Kim Letkeman: I am obviously waaaayyyyy out of tune with this thread .... these are amazingly creative and just plain cute. But technically, they are hard on the eyes. Yuck to the tone, color, and lighting for at least 3/4 of them. But hey ... what do I know.
They were shot on Portra 400 which is optimized for skintones, but tends to be a bit blue-deficient as a consequence. It also tends to have less punchy blacks in my experience. To me these shots just have a classic color negative look.
I work with seasoned models who don't show as much personality as this young lady. Too cute!
D1N0: Under water photo's can be corrected in lightroom. Maybe shoot some photo's in a swimming pool? Since a lot of people will use it for that? (Or will you get arrested for that nowadays?)
You have a good point, pevee. I do understand that the DR of a tiny sensor can't compare to that of an APS-C, let alone a full frame or larger sensor. For me, the desire for a waterproof camera that shoots RAW is as much about my workflow as it is image quality. Being able to re-interpret WB after the fact, color profiling with my ColorChecker Passport. The MX-1 can shoot in RAW, so why not a waterproof compact with the same sensor?
The color casts we're seeing in these images are correctable as JPEGs, but the results would be so much better with 12-bit RAW files. Why manufacturers haven't done this already boggles my mind. I don't care if it shoots 2 SPF (not a typeo), give me RAW and they will get my $$$, until then they're just throwing away R&D dollars as far as I'm concerned.
The graphic designer who created the above image probably should have thought things through a bit more, the last thing you want to see coming out of your underwater camera is air bubbles.
Bruce Lee called, he wants his jumpsuit back.
Finally! A camera with a mode dial that rotates 360 degrees! I can die happy.
I have to think it would be easier to train a photographer as a writer than to train a writer as a photographer, no offense meant.
Münchhausen: @ dpreview: Thanks a lot for this samples; I would like to see a report on the behaviour of the FA-Limiteds (like the 43 you used on the K-5II) on both K-5II and K-5IIs. My expierence, and you can read a detailed description at Klaus´photozone.de, is that the 43Lim isn´t very sharp from edge to edge on the original K-5 (very mushy corners at 2.8, no corners at all at 1.9, but excellent center sharpness), contrary to the K-7 and older models. One idea was that this was the fault of the more than fairly strong AA-filter on the K-5; but the samples with the 43Lim on the K-5II you posted seem better to me, even very acceptable or good at 2.8. If the K-5II has a weaker AA-filter than the K-5, than the FA-Limiteds should really shine on the K-5IIs...Would be nice to read your opinion!Best regardsM.
I don't own the lens myself, but I noticed a big discrepancy in sharpness between the two reviews on Photozone.de of the FA43 on the K10 vs. the K5. It could be that the pixels of the Samsung CCD (I think) used in the K10 are more forgiving of non-telecentric lens designs than the Sony sensor used in the K5. Or, more likely, Klaus just got a bad copy of the lens for his second review. Still, it is strange.
Of course the FA Limiteds were optimized for real-world scenes, not test charts, a certain amount of field curvature was intentionally left uncorrected. There is a very interesting paper written by the lens's designer, Hirakawa Jun, discussing the design philosophy behind the FA Limiteds. Particular importance was given to the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus regions. In my opinion that's what makes these lenses so special, and of course their size.
Uhhh so... just put the stolen lens on an older body?
Rick Knepper: PENTAX Announces Rebates on the Highly Acclaimed 645D System as well as on select Limited Lenses when purchased with its Flagship DSLR, the K-5 IIs
Unless I am reading this wrong, this statement does not seem to jive with the actual rebate verbiage on the website. These two cameras serve very different markets and seems illogical to tie the purchase of one to the other.
Methinks someone forgot to proofread the title. Actually buying the K5IIs gets you a rebate on the K-mount FA Limiteds when purchased at the same time. Buying the 645D gets you a rebate on the 645-mount DA 25mm or DFA 90mm macro, and a free 645 DA 55mm.
Maxfield_photo: I own the Sekonic 758DR and the color checker passport, and they are both worth their weight in gold. I got to play with the 478 at a camera show, and it seems pretty cool, but I'm not used to touch screens, sort of a doubly steep learning curve for me. Gotta say though it would be really nice to have the manual light controls remotely right there in the meter.
If you find yourself wondering, "Do I really need a light meter?", well honestly, no, unless you work in a high volume production studio and need to meter ratios quickly and precisely 'need' is too strong a word. Will a light meter and a color checker improve your photography? Yes, immensely.
I agree with you completely, everyone can benefit from owning a good light meter, but I read so many posts asking "Do I really need to buy a light meter?", I think it's hard for some digital shooters to understand how mind-blowingly useful it is. They don't think of it in the same terms as a sharp, fast lens, it's just not as sexy to them. Ironically the light meter will probably do as much if not more to improve the quality of their photography though.
But "need"? No, one can chimp and fiddle one's way to a good photograph these days using the LCD on the camera, and then fiddle and chimp their way though the next shoot and the next. It's not like the days of shooting E-6 film (actually I still do that), where missing the exposure by a stop meant you just cost the bride memories of the happiest day of her life.
I'll put it this way, if I had to sell off my gear a piece at a time to make ends meet, the last thing to go would be my camera and lens, next to last would be my light meter.
I own the Sekonic 758DR and the color checker passport, and they are both worth their weight in gold. I got to play with the 478 at a camera show, and it seems pretty cool, but I'm not used to touch screens, sort of a doubly steep learning curve for me. Gotta say though it would be really nice to have the manual light controls remotely right there in the meter.
Jeff Peterman: Amazing how our expectations have changed. To me, these are grainy and over saturated compared to modern digital images!
Our expectations have indeed changed, though perhaps not for the better. I suppose you would have pounded that grain into submission with the noise reduction slider, turned down the saturation slider till the red blinkies went away, added a tone curve to get rid of some of that annoying contrast, and sharpened it up with some unsharp mask?
The beauty of film is that each one has it's own characteristics and quirks. Photographers call it the "look" of a film. Some are grainy, some are contrasty, some are colorful, and you choose the right look to match your artistic vision the way a sculptor would choose a block of marble to carve his masterpiece. And like a sculpture where the imperfections in color and texture in the rock contribute to the overall aesthetic of the work, so to does film grain add to the feel of an image.
I guess that's lost on some photographers these days.
Every time I have problems with color from a roll of film these days, I can't help but think "If only I had loaded Kodachrome" Probably just selective memory, but what a great film it was, we shall never see it's equal again in this world.
Ok camera manufacturers, listen up, first one to make a waterproof camera that shoots in RAW gets my money, but not a penny till then.
Can I please have my full frame now? I've been patient...
This camera just became more appealing
Maxfield_photo: Although this camera isn't for me, I like the brass, and I hope to see that as an option on future Pentax offerings.
But FFS, what is with the goofy sensor measurements? What is 1/1.7 of an inch? Who thinks in those terms? Why not say .58 inches, or better yet 15mm.
I'm just saying, if they want a decimal they should have a decimal, if they want a fraction they should have a fraction, but decimals within fractions really grind my gears :P 9/16th would be reasonably close, and it's easy to visualize, just over half.
But I still maintain that millimeters would be the best way to measure it since lenses are measured in mm. And it gives you a point of reference, 15mm would be the sensor diagonal of this camera, hence a zoom setting of 15mm would equate to a "normal" lens, or 43mm in 35mm terms. From there we can work out the crop factor, 43 ÷ 15 = 2.9X
I agree the only reason to use such confusing notation is to obfuscate the diminutive size of the sensor.