Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Fnarf on March 13, 2007, 04:51:57 pm
-
I'm sure this has been asked a million times before, but I'm asking again. I'm looking at buying a new DSLR for general purposes: travel, snapshots, landscapes, portraits, weirdo art photography, you name it.
I currently shoot a 40-year-old Nikon F, which is pretty much bomb-proof, and have a large collection of lenses, finders, and other gear that's not going to help me at all. I customarily scan my film and am pretty adept in Photoshop CS2. I also shoot an older Panasonic wide-zoom point and shoot digital (FZ3) and a large variety of weird cameras, junkstore stuff, half-frame (Kyocera Samurai), pinhole, etc. etc. My favorite setup of all is the Nikon F with a gigantic "Speed Magny" polaroid back on it. I'm not very talented but I have a lot of range! But I want to get a bit more serious.
I don't have a lot of money. Discussions of the merits of the Canon 5D versus Nikon D2 are of no use to me. The cameras I'm looking at are the Nikon D40, the Canon Digital Rebel XTi, and the Pentax K100D, with some sidelong glances at the D200 (can't afford it) and the Pentax K10D.
I don't care about megapixels. My primary output is on the web. 10 MP isn't really anything more than a pain for me, as it means more cards and more processing time (a lot of which is just throwing pixels away, yawn). What I DO want, and can't get from any P&S, is: decent glass, shooting in the dark, shooting wide and very wide, and the flexibility of changing lenses.
The D40 sounds perfect. The only problem is, its $200 price advantage over Canon disappears when you factor in the 12-24mm lens that works with it, which is $200 more than the comparable (and apparently significantly better) Canon 10-20mm EF lens that works with the XTi. The fabulous new 18-200mm lens from Nikon is moot, because it's out of stock everywhere and it's too expensive. So I'm thinking about the D40 with the kit lens plus the 12-24mm, and then adding the new 55-200 VR lens later when I can afford it. Wide is more important to me than long, at least at first.
I know everyone says Canon kicks %$# in the high ISO category, but in my price range I've looked at the test shots everywhere and I just don't see it. They look very close to me. Especially at my expected output resolution I think it's better to have the 3200 ISO option than not.
But then I started look at the Pentax. It has virtually every feature I want except RGB histograms. I think I can live without that. If I change my mind, or you change it for me, there's always the K10D, which has that nice weatherproofing too. And Pentax has a VERY INTERESTING lens selection: good ranges, good primes (there are no primes for the D40), and great prices, because the anti-shake is on the camera. Assuming Pentax doesn't get blown out of the DSLR market, this looks like a system I can build on, maybe upgrading my body in a few years. The same applies to Nikon and Canon, but the lens choices are more expensive like-for-like. Causing me further pain is Pentax's extensive rebate program right now which is making it very hard not to just pick up the phone and max out the credit card this minute, even though that means most of my photographs will be of me sitting in my new post-divorce apartment.
Comments eagerly awaited. Particularly bitterly partisan ones from the legions of Canon and Nikon zealots!
-
The Xti is a nice camera but the viewfinder is insanely small. I know nothing of the d40 but if you want bright lenses you usually want primes and, well, good luck with that. If I was starting over I'd get the pentax for the great primes and those two new f2.8 zooms they've got coming in may.
-
The Xti is a nice camera but the viewfinder is insanely small. I know nothing of the d40 but if you want bright lenses you usually want primes and, well, good luck with that. If I was starting over I'd get the pentax for the great primes and those two new f2.8 zooms they've got coming in may.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks. I'm really leaning Pentax, for the glass, right now. There is Nikon and Canon glass as good (not primes though) but not at a similar price -- those VR-on-the-lens motors are expensive.
The XTi feels really bad in my hand, I have to say, while the Nikon feels great even though it's tiny. The menus, meh -- I like the Nikon better but it's not a huge difference. I haven't handled a Pentax yet. My pro-photographer buddy of course says stuff like "go Canon all the way, that's all anybody uses now, the 5D is what you want", but he is strangely unwilling to hand over the extra dough required to buy the thing.
When people say "Canons are flat-out better in low light, high-ISO situations" are they referring only to the 5D or better?
-
I have a Canon 5D and a fair amount of expensive Canon glass, and I love it all.
I used Pentax film cameras for many years and found them (and the lenses) excellent. If they had gotten into serious digital a bit earlier, I wouldn't have ditched all my Pentax gear for Canon.
