aron_burday

<p>Look, a perfectly sensible explanation for the rise in USA prices was offered. Pentax Imaging wanted to stop online and other high volume retailers from offering deep discounts, in order to give smaller bricks and mortar retailers an incentive to carry Pentax products. See here:</p>

<p>http://nedbunnell.posterous.com/lens-prices-and-our-channel-strategy-in-the-u</p>

<p>You can agree with that strategy or not, but it makes sense. I don't know why prices have dropped now. Certainly lost sales is a possibility. It's also possible that Pentax Imaging found it too hard to enforce the uniform price policy. It might be that they feel that the policy is now solid enough that they can afford to start cutting prices. It might be that they've seen enough increase in volume that they think they can afford to reduce unit prices. It could be that Pentax Ricoh in Japan wanted to see a change in strategy. We could go on like this forever.</p>

<p>I'd be interested in hearing from Pentaxians outside the USA -- what has happened to prices in your countries?</p>

<p>What does disturb me about this is that we're having this conversation. Neither DPReview nor Imaging Resource has an announcement about this. When I looked earlier today there was nothing at PentaxImaging.com. Bunnell's blog has nothing about it. This was also true when prices went up a couple of months ago -- no announcement until after the rumor mill started churning. Pentax Imaging needs to realize that the rumors are going to hurt them more than any explanation could.</p>

<p>Just for the heck of it, I tried connecting to Amazon.fr and searching for "objectif 300mm Pentax". That brought up several possibilities. It could work, if you're going to be in one place for a couple of days and you don't mind buying from the octopus. Could get awkward if you had to return the lens, though... Anyway, hope it helps...</p>

<p>J, yes, what you're seeing is normal. Almost all contemporary digital cameras are inherently color devices. When you shoot raw, you're collecting data that includes color. To get B&W, you have to convert that data to a final format, such as jpeg.</p>

<p>This can get a lot more complicated. Although the <em>cameras</em> are color devices, the vast majority of <em>sensors</em> are monochrome. Try looking up "Bayer Array" on wikipedia, and follow links from there. The dpreview.com Glossary is also a good starting point for very basic technical information.</p>

<p>Nice matzohs, Michael. Happy Passover.</p>

<p>Hin, something else that seemed strange to me. In one of your followup comments, you write:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>In portrait orientation, it is harder to accept the vignette is more noticeable. I frame this shot knowing well in advance that I will have darker corners to the right. This usually happens in stronger lighting where my shutter max out in 1/4000 seconds in iso 100</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That last sentence makes it sound like the falloff is worse at high shutter speeds. Is that right? If so, that's also hard to understand. I can't think of any reason why high shutter speed should make falloff worse.</p>

<p>However that may be, this is a cool project and you're getting some nice images out of it.</p>

<p>Andy, give Sunny 16 a try. I have tried it a few times recently and have been surprised at how easy it is to get close enough to the right exposure. The one thing I would add to the usual explanation is that when they say "sunny", they mean <strong><em>sunny</em></strong>: a splendid clear day. What we would ordinarily count as "sunny" here in New England is really a stop darker. I suspect the same will be true in southern Germany. Anyhow, best of luck with whatever solution you try.</p>

<p>Jemal, I don't have much to add to Michael's comments. The thing that puzzles me about your situation is that you're having problems with <em>both</em> raw and jpeg.</p>

<p>The one thing I did want to point out is that you could try opening your images in iPhoto or even Preview. iPhoto is obviously far less powerful than Lightroom and PS, but it's a decent little viewer. Since raw support is cooked into OS X, you could even let iPhoto do a raw conversion for you -- albeit with no control over contrast, brightness, and so forth. (Obviously you need to have updated your system software since the K-5 came out, if your Macbook is older than the K-5.) That would give you one point of comparison to what you're seeing in PS and LR.</p>

