NSW 10th Anniversary - Any Pentax users?

[p38arover]

I ask if there are any other Pentax DSLR users going to the NSW 10th anniversary get-together as I'd like them to take a few shots with my lenses and to compare them with shots I take of the same scenes/items. I don't know if my camera is faulty or if it is just me.

I don't seem to get the clarity of shots cf. Bushie and Big Red (from OL forum). I wonder if my camera has a had a big drop before I bought it (second-hand). I've never been that happy with the quality of my pics (I'm not talking artistically as I'm hopeless in that regard).

[Chilly]

Nikon for me

[THE BOOGER]

Ron have a read of this thread and see if answers your question
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/36525-my-ability-buy-faulty-goods-continues.html

:p:wasntme:

[Bushie]

Ron, do you do any post processing ? most digital pics will normally need a bit of tweaking. Pentax cameras are known to be a little "soft/flat" straight from camera, if the standard settings are used.

Martyn

[vnx205]

I still use a Pentax occasionally, but it is an ME Super SLR. The lenses are not autofocus, so even though the mount is the same, I don't think they work on a digital.

[p38arover]

Ron have a read of this thread and see if answers your question
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/36525-my-ability-buy-faulty-goods-continues.html

:p:wasntme:

Mongrel! :mad:


:D:D

[p38arover]

Ron, do you do any post processing ? most digital pics will normally need a bit of tweaking. Pentax cameras are known to be a little "soft/flat" straight from camera, if the standard settings are used.

Martyn

Sometimes - but they still never look like yours or Shane's, e.g., your shots from last weekend. I was thinking of asking if I could post my camera to you or Shane to play with and compare images.

It's not just an issue of 6Mp vs 12Mp nor, I think, lack of image stabilisation. It's more exposure and focus.

For example, here are some shots using the Sigma 18-200 from last weekend. No post processing has been done. These were taken in JPEG not RAW.

Would shooting with too high an ISO setting affect it?

Oh, I just noticed from the EXIF data that white balance had been moved from auto to manual. Don't know when that happened. :(

I've never printed any of my pix - I've only viewed them on screen so the screen may also be a limiting factor (although I've only seen your pics on the same monitor).

http://p38arover.com/images/Ackerman%20Cottage%201.JPG

http://p38arover.com/images/Beyer%20Cottage%201.JPG

http://p38arover.com/images/Hosies%201.JPG

http://p38arover.com/images/IMGP9771.JPG

[p38arover]

I still use a Pentax occasionally, but it is an ME Super SLR. The lenses are not autofocus, so even though the mount is the same, I don't think they work on a digital.

No, unfortunately, not in auto mode. They work in manual mode (I have some, too).

[DeanoH]

I know how you feel, I'm having similiar problems coming to terms with my camera/lens combo as well. I look at the results posted by others, Bushie and Chucaro for example and marvel at the clarity of their shots .................sigh. I can only assume that my problem is either the mug behind the viewfinder or faulty equipment. Following the old adage 'A bad workman blames his tools', in my case I reckon it's the mug behind the viewfinder.
In your case I'm not so sure. The four shots you posted are certainly soft, but they may not be good examples of what your camera/lens is capable of. The first two photo's are taken at 18mm focal length which is the widest your Sigma 18-200mm will go. Generalising, I've found that zoom lenses don't give their best at their 'outer limits', in this case approaching 18mm or 200mm. For a better example of what the camera/lens is capable of I'd try for something in the mid range where I'd expect the lens to be at its best, such as the third shot which was taken at 93mm. This shot is also soft but it may be that ISO 800 is pushing your camera too far. A bit hard to say as I don't know your camera. The first three shots were taken at ISO 800 so perhaps are not good examples. The last shot was taken at 34mm, 1/180 and at ISO 200 but is very dark and shadowy so perhaps not a good example either.
Perhaps a well lit detailed subject like the brick wall (third shot) taken at say ISO200, 1/2000 and f16 instead of ISO800, 1/1000 and f11 might have been a better test ? It might be worthwhile to try the lens from your 35mm Pentax in manual mode and compare results with the Sigma lens with similiar settings. A tripod would be pretty handy here.
All is not lost though, it is still possible to do some simple post production to improve your existing photographs.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/10/604.jpg

Detail from your third shot as taken.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/10/605.jpg

Detail from your third shot after very basic PP (contrast/brightness and sharpening) using ACDSee photo editing software. PhotoShop is an excellent program but too dificult for me.