Having said all that, I would suggest going with the Nikon if that feels good in your hands. Nikon and Canon both make excellent lenses and cameras and some dogs as well. Pentax is playing catch up, and I hope they succeed. But since you are familiar with Nikon already, and the D40 feels "right", why not go for it?
There seem to be many more Canon users than Nikon users on the LL forum, but the Nikon users include some very fine photographers (I think immediately of Bernard L. and Lisa "NNiko", though Bernard also sometimes uses some fancy zip-whiz Medium Format monster with 19 gazillion megapixels.)
Good luck in your quest, and let us know what you decide on.
-
Everyone is catching up. The 30D should be better in low light than the Xti. The 20D certainly is.
-
I gotta say I love my K10D. I use it extensively with the 12-24mm and classic limited series primes and it's absolutely a dream to handle. If I was shopping for a travel rig I wouldn't hesitate to go with the K100D and trio of limited pancakes. (And for going wider the 14mm prime would balance on the smaller body better than the 12-24.)
That said, if you're happy with Nikon now you're not likely going to be disappointed in any of their current offerings. There's not a bum in the lot.
Both Pentax and Nikon make damn fine cameras (and Canon makes a pretty good sensor.)
-
Just to reiterate -- the Nikon I am "comfortable with" now is forty years old, fully manual everything, heavy and strong enough to pound tent pegs in with. All my lens are Non-AI, which means they are never going to be useful on any Nikon digital offering. So I'm hardly locked into anything. Well, I suppose I could use my circular polarizer....
The Pentax is making me sweat right now. I need to go look at one. The viewfinder is apparently not too hot, about like the XTi. That's a good idea, mix the 14 prime as my superwide instead of the zoom. I'm not super concerned about balance, having experience with crazy-heavy and weird setups. I'm not really familiar with zoom; my Panasonic point-and-shoot has electronic (lever) zoom, which is very different, and frankly I like the mental focus of a prime. Those pancakes look sweet.
I'm narrowing it down. I don't think the Canon is going to work; I just can't get into a higher price point on a body, and I don't want to live with the XTi for X years just so I can get into that very nice super-wide zoom of theirs.
Does anyone have any experience with Pentax's 16-44mm f/4.0 wide zoom? It's a little pricier than the kit lens.
-
There seem to be many more Canon users than Nikon users on the LL forum, but the Nikon users include some very fine photographers (I think immediately of Bernard L. and Lisa "NNiko", though Bernard also sometimes uses some fancy zip-whiz Medium Format monster with 19 gazillion megapixels.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks Eric, laughed out loud in the office when reading that.
If I were to start from zero today, I would seriously consider Pentax, because they make nice camera, and also to help them balance up the playing field a little. 3 competitors are better than 2.
Now, it is true that Canon and Nikon offer more complete systems which could help enabling some types of photography (like low light photography with the 5D for instance). If you pick the Nikon route, make sure to also consider the new D40x (10MP version of the D40). Amazingly, the guys who wrote the PMA report for LL didn't even mention it, but it will be available for sales in one week from now.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Amazingly, the guys who wrote the PMA report for LL didn't even mention it, but it will be available for sales in one week from now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106551\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe the LL Canon censors made them cut all references to Nikon.
-
The Pentax is making me sweat right now. I need to go look at one. The viewfinder is apparently not too hot, about like the XTi. That's a good idea, mix the 14 prime as my superwide instead of the zoom. I'm not super concerned about balance, having experience with crazy-heavy and weird setups. I'm not really familiar with zoom; my Panasonic point-and-shoot has electronic (lever) zoom, which is very different, and frankly I like the mental focus of a prime. Those pancakes look sweet.
I'm narrowing it down. I don't think the Canon is going to work; I just can't get into a higher price point on a body, and I don't want to live with the XTi for X years just so I can get into that very nice super-wide zoom of theirs.
Does anyone have any experience with Pentax's 16-44mm f/4.0 wide zoom? It's a little pricier than the kit lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106550\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I love my Pentax K10D and K100D bodies. I find the viewfinder excellent in both cameras. I added Katz Eye Optics custom focusing screens which give me the feeling of the old manual cameras and I love it. I find the Pentax DA 12-24/4.0 to be a superb lens. Although I own one, I rarely use my Pentax DA 16-45/4.0 lens these days. I have lots of great shots that I have taken with it and the Pentax *ist D I used to own. I mostly use the three DA Limited pancakes and a few other primes. The DA 16-45/4.0 gets great comments on other forums and seems to be an excellent choice. I like mine and find it excellent but I just prefer prime lenses these days.