<p>I keep waiting for a knowledgeable person to say something, but so far just great pics, so here's my 2 cents... Marc, I like the tones in the wedding dress in your first image this week. You really get a feeling for the way the fabric folded and moved. On a boring technical level, I'm guessing you had to hold the exposure back in both of your images to retain highlight detail, hence the noisy blacks? Or is that just what the M9 does at ISO 640? I have to admit I'm normally one those boring noise-is-bad guys, but that's got a nice grain-ness to it.<br>

Also, the two little kids in your shot from last week were great. You could have photoshopped wings onto them and they would have looked like a couple of cherubs in a Renaissance painting, just hanging out watching the silly mortals go about their business...</p>

<p>There is a publicity photo for <em>Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close</em> that shows the boy who is the hero of the picture using a CMC. It's an SLR with a waist level finder, I'm pretty sure 35 mm. The best version of the photo I've found is in the movie's official site, but you have to navigate a little. Go <a href="http://extremelyloudandincrediblyclose.warnerbros.com/">here</a>, click on "Photos" on the top right, and click through until you see the image -- I think it's the second you'll come to. If you're at work, be aware that the movie's trailer will start playing, with sound, immediately after you connect to the site.</p>

<p>Anybody recognize it? I'm not much of a collector at all. The manufacturer's name is obvious in the photo, but it's too blurry for me to read. I also haven't read the book, so I have no idea if the camera has much of a role in the story.</p>

<p>I can't answer your question definitely. I hope the following will help.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog">This guy</a>, who runs a lens rental company here in the USA, analyzes his company's quality control test results and blogs about what he has found. It's pretty interesting. (Right now you need to scroll down a little to get to the good posts.) He's the only person I'm aware of who is publishing lens tests based on reasonably large samples. Unfortunately he hasn't looked at your specific question. He has found that zoom lenses may be sharper at one end of the zoom range than the other. He has also found that there will be observable variation in sharpness among good samples of a given lens model. Based on those results, I doubt that your lens is defective. If there can be variations in sharpness from one end of the zoom to the other, it seems likely that there could be variations in how the lens works with the camera's AF system. You probably just need to figure out whether you can live with the focus variation you have observed. But again, I can't be sure. Hope that's somewhat helpful. It is worth taking a look at the lensrentals.com blog in any case.</p>

<p>Better late than never, I hope... I like "Wetland". I like the variety of textures within a limited color palette. It's good that you left just a tiny bit of horizon in the image. The abstract quality of the image is enhanced by being tied, just in that top strip, to reality. One question, though. The cattails at the right stand out because of their elongated shape. They provide a sort of punctuation mark. Why did you put them at the extreme right of the image instead of somewhere closer to the center? (Not necessarily dead center.) Unless there's something about the scene that I'm not grasping (quite possible), I think it would work better with the catttails perhaps a third of the way in from the right. Still, I like that image.</p>

<p>Another possibility: if the scene was mostly dark, your camera's reflected light meter would want to give more exposure than your incident meter indicated -- and if you used the incident meter's exposure, the image on the LCD would look correct, i.e. dark. In a shot of a waterfall, this could happen if the frame included a lot of foliage, moss, rough dark-colored rock, or other non-reflective surfaces. It obviously also could happen if the surroundings were casting a lot of dark shadows but the waterfall itself was in full sun. Given a scene like this, the TTL meter would be trying to brighten up the surrounding shadows, and in doing so it would push the waterfall itself into overexposure.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm glad it's never happened to you, Aron.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? For the record, I screw up all the time, and not just focus either. Name a mistake that can be made with a camera, and I've probably made it. (Well, technical mistakes. No Anthony Weiner type mistakes.)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bythom.com/">Thom Hogan</a> has a short write-up on Lytro. I still don't really understand it. According to Hogan, the resolution will be quite limited and Lytro has some sketchy terms of use.</p>

<p>Anirban, I agree. The camera body looks more like it's intended to be mounted on something than hand held, too. But see Hogan's claims about resolution and terms of use. Also, apparently there's no provision for removable memory, which would be a problem for a security cam. It's kind of expensive if you need to buy more than one and Lytro seems to be serious about marketing it to consumers.</p>