Hope this helps.

Deano:)

[p38arover]

Thanks for the critique, Deano. I hadn't thought of the effect at the extremes of the lens range.


I'll try some more shots. I'd like some suggestions of test subjects. I have a tripod. I did do some lens comparisons with a brick wall at a local industrial complex (actually where my local LR indie's workshop is) but I haven't yet really examined them.

The ISO 800 setting was an oversight. It wasn't until I was talking to a bloke who was using a tripod at Hill End and he mentioned ISO that I checked mine. (I was talking to him 'cos he was driving a County with the no. plate "LANDY" :) )

That post processing has lifted the image of the wall and the metal brace somewhat. :o

I use Picasa for simple processing. I was going to buy either PS or LightRoom (as my daughter can get it with the student discount). I didn't know which to buy.

Any recommendations on either of those from anyone?

In the meantime, I'll look into ACDSee.

Thanks again and for taking the time to look and play with the images, Deano.

[simonmelb]

Hi Ron,

I can't help you with a lens swap as Im in Melb for a few weeks.

But I use a Pentax K200D. Most of my shots are taken with the Sigma 18-200 lens and a few with a Pentax prime lens (35mm Limited Macro).

I find the Sigma a good compromise walkaround lens. But its not brilliant at either end of it's range.

Most of the shots Ive taken on our trip blog are with this lens.
The first lap.... (http://www.pubcrawlaroundoz.blogspot.com/)

I use the 35mm prime for Macros, and where I want better quality non-telephoto shots. I shoot always in RAW and import into Aperture on the Mac. For panorama shots (like this one The first lap....: July 2011 (http://pubcrawlaroundoz.blogspot.com/2011_07_01_archive.html) ) I usually shoot with the 35mm lens then join up the photos using Hugin.

As were getting into birdwatching I'm looking at a good telephoto lens like the Pentax 300mm F4.

Have fun.

Cheers
Simon

[dullbird]

What exactly are you not happy with? you haven't specified.

having white balance set to manual will make a big difference.

Also the last picture you have posted I think the camera has coped very well with such a contrasting scene it is a tiny bit dark off to the left but even so I would be happy with that straight off camera.

[dmdigital]

The high ISO can have an effect on the image, both the noise and the colour cast. I don't know how well the Pentax handles high ISO so can't comment further.

The lens you are using (18-200) is most likely soft wide and at full zoom. All the super-zooms suffer from this and in general terms are usually best at around the 100-150 mark.

[p38arover]

But I use a Pentax K200D. Most of my shots are taken with the Sigma 18-200 lens and a few with a Pentax prime lens (35mm Limited Macro).

I find the Sigma a good compromise walkaround lens. But its not brilliant at either end of it's range.

Thanks Simon. And thanks for the links to your pics. A prime would be nice. I have an older 50mm prime but it's only useful in manual mode and needs a bit of mucking around to get to work.

For macros I have the 35-70 Pentax F zoom that came with my Pentax SFX film camera I bought in 1989. See F 35-70/3.5-4.5 (http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/medium/F35-70f3.5-4.5.html)

I also have a Takumar FA 70-200 4.5-5.6 zoom lens which I bought at the same time as the SFX - (it's not shown on Dimitrov's site).

For longer zooms than the Sigma can do, I recently picked up this 100-300mm zoom (for $55) : F 35-70/3.5-4.5 (http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/medium/F35-70f3.5-4.5.html).