My opinion is that you can't go wrong with the Pentax K100D. I have two K10D bodies and I still find myself carrying the K100D around. It just takes great pictures with very little effort. The sensor does a great job and I find the results very pleasing. The K10D does a great job as well but is a little bit larger and doesn't fit as well in my pocket. I often just carry the K100D with the DA 40/2.8 Limited lens.
As far as ergonomics go, I love the K100D and K10D. Pentax seems to have a better grasp of the importance of how a camera feels than either Canon or Nikon. Of course that is just my opinion but I also have two Canon EOS 20D bodies and they are no comparison to the Pentax K10D or K100D in ergonomics. I jumped ship to Canon just a little too soon and then jumped back with the Pentax K100D. I have not held the Nikon D40 or Canon Digital Rebel XTi but the Canon's predecessors felt awful in my hand.
The other thing that I love about my Pentax system is the availability of used lenses on eBay and other sites. You can find all kinds of neat stuff for reasonable prices. Through this search, I was able to add the Pentax A* 400/2.8, FA* 80-200/2.8, FA* 28-70/2.8, A* 200/4.0 Macro, and a number of other lenses. Anyway, those are just my thoughts. Good luck in your decision.
Bryan
-
Maybe the LL Canon censors made them cut all references to Nikon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106563\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You said it Eric.
It isn't that bad... It just reminds me of an article about a game between Russian and the US.
The American team had won, but the way it was reported in the Russian press was "The Russan team finished second and the Americans next to last"...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You said it Eric.
It isn't that bad... It just reminds me of an article about a game between Russian and the US.
The American team had won, but the way it was reported in the Russian press was "The Russan team finished second and the Americans next to last"...
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for passing that one on. I love it!
Actually, I try to be tolerant of those second-place Nikon users, since my brother is a Nikonite.
Eric
-
My primary output is on the web.
Get whatever fits your hands and eye better and just feels best.
PS. For somebody with no dSLR experience and whose primary output is the web, you seem to have very strong opinions. Re. the Canon 10-22 is significantly better than the Nikon 12-24.
-
PS. For somebody with no dSLR experience and whose primary output is the web, you seem to have very strong opinions. Re. the Canon 10-22 is significantly better than the Nikon 12-24.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106604\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not what I said--I said "apparently significantly better"; you dropped "apparently" and added the bold. I'm just repeating what I've seen in my research. Even a strong Nikon advocate like Ken Rockwell says it's a much better lens, because it has much less distortion at the low end, and makes even him claim to think he might switch to Canon if he was just starting out. If someone here feels differently I'd love to hear it.
See, megapixels don't matter to me, but barrel distortion does. So does really wide angle; I can crop down to simulate a really long lens but even in Photoshop it's kind of hard to fake the parts at the sides that didn't make it into the picture.
As for the Nikon D40x, it isn't going to be a finalist, because the only real difference between it and the D40 is 10 MP vs. 6, and I don't care about megapixels, so for me, it's just $200 for nothing.
I have to say that I've been in a few large electronics retailers lately, taking advantage of their hands on (aside--I will never actually buy anything in Best Buy after the way they treated me a few years back, and actually went so far as to cut up my BB credit card and mail it to the CEO), and there has been a constant stream of people fondling the D40, and one or two looking at the D200, and nobody at all looking at any of the Canons (or Sonys or Olympuses or Panasonics). I think Nikon's got a genuine hit on their hands. I haven't found a Pentax on display yet.
-
That's not what I said--I said "apparently significantly better"; you dropped "apparently" and added the bold. I'm just repeating what I've seen in my research. Even a strong Nikon advocate like Ken Rockwell says it's a much better lens, because it has much less distortion at the low end, and makes even him claim to think he might switch to Canon if he was just starting out. If someone here feels differently I'd love to hear it.
See, megapixels don't matter to me, but barrel distortion does. So does really wide angle; I can crop down to simulate a really long lens but even in Photoshop it's kind of hard to fake the parts at the sides that didn't make it into the picture.
Please spare us the references to K.R. This is a serious forum. I still don't get why it is 'apparently' and 'significantly' better according to you.
