scott_fraser4

<p>I'm on my second K-5 after I returned the first one due to the stains on the sensor. The first one I spent an age calibrating all my lenses - under dim tungsten light. 15mm got a +3, 21mm got -5, 70mm +6 and the 100mm macro was bang on. The 40mm front focuses so severely that it was still out of focus with -10.</p>

<p>Btw, I haven't ever seen this reported, but as far as I can see the "Apply all" is like a camera setting and the "Apply one" a per lens setting that can both be used at the same time and so you can set the camera to -10 and the lens to -10 to get more adjustment. My old body seemed ok with the 40mm with "Apply all" set to -10 and "Apply one" set to -5, the new body is still a few millimetres front focused with both set to -10.</p>

<p>I just did a quick recheck, my 15mm, 21mm, 70mm and 100mm focus ok with minor tweaks on the new body.</p>

<p>From reading the forums, many people don't have this problem at all and some do which would suggest that only particular combinations of light + target + body + lens. I've seen at least some people claiming SDM lenses are not affected.</p>

<p>Rumour is that Pentax are working on on a firmware fix which fix up the affected k-5 + lens combination.</p>

<p>I did wonder if the short focus throw of the 40mm is the problem. But for now I'll use f4 and -10 adjustment to both sections if I really need it under tungsten. My other lenses are fine, so there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the body.</p>

<p>Question: if not using a SDM lens for a couple of months kills the charge and renders it useless, shouldn't it be the case that almost all new lenses are dead on arrival due to this? It can take a long time between being built and ending up in your hand.</p>

<p>If it takes 8months to kill the charge, and you are using the lens that length of time, I don't think it's a big problem!</p>

<p>I suspect that this should be chalked up as a folk tale, unless someone can give concrete evidence.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, this makes the D7000 look more attractive to me. Lets not forget it cost quite a bit less. :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Street prices where I am that I can pre-order at, or wait to pick up at the store:</p>

<p>D7000 body - 1139€<br />K-5 body - 1199€<br />K-5 + 18-55 WR - 1289€</p>

<p>No D7000 with 18-55 kit lens currently listed for some reason. With 18-105 lens it's 1399€</p>

<p>K-7 body is just under 800€ at the same store. Bear in mind compared to US prices these have (hefty) tax included :)</p>

<p>I don't think the K-5 is gonna be that much more expensive and it will probably depreciate faster.</p>

<p>I'll echo what's been said about it being very good at wide apertures. One thing someone figured out though, that hasn't been widely reported, is that this Samyang 85mm has a focus shift around f2.8 which some reviews didn't notice so they complained that it didn't improve much on stopping down.<br>

So 'A' setting and through the viewfinder is recommended for 2.8 and wider, after that stop down to focus or use live view.<br>

All this is stuff I've heard and read: I've thought about getting this but haven't yet. With DA 15, 21, 40 and 70 in the bag I really don't find the big bulky prime lenses appealing. (although my DA 70 has something broken: stopping down takes 0.5 second or so instead of instantly so I can only use it wide open or with a shutter delay currently)</p>

<p>Michael, indeed I fully expect that tweaking things in silkypix is the best way to check thing out. The problem is that the default rendering of my raw converter is vastly different from jpegs, so some suggested settings like yours to get me started are exactly what I was looking for. I haven't calibrated my system with a hardware device, but my prints made on my machine do look like I'd expect.<br>

Wayne: I do want to avoid that, but my opinion is that if you can get straight out of camera jpegs to look like exactly like you want then absolutely do use it - that's obvious. Shooting in a controlled environment for e.g. formal portraits, you just figure out your settings and bash out the jpegs. But if you are doing any sort of postprocessing beyond slight tweaks and especially converting to B&W (which I do a lot of) shooting raw gives much better quality and flexibility. Also if the lighting isn't controlled well it is pretty much impossible to get good white balance.<br>

Also, I seem to recall that Ken's comparison of image quality used the Nikon software which replicates exactly what the in camera settings do with the same rendering engine so it would be truly astonishing if there was any difference in quality. Putting the raw file through lightroom might give a much improved image over the in camera jpeg, but then again it might not :)<br>

Tim: I tried that for while, but putting the absolutely recommended settings screwed the jpeg output completely but I might investigate yours as more of a balance. I also think that some of the people who are really chasing the most accurate histogram are using a custom white balance so the jpeg preview/histogram is used purely for checking clipping on raw, but that's more extreme.</p>

