jonoslack
Active member
Enjoy - at least, I'm sure that you WILL enjoy it.yes Jono. I have one over the weekend to check it out.
all the best
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Enjoy - at least, I'm sure that you WILL enjoy it.yes Jono. I have one over the weekend to check it out.
Jono, having seen many of your disparaging comments about "Nikon color", I thought it worthwhile to clarify whether the displeasing color you are referring to is that which you observed in Aperture. If so, then it's not about "Nikon color" but rather Apple Aperture's color profile for the D700.Skin tones look nicer than the D700 to me (but that's not saying much :ROTFL
If so, that's a remarkable achievement. The E-1 shutter is extremely soft and quiet sounding for an SLR camera....
The shutter on the D700 sounds like stamping on a tin can in comparison with the K5 shutter (which is quieter than the Sony and even than the E1 (we tested it)). ...
HI AminJono, having seen many of your disparaging comments about "Nikon color", I thought it worthwhile to clarify whether the displeasing color you are referring to is that which you observed in Aperture. If so, then it's not about "Nikon color" but rather Apple Aperture's color profile for the D700.
My D700 gave very different (and better to my eyes) color in ACR and NX2 than it did in Aperture. Many others found this as well: Example
We were really surprised as well - I didn't think anyone would match it.If so, that's a remarkable achievement. The E-1 shutter is extremely soft and quiet sounding for an SLR camera.
I agree with you about mid range zooms . . .BUT, either for pleasure (walking around with family and friends and dogs), or else shooting weddings, there is a time when they're pretty hard to avoid; I've certainly had more grief with them than any other kind of lens. What makes it worse is I like them to start from 24mm equivalent - which seems to be even more of a problem.Hmm, the Pentax DA*16-50/2.8. It's a good performer, although not my choice in lens (I generally just don't like mid-range zooms very much, and I didn't like the balance and feel of this one much although it made good photos).
I'm aware of it's history (in fact, when I had the K7 briefly I had one which was a less than stellar performer). This one feels okay, but I've made absolutely certain that the dealer is expecting it back if there's any issue, and I'll be doing lots of testing with it over the next few days.There have been many reports on the Pentax mailing list of build quality issues with it ... mis-aligned elements, poor focusing performance, poor focusing accuracy at one end or the other of the focusing range, etc ... most dating from a year or two back when it was first introduced. Hopefully those were production line teething problems that have been solved by now, but I'd test it thoroughly to be sure.
Always RAW Godfrey - never JPG. During the course of my Nikon days I used:Colors ... Are you talking about colors produced by the camera's internal JPEG processing engine or colors you see from raw captures? Raw capture colors are, of course, 100% dependent on both which raw image processing software you use and how you use it.
I've seen lots of beautiful work come out of Nikon D700 cameras, captured as NEF files and processed in Lightroom. I don't care what colors come out of my cameras' internal image processing engine since I generally speaking only look at raw capture files.
I think I had all the current Pentax zooms in this range other than the 18-55, and a few older ones as well. The 16-45/4 is one of those tromboning zooms that gets wider as you zoom out with it, which while it makes sense optically makes it a handling annoyance (had the same issue with the Canon EF 24-75/2.8 L). It's at its most obtrusive when you want it to be wide for close-in shots. Both the 16-45 and 16-50 perform well, the latter is a little nicer.I agree with you about mid range zooms . . .
I'm aware of it's history...
I had some anguish about which zoom to buy (the 16-45 f4 ...
Oh how I wish for a lens like the lovely 12-60 ...
Sounds to me like you didn't find a camera calibration profile offered by any of them that satisfied you. Easy to fix with Camera Raw or Lightroom ... just get out either the Passport software and a color checker or use the DNG Profile Editor to create a profile that suits you. Install it, set it as the default along with the starting parameters that you like, and everything from that camera will have it applied on import to Lr or when first opened with CR.Always RAW Godfrey - never JPG. During the course of my Nikon days I used:
Bibble
Nikon Capture
Photoshop
C1
Lightroom
Aperture
To try and get what I wanted - I never managed to find a way of getting consistently good colours in evening light - sure, I could fiddle about with each photo individually, but who wants to do that! Changing presets would work in some situations and not in others.
