PDA

View Full Version : *istDS Sample Shots



WightWalker
03-29-2005, 09:48 AM
I'm more than pleased with the *istDS having arrived at it's purchase through a rather tortuous route - bought & returned the Minolta A200, then Nikon CP8800 due to what I considered inherent faults with both cameras.

Being a newcomer to dSRL, I was initially put off by the softer possibly even duller images produced; those at Steve's Digicam looked really disappointing BUT having made the choice based on a lot of BST (Blood, Sweat & Tears), I'm chuffed to bits with it and the performance with the kit lens is quite superb.

I never thought that I'd go back to SRL having gone through that phase many years ago but dSRL is just so much better that digital compact; I wonder why I ever looked at the two mentioned above in the first instance.

Here’s a shot of our native primroses:

WightWalker
03-29-2005, 10:10 AM
Handheld in Macro Mode, Manual Focus, FL 55mm

speaklightly
03-29-2005, 06:48 PM
wightwalker-

Those are wonderful photos taken with your Pentax 1stDS. Congratulations.

Sarah Joyce

WightWalker
04-01-2005, 02:28 PM
These wood anenomies come up really sharp

WightWalker
04-02-2005, 02:52 AM
Springs is in the air

WightWalker
04-02-2005, 03:18 AM
This fellow looks kind of fearsome

WightWalker
04-02-2005, 02:28 PM
Hope you like this view
Taken with Pentax *istDS

WightWalker
04-02-2005, 02:31 PM
Also taken with Pentax *istDS

WightWalker
04-02-2005, 02:36 PM
The boatshed from the footbridge
Taken on the *ist DS

gary_hendricks
04-02-2005, 05:31 PM
That ladybug picture really had me floored ... what a lovely pic!

speaklightly
04-02-2005, 08:26 PM
weightwalker-

Wow!

Thanks for the wonderful Pentax 1stDS sample photos.

Sarah Joyce

gary_hendricks
04-02-2005, 10:52 PM
Hey just a question, I've always wondered why Pentax named this camera 'Pentax *istDS' - isn't that kinda weird for a name?

speaklightly
04-03-2005, 05:47 PM
wightwalker-

They all look wonderful! That is mostly a tribute to you and somewhat to the Pentax 1stDS.

Sarah joyce

speaklightly
04-03-2005, 10:23 PM
wightwalker-

Just a bit of reassurance. You will not be alone. I too have ordered the Pentax 1st DS for the second time. Your very excellent digital photos have once again convinced that the Pentax 1st DS is not a digital camera that can be just ignored. So probably by the end of the week or in the following week, I will indeed have the Pentax 1st DS + kit lens in hand. So, I will be submitting samples as soon as the digital camera is received.

Sarah Joyce

WightWalker
04-04-2005, 10:13 AM
Taken on the first day with my *istDS on a walk up onto Red Screes in theh Lake Distict, these grasses frozen with ice against the winter sun

WightWalker
04-04-2005, 10:17 AM
I was attracted to this moss growing on the slate wall in Troutbeck.

All images taken with the standat 18-55mm kit lens

WightWalker
04-04-2005, 10:19 AM
Almost a 'chocolate box' shot overlooking Grasmere

WightWalker
04-04-2005, 10:22 AM
Real ale in the Mortal Man, Troutbeck

Flash was used to take this shot.

Adobe Photoshop was used to duplicate the glass of beer in the foreground which was then suitably darkened to offset extra brightness due to it being that much closer to the light source.

speaklightly
04-04-2005, 06:00 PM
Weightwalker-

Are you taking those photos in the jpeg format or as raw images?

Sarah Joyce

WightWalker
04-04-2005, 11:07 PM
They are all taken using default settings with JPEG set to *** Quality Level & 6M Recorded Pixels.

Link AF Point set to adjust AE in multi-segment metering with Focus Point set to select 1 of 11 focus points.

Images are resized to 700 x 525 using Adobe Photoshop with BiCubic Shaper setting, histogram adjusted with Unsharp Mask applied to add a little extra sharpness as necessary.

There's a lot of discussion going on at DP Review forums concerning his review of the *istDS and it's poor image processing when producing JPEG images. Personally, I'm pleased with the results that JPEG produce under these settings - OK they are NOT as good as RAW (and NEVER will be given the compression that's applied) - if I particularly want the best quality, I can always switch to RAW and convert.

WightWalker
04-04-2005, 11:23 PM
Taken against the light so not necessarily the best composition but it does show what I mean.

The Pentax Phot Lab converted RAW image produces a brighter image than the Adobe Photoshop & is the clear winner for my money BUT given that this is a reduced image with reduce quality for publishing here, is the JPEG that much different that it becomes unusable - I think not - it's OK for everyday shots.

The subject is the flower produced on a fir tree in the process of producing miniature fir cones - the subject is approximately 1 inch in height and was shot using the kit lens.

jeisner
04-05-2005, 04:12 AM
Weightwalker-

Are you taking those photos in the jpeg format or as raw images?

Sarah Joyce

I think the JPEG quality 'problem' has been exagerated... Interestingly Popular Photography & Imaging also tested the resolution of the 3 cameras (the program used only tests JPEGs) compared by Phil and they got VERY different results regarding the ist DS... I don't know what to make of it, I am just throwing it out there....

*ist DS: (1575Vx1450Hx1575D)
300D: (1510Vx1440Hx1450D)
D70: (1460Vx1520Hx1480D)


That said of course RAW is better than JPEG with any camera, but for printing A4 or less its a waste of effort IMHO


*They didn't say whether they used JPEGs from the camera or they made JPEGs out of the RAW files with ACR to test....

colmax
04-07-2005, 06:08 AM
Advice please on whether or not there is real a problem with JPEG on the *istDS.

I have decided to purchase a dSLR over other types. From the reviews etc. of the D70, E300 I have really decided upon the Pentax (for all of the reasons you good folks have found and presented in this forum). My only worry is in the comments from one or two commercial review sources about JPEG. I am fairly new to digital having a small Fuji at the moment, so RAW is completely new to me. Is it always better to shoot in RAW anyway with this type of dSLR? For example - the pics above are outstanding - were these JPEG or RAW. (My background from some years ago was very keen amateur Nikon SLR owner/user - I did have some work published but after I started doing wedding photography I completely switched off of photography. The small Fuji really kicked me back into the hobby, which I love again, and really want to shift up a gear back to an SLR digital). I only print up to Letter / A4 size and not that often, usually sticking to 7x5.

Typically, is the JPEG thing something that could be 'corrected' in a microcode release? (assuming its a 'real' isue in the first place)

Any advice greatly appreciated. :)

Colin.

jeisner
04-07-2005, 06:59 AM
I only print up to Letter / A4 size and not that often, usually sticking to 7x5.

OK, I am going to be flamed for saying this, but I shoot most weekends with a friend with a 20d and yes his JPEG quality is slightly better than mine in terms of fine detail (visible if you look hard at 100% crops) but his blown highlights and untrue WB means he shoots RAW anyway, so as we both shoot RAW the much better viewfinder and better feel of the DS over the 300d/350d makes the DS a better camera IMO.

Regarding the JPEG quality all the pictures in this forum that myself and WightWalker have posted were taken as JPEGs, so as you have seen in real world shots the DS JPEGs are great, and printing A4 you will NOT notice a difference in resolution between JPEGs and RAW on the DS... I really don't like Phils reviews the pixel peeping proves little, as if you look at the actual samples from end of the review the DS pictures look just as good (I think better as not blown) as the 350d pictures and the handling of the DS is better, just look through the viewfinder and you'll see what I mean :) Ohh BTW the Pentax samples in his review are with the kit lens and the 350d samples are with a US$600 lens he put on the 350d to make it look better, heaven forbid he compared apples with apples ;)


Typically, is the JPEG thing something that could be 'corrected' in a microcode release? (assuming its a 'real' isue in the first place)

Possible, but have seen an email from Pentax and they said it is not an issue worth fixing, no use sacrificing processing time to get more detail that you can't see in anything but BIG (like A3) prints in which case you should shoot RAW anyway, and the DS RAW is great.



Ohh if you do try out RAW download the fully functional Bibble demo and also download the free RawShooter Essentials. They are both good RAW processing programs that let you process multiple RAW files at one time and you would be surprised how much power you have processing RAW, perfect white balance great exposure control, sharpening and noise fixing all BEFORE it is saved as a JPEG..

colmax
04-07-2005, 07:29 AM
Thankyou for the reassurance and very posive remarks about the *istDS. I look forward to posting some results when I buy my new Pentax. :)

jeisner
04-07-2005, 07:44 AM
I look forward to seeing them.... ;-)

I am going to the Melbourne Flower Show on Saturday and will be shooting Velvia Slide Film with P30n and also Digital with the *ist DS (both Jpeg and RAW) I will post up samples on Saturday night or Sunday...

WightWalker
04-07-2005, 10:20 AM
Just read the Rebel XT review at DPR - not a single comparison of JPEG against RAW as performed against the *istDS & couldn't even see a comparison of the XT against the *istDS. Not even a side by side view for comparison - the *istDS was compared against the Canon Rebel & Nikon D70.

Hardly unbiased IMHO.

From the side by side comparison of the *istDS & Rebel XT, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

Don't be put off by reflections on the glass which occur on both but in different places.

speaklightly
04-07-2005, 07:40 PM
Wightwalker and Jeisner-

You both keep coming through with the "real goods." I for one really appreciate that. Somehow, I personally wish that more folks would see the true value in the Pentax 1stDS.

Sarah Joyce

WightWalker
04-08-2005, 01:32 PM
Thanks Sarah for your kind words. It must be pretty obvious that I like my *istDS but it was quite a convoluted journey to get here.

I’d grown out of my Fuji S602 & tried both the Minolta A200 (nice & small, light, manual zoom, good range – but colour inconsistency between adjacent shots with exposure lock and very poor focus performance) and the Nikon CP8800 (poor write times to card & inability to focus on infinity when infinity lock selected).

I was a keen 35mm user for years having owned a Pentax K2 but got tired of lugging around ‘loads of extras’. The compact format suited me but the more I used it the more I wanted out of it.

