joe_jackson4
-
Posts
829 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by joe_jackson4
-
-
<p>
<p>Michael, check out this link for info regarding the K20D sharpness settings:</p>
<p>And for the K-7, if interested...</p>
<p>With the K200D I've found "fine sharpness" gives more apparent detail with fine textures and suchlike, but at the expense of sharper noise, so it all boils down to your personal taste...</p>
<p>With the K-x I found I preferred fine sharpness, as it gives not unpleasant grain with high-ISO B&W JPEGS if you turn NR off. I much prefer that to the "cleaner" but slightly blotchy look you can get with NR...</p>
</p>
-
<p>Jeff, yes, I've also had good results at higher/lower shutter speeds... When the camera works, it works very well indeed, but a camera that's unreliable at common shutter speeds clearly has a significant problem, so I don't blame you for returning your copy...</p>
<p>For what it's worth, I just did a back-to-back handheld test (SR on) with the K-x, K200D and DA35 in my hallway... Ten shots each at 1/90s... Success rate with the K200D was 10/10, and with the K-x it was 2/10. That's basically all I need to know.</p>
<p>My best guess here is that the root cause is the mirror slap jiggling the sensor assembly around a bit in there, but at the end of the day it's really not my responsibility to diagnose this issue any deeper than "the camera doesn't work properly". That's now Pentax's task, not mine... I'm just not prepared to mess around with this thing any further now, especially given the other reports I'm seeing... I'll box it up tomorrow and then go and see how the shop deals with this.</p>
<p>In all honesty, I'd still like a (working...!) K-x because I like the camera in many respects... But given what I've seen my main concern now is how many copies will I have to go through to get a good one...?</p>
-
<p>Well, as for the OP in the DP Review thread above, resetting didn't seem to help here... Still getting jiggly pics...</p>
<p>I'll give it one last try outside tomorrow and if the results are still rubbish then I guess it's going back to get sorted out one way or another.</p>
-
<p>More K-x jiggliness:</p>
<p>One of the respondents there claims to have had the same issue and solved the problem by resetting the camera... I'll give it a try... :)</p>
-
<p>Jeremiah, not sure what the problem is there for you with that RAW file, but here's a full-size JPEG, extracted courtesy of the handy little "<a href="http://www.rawworkflow.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility/">Instant JPEG From RAW</a>" utility:</p>
<p><a href="http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/IMGP0586.jpg">http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/IMGP0586.jpg</a></p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>BTW that pic is just one example of many shots I have here that look like that...</p><p>Sure, we're all free to sit around pondering the reasons for this effect - as are the people at Pentax, of course - but the end result for me is that pics at these middling shutter speeds have around a 25% success rate... I guess common sense says I should just return the thing ASAP, and hopefully get a copy which actually works properly.</p>
-
<p>I just got around to downloading a few outdoor snaps that I took a few weeks ago, when I first had the cam and was messing around with this and that... Here's a good example of the jiggly effect that I'm seeing way too much of when I look closely at the pics...</p>
<p><a href="http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/IMGP0586.DNG">http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/IMGP0586.DNG</a></p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Yep, the DA 35 is a good lens, and I happen to like the focal length and close-up capability... Means you can take a headshot of someone sitting beside/opposite you without having to back up... Handy indoors... Optically, it's contrasty and sharp wide open, but not a significant improvement over my copy of the MkII kit lens (at 35mm) when both are stopped down to f/5.6.</p>
<p>The worst thing about the the DA35 is the current asking price... I think I paid 350€ for mine not so long ago, and look at the price now:</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>OK folks, I've taken more outdoor shots and this thing definitely has a distinct case of the jiggles... Having to sometimes retake an outdoor handheld shot five or six times to get a decent one (with a 35mm lens at 1/90s...!) is extremely irritating, as you can imagine... I mean, this particular example would be the world's worst stopped-down, low-ISO, scenic-shooting camera... It would ruin many a nice holiday snap, that's for sure.</p>