I kept thinking it must be me - but looking back on those shots things haven't changed.
As I said to Amin above - With the Sony, Leica and with Olympus as well, I simply don't need to fiddle with the colour - it's always fine (slightly different for each camera, but in a consistent and comprehensible manner). ...
HI Godfrey - you can talk all you like - I spent hundreds of hours over 5 years trying to get colour I was satisfied of out of those Nikons for landscape in the evening, I never succeeded. I'm certainly not going back there again.Color is entirely a matter of how the raw data is processed. None of these cameras differ enough in the characteristics of their spectral sensitivity to override what the chroma interpolation of the raw processor does, in any normal lighting at least.
HI DianeSo what happened with the A55 and 33? Just trying to keep up here LOL. The Pentax looks like a terrific camera from all I've read and seen but how does it fit in system wise for you with the A900/lenses or is that just not an issue?
probably . . actually no I won't have sold it! - I really like it, my problem is to stop myself buying loads of little prime lenses - they're so dinky and such nice quality, but really, I've already got dinky primes!Jono, I just ordered a K-5 and I blame you!
No, really I'm a Pentax user and was planning to get one any how. But it's interesting to see how good results you get with it and nice to hear somebody praise the brand that so few remember exists to begin with. Then again, being a camera whore (as you ironically called yourself), you'll probably have sold yours before I get mine.
Nice to have the luxury ... ];-)as for the lenses - if I'm going to use a prime as a walkabout (which I very often do) then it'll be a 50 'lux a 35 'lux or a 75 'cron on an M9 - no point in using the pentax for that - but sometimes it's nice to have a zoom - the results may not be as good technically, but that's not really the point
No - it's certainly not an A900 replacement . .. The real test is how much it gets used . . . I'll keep you posted!I don't think it actually replaces my A900 either, it would just be a fun camera to use.
"Another choice" my brain likes to tell me, LOL.
Variety is good to us gear whores,<G>
Works for me .But I'm happy if anyone wants to put it down to 'Jono's little obsession':ROTFL:
Of course - I also know what can be done . . .it's a case of whether one wants to do it!I'm not going to debate the color issue. I know what can be done with the raw file out of any camera ... I do it quite a lot, both for my own work and for clients. Whatever floats your boat. (I haven't worked with Aperture 3.1 very much yet. I suppose I should give it a whirl again..)
Yes indeed - unfortunately the time to indulge in the luxury is not so easy to find!Nice to have the luxury ... ];-)
I quite agree - but you must understand, this is side action - 95% of my pictures over the last two years have been taken either with the M9 or the A900 - it's also good to throw the cards in the air and do something different. My M9 bag is waiting for me, and it won't have to wait very long!But seriously, I find my photography improves radically when I stop mucking around with a dozen different cameras, pick one, and just work with it.
Very creditable - but I think it's really useful and interesting to play with things around the periphery - that's the way to find the next best thing.Preparing to work with an SLR all the time again, I shot with the E-1 exclusively for a month or so and found it happening again. Buying the E-5 was basically tantamount to me committing to myself, "Okay, this is my camera for the next several years." I'm not even interested in using other cameras at all, at least for now.
AbsolutelyAnd try as I might, I just cannot get into using a zoom in this range very much. Today I was out and about with the 50 Macro ... sweet lens indeed.
Diff'rent Strokes, and all that.
Works for me .
HI Diane
Well, the A55 is definitely a keeper, together with the Zeiss / Sony 16-80 and my A900.
The K5 doesn't fit in anywhere . . . but the reason I've got it is that the E1 was really my favorite dSLR (only one I've ever bought twice )
The K5 is the obvious inheritor:
small (actually smaller than the E1)
weather sealed
very quiet shutter (quieter than the E1)
It also has a fine viewfinder, excellent high ISO, and those little prime lenses.
I actually fell for the K7 before, bought one, used it for a week and reluctantly took it back, because the sensor really didn't cut it. This time I think it does.
I'm not sure where it's going to - possibly a replacement for the Sony gear, possibly a dead end, but worth a try at least.