Of course, one tends to use just the 18-200 if only for convenience.

[p38arover]

What exactly are you not happy with? you haven't specified.

having white balance set to manual will make a big difference.

Also the last picture you have posted I think the camera has coped very well with such a contrasting scene it is a tiny bit dark off to the left but even so I would be happy with that straight off camera.

Thanks Lou. I took that pic just to see how the camera would handle the contrast. I was surprised it did it so well.

I shall have to play with white balance. I usually leave it on auto.

What am I unhappy with? I don't know really. I just don't feel that my pics are that good. I'm also lousy at framing a good shot.

I'm reluctant to post many here as I am not a good photographer and feel intimidated by the work submitted by you and others. I don't know how many of the posters do post processing before submitting the pics.

Am I expecting too much? I don't know. Is it the camera or is it me? That's why I'd like to compare (with the same subjects) my lenses on my camera and on a later Pentax DSLR. Mine is one of Pentax's first.

[p38arover]

The high ISO can have an effect on the image, both the noise and the colour cast. I don't know how well the Pentax handles high ISO so can't comment further.

The lens you are using (18-200) is most likely soft wide and at full zoom. All the super-zooms suffer from this and in general terms are usually best at around the 100-150 mark.

Thanks Derek.

I shall have to take the same shot with different ISO settings and then try with the lens throughout its range.

[XSiV]

I think you might find that the quality you are striving for is unobtainable with your particular lenses. This is because all of your lenses have a very limited aperture range i.e 4.5-5.6 & 3.5-4.5. I think you will find that the photos taken by those whom you wish to emulate have been taken using fast lenses. Lenses with an aperture range of 2.8-22 or better. Generally the quality of your image is directly proportional to the quality of your equipment.

Thats not saying you can't make great photos, just that you are handicapped by the limitations of your equipment. The lenses you are using do not have the focal range to create such rich images. They were designed to allow people to have large range of focal lengths at an affordable price, but the offset to that is your aperture range is very restricted. Unless you go to the more expensive fast lenses.

In saying all of that you might want to try using a lower ISO 100 for scenery shots and as small an aperture as you can and a longer exposure. This with give your camera the best chance of extracting the most detail from the scene. You will also find that early morning and later afternoon is the best light to take photos in.

I am by no means a pro photographer but I did find that the limited aperture range on my zoom lenses was very frustrating when trying to take the shots I wanted to. Investing in a fast lens would be the best step towards those quality images you are striving for.

[p38arover]

Interesting point. I have a 50mm F2 prime but, regrettably, it's not AF and doesn't interface to the electronics. It would be purely manual mode.

I haven't worked out how to use it on the camera and get consistent results.

[abaddonxi]

All but the worst modern lenses are going to give quality performance at around mid aperture and away from either end of the zoom range on zooms.

At the resolution we tend to look at images, particularly here, I doubt that the lens (within above) is a major contributor to lack of image quality.

[Bushie]

I think you might find that the quality you are striving for is unobtainable with your particular lenses. This is because all of your lenses have a very limited aperture range i.e 4.5-5.6 & 3.5-4.5.

I think you have misunderstood the aperture range 4.5-5.6 means that at the shortest focal length it has a max aperture of 4.5 and at its longest focal length it has a max aperture of 5.6 minimum apertures may be up around f22 or higher.

Martyn

[Bushie]

Ron,

if you take most of your shots as jpgs try adjusting the settings

picture quality - 'best'
Saturation - 'high'
Sharpness - 'hard'
Contrast - 'high'

and see if these improve your results, as I said Pentax are generally a bit soft straight from the camera. Looking at the manual for the ist there isn't as much scope for adjustment as with the later cameras.


Martyn

[p38arover]

I think you have misunderstood the aperture range 4.5-5.6 means that at the shortest focal length it has a max aperture of 4.5 and at its longest focal length it has a max aperture of 5.6 minimum apertures may be up around f22 or higher.