<p>According to <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1110/11101930lytrocameraannounced.asp">DPReview</a>, this really is a brand new approach to digital photography. The camera uses a layer of microlenses which break the incoming light up in such a way that the resulting "image" can later be focused <em>anywhere</em>. It doesn't depend on conventional focus plus bracketing. I don't think it could be incorporated into any existing camera system. I can't explain further, but check the link.</p>

<p>FWIW, this sounds very cool to me but I'm not sure who's supposed to want it. For serious photographers, focus is a basic creative tool. Snapshooters just want the kids to be in focus. In each case, it seems easier to get the focus when taking the picture, rather than later in software. Of course a few geeks will want it just because it's cool. A few pomo artistic types will think of something clever and ironic to do with it. But I can't see a market for it except maybe in security and surveillance, and that doesn't appear to be how they're marketing it.</p>

<p>[Edited to add] Another question I have is whether it's possible to adjust depth of field. Lens aperture is fixed. The examples I've seen all have a shallow depth of field. I'm not sure if that's part of the way the system works, or if the examples have been processed that way to make them more dramatic. If you can't adjust for greater depth of field, that's a problem for both serious photogs (obviously) and snapshooters (who want the kids <em>and</em> the Washington Monument to be in focus).</p>

<p>Allan, no, I was really just brainstorming and trying to come up with a potential solution instead of pointing out the issue and walking away. I have not tried it.</p>

<p>This is a really fun image. I particularly like how the matching bouquets reinforce the connection that's made by the way the two subjects are looking at each other -- also the way the bench frames them together. A few technical suggestions occur to me. Please take them as minor comments on a very good picture.</p>

<p>1. It would have been nice if you had had time to stop down a couple of stops and pull the focus back toward the camera about a foot or a little more. It almost looks like your autofocus grabbed the back of the bench rather than the bride's face. As Richard says, ideally the little girl would be in focus -- also the skirt of the wedding dress.</p>

<p>2. It would be nice to see the subjects' feet.</p>

<p>3. An angel should have descended from heaven and placed a soft light in the bride's lap, helping to fill in her face. This would have allowed you to reduce your exposure maybe 2/3 stop and reduced the distracting whiteness of the dress in the foreground. I can't think of any way to really do this. On camera flash would have created more problems than it solved. Your exposure is a good one given the circumstances. <strong>Maybe</strong> it would help to burn in the dress??</p>

<p>A fun set. I particularly like Forest Light, with its extreme dynamic range. The overexposure on the tree trunks gives them an ethereal quality that really works well for that picture. It gives me that feeling that I often have on my own hikes, of entering a not-entirely-real world. Anyhow a world that's quite distinct from the work-a-day one.</p>

<p>Regarding the pictures of Rainier, is it just me or does the K20d do something not quite right with blue sky? Like give it a green tinge? I often have this impression with my own shots.</p>

<p>Anyhow, a fun set and congratulations on almost three decades.</p>

<p>A minor point, and totally irrelevant to the real topic, but it seems fair to point out...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Bjørn, on the other hand, might be a Swede, so he probably deserves sympathy. On the other hand, if he's Danish or Norwegian, well, who can tell? In any case, either he is echoing the Hypnoken, or the other way around</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you look at <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1">Rørslett's lens review pages</a>, you'll see that his ratings are all based on personal experience. He is not a Rockwell clone. In fact, he and Rockwell used to get into dustups with each other. The pages haven't been updated in some time and are a little out of date, but I've found them quite helpful.</p>

<p>And what have you got against Swedes? Still feeling tetchy about the Thirty Years' War? ;^) (I'm pretty sure Rørslett's Norwegian.)</p>

<p>Cliff, I see a pattern of diagonal stripes across the bottom of the image. I've never seen lens flare that looked like that, but I think that's what Capital Q was referring to. (I'm no expert in these things, so the fact that I've never seen it doesn't mean it's not lens flare.)</p>