<p>Having said that, it's been behaving itself well when picked up for its intended use (indoor snapping at low shutter speeds...), so I'm currently in two minds whether to bother with the hassle of returning the bloody thing or just hang onto it as my indoor "junk cam"... Well, that was the old K100D's job, but yep, this one is much faster to use and is better (well, in some ways...) in low light. In fact, it's been so easy to use indoors that it would be a real shame to get rid of it now, I must admit.</p>
<p>BTW, the most convenient, lightweight indoor setup I've found (for my personal purposes...) is to use the DA35mm, two-star JPEGs, B&W mode, Auto ISO, max contrast, shadow and highlight correction on, NR off, high key +1, fine sharpening, daylight white balance, and Tv mode at 1/10s. And just leave it like that. Well, unless it's very, very dark, in which case it may be better to pop on the chunky Sigma 30/1.4.</p>
<p>Anyway, this has been giving the much-appreciated "P&S convenience with low light capability" I was looking for... Just point camera, focus and press button... With the settings above, the K-x keeps the aperture wide open and just ramps the ISO up and down in 1/3 stop steps as required... Excellent. I never have to touch the rear dial... :) And it gives acceptable-to-me, gritty, grainy B&Ws at silly ISOs that are making my G11-owning mate weep into his RAW files... :) Just a shame it doesn't work in my garden...</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Nah Trung, no carpet... I have a very nice wooden floor, thanks. It doesn't move much...</p>
<p>I first noticed this "micro-shake" issue when I shot outside and - looking back - used a slightly higher (compared to my usual indoor settings...) shutter speed. I remember mentioning it in my little "review"... Quote:</p>
<p>"Another minor (so far...) issue is that the SR seemed to go ever-so-slightly wonky on me when I was taking a few profoundly artistic test shots of a bush in my garden a few days ago. Just for a few shots in a row. The results almost looked like it was set for the wrong focal length or something... And yet the EXIF looked OK... Hmmmmm... Some kind of funky firmware bug...? Or is the sheer clackiness of the thing causing some wacky, shutter-speed-dependent, SR-related problems...? Who knows... Anyway, the SR has been working just fine since then... Guess I'll just keep an eye on it. And hang on to the till receipt."</p>
<p>It's the camera, and it's going back ASAP. Sorry, but I for one am not paying 600€ for something that doesn't work properly. My other cameras don't have this issue, so why should I put up with it with this one...? Answer: I shouldn't.</p>
-
<p>Those shots are with the the DA35 Ltd, BTW... (No flash for this test, obviously, so it was ISO 800 and f/2.8, not that it really matters here...)</p>
<p>Handheld shooting at 1/90s with SR on is sometimes OK, but often not... It's the "often not" part that's the problem... :) My guess is that the SR tries to correct the sudden, mirror-induced jolt as best it can but it isn't always successful. And it shouldn't even need to be trying, because handholding a 35mm lens at 1/90 shouldn't need SR at all...</p>
<p>I didn't notice it so much earlier, because I've mainly been shooting indoors at less than 1/20s with the kit lens... Seems OK at low/high shutter speeds, but who wants a camera that's unreliable at "average" shutter speeds...? Not even the most fervent Pentax fanboy would put up with that.</p>
<p>I'm not saying all K-x cams have this problem. But mine does, and it seems others are experiencing very similar issues... Check out the shots in this post:</p>
<p>Does the motion blur in his house crop look familiar...? The Flickr info says "<strong>Exposure: 1/100</strong> Aperture:f/6.3 Focal Length:37.5 mm". Hmm...</p>
<p>I wonder if this could be helped with new firmware having a delayed shutter action, at the expense of longer mirror blackout time... Who knows... In the meantime, I guess it's a trip back to the shop next week.</p>
-