Martyn

Whew! I thought that too but didn't want to comment.

[Chucaro]

I use Picasa for simple processing. I was going to buy either PS or LightRoom (as my daughter can get it with the student discount). I didn't know which to buy.

Any recommendations on either of those from anyone?

In the meantime, I'll look into ACDSee.

Thanks again and for taking the time to look and play with the images, Deano.

If you like photography and would like to learn how to present an image (and also make enlargments) then the best option is Photoshop.
I believe that if you look in the net you will be able to get a CS3 version from the box at very attractive pice.
Any pro photographer do a PP in their work. It is not such thing for them to post an image without PP.
It is not a new thing because the digital era, the operators in the dark room used to do fantastic manipulations and corrections in their work.
The great Ansel Adams is an example of this.
Regarding you 18-200 lens, try to take shots at 20 mm between 180mm @ f/7 and see the results.
Do not take shots in JPG!!
Take the shots in raw after you have done the basic corretions then save the image in Tiff to do tha final adjustments.
Avoid high ISO, the process of removing noise make the image soft compared to the original sample.
Try to use the camera in manual mode, it is the best way to have control of your shot.
For landscaping I use ISO 200 and F/11 aperture, always the camera in a tripod
Do not be intimidated by the work of others, I was a very active member in a reputable critique forum and that have help me to improve my work.
Cheers
Cheers

[300+]

Interesting point. I have a 50mm F2 prime but, regrettably, it's not AF and doesn't interface to the electronics. It would be purely manual mode.

I haven't worked out how to use it on the camera and get consistent results.

Well there is a lens test for you. I suspect if you put it on it will kinda work. Most likely if you select aperture priority, even if it is old & crusty from my memory. You may not need fully manual mode if you've never used it before. Set it to f5.6, iso 100 and expect a shutter speed to 125-500 on a bright day. If the shutter speed is showing miles away from that you will need full manual.

My thought is that shots of the cottage are in different light, as you took one from the opposite side and have different shadows. Yet the cottage looks exactly the same shade of colour & brightness. This points to a working light meter which correctly handled the difficult situation.

The tunnel of plants is a nightmare. You won't get an image in such extreme contrast which doesn't look like yours. If you shot in raw and used some post processing you could recover more shadow detail. But in reality there is just too much difference between the light & dark bits for that one to work.

I'm thinking that you have the settings on the camera set to "bland". If you want to keep it simple in jpeg change to higher contrast & saturation. You could boost the sharpening in camera as well.

Ideally you would shoot in raw and perform the same processing in software, such as photoshop. For a free option Google Picasa likely handles the raw files which wouldn't be a bad experiment. Note that RAW images will often look bland until you massage them - that is just how they are captured. Most cameras take this and boost it a bit when they store in jpeg. So if you took the same shot in jpeg & raw it is quite possible that the jpeg will look better straight from the camera, but the raw will look better after 30 seconds of tweaking.

The one which deano edited shows that your camera & lens is capable of sharp as a tack images with good contrast, etc.

I suspect that all the images you see posted and think are better than yours have been post processed a little (or a lot).

Cheers, Steve

[mfc]

as said by others shoot in raw [jpegs disregard a heap of information ---just compare the file size between raw and jpeg], there is a proprietory pentax raw procesing program if you dont have lightroom or photoshop[think u can get it free].
personaly i have little time for zoom lenses although i have one pentax item as i can easily pick it from my pentax primes [very sharp lenses]
imho the lack of sharpnes is part camera shake part iso related .
grab youre 50mm pop the camera on m[100 iso] stick it on a tripod or sand bag and take a few shots [ 1/2 stop under ,as read by camera and 1/2 stop over].Grab youre sigma and step back tll you get a smilar image in the frame and do the same,i recon the 50 will be noticably sharper and have better contrast.
if you cant find the pentax software i might be able to dig it up here
but even on jpeg you should be able to see if theres a lens or camera problem
mark
ps whats the camera model?