<p>Hello all,<br>

I've been shooting raw on my k20d ever since I got it (over a year now) but I am getting more interested in figuring out good/interesting defaults for the in camera jpegs so I use raw+jpeg more for faster processing, especially when I am not that bothered about ultimate image quality. As an aside: the raw files do have embedded jpegs for the previews that can eliminate the need for raw+jpeg if you use one of the many free tools to extract them, if somebody has missed this. They are a bit smaller than max jpeg but saves on space on the memory card.<br>

So does anyone have an opinion on the default settings - do you just leave them as they are or do you prefer tweaking them a little? Or any favourite scenarios to use each type in? I've found that "Bright" for instance does do rather terrible things to portrait shots and can make the greens a little weird.<br>

I've finally installed the silkypix application (on a virtual machine - I use linux which means my normal raw developer is bibble) which allows me to play with the raw file and adjust settings as the camera does, so I think I'll spend some time with some favourite shots trying to figure out the look I like best, but if someone already has I'd be interested to hear about it.<br>

Finally: one thing I've found already is that for the monochrome setting, putting the contrast on max when using iso 1600 with maybe some toning is a useful shortcut although still not as good as raw processing for real black and white.<br>

Also, I'll probably never shoot jpeg only (just throw away either jpeg or raw) so I'd rather avoid the raw vs jpeg debate :)</p>

<p>Nothing too special here, but I thought I'd add to the examples of the DA 15mm limited and especially it's flare resistance.</p><div></div>

<p>As far as I recall, yes - be careful though as you want a filter that lets only IR light through, and not one that blocks it. If you think about that you'll realise that it must give an IR pic as only IR comes through. However since the camera has the IR filter in from of the sensor most of the IR gets taken out so you have to use long exposures (several seconds, you'll need a tripod).</p>

<p>I haven't tried this myself, just what I read. One thing though, on the k20d if you shoot jpeg and set the picture style to monochrome there is a "IR Color" filter effect, which may or may not simulate the effect, I don't know. If the k10d has the same thing I guess shooting a bit with it might help decide if you really want an IR filter.</p>

<p>This is true of every micro 4/3 (and I think some normal 4/3 have them too) as far as I know. The lens sits so close to the sensor that various problems due the angle the light hits the sensor come up. This is also why the Leica m8 was a crop sensor and at the time Leica said it was impossible to get a full frame sensor in an M sized body, i.e. it was impossible to make the sensor good at the edges. For the M9 corrections are applied to jpegs for all this stuff. The mirror box in SLR means that there is much more space between the sensor and the lens.<br>

Presumably the idea is that you just update the lens once rather than the firmware on multiple bodies.<br>

On a more Pentax related note this is why the DA lenses are considered good by some - they are optimized so the light will hit the crop sensor correctly.</p>

<p>I haven't contributed before, but I shot I took yesterday reminded me of another one from this summer so I'll post them here. They are both pretty much the only macro-ish photos I have...<br>

I think you should be able to click through and view them larger on flickr.<br>

K20D + DA 40mm Ltd, f4 1/350 iso 200:<br /> <a title="After the Rain by frasersa, on Flickr" href=" title="After the Rain by frasersa, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2591/3891936077_d977bee9c8.jpg" alt="After the Rain" width="500" height="333" /> </a> <br /> K20D + DA 70mm Ltd, f4 1/4000 iso 800:<br /> <a title="imgp5595 by frasersa, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32657550@N05/3891936575/" title="imgp5595 by frasersa, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/3891936575_0658aea163.jpg" alt="imgp5595" width="500" height="333" /> </a></p>

<p>Just a quick question: I looked at a couple of posts on that big thread and saw some mention of it affecting the high resolution jpeg but not the smaller versions. So the question I have is whether it affects RAW capture or not?<br>

If yes it really is a sensor problem, if not it is a jpeg problem. But to be fair it is unlikely to be a jpeg engine problem. I bought a phone which had a similar problem with the built in camera, but replaced it no problem.<br>

But it doesn't seem to be a major problem, and although I would like a K-7 I'll wait with my k20d for a while...</p>

<p>I found this site interesting when looking at using a flash, he mainly uses wedding photos as examples which should give some inspiration:<br /> <br /> http://www.planetneil.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/ <br /> <br /> His approach is to make flash not look like flash - looks pretty good.<br /> <br /> I would also explain to your wife that as she volunteered your services, you now need to upgrade to a K-7 to able to do the job properly ;-)</p>

<p>http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/new-pentax-flagship-the-k7.html<br /> <br /> Excellent handling and a silent shutter? Carry around camera?<br /> <br /> I also think that the HD specs at 30 fps better both the Nikon D90 and Canon 500D and equal the 5D mII, for those for whom it matters (resolution might be a little different though!)</p>