<p>I've been experiencing some very annoying problems with the K-x when using shutter speeds around 1/45s to 1/180s or so... Seems I'm not the only one:</p>
<p>I wondered if the harsh mirror slap was causing vibration, so did a little tripod test at 1/90s... Here's a 100% croperoo of a tripod-mounted shot using the handy two-second timer (SR switched off and auto-MLU...)</p>
<p><img src="http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/01.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>And here's another tripod-mounted effort, but this time without using the self-timer (SR switched off, no MLU...):</p>
<p><img src="http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/02.jpg" alt="" /></p>
<p>Ya dig that...? Me neither... Most unpleasant...</p>
<p>I did precisely the same tests with the K200D with no problems at all, so it's clearly the K-x being a bit crap here... And it's VERY repeatable with my cam. I took about ten shots each with MLU on and off and the crappiness was very consistent.</p>
<p>Not impressed.</p>
-
<p><img src="http://koti.welho.com/pwilkins/noise.jpg" alt="" /></p>
-
<p>That exaggerated crop could be worth a fortune on the NY art scene...</p>
<p>:)</p>
-
<p>Battery life.</p>
-
<p>Yeah, the pattern noise isn't normally an issue with the older cams... It's just this extreme test bringing it out... Having said that, the K-x does very well in this regard, even at ISO12800.</p>
-
<p>John, yes... I wonder if documentary photos of him (perhaps in his role as a teacher...) would be of more interest than his own output as a photographer...?</p>
-
<p>Aye, 'twas level and snapped... Although even if it had fallen off completely, I doubt it would have made much difference... :)</p>
<p>Anyway, it's an easy test for to try if anyone's bored enough to wanna compare their own cams in this completely daft manner... :) A K100D vs K20D faceoff could be interesting... I've often wondered how the high MP (but more modern...) Samsung sensor compares to the old 6MP Sony...</p>
-
<p>John, yes, it's the shadow boostage... It just makes it easier to see the noise more clearly, to compare the sensors.</p>
<p>The greyness isn't caused by light entering the cam. It's caused by sensor noise, cranked up with a +4EV exposure shift in PP and max fill light just to make it even worse... The noise gets more noticeable as you increase the ISO, obviously, but no, it's certainly not what you'd see in real life, with normal exposure adjustments.</p>
<p>BTW, I had the lens cap on, f/22, the room light off, the door shut, and the camera under a heavy winter jacket... Pretty dark...</p>
-
<p>Matt, just tried my M 50/1.7 on my K-x (again)... It's a little tighter than the kit lens, but not too bad. Easily mounted with index finger and thumb...</p>
-
<p>One thing I'd add here is that in most real-world shooting situations a K200D ISO1600 shot will look much better than a K-x ISO6400 shot, despite what this "black noise" test may suggest... Why...? Because in most pics, not everything in the scene/frame is really, really dark... :)</p>
<p>If the light levels in various parts of a scene are very low, the K200D will suffer with shadow noise at ISO1600... So, no it's not a good pub cam, apart from the beer-sealing aspect... The K-x at ISO1600 handles such dimly lit, shadowy scenes much better... BUT... If the scene is reasonably well-lit overall and you're careful not to underexpose, ISO1600 on the K200D is just fine, IMHO. I use it a lot.</p>
-
<p>"I'm always and forever looking for the image that has spirit!"</p>
<p>John, sounds to me like this Minor White chap was interested in what makes a "good" picture... I guess I'm more interested in what makes photos (as opposed to other forms of pictures...) interesting to me, as a viewer. And, well, it's nothing to do with any "artsy" stuff...</p>
-
<p>Arthur, yeah, the crop tool is very handy... :)</p>
-
<p>Oh, I forgot to mention that I did a straight greyscale conversion on the pics...</p>
Motivations?
in The History & Philosophy of Photography
Posted
<p>My primary motivation used to be entertaining myself, personal friends and workmates, partly through a form of photographic (and written...) sarcasm... :) Mission well and truly accomplished there, so I ditched that on a high note. </p>
<p>Currently I just use a little pocket camera to record light levels. My interest there is that the resulting pictures help to remind me how things looked like at a given time. Quite handy sometimes.</p>