I also looked at the Nikon D70 (too big, heavy & image quality a bit on the high contract side) and the Canon Rebel (again too big, no manual focus when powered down, just didn’t feel right) and choose the Pentax for it small size and handling.

Took this shot on an afternoon’s walk around the south coast on the Isle of Wight.

Will be publishing the walk at http://www.iwcam.co.uk later this weekend

iRobie
04-08-2005, 09:49 PM
<A200 questions>
Since you've tried both the A200 and the *istDS, two cameras I am currently looking at, could you answer if the A200 'felt' like an SLR?

No camera shop within 50 miles of me carries the A200. I should take this as a bad sign, but I don't. But still, I cannot hold it or test it out yet. I'm not too keen on an EVF, but I do like a swivelling-LCD, something an SLR will never have (I like to take self-portraits :-)).

That, the movie mode, the IS, and the lens (macro and lots of zoom) make it a reasonable choice. And it seems like it would 'feel' like an SLR with the manual zoom. But that's my question: is this the case?

Also, did it take decent portrait shots in your opinion?
</A200 questions>

<Pentax questions>
On a related topic, Sarah Joyce wrote that she returned her Pentax *istDS due to noise at high ISO settings. I saw that in a picture from pbase, but it's nothign too serious in my mind. What aspects of the *istDS do you not like, and what made you buy it over the 350XT? And any red eye? I only ask because even the 10D can cause red eye... :eek:
</Pentax questions>

Such a hard buying decision! It makes it even more difficult that Jeff hasn't reviewed the *istDS or the 350XT yet!

jeisner
04-09-2005, 01:12 AM
Such a hard buying decision! It makes it even more difficult that Jeff hasn't reviewed the *istDS or the 350XT yet!

ahh reviews mean little, all the cameras in this class have excellent picture quality IMO, I suggest going into a store and trying each camera out, take a few shots, see which ones feels best to you. And don't listen to the salesman, I guarentee he will advise Canon, simply as he/she doesn't get kickbacks from Pentax for selling their cameras.....

WightWalker
04-09-2005, 03:20 AM
<A200 questions>
Since you've tried both the A200 and the *istDS, two cameras I am currently looking at, could you answer if the A200 'felt' like an SLR?!
Simply no. The optical viewfinder is much better allowing manual focus which is practically imposible on the A200, the reponse time is also faster with hardly any shutter lag whatsoever.



Also, did it take decent portrait shots in your opinion?
?!
Low light focus indoors was difficult. Once the exposure locked (& many times it did but it was in error & focused in the wrong area) it was OK.


<Pentax questions>
What aspects of the *istDS do you not like, and what made you buy it over the 350XT? And any red eye? I only ask because even the 10D can cause red eye... :eek:

Price - I could have picked up the Rebel for £500, SD memory - I already had Compact Flash
So why did I but the *istDS. It offers more focus points than any other current dSRL - important when isolating where I want to focus on in close up shots - it was the smallest/lightest dSRL available - important as I do a lot of walking and want to weight to a minimum, I liked the way that it handled, ISO can be pushed to 1600/3200 (Olympus E300 is poor beyond 800).

The Rebel XT wasn't available but the thing I didn't like about the Rebel was the lens (poor manual focus ring which appeared not to function when the camera was powered down). It also just felt cumbersome & bulky.

Reading/posting to offer forums, it was clear that basically all dSRLs produce an image of similar quality and therefore it really was just down to personal preference - I liked the *istDS & it hasn't disappointed me.

Would I have bought the Rebel XT if it was available - I don't really know but at the end of the day there's not that much to choose between them so for me the *istDS is the camera of my choice & I'm very happy with it.

iRobie
04-09-2005, 09:22 AM
I guess part of the reason the *istDS has, literally overnight, jumped into my top three cameras is because I held it. It is a fantastic camera, and it feels right.

Then I saw your pictures -- that's the 'style' that I like to shoot. The camera can do it. To make things better, it can do it with the kit lens. Even heading over to pbase or other review sites (I like this one the best!), most of the pictures I've seen are with the kit lens. This is good news to me - it's hard to judge the RebelXT's lens when everyone posts shots with a $500, 50lb lens.

And the size of the camera is very important to me. I like to fit everything in one carry-on bag when I travel -- even trips that last up to 6 weeks (yes, it is possible :)). Well, plus my laptop. And I walk a lot, like you said you do, especially in parks and forests (love the northwest!).

And now that I actually have the money to buy a camera (two years of waiting...), I have to make a decision. On the one hand, the A200 is very tempting. It does things no SLR will ever be able to do. Are those things necessary, or do I just like what they are on paper? No camera I've shot with to date has had a swivel LCD, but it seems 'cool.' With instant review, it seems like an SLR could take excellent self-portraits -- if you did happen to focus on the wrong point, just shoot again! And the movie mode -- I did use the movie mode on a trip to Yellowstone recently, but was that just the novelty of it that I liked? Would I use it even a couple of times per year? If I do, should I consider a cheap DV camera in addition to an SLR? And the image stabilization -- this is a cool feature, no doubt, but the vast majority of my shots do not require it. In fact, there's only been a handful of shots that I've ever taken that come out blurry. In very low lighting condition, the SLR would perform better anyway just out of build, and the last time I shot like that (with a 20D :D ) I brought a tripod, the IS would not have made that much of a difference.

Every time I post, I answer my own question. The A200 (et al) is tempting because of the bells and whistles. It's hard to justify (especially to the future wife) getting a camera that can only do 50% of what the A200 can do because of 'feel' and 'quality.' But it is the conclusion I've reached countless times, even though I think I want those bells and whistles.

Sorry for the long post. Posting is very... therapeutic. It helps.

WightWalker
04-09-2005, 11:13 AM
But it is the conclusion I've reached countless times, even though I think I want those bells and whistles.

Sorry for the long post. Posting is very... therapeutic. It helps.
I was really sorry to return the A200 as it has the potential to be a really good camera BUT it falls short in too many areas.

I had passed it over once based on sample images - not sharp enough, lacking in saturation - but the more I read in reviews, the more I realised that in that respect, it was similar to dSRL. During the 2 weeks that I had the A200, I put it through it's paces & found it to be a improvement over the Fuji S602 - but low light focus was still poor. However, on a bright sunny day, albeit with a bit of haze about so not too clear visibility, I experienced no end of focus lock problems - even shifting the FlexiPoint around the screen did little to help. I was becoming more frustrated as the afternoon progressed with simple compositions failing to focus. When I looked at the results I further discovered that images taken with exposure lock (useful for creating panoramic shots) the colour was different. Even on some shots that were taken one after the other suffered the same problem. As you can imagine, these two very important factors just meant that the A200 had to go back. What's the point of a camera if it wont focus in sunlight and produce images of consistent colour.

Moving on - these bluebells we taken in shade with the *istDS at 1/125S & F5.6. Depth of field is a bit shallow so I used Photoshop to take bells from a subsequent shot to superimpose here creating the illusion of greater DOF - am I cheating, possibly but this to me is the beauty of digital.

WightWalker
04-10-2005, 01:06 PM
I stumbled across these two Austin Sevens which I though might be of interest

WightWalker
04-10-2005, 01:10 PM
From the southern tip of the usland looking wet to Tennyson Down

WightWalker
04-10-2005, 01:13 PM
Situated in Whitwell

WightWalker
04-10-2005, 01:16 PM
Always a good sign, winter's past with fine weather to look forward to

Dennet
04-10-2005, 02:44 PM
We got some blue sky today in the Netherlands. Part of the roof of somebody's 'garden shed' ;).

Dennet
04-10-2005, 02:48 PM
The shed itself.

iRobie
04-10-2005, 05:46 PM
Well, I actually got to try out the DS and the Rebel XT yesterday. I do say I like the feel, ergonomics, and layout of the DS better. What can I say, I like simple, aesthetically pleasing things that work well (yes...I am a Mac user).

I liked the feel of the DS more. The XT really felt cramped to me -- it was not as comfortable as the DS.

The one thing that the XT had over the DS was shot-to-shot time. The XT was fast -- it could take pictures with flash as fast as I could compose them. The DS was slow, it was horribly slow. At least a 4 second wait when taking pictures with flash, about a 2-3 second delay when taking pictures without a flash. I asked the salesperson about it, but he didn't know much about the DS, or about cameras in general (sad).

Is this common? Or was there something 'different' about this setup, whether it be bad batteries, a slow generic card, etc. Can you equip the DS so it could take quick consecutive pictures, without reverting to a burst mode? (I'm using burst mode to mean you have to hold the shutter-release button to keep taking pictures -- I want to press it anytime I need it)

WightWalker
04-10-2005, 11:13 PM
Haven't used it & probably never will as it's not something that I likely will ever want to do.

How far away were you from the subject.

The other day, I shot, shot after shot, using flash several pictures using flash with minimal delay between them without any noticable restriction.

ipiapacs99
04-11-2005, 05:45 PM
Please forgive me if this link already been posted.
A good review from a professional photographer who goes beyond specifications and emphasizes the usability, picture quality and the huge selection of good lenses of this wonderful camera.

ipiapacs99
04-11-2005, 05:49 PM
Sorry! Here is the link:

http://photo.net/equipment/pentax/istds/

WightWalker
04-15-2005, 10:45 AM
Difficult colour to capture faithfully

WightWalker
04-15-2005, 10:56 AM
Even managed to capture a couple of insects in flight

WightWalker
04-15-2005, 11:01 AM
Masses of Colour in this cluster of multi-headed Primroses

WightWalker
04-18-2005, 08:53 AM
Not too outstanding but I thought it might appeal

WightWalker
04-18-2005, 08:56 AM
Overlooking the bay from above the Spyglass Inn

WightWalker
04-18-2005, 08:58 AM
I'm beginning to knpw how they feel

WightWalker
04-18-2005, 09:04 AM
Panoramic shot of Woody Bay with St Lawrence behind taken with 5 sequential portrait shoots stiched together using Panoramic Factory.

Manual Focus was used and the exposure locked on the first shot.

Vertical shots produce better stitched images than those taken normally.

WightWalker
04-19-2005, 01:12 PM
Shot in RAW and converted to JPEG using Adobe Photoshop with UnSharpMask applied with a setting of 70 - I'd already applied some sharpness during the conversion process.