With regards to the Nikon lens, the 12-24 has a lot of pretty satisfied professional users who use it for far more than web use. I can't comment about the Canon lens since I have no personal experience with it. Geometrical distortions are much easier to handle, whenever they are a nuisance, in the digital age. I routinely use DxO for that.
For a bit more objective assesment of the lenses (tested as lens/camera systems) look at the photozone.de tests. Main problem with them is that they base their results usually on a single lens sample. The Tokina 12-24 might be a better value for either of the branded lenses.
I would urge you to try to get your hands on equipment and try them to form your own opinion based on your own needs and tolerances, especially on what is 'significant' or not, rather than basing your judgement solely on web gossip, especially by people like KR.
Having said all this, my original advice still holds. Get whatever 'clicks' with you hands on.
-
As for the Nikon D40x, it isn't going to be a finalist, because the only real difference between it and the D40 is 10 MP vs. 6, and I don't care about megapixels, so for me, it's just $200 for nothing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106609\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hum... except that distorsion nowadays can be corrected easily with software like DxO. A slight softness results from such corrections and MP are handy to reduce the impact...
By the way, DxO is also really useful to enhance 5D images it would seem.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For a bit more objective assesment of the lenses (tested as lens/camera systems) look at the photozone.de tests.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Photozone appears to bear out the statement that the Canon lens has less spherical distortion at the widest angle than the Nikon. That's not the only criteria, of course, but it's a significant one for me. Photozone hasn't tested any Pentax lens. The Tokina will not work on the Nikon D40 (the comparable Sigma 10-20mm will), though
I don't get where your attitude is coming from; again, you introduced the concept of "relying solely on web gossip", not I. Apparently you have some kind of axe to grind, and are distorting my words in order to get a keener edge. Whatever, dude. I happen to like a fair amount of what Ken Rockwell says; I think philophically he's spot on target most of the time. I don't photograph a lot of test charts.
As for trying them out in my hand, I mentioned doing just that before you suggested it. I'm not an idiot, thanks. If asking here for additional thoughts and advice is annoying you in some way, I'm sorry. Maybe you should pretend I'm not here and let the other, very helpful, people comment.
As for DxO, I've never used it. How is it for complex "droopy-ends" curve correction (I'm sure there's a technical name for it, but I don't know it), rather than a perfectly even barrel curve? The Photoshop plugin, and the third-party plugin I used before (which I stupidly can't remember the name of) can fix the latter but tend to give the former "humps", which look worse than the original distortion.
-
As for DxO, I've never used it. How is it for complex "droopy-ends" curve correction (I'm sure there's a technical name for it, but I don't know it), rather than a perfectly even barrel curve? The Photoshop plugin, and the third-party plugin I used before (which I stupidly can't remember the name of) can fix the latter but tend to give the former "humps", which look worse than the original distortion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
To answer my own question, it apparently does, and more. It looks awesome, in fact. Unfortunately, it doesn't work with every camera+lens combo; the D40 is still pretty lightly supported (though the kit lens is), and the Pentax not at all. Does anyone with experience know how often new models get added?
-
To answer my own question, it apparently does, and more. It looks awesome, in fact. Unfortunately, it doesn't work with every camera+lens combo; the D40 is still pretty lightly supported (though the kit lens is), and the Pentax not at all. Does anyone with experience know how often new models get added?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
They are pretty responsive usually. A few weeks after a release of a new body for a first minimal set of lenses (starting with the lens of the kit if any).
Then they add more lenses in the following months.
It took them about 3 months to produce a module for the 18-200 on my D80.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Neat, thank you. I've signed up for their email alert on the Pentax, just in case. I'm definitely leaning that way. Though if someone waved a D40 at me in a weak moment, I'd go for it. I'm really, really tempted by that 18-200; I only wish they offered it as a kit lens with the D40. As an add-on it's just a bit too much dough. I'm walking a fine line here between "camera" and "divorce"!
-
Hi, I have had the 400D for a couple of months now, and its a superb performing camera, and the sensor cleaning option is an excellent user-friendly tool to have on board.I just dont think Pentax has caught up with Canon or Nikon yet. The D40 impressed me too, but the D80 is much better to my mind,. Go with what you feel happiest with, and get out there and use whatever camera you end up buying..making images...that's waht it all boils down to!