<p>(Edited to change a mistake in user names. D'oh.)</p>

<p>It seems worth pointing out that adapters are available to mount many kinds of lenses on Leica M bodies. I just checked Novoflex and they make M body adapters for the following lenses: Canon FD, M42, Contax/Yashica, Leica R, Minolta MD, F, OM, and K. None of these adapters have electronic contacts or aperture controls. Within that limit, the M module already is a K module. I'm not going to try to go through all the scenarios in which someone would or wouldn't want one -- just pointing out that the option exists.</p>

<p>Would Ricoh make a K module with autofocus, open metering, and aperture control? I doubt it, because they don't want to cannibalize their own SLR sales (along with the obvious technical challenges). But that's just my WAG.</p>

<p>Justin, the usual purpose of prefocusing manually in street photography is to allow you to lift the camera to your eye and shoot <em>without having to focus</em>. The ease of resetting focus after the ring has moved is irrelevant. That would usually mean resetting focus after you've missed a shot. In my experience, the DA 21's focus ring moves too easily to be reliable for the usual purpose. YMMV. Whether Steve finds this to be a "minor niggle", or has trouble with it at all, is up to him.</p>

<p>Steve, you mention using the 21 with hyperfocal focusing. When you try it, keep an eye on the lens throughout the day. The focus ring on the 21 is very lightly damped, thus easy to move by mistake. (At least, I know mine is and I'm pretty sure I've read this is a characteristic of the lens.) I have had enough difficulty with this that I don't try to use hyperfocal focusing with that lens much any more. I am generally very happy with the images I get from the DA21, but you have to look out for that focus ring.</p>

<p>Miserere, my request for evidence was meant at face value and I appreciate your providing the links. Thank you. Anyone who is interested should follow the links and see what they say. I remain skeptical. I guess we'll find out in a few months.</p>

<p>I'm sorry if my comparison between your argument and the one that's made about the 645D sounded disrespectful. Basically, both arguments revolve around the idea of one product crowding out another. You did make your argument in terms of price rather than factors like engineers' time. I don't see why that matters, but if you want to explain why I'd like to hear. You also had the rumors sites to back you up on the existence of an upcoming APS-C compact; but surely there have been rumors of a Pentax "full frame" DSLR, so that's not a difference between your argument and the one I mentioned. (Right? Honestly, I never look at the rumors sites, but there seemed to be plenty of people who expected a 135-format DSLR.)</p>

<p>Anirban, no other system combines size, features, and controls the way the Q does. R.T., no doubt there are lots of people who won't get a Q (almost certainly including me). I just think there will be enough who will get it.</p>

<p>Matthew, if smallest has been Pentax's niche, surely they at least shared it with Olympus for a long time -- right?</p>

<p>Miserere, what makes you so sure Pentax will come out with an APS-C mirrorless? Your argument sounds like the arguments that Pentax shouldn't have come out with the 645D because it will interfere with their "full frame" program. I see absolutely no reason to think that Pentax has any intention of producing a 135-format DSLR. What makes you think they intend to produce an APS-C mirrorless? If you really do have a good reason to believe that I really am interested in hearing it. I'm suspicious of arguments that they just have to. Also, I think Michael makes a good point about the finitude of Pentax's resources.</p>

<p>If Pentax executes, this will be the best system on the market for photographers who primarily shoot for web display rather than prints. It has a relatively sophisticated flash, a tripod mount, a bulb setting for shutter speed and IR remote receiver, a magnesium body. It shoots DNGs and it's tiny. Really the only thing it can't do is use the lens to control depth of field. We'll have to see how Pentax's electronic system does at that. But -- BLASPHEMY ALERT!! TRUE BELIEVERS AVERT YOUR EYES!! The importance of DOF is greatly exaggerated on Internet photo sites.</p>

<p>The only major limitations are those imposed by the tiny sensor, but for web display they won't usually be significant. I predict a lot of web designers and graphic designers will buy this -- and a lot of pro and well-heeled amateur photographers will be buying it for situations where they know they don't need big prints or very low light capability. So will some artsy types who aren't really photo geeks -- the people who are buying Dianas now. Assuming it works as expected, I think this will be a very successful product for Pentax. I'm sort of surprised at how little interest this topic has attracted.</p>