WightWalker
04-21-2005, 11:12 AM
What made the cowslip - it saw the bullrush

WightWalker
04-21-2005, 11:30 AM
Not too sure what these are called

WightWalker
04-21-2005, 11:38 AM
Carisbrooke Castle is a Norman stone motte and bailey fortress, built on top of a Roman fort and surrounded by Elizabethan defences designed to withstand artillery.

WightWalker
04-23-2005, 07:11 AM
Standing at just 2 feet high this little chap looked quite a miniature

WightWalker
04-23-2005, 07:13 AM
Such a hard life just lazing in the warm sunshine

WightWalker
04-23-2005, 07:15 AM
Quite harmless, but nevertherless, gave me quite a startle when I almost trod on it

WightWalker
04-23-2005, 11:10 AM
These shots just go to show how good the *istDS at close ups with just the 18-55mm kit lens; obviously you can't get in as close as with a macro lens but it suits my kind of interest.

I use 'Set the AF area to 1 of 11 areas in the AF area' & focused on the lower flower, the buds in the centre are also nicely sharp wuth the upper flower just a tad soft.

WightWalker
04-23-2005, 11:37 AM
Every time I post, I answer my own question. The A200 (et al) is tempting because of the bells and whistles. It's hard to justify (especially to the future wife) getting a camera that can only do 50% of what the A200 can do because of 'feel' and 'quality.' But it is the conclusion I've reached countless times, even though I think I want those bells and whistles.

Sorry for the long post. Posting is very... therapeutic. It helps.

Hi Robbie
Sorry for the delay in following up your comments.

The only advice I can offer in respect to your dilemma, is that if it's the greater flexibility of the Prosumer camera that's a high priority, then that's the way to go BUT believe me, once you've experienced dSRL you'll never look back.

OK. There's no LCD preview of the image, no swivel/tilt mechanism, no video, no standard 28 to 200mm lens (Sigma offer 18 to 125mm & now 18 to 200mm - times 1.5 for 35mm comparison).

BUT. There’s no need to power up the *istDS to check out at a shot, you can adjust the zoom, focus the lens – all without switching it off. The camera powers up instantly – if you leave it powered on, it’ll shut down after 1min – so you just press the shutter button & the shot is taken – instantly. The viewfinder is bright, manual focus is just like a standard SRL which actually means that you don’t have to use Auto focus although it works brilliantly – there have been a number of minor rejects BUT nothing the abysmal way that the A200 behaves & I not over exaggerating. There aren’t anywhere near as many focus points on *istDS as the A200 but to honest, I’ve not found this a limitation.

Whilst the live preview is not possible on a dSRL, it does offer a significant advantage over Prosumer if we believe that CCD devices can be damaged by exposure to the bright objects i.e. shooting into the sun. With a Prosumer, the CCD is active 100% of the time & subjected to the suns bright rays. However, with dSRL, the CCD is only in the optical path for the duration of the shutter which would be a very short indeed – just an idle thought.

WightWalker
04-24-2005, 04:15 AM
The air is quite pungent as you walk through the woods at this time of year

WightWalker
04-24-2005, 05:34 AM
Spring is such a colourful time of year

WightWalker
04-24-2005, 05:36 AM
Also posted earlier but now more fully developed.

Shot in RAW and converted in Adobe Camera RAW with Saturation setting 10 & Sharpness 75

WightWalker
04-30-2005, 03:48 AM
Pretty when left in the wild

Handheld @ 1/180 using 'kit lens'

WightWalker
04-30-2005, 03:50 AM
Dandelion seed

Handheld @ 1/180 using 'kit lens'

WightWalker
05-04-2005, 08:35 AM
Widespread & common in open woodland & hedgerows

Handheld using 'kit lens' Tv mode set to 1/125S

WightWalker
05-04-2005, 08:41 AM
We are fortunate enough to have avoided the greys; this one squirmed it's way down the bird feeder

WightWalker
05-06-2005, 12:55 PM
Masses of blossom against the barn wall

WightWalker
05-07-2005, 03:14 PM
Mixture of flowers on the roadside verge

WightWalker
05-07-2005, 03:17 PM
At the island's most southerly point

WightWalker
05-07-2005, 03:18 PM
A quiet bay on the southern side of the island

WightWalker
05-07-2005, 03:21 PM
Tennyson Down & Coastguard Cottages

WightWalker
05-11-2005, 01:53 PM
Eye catching with it's bright red paintwork

WightWalker
05-11-2005, 01:54 PM
Adjacent to Hurst Castle

WightWalker
05-11-2005, 01:55 PM
Effects of salt water on steel

jeisner
05-11-2005, 04:09 PM
Effects of salt water on steel

I like this one a lot WightWalker ;)

speaklightly
05-11-2005, 05:04 PM
Wightwalker-

Many, many thanks for more great digital photos from the Pentax 1stDS. These are great photos and I am always tantalized such wonderful photo from such a wonderful camera.

Sarah Joyce

WightWalker
05-13-2005, 03:10 PM
Shapes in wood & sand

WightWalker
05-13-2005, 03:11 PM
60's style chalets

WightWalker
05-13-2005, 03:12 PM
Barley corn blown in the wind

WightWalker
05-13-2005, 03:13 PM
Bright colours

WightWalker
05-13-2005, 03:14 PM
Carpets of blue

speaklightly
05-13-2005, 03:36 PM
Wightwalker-

You have done it again! Wow! Thanks for posting two magnificent digitsal photos from the Pentax 1stDS. Do you mind me asking? Did you take these as jpeg format photos, or did you utilize raw image? If you utilized raw image, what software did you use? Thanks for your help.

Sarah Joyce

WightWalker
05-14-2005, 04:12 AM
Hi Sarah

All shots were taken on the standard 'kit lens' with JPEG set maximum size & quality. They are post processed in Photoshop to resize (1280x851 - Bipolar Sharper - fits my monitor resolution & sharpens up the image for viewing), adjust histogram (typically 0, 0.95, 250 dependant upon exposure/subject) with about 25% UnSharpMask.

I will be using RAW more as this produces the best quality. To date, the only conversion software that I like is that in Adobe with with RAW plugin.

Pentax PhotoLab is tad contrasty & I didn't like Bibble - poor sky rendition. Raw Shooter appeared the best (will batch process) but Abode still has the edge (no batch process that I've found).

jeisner
05-14-2005, 05:23 PM
but Abode still has the edge (no batch process that I've found).

Hey WightWalker, The new ACR3.1 in Photoshop CS2 is MUCH better, its workflow is more like Bibble and C1 now, much quicker and easier than before...

WightWalker
05-15-2005, 04:51 AM
The new ACR3.1 in Photoshop CS2 is MUCH better, its workflow is more like Bibble and C1 now, much quicker and easier than before...
Thanks jeisner,

I've been playing around with both CS2 & ACR3.1. So many 'bells & whistles', it's a job to know just when to stop.

For the moment I've just been doing the RAW to JPEG conversion and adjusting the sharpness to suit.

markstew1
05-18-2005, 10:26 PM
A question for those with experience. I have a Pentax spotmatic with Pentax 50mm 1.4 lens which I am very happy with. This lens allows me to take photo's without flash in conditions like inside cathedrals etc. I am about to purchase a digital. My only experience is with a borrowed Olympus 770 which has given some good results but I am considering an Ist DS. I have read a lot on the web and they mainly mention some problems with imaging and the internal processing. Looking at Wightwalkers images eg the boathouse there seems (on my monitor) to be a lot of CA on say the boathouse roof-is this the lens used or some other factor? Other shots that I have seen do not appear to be all that sharp, eg some of the flower shots in this thread. Could one of the owners here please advise me. Thank you, Mark

jeisner
05-18-2005, 11:00 PM
These are both lens dependant issues....

As for JPEG quality issue, this has been blown WAY out of proportion by one reviewer (who I am starting to find somewhat biased anyway).... Plus if you use RAW this is a complete non issue, and personally I think RAW is one of the many advantages of a DSLR, its a waste not to use it IMO...

markstew1
05-18-2005, 11:19 PM
Jeisner, thank you for your reply.
I looked at your gallery and I see that soft focus in some which I find with most of the published ist photos eg your lavender bee and dog shots-I would have expected to see individual hairs more like the hairy cactus shot. Perhaps I have been spoilt by the quality of the old Pentax lenses?

thanks Mark

jeisner
05-18-2005, 11:51 PM
Jeisner, thank you for your reply.
I looked at your gallery and I see that soft focus in some which I find with most of the published ist photos eg your lavender bee and dog shots-I would have expected to see individual hairs more like the hairy cactus shot. Perhaps I have been spoilt by the quality of the old Pentax lenses?

thanks Mark

The dog shot is with a decent lens (Sigma 20mm DG EX) but it is at F1.8, that lens is a little soft wide open... No worse than the Pentax FA28/2.8 when it is wide open, though neather is great wide open IMO ;)

The Lavender bee is heavily cropped and with a cheap consumer zoom again wide open I think (Tamron 70-300 LD)

The Cactus shot is with a good 50mm Sigma DG EX Macro lens which is sharp at all apertures..

WightWalker
05-19-2005, 01:19 AM
Looking at Wightwalkers images eg the boathouse there seems (on my monitor) to be a lot of CA on say the boathouse roof-is this the lens used or some other factor? Other shots that I have seen do not appear to be all that sharp, eg some of the flower shots in this thread. Could one of the owners here please advise me. Thank you, Mark
The images that you see posted here are resized to 700 x 465 with increased compression to a file size of typically 90k against the original JPEG file of 3008 x 2000 at 3M; obviously images are NOT going to appear at their best or as sharp as the original.

The outline that you see around the boathouse is not CA but a feature of edge sharpening. CA is a fact of life with all photography, aggravated in digital cameras and reduced with lens design/CCD size; if you go looking for it, you'll probably find evidence of it to a greater or smaller extent in all images.

jeisner
05-19-2005, 01:27 AM
The images that you see posted here are resized to 700 x 465 with increased compression to a file size of typically 90k against the original JPEG file of 3008 x 2000 at 3M; obviously images are NOT going to appear at their best or as sharp as the original.