-
Hello
I am also having a similar debate for my first DSLR, but just between XTi and D40 (mainly due to budget constraint). I think I have decided to go with D40 and an extra lense. This may be a bit off topic, but I want to get a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. But I read some online posts that many of them are defect (hard to focus?). Is this true? I am only a beginner, and I don't not want to notice it and keep the defect. Can anyone verify this? Thanks for your help!
-
I purchased the D40 yesterday and love it. The kit lens is great quality, quiet, fast and accurate focusing and small. The D40 is very small, fits great in my hand - has a beautiful large LCD screen and is far more sturdy feeling that the Canon Rebel in my view. If you are used to Nikon like I am - - - everything is in the right place. This little baby also has a much valued RGB histogram (you push the "OK" button 3 times to access it) which is so much more useful than the normal single channel histogram thatmy D70's have. The D40 / kit lens package is so easy to carry around anywhere.
I also made the decision to purchase the Sigma 10-20 ultrawide for use on my D200 - although it works great on my D40 also. It is almost as quiet as the Nikon 12-24 when focusing, quite fast and accurate with Auto focus. The lens is very sharp and the extra 2mm of non-fisheye width at the extreme wide end of the lens puts it over the top compared to the really nice but expensive Nikon.
Tonight my wife and I were out on the beach on Lake Huron just walking around. She hates using my bulkier DSLR's but loved this little D40/18-55 combo as much as I did. Here are a couple shots we took tonight with it:
Anne's shot:
Model:NIKON D40 | Orientation:Normal | Software Used:Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows | Exposure Time:1/400 seconds | F Number:F/10 | ISO Speed:200 | Date Taken:2007:04:21 20:14:48 | Exposure Compensation:-4/6 Step | Metering Mode:Pattern | Flash Mode:No Flash | Focal Length:55 mm | Color Space:sRGB
(http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img442.jpg)
One of mine (it was rough finding nice content becuase of the time of year and lack of anything fresh and green):
Model:NIKON D40 | Orientation:Normal | Software Used:Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows | Exposure Time:1/60 seconds | F Number:F/5.6 | ISO Speed:900 | Date Taken:2007:04:21 20:25:38 | Exposure Compensation:-4/6 Step | Metering Mode:Pattern | Flash Mode:No Flash | Focal Length:55 mm | Color Space:sRGB
(http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img443.jpg)
Another that Anne took as we were leaving in the pitch black night. I love the painterly look and will try a print on Art Paper:
Model:NIKON D40 | Orientation:Normal | Software Used:Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows | Exposure Time:1/3 seconds | F Number:F/5.6 | ISO Speed:1600 | Date Taken:2007:04:21 21:07:20 | Exposure Compensation:-4/6 Step | Metering Mode:Pattern | Flash Mode:No Flash | Focal Length:55 mm | Color Space:sRGB
(http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img444.jpg)
-
I purchased the D40 yesterday and love it. The kit lens is great quality, quiet, fast and accurate focusing and small. The D40 is very small, fits great in my hand - has a beautiful large LCD screen and is far more sturdy feeling that the Canon Rebel in my view.
yea i agree. i went to feel for the camera today and liked D40/D40x's ergonomics MUCH better than XTi. I'm still trying to decide though. How much difference does 3 focus system and 9 focus system matter? It seems like a lot of difference at least in numbers.
-
How much difference does 3 focus system and 9 focus system matter?
Only 3 auto focus points don't bother me at all as I was used to that with my Olympus E-500 that I used professionally for several months before purchasing a D200. I generally tend to only use the center sensor or one of the side ones for most of my shooting anyway. I actually find the D200 very hard to use with its multiple points and awkward arrangement when moving from one to the other with the jog pad. I have had no problem getting "fast and accurate focus" with the 3 sensors of the D40 - even when shooting vertically. if there is a subject that is on the extreme edge of my frame, that I want the focus point to be on - - - I just aim at the subject, push the shutter release down halfway to lock focus and recompose. I find I do that most of the time on my D200. Even with all of the sensors the D200 has there are many times that they do not fall on a place where I want sharp focus and so have to lock focus and recompose anyway.
The reasons I opted for the D40 over the D40x:
* The D40 is much cheaper and just as good - - - I have no problem with the D40's 6MP sensor and resulting images (same as I have been getting with my D70's) and easier to handle the smaller file size - - - the D40 has 1/500'th flash sync while the D40x has only 1/250th.
