I shot a cultural dance using both FA 77 and DA 50-135, the DA* zoom with SDM. The quiet zoom with a useful range gave me what I need. Quiet focusing gave a big boost in confidence in shooting more when required. My FA 77 did quite well but the AF noise is not something that I can write home about<br /><br /> <br /><a href=" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2467/3786679636_55525b886d_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="680" /></a><br /> <br />That was way back in 2009 with the SDM lens and K20D. I would prefer the use of SDM zoom lens instead of the prime if I have to reshoot this event. <br /><br /><br /><a href=" src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2605/3789268449_d6f818b82a_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="680" /></a></p> <p>The dilemma is wether I can risk on the 16-50 with SDM for about $80 difference. It may seem obvious to you but I like the SDM from past positive experience. I can be contradictory to what I said before but that is my current thoughts.</p> <p>Some pictures in this blog post <strong><a href="http://www.techtheman.com/2009/08/pentax-fa-77mm-f18-limited-vs-pentax-da.html">Pentax FA 77 vs Pentax DA* 50-135</a></strong></p>

<p>Thank you Andrew. I would have done the same to pick K-3 when it was on sale few months back. But now the difference is smaller and I am intrigued with the assessment on K-1 where pixel shift is compared on landscape shots to other full frames. I am not ready for K-1, so anything on K-3 II that is better than K-3 is a welcome sign for me but I just don't know enough on K-3 II particulars that I am not sure if the difference is worth the extra. I prefer flash over the GPS but I am open to the GPS for night shooting into Astro type of thing. Don't know, I may end up buying extra stuff that I don't use. I saw the camera store comparison of 24-70 where K3 II was used to compare to the other full frame in Sony G 24-70 and the similar on Nikon and Canon full frames. It is not a fair comparison but K-1 was not ready. </p> <p>Link to petapixel<br> http://petapixel.com/2016/05/04/sony-canon-nikon-pentax-duke-24-70mm-lens-shootout/</p> <p>Youtube direct link from Camera Store:<br> <a href="https://youtu.be/F_u1_RfLRTE">https://youtu.be/F_u1_RfLRTE</a></p> <p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Can anyone with K3 II share their pixel shift experience? Do you find it useful for your shooting and what kind of shooting do you get the most out of your K3 II. Besides pixel shift, does K3 II have any noticeable upgrade from K-3. Please share, I am thinking of an upgrade from K-5. I am very happy with K-5 but I want my next Pentax body to be faster so that I can use it to cover more shooting interest as in occasional birding and casual sport events for my boys such as summer baseball. <br> <br />Thanks!</p>