Ohh yeah I didn't think, the images on my pbase account are also resized and compressed from 3-4.5MB down to 100-150kb

WightWalker
05-19-2005, 02:41 AM
I also should have mentioned that DOF is restricted on close-ups with just the area around the the point where the camera was focused, in focus.

Other parts of the image corresponding to this range will also be in focus, but sometimes, the point of focus will be offset from the centre of the image as is the case in question with this image of Cow Parsley.

speaklightly
05-19-2005, 03:05 AM
WightWalker-

I do see the DOF issue, but I still like the photo.

Sarah Joyce

WightWalker
05-24-2005, 01:33 PM
Just received this today; weather not too clear but close up shots appear quite good for this budget lens

WightWalker
05-24-2005, 01:37 PM
Cow Parsley

WightWalker
05-24-2005, 01:41 PM
Carisbrooke Castle

WightWalker
05-24-2005, 01:47 PM
Focal length at 195mm, not bad for hazy lighting conditions

speaklightly
05-24-2005, 06:39 PM
WightWalker-

I really like the Sigma 28-135mm lens. It has given a new and improved element of sharpness to yolur very excellent photos.

Sarah Joyce

WightWalker
05-29-2005, 01:59 AM
Also taken with the Sigma 28 - 135 Macro Zoom

WightWalker
05-30-2005, 01:14 PM
taken using Sigma 28-135 Macro Zoom

WightWalker
05-30-2005, 01:15 PM
Taken using Sigma 28-135 Macro Zoom

WightWalker
05-30-2005, 01:17 PM
Limited depth of field just captures the tips

WightWalker
06-01-2005, 11:58 AM
The weather's hardly warmed up so I was quite surprised to see the effects of heat haze on Fawley Chimney - it looks quite distorted.

WightWalker
06-26-2005, 03:31 AM
Taken using the kit lens, Shutter Priority, 1/125, F13, ISO 200

WightWalker
06-26-2005, 03:32 AM
Taken using the Sigma 28-135 lens, Shutter Priority 1/180, F19, ISO 200

WightWalker
06-26-2005, 03:42 AM
Taken using kit lens, Shutter Priority, 1/125, F16, ISO 200

WightWalker
06-26-2005, 03:44 AM
The International Fleet Review takes place on Tuesday during the International Festival of the Sea
Taken using Sigma 28-135 len, Shutter Priority, 1/180, F19, ISO 200

WightWalker
06-26-2005, 03:46 AM
Taken using kit lens, Shutter Priority, 1/180. F9.5, ISO 200

gstafleu
06-26-2005, 03:50 PM
Great shots WightWalker. In the overlapping range, how would you compare the kit lens and the Sigma 28-135?

WightWalker
06-28-2005, 03:45 PM
From comparative shots that I've taken at the same focal length, the Kit Lens wins but only just.

Most of my usage revolves around the use of the Kit Lens & I needed something to get me out to 200mm (effective 35mm) on the odd occasion; the Sigma at just under £100 seemed, and is for me, a good choice.

Colour redition & sharpness of the Sigma is not quite as good as the Kit Lens; I'll try & 'dig out' some shots that I took & post later.

I'm also interested in the Sigma 18 - 200mm which if it's as good as the 28 - 135mm, would prove a useful zoom covering everything from 28 - 300mm (effective 35mm).

halcb
06-30-2005, 08:47 AM
From comparative shots that I've taken at the same focal length, the Kit Lens wins but only just.

Most of my usage revolves around the use of the Kit Lens & I needed something to get me out to 200mm (effective 35mm) on the odd occasion; the Sigma at just under £100 seemed, and is for me, a good choice.

Colour redition & sharpness of the Sigma is not quite as good as the Kit Lens; I'll try & 'dig out' some shots that I took & post later.

I'm also interested in the Sigma 18 - 200mm which if it's as good as the 28 - 135mm, would prove a useful zoom covering everything from 28 - 300mm (effective 35mm).


WightWalker, I'm brand new to this forum, having just purchased the ist DS, and am still on a bit of a learning curve. Just wanted to say how much I really appreciate all your posts w/photos -- and all the information being provided by other ist users. Your photos are all quite excellent IMHO. I aspire to shoot as well as you do! :o
Quick Question: do you find the ist generally underexposes in its default AUTOPICT modes? Do you ever shot in AutoPict?
thanks much

WightWalker
06-30-2005, 10:17 AM
Quick Question: do you find the ist generally underexposes in its default AUTOPICT modes? Do you ever shot in AutoPict?
thanks much
Hi
The pleasure's been mine to share them and show what I can do with the *istDs.

I use Tv mode almost exclusively with a shutter speed set to nominally 1/125 or 1/180 to ensure camera shake is kept to a minimum. Consequently, Depth of Field will be whatever aperture results from a good exposure. Obviously, in low light, I have to reduce this down & will on occasions go as low as 1/20 hand held - I don't use a tripod as I'm usually on foot & can't be bothered lugging one around for a 12 mile hike.

To be honest, I find the *istDS tends to over expose especially in shots lacking any sky & find that reducing the exposure by 1 stop works.

I always post process all shots that I take to adjust the histogram, shadows/highlights & use UnSharpMask just to add that bit sharpness that the *istDS leaves out.

halcb
06-30-2005, 10:48 AM
Hi
The pleasure's been mine to share them and show what I can do with the *istDs.

I use Tv mode almost exclusively with a shutter speed set to nominally 1/125 or 1/180 to ensure camera shake is kept to a minimum. Consequently, Depth of Field will be whatever aperture results from a good exposure. Obviously, in low light, I have to reduce this down & will on occasions go as low as 1/20 hand held - I don't use a tripod as I'm usually on foot & can't be bothered lugging one around for a 12 mile hike.

To be honest, I find the *istDS tends to over expose especially in shots lacking any sky & find that reducing the exposure by 1 stop works.

I always post process all shots that I take to adjust the histogram, shadows/highlights & use UnSharpMask just to add that bit sharpness that the *istDS leaves out.

WW, Thanks for the quick response! I have been using Av and Macro mode a lot of the time. I like the idea of using the shutter-priority strategy. Hopefully I will have some decent shots to share with you in the not-too-distant future. Now if I can scrape together a few bucks for a longer zoom/macro lens. What do you know about the Tamron or Tokina zooms? I have seen great things reported about the Tokina ATX-828 AF Pro [80-200mm; 120-300 equivalent] f/2.8 -- but very pricey. The AT-X 242 AF is a less daunting option, cost-wise [24-200mm/ f3.5-5.6 I think].
Thanks again for the info and the inspiration,
H

jeisner
06-30-2005, 04:21 PM
Tokina ATX-828 AF Pro [80-200mm; 120-300 equivalent] f/2.8 -- but very pricey.

Thats a decent lens, it is a little behind the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX, but still very good and it is noticably cheaper than the Sigma... All in all for tele zoom with a constant 2.8 the Tokina is actually very cheap and good value for money....

halcb
07-01-2005, 07:00 AM
Thats a decent lens, it is a little behind the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX, but still very good and it is noticably cheaper than the Sigma... All in all for tele zoom with a constant 2.8 the Tokina is actually very cheap and good value for money....

J,
thanks for your take on the Tokina lens... btw, I love many of the shots in your gallery, especially those closeups of the honey bees on flowers! [and that weathered fencepost in the Outback -- very evocative; makes me want to travel to Australia.]

WightWalker
07-03-2005, 02:17 AM
Taken using the kit lens Shutter Priority, 1/180, f6.7

WightWalker
07-03-2005, 02:19 AM
Brightly coloured deckchairs contrasted against the dark sky over Shanklin Down

halcb
07-05-2005, 06:53 AM
Brightly coloured deckchairs contrasted against the dark sky over Shanklin Down

WW, another excellent shot. Keep 'em coming :)

WightWalker
07-11-2005, 02:36 AM
Taken with the kit lens on Shutter Priority, 1/125, f9.5

WightWalker
07-11-2005, 02:37 AM
Taken with the kit lens using Shutter Priority, 1/180, f16

jeisner
07-11-2005, 04:01 AM
nice shot, is that a passion fruit flower?

WightWalker
07-11-2005, 08:55 AM
nice shot, is that a passion fruit flower?
The Passion Flower does indeed produce passion fruit; I found this description on the web which is quite informative.

The nearly round or ovoid fruit, 1 1/2 to 3 in wide, has a tough rind, smooth, waxy, ranging in hue from dark-purple with faint, fine white specks, to light-yellow or pumpkin-color. It is 1/8 in thick, adhering to a 1/4 in layer of white pith. Within is a cavity more or less filled with an aromatic mass of double-walled, membranous sacs filled with orange-colored, pulpy juice and as many as 250 small, hard, dark-brown or black, pitted seeds. The flavor is appealing, musky, guava-like, subacid to acid.

jeisner
07-11-2005, 03:52 PM
Tasty fruit and fantastic looking flowers :)

WightWalker
08-03-2005, 12:44 PM
Every now and again a shot just looks right

WightWalker
08-05-2005, 10:20 AM
Bright red - just as they are

WightWalker
09-02-2005, 01:00 PM
Taken using the standard kit lens

Spot focus
09-03-2005, 12:55 AM
Just having a play with a ralitively new *ist DS I took this hand held shot using sigma 18-125 3.5-5.6 +2X kenko converter @max zoom 1/125 F9.5 with camera macro mode and flash on using raw coverted in photo lab to jpeg with no changes. Your comments please :)

MrSleep
09-08-2005, 02:04 AM
hi WhiteWalker thank you very much for posting your lovely pics, you have inspired me to go Pentax from CanonA95 P&S, i would apreciate if you can help me with a few queries. :o

can the Pentax ist easily acheive the same shallow DOF compared to 350D/300D?

i think i read somewhere the image sensor on the Pentax ist is smaller, i think they were comparing to film not sure, is this true? how would it compare to 350D D70 for example?

there are two types of ist's, the more expensive and the much more cheaper.., whats the difference?

at first i had my heart set on the Nikon D70 after seeing the quality of pics taken with its kit lens.
the impression i got from the nikon was the piture comes out on the warmer tones which i like very much, could this be psychologial???
can i get the same color pallette with the Pentax compared to D70?