-
Another that Anne took as we were leaving in the pitch black night. I love the painterly look and will try a print on Art Paper:
Model:NIKON D40 | Orientation:Normal | Software Used:Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows | Exposure Time:1/3 seconds | F Number:F/5.6 | ISO Speed:1600 | Date Taken:2007:04:21 21:07:20 | Exposure Compensation:-4/6 Step | Metering Mode:Pattern | Flash Mode:No Flash | Focal Length:55 mm | Color Space:sRGB
(http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img444.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113597\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm thinking that the K100D, with its in-body IS, might have let you/Anne take that last picture without the motion blur.
-
I'm thinking that the K100D, with its in-body IS, might have let you/Anne take that last picture without the motion blur.
Oh - we have shots of this scene without motion - and I have VR lenses I am able to take with me - - I also have a tripod in the van if I wanted to use it. I like this painterly version and regularly use shots with motion or even induce motion in Photoshop.
----
One advantage of IS in the camera body is that you can purchase the normal inexpensive lenses and benefit - instead of having to purchase specialty IS or VR lenses. Olympus also has a new E-510 body coming out that has an IS body. So there should be lots of choices - - - and they will all provide the same great results.
-
okay~ after debating for a long time, i finally got D40 this morning!!
now whenever that sigma 30mm f/1.4 is available, i can spend the money that i saved by buying D40 instead of XTi!! =)
-
I've thought about the Sigma 30 1.4 (45mm 1.4 equiv)
I have found that my 10-20 ultrawide fits beautifully on the D40, focuses quickly and accurately. I took it with me today for an updated room shot for one of my website clients. Before I got there around noon, I snapped a shot outside including some sky to see how the meter worked with everything Auto. Absolutley wonderful as expected. I love the extremes of lenses and will likely keep this baby on the D40 strung over my shoulder on event shoots. No problem with the 3 focus points either.
(http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img445.jpg)
The room shots are upcropped and straight out of the camera with no corrections done yet (perspective and color). Auto ISO -3 and Aperture Priority Auto Exposure at f8. The first shot is the angle that will be cleaned up, fine tuned and used on the companies website - while the second one was playing with the extremes to see how much I could get in the shot and how much distortion I would get.
(http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img446.jpg)
(http://www.robertwatcher.com/fileupload/uploads/img447.jpg)
-
thanks for the suggestion robert. i heard that lens is great as well.
however, i placed an order today for 30mm f/1.4. I guess what I want is a prime lens that I could take at a low light. perhaps, i'll make a purchase on ultrawide lens later on. the lense is getting here in CA on friday. hopefully, it won't be a bad sample. i'll post some pics this weekend. =)
-
Let us know what it is like when you get it. I'm curious.
-
I got my 30mm on Friday night and took some shots yesterday mostly. I think my copy of the lens seems fine- I think... Yay! The build quality is pretty solid, and focusing is fast. Some of the images may be blurry becaues I didn't use any tripod. But most seem okay. So here are some of my test shots (no flash + none of the images have been processed other than converting from RAW to JPEG):
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/174/477606952_ea22207677_b.jpg)
1/250 sec at f/1.4; ISO 800
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/192/477606860_6fdee558a7_b.jpg)
1/30 sec at f/2.8; ISO 800
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/219/477606964_c855e8f53f_b.jpg)
1/60 sec at f/1.6; ISO 400
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/206/476840337_e1cd90dafc_b.jpg)
1/30 sec at f/1.4; ISO 400
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/476840307_1a5373084b_b.jpg)
1/30 sec at f/1.4; ISO 400
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/181/476840435_0cb11ea217_b.jpg)
1/160 sec at f.6.3; ISO 200
Seems like a fine copy, no?
-
Please spare us the references to K.R. This is a serious forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you think Ken Rockwell gives bad advice?
-
I truly like my Pentax K100D.
It lets me tweak the image as much as I want, and 6MP are enough as I am not planning to print A3 sized pictures.
I chose it over the Nikon D40 because of the cheap, plasticky feel of the Nikon, its poor ergonomics and the missing top LCD (even though I would have liked that programmable button of the Nikon on the Pentax).
I chose the Pentax for its great color reproduction, great image quality, and warmer image tone. Even though the automatic white balance was critisized by all reviewers, I hardly ever use it anyway, and so it's not a big deal.
I like the way the camera handles and feels. It actually looks twice the price it really costs. It is a real photographic tool.
The kit lens is good.