in your oppinon how do you think the ist lens kit stacks against the Nikon D70 lens kit?

i would apreciate your help for choosing my first DSLR.
thanks,

Owen

MatH
09-08-2005, 04:13 AM
I'm not WhiteWalker, but I still might answer some of your questions. :p

can the Pentax ist easily acheive the same shallow DOF compared to 350D/300D?
As far as I know it can. The depth of field depends on aperture size. the smaller the F number the shallower depth of field. The sensor in *Ist D, DS, DL, and forthcoming DS2 is practically the same as those in Nikons or Minolltas and has a crop factor of 1.5 while Canon 350D has a crop factor of 1.6, which means that 350D has a smaller sensor (I don't know about 300D)

there are two types of ist's, the more expensive and the much more cheaper.., whats the difference?
I guess you're talking about DS and DL
DL has
- 3 focus points
- pentamiror viewfinder with 96% coverage and 0,85 magnification
- continuus zoom avaliable in all modes
- bigger LCD display

DS has
- 11 focus points,
- bright pentaprism viewfinder with 95% coverage and a 0,95 magnification, which means that you see a bigger picture and can manually sharpen better.
- continuus zoom available only in "sport" mode
- smaller LCD with the same amount of pixels (It's sucessor DS2 will have the same lcd as DL)

Here DL is only 11,5% cheaper and I don't think that is "much cheaper"
I decided for DS because it has better viewfinder, and I don't miss any of the DL's features. I do't even use the continuus autofocus since it doenst focus as sharp as I want it. I rather manually focus in the direction of movement, wait for the subject to get in the focus and "clack" there it is.

can i get the same color pallette with the Pentax compared to D70?
Using Capture One for raw converting I found that you can get warmer tones if you set the camera color profile to Nikon D70 in the "workflow settings"

As for the kit lens I don't have experience with either of them.

WightWalker
09-08-2005, 08:46 AM
hi WhiteWalker thank you very much for posting your lovely pics, you have inspired me to go Pentax from CanonA95 P&S, i would apreciate if you can help me with a few queries. :o

can the Pentax ist easily acheive the same shallow DOF compared to 350D/300D?

i think i read somewhere the image sensor on the Pentax ist is smaller, i think they were comparing to film not sure, is this true? how would it compare to 350D D70 for example?

there are two types of ist's, the more expensive and the much more cheaper.., whats the difference?

at first i had my heart set on the Nikon D70 after seeing the quality of pics taken with its kit lens.
the impression i got from the nikon was the piture comes out on the warmer tones which i like very much, could this be psychologial???
can i get the same color pallette with the Pentax compared to D70?

in your oppinon how do you think the ist lens kit stacks against the Nikon D70 lens kit?

i would apreciate your help for choosing my first DSLR.
thanks,

Owen

Looks like your question's have already been answered & there's little to add - I hope that you will be as pleased with your *istDS as I have been with mine.

Shots require a tad post processing to extract the best that dSRL can provide.

The kit lens works fine and can focus closer than the Nikon which produces 'near' macro shots making it a good all round lens - IMHO.

WightWalker
09-08-2005, 01:05 PM
Taken ousing the kit lens

Spot focus
09-08-2005, 06:09 PM
Hi WightWalker on several photos you say they were taken with the kit lens could you give its specs. I think this changes from place to place as the kit lens here in Australia most times is a Sigma 18-125 DC 3.5-5.6

MrSleep
09-08-2005, 09:54 PM
hi whitewalker, thanks for your response.

do you have any pictures taken with the nikonD70 color profile?

i have looked at many samples at dpreview and there is one thing in common with most is that the pentax ist looks under exposed or cooler or darker, i dont know maybe you can define that better but thats one thing thats holding me back from making the purchase.

if there is a D70 color profile in the pentax that would allow for that same pallete to translate acurately i would be very happy cause the price difference here in australia between *ist is over $700!!!

i would be very greatfull if you can, show some before & after shots of D70 color profile with your pentax ist.

btw, are all the pics on your website taken with the *ist???

also, does the ist have a dof preview feature?
i beleive the nikon D50 is missing this feature..

Spot focus
09-08-2005, 11:10 PM
Hi Mrsleep yes istDS has Depth of Field preview. I don't know how much you know about RAW as opposed to JPEG settings but have a look at this Raw V JPEG (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistds/page20.asp)

MatH
09-09-2005, 02:02 AM
Hi WightWalker on several photos you say they were taken with the kit lens could you give its specs. I think this changes from place to place as the kit lens here in Australia most times is a Sigma 18-125 DC 3.5-5.6
Original Pentax kit has Pentax lens. Everything else is a salesman's kit. Like when I was buying Canon A510 it came in a "kit" with batteries a 512 SD card and a bag.

MrSleep
09-16-2005, 08:35 PM
Hello again Whitewalker. :)

When you say kit lens do you mean the "Sigma AF 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 DC"?

Because I read its performance is not all that great, but after seeing your pics I beg to know.
I realy cant afford to spend too much right now, I just want to bring the camera home and start using it.

astro
09-16-2005, 09:44 PM
Hello again Whitewalker. :)

When you say kit lens do you mean the "Sigma AF 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 DC"?

Because I read its performance is not all that great, but after seeing your pics I beg to know.
I realy cant afford to spend too much right now, I just want to bring the camera home and start using it.

The kit lens are the Pentax SMC-DA 18-55mm F/3.5-5.6
They're great lens if you don't plan on viewing the pics at 100% crop. They look great when resized to about 1280x1024 res.

If you want super sharp lens for cheap.. i'd look into some old used primes on ebay. I built up a nice collection of those for $325. 4 primes and two SMC-F zooms with AF from ebay.

MrSleep
09-16-2005, 10:30 PM
hi astro, may i ask what you got? :rolleyes:

also whats the best keyword to use on ebay for best results? cause im not getting a good response here.

astro
09-17-2005, 02:54 AM
Well the basic primes are..
28 or 35mm F/2.8

50mm F/1.4(my fav, and most typical)

85mm F/1.8 or F/2

135mm F/2.5 or F/3.5

300mm F/4

I have the 50mm F/1.4, 135mm F/3.5 and 300mm F/4. I got them for $51, $48, and $105 respectively from ebay.
I also found a person selling an SMC-F 35-80mm F/4 zoom, and a 70-200mm F/4-F/5.6 zoom for $85 shipped for both.
I prefer to use the 50mm F/1.4 over the 35-80mm zoom though. I can sell it to you for $30 if you want it. I read somewhere that it's one of the sharpest zooms ever. But I think I might have confused it with the slightly more expensive 28-80mm zoom.

Here's a good article about old pentax lenses..
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml

According to him:
"But I've taken pictures that look just as wonderful with another, albeit completely forgotten aristocrat — the M42 screwmount Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mm f/1.4. This is one of my favorite lenses, in fact. Its results can be simply gorgeous. Of course, to use this lens you'll have to put up with using a Spotmatic, one of the greatest SLRs in history but long in the tooth today. An engineer at a Japanese camera company told me that if this lens were manufactured and marketed today, it would most likely have to sell for $1,200 to $1,500. I got mine for $60. (Well, okay, I actually have six of them, to be honest.)"

I was able to get the 50mm F/1.4 SMC Takumar for $51.

I find myself using this lens the most now.

Check out my two threads in the Pentax SLR for some of the shots I took for the 135mm and the 300mm.

Here's a sample shot with my favorite 50mm F/1.4
http://astroguy.org/showngshowng14bbw.jpg

MrSleep
09-17-2005, 07:31 AM
what a bragain!!! im actually looking into primes myself, a fast 50 1.7 at least for the ist*DS.

But the only problem with the 50mm is that it translates to 75mm on ist*DS due to the 1.5 crop factor. Which is okay for portraits and landscape etc but not for your standard lug around so Im gonna have to track one of them wide or fisheye type lens just to get something closer for street photog.

What type of camera are you using?

astro
09-17-2005, 07:49 AM
what a bragain!!! im actually looking into primes myself, a fast 50 1.7 at least for the ist*DS.

But the only problem with the 50mm is that it translates to 75mm on ist*DS due to the 1.5 crop factor. Which is okay for portraits and landscape etc but not for your standard lug around so Im gonna have to track one of them wide or fisheye type lens just to get something closer for street photog.

What type of camera are you using?
I'm using the *ist DS also!
I think the SMC Takumar 28mm F/3.5 would be a great lens. You'd need a $10 adapter though. I think these older takumar lenses actually work better than the newer Pentax-M lenses as the metering works 100% in aperture priority mode. The newer M ones, on the other hand, won't stop down in Av mode, and will always stay in the widest aperture, unless you use M mode.

I'm somehow convinced by Mike Johnston from Luminous Landscapes that the SMC Takumars are one of the highest quality lenses you can get.

I'll tell you a secret way I found to getting lens even CHEAPER on ebay. Search for old cameras. A lot less people buy these old cameras than the lenses. And these cameras are sold with lenses more often than not. And they usually go for LESS with the camera, than if you were going to bid on the lens alone! For example, I've seen spotmatic F cameras with 50mm F/1.4 SMC Takumar lens go for $50, while the average 50mm F/1.4 SMC Takumar lens by itself goes for $50-60 on ebay by itself! So you basically get an excellent film SLR for free! If you want, you can sell the spotmatic body by itself for $50!

Here's an example of one of those really good deals that I'm talking about that I'm just hating myself for not bidding it in time :mad:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7545485801&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

MrSleep
09-18-2005, 01:03 AM
Surely it hurts to miss out on that deal.

However you got a classic collection there for peanuts!
If you had to buy them in the new to which you couldnt even if you wanted to, it would cost a couple grand easy.

Forget the lens, I havnt even got the ist*DS yet!
My money for the DS will be ready in a month and till then I'll try and score some primes but right now im using the Canon P&S A95 which served me pretty well for learning.

since i will only use the camera in manual mode, all the auto compatability on lens is not a worry, i wanna learn the old skool way.

btw thanks for the etip ;)

WightWalker
09-24-2005, 10:46 AM
Hello again Whitewalker. :)

When you say kit lens do you mean the "Sigma AF 18-50mm f3.5-5.6 DC"?

Because I read its performance is not all that great, but after seeing your pics I beg to know.
I realy cant afford to spend too much right now, I just want to bring the camera home and start using it.
The kit lens that I refer to is a Pentax 18-55mm which for my applications performs very well.

I bought the Sigma 28-135mm macro zoom to extend my range to 200mm & whilst the lens isn't that expensive, the results are a tad disappointing. Comparing shots taken at identical focal lengths between the Pentax 18-55mm & Sigma 28-135, the Pentax wins, maybe not by much, but it is a better lens; the Sigma tends to over expose.

eduardofrances
09-25-2005, 10:47 AM
:confused: Hello I am a newbie I came across interested in information about the DS as it seems a super nice camera and i am deciding :) What I would want to know if you have played with the settings of saturation and sharpness in the camera menus? it would be nice to know cause there are mixed reviews of the quality of JPEG thanks a lot for your help in advance :)

WightWalker
09-25-2005, 02:38 PM
:confused: Hello I am a newbie I came across interested in information about the DS as it seems a super nice camera and i am deciding :) What I would want to know if you have played with the settings of saturation and sharpness in the camera menus? it would be nice to know cause there are mixed reviews of the quality of JPEG thanks a lot for your help in advance :)
I use JPEG exclusively because it's suits me just fine - to be honest, I find the RAW just too must hastle.

I do not use the 'in camera' settings all having left these settings at default - some might say that the Image Tone should be changed from it's default setting to natural.

I use Adobe Photoshop to enhance the image - remember that dSRL are not so heavily processed in the camera and don't appear so 'punchy' as P&S cameras.

In Photoshop I use Image/Adjust/Level, Image/Adjust/Shadow Highlight with UnSharpMask to enhance the image - once performed a few times it's relatively straight forward and quick to apply. Because I publish a lot of images on my walking site www.iwcam.co.uk, I resize the image in the first instance to 1280x851 performing the previously mentiones adjustment at that resolution; the images are then further reduced to 600x400 using DCE Auto Enhance (resize only) as this produces a nice clear/sharp image.

I would like to dispell the belief that JPEG on the Pentax *isDS is inferior - DP Review's of the *istDS was biased to say the least. No other review of any other camer from DP Review has gone into so much detail on the alledged quality of the JPEG image quality as it did singularly for the *istDS; I downloaded comparable images from the Canon RebeL XT (which DP Review gave glowing reports) and compared them with the *istDS - the *istDS came out superior in every respect - yes I own a *istDS & some might say I'm biased BUT if in any doubt - do the same & I'm sure that you will draw the same conclusion. Incidentially, the images that I posted on Steves Digicam were deleted as infringmnet of copyright.

*istDS JPEG quality is OK - but as with any dSRL, you will have to tweak the results out the camera to get the best results.

eduardofrances
09-25-2005, 03:21 PM
Thanks a lot :) it is very helpful to have someone talking straight things instead of techis mumbo jumbo taht in the end tends to overwhelm newbies like myself :D,!

eduardofrances
10-02-2005, 11:47 PM
:D sorry to bother you but I have been reading that the pentax IST DS tends to underexpose shots is this true? and if so it couldnt be solved by adding EV to the camera settings? thanks again for your help I am an experienced analog SLR user and due to the cost of film im am going to Digi SLR this helps me to make a smarter choice :)

WightWalker
10-03-2005, 08:56 AM
:D sorry to bother you but I have been reading that the pentax IST DS tends to underexpose shots is this true? and if so it couldnt be solved by adding EV to the camera settings? thanks again for your help I am an experienced analog SLR user and due to the cost of film im am going to Digi SLR this helps me to make a smarter choice :)

I think a lot depends upon the subject, it's composition & which method of exposure control is used.

If you just P&S (Point & Shoot) you can expect a mixture of results, especially when using a lot of sky in a landscape for example.

By contrast, shaded shots tend to over expose; knowing this, I adjust the exposure compensation down by 1EV.

The attached image illustrates what I mean:

I'm no RAW use expert, but I believe that the sensor output is saved in a way which stores the value of red, green & blue light as a grey value, rather than colour, which is used to reconstitute the image in a graphics RAW converter - I believe that's it's impossible with RAW to over/under expose - the final adjustment being done by the RAW converter.

I'm in the process of tweaking my holiday shots in Scotland & I was guilty of P&S where a number of shots were underexposed. Using Photoshop, I can compensate for this using the Shadow & Highlight feature.

I'm sure that in reality, the exposure system is much the same as film where a lot is down to the user to get the best results.

Balrog
10-03-2005, 03:36 PM
I'm no RAW use expert, but I believe that the sensor output is saved in a way which stores the value of red, green & blue light as a grey value, rather than colour, which is used to reconstitute the image in a graphics RAW converter - I believe that's it's impossible with RAW to over/under expose - the final adjustment being done by the RAW converter.


RAW files save a single value for each pixel (since that's what the sensor records), and the other two are interpolated during RAW conversion. However, any single pixel can still hit the maximum recordable value, after which point you're losing detail (overexposure). However, RAW gives you a whole lot more leeway since the values recorded are 12-bit rather than 8-bit, which means they have 16 times the range JPEG colors do.

eduardofrances
10-03-2005, 08:50 PM
I do think that too I have a Powershot a 85, an AE1 and an EOS XSN date , I learned to think above of the exposure metering that the camera recomended in Manual mode wich sometimes isnt accurate enough, (powershot more often than the others )! thanks you have been of great help and thanks for taking the time to explain me with the pictures You are a very nice dude!! :D :D

tadah
10-04-2005, 05:23 PM
i bought the *ist ds a few weeks ago & i like it a lot... here are some photos (unless specified, taken w/tamron 28-80mm lens)

http://static.flickr.com/26/49172954_396ced4e36.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/24/49023710_ffdc367a26.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/33/47560740_af52b2915d.jpg
(pentax 50mm/f1.7)

http://static.flickr.com/31/45941303_aca159e0a0.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/28/44285071_f92d372b56.jpg

MatH
10-05-2005, 03:33 AM
How did you take the turtle shoot?? :eek:
Underwater casing, aquapac bag or something else?

oh btw I like the concert shoot

astro
10-05-2005, 02:08 PM
How did you take the turtle shoot?? :eek:
Underwater casing, aquapac bag or something else?

oh btw I like the concert shoot

probably at an aquarium through the glass ;)

eduardofrances
10-05-2005, 02:30 PM
:D amazing shots thanks for sharing them with us Tadah :D

tadah
10-05-2005, 03:08 PM
How did you take the turtle shoot?? :eek:
Underwater casing, aquapac bag or something else?

oh btw I like the concert shoot

underwater world in the mall of america - it's a really cool walk-through underground aquairum.

thank you!

Ironman11
10-20-2005, 06:32 PM
Here's a few of my sample shots, taken at the local race track. These arent like the other samples, (which are amazing), which have great lighting and artistic subjects. This is a night short-track race, where the lighting isnt great, so you have to push a camera to the limits.

As you can see, this picture is kind of noisy, as it was taken at ISO 3200. I shot it with my trusty Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens, which I would recommend to any sports photographer. The picture was taken as a JPG, and the only post-processing was a little color correction.

Ironman11
10-20-2005, 06:36 PM
Here's another shot, of a carefully orcestrated pit stop at South Georgia Motorsports park.

Like the other pic, this was shot in JPG mode.

WightWalker
10-21-2005, 11:32 AM
Here's a few of my sample shots, taken at the local race track. These arent like the other samples, (which are amazing), which have great lighting and artistic subjects. This is a night short-track race, where the lighting isnt great, so you have to push a camera to the limits.

As you can see, this picture is kind of noisy, as it was taken at ISO 3200. I shot it with my trusty Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens, which I would recommend to any sports photographer. The picture was taken as a JPG, and the only post-processing was a little color correction.

Terrific shots which just go to show how GOOD the *istDS is even when the ISO is pushed to the limits

eduardofrances
10-21-2005, 02:07 PM
Very nice! there is less noise than powershot a85 at ISO 400! and lots of details :eek:

Ironman11
10-21-2005, 05:34 PM
Very nice! there is less noise than powershot a85 at ISO 400! and lots of details :eek:

Thats exactly what I was thinking, although I was comparing the noise to an S1 IS. I'm a pretty new DS user, and I just love it!

Ironman11
10-21-2005, 06:54 PM
Just to show you a little more of the track pics:

The first one is a daylight shot, of Jeff Fultz qualifying, taken with the Pentax 18-55 kit lens.

The second one is an actual race shot, taken with the Sigma 70-200 f2.8, at ISO 3200.

Please let me know what you guys think and if you can think of any ways to improve my shots with this awesome camera!

Balrog
10-21-2005, 07:44 PM
Ironman - can you elaborate on your technique a bit? I'm interested in finding the best way to do panning shots with the DS.
Do you use continuous autofocus? If so, does the lack of manual controls bother you?
Or do you do it in manual mode with focus trap? or something else entirely?

eduardofrances
10-21-2005, 10:06 PM
Thats exactly what I was thinking, although I was comparing the noise to an S1 IS. I'm a pretty new DS user, and I just love it!

Yeap I have seen it, even when we know that smaller sensors tend to have more noise (ie powershot a 85 and S1 IS) it is impresive to see that the noise is very usable in 1600 in the APS sized sensor in the IST DS, I am waiting for the Cheaper brother the IST DL to be reviewed :)

Balrog
10-21-2005, 11:01 PM
The DL isn't really worth it, imho; the viewfinder which was the best thing about it has been downgraded to the same level as the rest of the competition, it has a larger LCD - big deal; it only has 3 AF points (vs 11 on the DS). Not to mention it's currently retailing at about the same price as its big brother...
If you're looking for a DS for cheap, www.dbuys.com still has it for $580 body or $650 with kit lens. I just got one from them, ordered it last friday and received it on wednesday.

Ironman11
10-22-2005, 03:39 AM
Ironman - can you elaborate on your technique a bit? I'm interested in finding the best way to do panning shots with the DS.
Do you use continuous autofocus? If so, does the lack of manual controls bother you?
Or do you do it in manual mode with focus trap? or something else entirely?

Well, I use manual mode, which means no continuous-AF. At night, my setup is ISO 3200, 1/350 shutter, and f3.5. As far as focusing goes, I'm not real sure how to explain it. For daylight, such as the qualifying shot, I just panned with the car, pressed the shutter to focus around the middle of the pan, and just took the picture. Of course, this is because daylight helps the DS focus quickly, and you have a larger depth-of-field. For night, I think I focused on a spot of the track, or a car ahead of the subject, and then panned to that spot while following the subject and took the shot. Of course, I took these shots about a month ago, so I cant remember my exact technique. I believe some night shots I simply panned while waiting for the DS to auto-focus, and whenever it focused, the cars were generally in a good position for a shot. I did use a monopod, which helped with smoother pans. Although I'm not sure if these are the best ways to shoot, they worked well for me. My advice is just to experiment with them, and see if you like it.

About not having continous auto focus (except for 'moving object' mode), its really not that bad. The DS is a fast-focusing camera (in most cases), and it comes through when you need it.

eduardofrances
10-22-2005, 10:49 PM
The DL isn't really worth it, imho; the viewfinder which was the best thing about it has been downgraded to the same level as the rest of the competition, it has a larger LCD - big deal; it only has 3 AF points (vs 11 on the DS). Not to mention it's currently retailing at about the same price as its big brother...
If you're looking for a DS for cheap, www.dbuys.com still has it for $580 body or $650 with kit lens. I just got one from them, ordered it last friday and received it on wednesday.
thanks a lot for the tip I had searched for it but many stores didnt have the DS in stock :D

thanks Balrog :D

Balrog
10-23-2005, 10:13 AM
Heheh :) my pleasure.

WightWalker
10-24-2005, 05:08 AM
Shot with the standard kit lens @ 1/180 f11

WightWalker
10-25-2005, 06:14 AM
Taken with standard lens @ 1/180 f8

campbell.robertson
11-16-2005, 12:04 PM
Hi,

I have been enjoying my new ist DS, however I have a K mount M 200mm lens that I used with my old K-1000. How do I get it to work with the DS? I know that I will be completely manual, but when I set the lens setting to MF and pick manual (M) on the dial, nothing happens? I have checked the manual and can't figure out what I am doing.

Help!

Thanks

Campbell

Balrog
11-16-2005, 01:14 PM
The M series didn't have the auto setting on the aperture ring, so you'll have to enable the "allow aperture ring" custom setting. It should work after that.

campbell.robertson
11-18-2005, 09:35 AM
Thanks for the help with getting my Pentax SMC 200mm M lens working with this great camera.

Here are two pics. The one of the building I unfortunately took on macro setting, still getting used to the camera

astro
11-18-2005, 10:48 PM
Great pics!

I have another advice you'll find useful that I intially had trouble with. The M lens have trouble stopping down unless you're using M mode. But with Pentax's great backwards compatibility, you still can get metering under this manual mode. To meter, you just press the AE-L button and it'll automatically stop down and give you the proper metering.

Hope that helps :)

WightWalker
12-03-2005, 04:01 AM
Taken with the kit lens @ 1/60S f6.6 these ferns at a bit of colour when back lit on an otherwise grey November day.

WightWalker
12-31-2005, 03:18 AM
Taken with 'kit lens' 1/180S @ f22

pjdemmitt
01-03-2006, 01:26 AM
I'm using the *ist DS also!
I think the SMC Takumar 28mm F/3.5 would be a great lens. You'd need a $10 adapter though. I think these older takumar lenses actually work better than the newer Pentax-M lenses as the metering works 100% in aperture priority mode. The newer M ones, on the other hand, won't stop down in Av mode, and will always stay in the widest aperture, unless you use M mode.


I have SMC Takumar lenses that I would like to try to use on my istDS. Do you know where I can get one?

Thanks in advance...Paul

isis
01-14-2006, 08:51 PM
:) These are wonderful shots and with the kit lens!! Thanks for sharing. Isis

astro
01-15-2006, 12:33 AM
I have SMC Takumar lenses that I would like to try to use on my istDS. Do you know where I can get one?

Thanks in advance...Paul

I got mine from B&H, it costed $15.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=70648&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

You might be able to find it for less if you look around.

WightWalker
01-30-2006, 02:14 PM
After some initial disappointment with RAW having played around with most of the RAW converters available, I'd steered clear of using JPEG.

However, recent results using RAW & Pentax PhotoLab have been somewhat of a revelation - set to AUTO, it produces bright, crisp, punchy shoots which are far superior to their JPEG counterpart without the hastle of tweaking things to get it right.

This shoot was taken using my Sigma 28-135mm Macro Zoom which I'd previously found to be diasappointing; well I'm well chuffed with results & will be sticking with the RAW format in future.

astro
01-31-2006, 03:07 PM
I'd use raw if the Adobe Bridge program didn't suck so much for previewing raw pictures. I hate how it does the autoadjust on every raw picture, it does more harm that good for most. And the preview picture is absolutely horrible quality.
This is one of the main reasons why I still stick with JPG.

WightWalker
02-01-2006, 01:40 AM
I'd use raw if the Adobe Bridge program didn't suck so much for previewing raw pictures. I hate how it does the autoadjust on every raw picture, it does more harm that good for most. And the preview picture is absolutely horrible quality.
This is one of the main reasons why I still stick with JPG.
On my 2G Athlon PC. Adobe Bridge takes up too much of the resources & everything grinds along at snail's pace, so I only use Photoshop for image manipulation etc.

I'd previously used the Adobe RAW converter &, as you pointed out, the auto adjust is always wrong & has to be turned off virtually every time. Notwithstanding that, I never got any results that I was totally pleased with. Yesterday, I was in Jessops (Photo shop in UK) & during the conversation, the assistance commented that all he wanted to be able to do was to produce an image from RAW that looked like the previewed shot; to date he hadn't managed to do that.

That's the reason that I'd steered clear of RAW after some initial disappointment.

Having looked again at the RAW converted output from Pentax Photolab, Adobe RAW, BreezeBrowser, Capture One Pro, RAW Shooter Premium & Bibble compared with a JPEG produced image, I discovered to my surprise, that the Pentax PhotLab looked exceedingly good, just like the JPEG & much sharper.

So, in conclusion, have a look at the software supplied with the camera & if you want SHARP JPEGs without too much hastle, then Pentax PhotoLab could be just the right tool for you - it is for me.

If you haven't done so, check out my post on RAW Files & their conversion here for sample shots: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16752

beachluvr
02-06-2006, 12:58 AM
Hey Pentax owners

My first SLR (not my first camera) was a Pentax. I have many times recommended something like a K1000 to students who want to learn the art of photography and not get all wrapped up in techie stuff. As I look at the photos submitted here it feels good to see that Pentax is still an amazing price/value camera capable of excellent results in the right hands. It's a shame some think that the world revolves around the two most advertised DSLR names, when there are some fine cameras like Pentax, Olympus, Konica Minolta, etc. to be had.

I haven't had time to surf the sample shots forums until lately, but I am enjoying seeing what can be done with a creative eye and a decent camera.

beachluvr
02-06-2006, 01:00 AM
Opps, also meant to say that it seems that Pentax owners seem to be a little more serious about some of what goes on in pre and post processing of images than owners of certain other brands. Does anyone else think there's any merit to that observation?

astro
02-06-2006, 06:25 AM
Thanks Wightwalker, I'll try out Pentax Photolab. Doesn't photoshop reputedly have sharper RAW processing than photolab though?

beachvlur, I agree with you. Most people seem to have an impression that Pentax is a third-rate brand that isn't worth considering and has nothing good over Canon/Nikon. Quite a shame.

MatH
02-06-2006, 06:29 AM
Since Pentax isn't popular camera brand, entry level dSLR users buy it based on its specifications and their estimated needs whilst on the other hand many Nikon and even more Canon entry level dSLR users buy their cameras based on popularity. What maters to that type of users is an impresive and expensive camera from a well known brand that makes better pictures than P&S. Learning to use full potentials of camera takes too much effort for that type of users. Their standard answer to this type of claims is that their camera does a good yob by it's self so they don't need to shoot raw, postprocess, compensate exposure etc...
If Pentax was the most popular camera brand those type of users would be among us rather than at Canon or perhaps Nikon

WightWalker
02-06-2006, 08:31 AM
Thanks Wightwalker, I'll try out Pentax Photolab. Doesn't photoshop reputedly have sharper RAW processing than photolab though?
Pentax Photolab has a manual sharpness setting between +/-3 whereas Adobe Photoshop RAW has a sharpness setting of 100 - quite what that means is anyone's guess but I hope the attached comparison provides some clue but my money's on Pentax PhotoLab.


beachvlur, I agree with you. Most people seem to have an impression that Pentax is a third-rate brand that isn't worth considering and has nothing good over Canon/Nikon. Quite a shame.
Nikon & Canon are seen as icons to follow & have more apparent appeal. Discerning purchasers (& I am one) look at what the product offers & make a decision based upon that - hence the reason why I went for Pentax as it was at the time the smallest & lightest dSRL providing quality based on the same Sony CCD that's used in the Nikon.

beachluvr
02-06-2006, 10:39 AM
Thanks for the insight guys. I'm enjoying reading the posts from Pentax users. I'm getting a general feeling that many people who chose Pentax DSLRs might also be those who tend to choose other things like cars, clothes, places to dine, etc. by bucking the popular trends.

I've seen a fair share of people with a Nikon or Canon DSLR hanging prominently around their necks like so much bling. With many they have enough money to pay the price, but never switch the camera from "dummy" mode and never intend to use any lens but what came with the camera.

Could these be the same people who bought a big 4x4 SUV because it was trendy, but never have (or will) shift it into 4-wheel drive?

coldrain
02-06-2006, 11:03 AM
Pentax Photolab has a manual sharpness setting between +/-3 whereas Adobe Photoshop RAW has a sharpness setting of 100 - quite what that means is anyone's guess but I hope the attached comparison provides some clue but my money's on Pentax PhotoLab.


Nikon & Canon are seen as icons to follow & have more apparent appeal. Discerning purchasers (& I am one) look at what the product offers & make a decision based upon that - hence the reason why I went for Pentax as it was at the time the smallest & lightest dSRL providing quality based on the same Sony CCD that's used in the Nikon.
The Photolab sample is very over saturated and also very over sharpened, is that at standard settings? What part of the over sharpening does the downsizing play here? You would think downsizing would make the effects of the sharpening a bit less, it is as if you have applied a lot of sharpening after downsizing...

Spot focus
02-06-2006, 01:54 PM
I'd use raw if the Adobe Bridge program didn't suck so much for previewing raw pictures. I hate how it does the autoadjust on every raw picture, it does more harm that good for most. And the preview picture is absolutely horrible quality.
This is one of the main reasons why I still stick with JPG.
Hi Astro I suggest you have a look a silkypix it has a free trial :)

WightWalker
02-06-2006, 02:40 PM
The Photolab sample is very over saturated and also very over sharpened, is that at standard settings? What part of the over sharpening does the downsizing play here? You would think downsizing would make the effects of the sharpening a bit less, it is as if you have applied a lot of sharpening after downsizing...
astro was questioning whether Adobe Photoshop RAW provided more sharpening than Pentax Photlab; this comparison pushed both to their maximaum to enable then to be compared side by side. IMHO, the Pentax at setting 3 produced as sharp an image as Adobe at setting 100.

Yes, in it's default settings, Pentax Photolab does produce more vivid/saturated colours which IMHO more closely matches those produced when creating a JPEG straight out of the camera. In that respect, Pentax Photolab when set to AUTO produces a much sharper image than it's JPEG counterpart BUT with similar colour rendition i.e. JPEG convenience with sharper results which is exactly what I've been looking for.

In my comments in another post, I'd said that I'd steered clear of using RAW as it was extremely time consuming & to be honest, I couldn't seem to get a result that looked similar to the preview when viewed in the camera. I conducted some tests using most of (if not all) of the available RAW converters to see what results could be simply created & what surprised me was tha Pentax Photolab was the closed to the JPEG image that I used for the comparison BUT MUCH sharper. In this respect it satisfies my criteria. I've published this to provide useful information for others that might be looking for similar results. I appreciate that it will not satify the more discerning picture taker who will probably want to fine tune each image to meet their requirements.

The image has been reduced in size using DCE (Digital Camera AutoEnhance) - resize ONLY with no additioanl enhancements. I use the Lanczos 3 reduction setting as it produces clearer images than other products. No additional sharpening has been applied.

The attached image is a FULL SIZE section from the original image saved down to 250K for publishing here with additional comparison of zero applied sharpness & -3 applied saturation.

WightWalker
02-18-2006, 03:41 AM
Taken using the Pentax 50-300mm DA Zoom to see how good the lens performs on close ups - quite impresive!!

Focal Length - 200mm (equiv 300mm)
Shutter Speed - 1/180S
Aperture - f13
Closest focus distance

WightWalker
02-18-2006, 03:49 AM
Also taken with the Pentax 50-200mm DA Zoom Carisbrooke Castle is just over 2 miles away whilst Portsmoth's Spinnaker Tower is 14 miles away. Given the relative poor visibility of the day, the detail is quite outstanding:

Focal Length - 200mm (equiv 300mm)
Shutter Speed - 1/250S
Aperture - f9.5
Infinity focus

WightWalker
02-24-2006, 07:36 AM
Shot using the Pentax 50-200mm DA
Shutter Speed 1/250S
F-number 9.5
Focal Length 115mm

WightWalker
03-22-2006, 09:17 AM
Taken with the Pentax 50-200DS & shoy in RAW using PPL v2 on Auto to convert to JPRG
Exposure Time - 1/250S
F-number - f11
ISO - 200
Focal Length - 200mm (SRL equivalent - 300mm)

WightWalker
03-22-2006, 09:20 AM
Taken with the Pentax 50-200DS & shoy in RAW using PPL v2 on Auto to convert to JPRG
Exposure Time - 1/250S
F-number - f6.7
ISO -400
Focal Length - 150mm (SRL equivalent - 225mm)

MatH
04-10-2006, 09:47 AM
Time for some samples from me as well
I've declared the lens used. For more info check exif.

Sigma 18-50/2.8 DC EX
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd2/4489/Slike/Sonce_na_snegu_3225.jpg

Sigma 18-50/2.8 DC EX
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd2/4489/Slike/Mrtvica_3238.jpg

Sigma 18-50/2.8 DC EX
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd2/4489/Slike/Polje_3567.jpg

Sigma 135-400/4.5-5.6 APO
http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd2/4489/Slike/Kanja_3561psp.jpg

WightWalker
04-13-2006, 11:22 AM
Time for some samples from me as well
I've declared the lens used. For more info check exif.


Great pictures

WightWalker
04-13-2006, 02:47 PM
Thought I'd give my old M Series 100mm Macro lens a test - when I went to sell it, I was informed that there was internal 'blooming' which would affect contract - another dealer commented that it had condensation inside.

Well here's a close up of a Ladybird shot using Pentax *istDS
Shutter Speed - 1/125S
F number - f8

MatH
05-15-2006, 06:49 AM
Sigma 18-50/2.8 DC EX

MatH
05-15-2006, 07:17 AM
Sigma 18-50/2.8 DC EX

CptOfGondor
05-15-2006, 09:06 AM
Awesome pics! Still remember those camera shots of your pentax when it came out of the mine. That was awesome.

Chilious
05-16-2006, 08:04 AM
Hello. I got my Pentax *ist Ds three weeks ago, and I love it. Here are some pictures. Please, feel free to comment.
The first picture is taken with the Pentax 50-200mm, all the others with the kit lens.

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/69817508-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/69228788-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/69236383-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/69236450-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/69236429-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/69236378-L.jpg

WightWalker
07-13-2006, 10:38 AM
Just though I'd post this to keep the thread going - It's also quite a good shot, even if I say so myself.

AnalogueToDigital
07-17-2006, 12:43 AM
Here's one from my trip to Bali, taken with my *ist DS & sigma 18 - 125, hand held.

MatH
07-17-2006, 01:36 AM
Nice to see some update. Here's mine. Took it with Sigma 70-300/4-5.6 APO macro Super II

CptOfGondor
07-20-2006, 05:45 PM
How on earth did you capture that shot!?! :eek:

MatH
07-21-2006, 02:02 AM
I'm a preetty fast runner and I used a sturdy tripod as well ;)

but seriously, the fly was floating still now and then so I was able to take a picture of it.

MatH
07-27-2006, 10:22 AM
Sigma 105/2.8 macro. Av11 Tv13sec.

WightWalker
07-29-2006, 11:39 AM
Sigma 105/2.8 macro. Av11 Tv13sec.
That's a really 'ugly' brute well captured by your macro lens - but how did you get it to stay still for 13 seconds

AnalogueToDigital
07-30-2006, 01:34 AM
That's a really 'ugly' brute well captured by your macro lens - but how did you get it to stay still for 13 seconds

superglue?:D

MatH
07-31-2006, 01:07 AM
That's a really 'ugly' brute well captured by your macro lens - but how did you get it to stay still for 13 seconds

When I first noticed it he was moving one of his tentacles. After 5min when I came back with a tripod he was standig rock solid. I gues exoskeletal organisms can do that.

Chilious
09-07-2006, 08:27 AM
Some pictures from various locations in San Diego.

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579735-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579725-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579742-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579767-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579728-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93560622-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93592683-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93592681-L.jpg

jeisner
09-07-2006, 03:54 PM
great series Chilious...

Chilious
09-07-2006, 06:56 PM
great series Chilious...
Thanks, Jeisner.
Here's another picture.
http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93736660-L.jpg

Chilious
09-09-2006, 10:19 PM
San Diego continued.
http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579732-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579731-L.jpg http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579737-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579740-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579746-L.jpg http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579749-L.jpg

Chilious
09-09-2006, 10:24 PM
http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579753-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579755-L.jpg

http://rsm.smugmug.com/photos/93579771-L.jpg

CptOfGondor
09-14-2006, 07:26 PM
Hey guys, yea I kinda feel like the ugly duckling of the bunch but inside its still a Pentax *ist DL2 at heart..lol. ok I was wondering. out of the box jpegs are kinda soft and I don't feel like getting into RAW right now. but I remember reading somehwere that you get a marked improvement if you tweak the settings a little but I can't remember the modifiers. Does ..eh anyone know? :confused:

Samsung GX-1L w/ 50mm

ISO400
f2.8

Sharpness +1

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v337/CptOfGondor/Sharpness1.jpg

eduardofrances
09-14-2006, 07:38 PM
Hey guys, yea I kinda feel like the ugly duckling of the bunch but inside its still a Pentax *ist DL2 at heart..lol. ok I was wondering. out of the box jpegs are kinda soft and I don't feel like getting into RAW right now. but I remember reading somehwere that you get a marked improvement if you tweak the settings a little but I can't remember the modifiers. Does ..eh anyone know? :confused:

why would you feel like the ugly duckling you have a camera :)! that is what matters!!

Read your manual to know where you can change the settings for the Sharpening you can see here too the DS2 share almost the same menu as the DL2
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/istds2_pg5.html
:)

CptOfGondor
09-14-2006, 08:00 PM
finally digital. but that Samsung logo will have to take a little getting used to. It would have been nice to go ME, MZ-M, *Ist DL2. or soemthing like that and not a SMACK!....SAAAMMMSUNG..lol.

anyways, yea I know about the menus and stuff but I remember reading somewhere that you get get a good improvement in your jpegs with certain mods to the sharpness, saturation and stuff.

Reps
09-17-2006, 03:26 PM
As I noticed of Your test image it was Casio S500 (detecting error maybe...)- but I can share Your hesitations: I use my Casio Z750 always as a companion for my other gear (dSLR ones I mean)- and have always heard from my wife that Casio's pics are better- but this is the first reaction (based on DOF- everything is clear at first sight...)- later on she is impressed about bokeh and something she could not tell- until she realized at last: these are the REAL pics :-) And what is the great difference- I really do not know because the beauty is in the eyes of the viewer... but still... creativity is impossible without the... cam- and if JPEG somehow limits it- so my suggestion: if JPEG seems limiting then USE RAW!

Best and happy shooting, JR

WightWalker
10-01-2006, 09:40 AM
Thought I'd share this with you