Fun with the Pentax K5

[jonoslack]

Well, it had to happen!
Here are some shots with the 100 WR macro.

erm . .. I thought this one would be a good statement of intent


f2.8 1/125 ISO 320



f2.8 1/125 ISO 2500


f3.5 1/160 ISO 320


f3.5 1/160 ISO 500


f3.5 1/160 ISO 1600


f3.5 1/160 ISO 1600


f2.8 1/125 ISO 2500


f2.8 1/125 ISO 500


f2.8 1/125 ISO 400


f5.6 1/80 ISO 6400

[jonoslack]

Here are some dinner party shots with the 100mm.



f2.8 1/125 ISO 4000



f2.8 1/125 ISO 5000


f2.8 1/125 ISO 6400


f2.8 1/125 ISO 1600


f2.8 1/125 ISO 3200


f2.8 1/125 ISO 6400


f2.8 1/125 ISO 5000


f2.8 1/125 ISO 2500


f2.8 1/125 ISO 3200


f2.8 1/125 ISO 1600

[jonoslack]

Rolling damn it! (time for a bath)


DA* 16-50 ISO 100 f7.1 1/200 31mm

[Terry]

is that ice?

[jonoslack]

C'mon you guys - don't leave me alone!


DA* 16-50 ISO 100 f6.3 1/250 24mm[/QUOTE]

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by TEBnewyork

is that ice?

That's right - not sure what was more surprising, Caspar rolling on it, or the creature who'd come before making a bad smell there!

[photogerald]

Jono, I'm very jealous. The DFA100WR Macro has been on my "to get" list for a while now, but it keeps getting bumped back by other lenses!

[Paratom]

K5+21 Lim.+grey weather

[jonoslack]

Hi Thomas
We have grey weather here . . . actually, that's not quite true - I had a couple of hours for a good walk today, and I set out when the sun came out . . . it went in for the whole walk, and then came out again when we got home

Still, this is a nice shot, and it gives a good inkling of the dynamic range available.

Thanks for posting . . . now it's everybody else's turn!

[Jorgen Udvang]

Lots of goodies here, Jono. It looks like you're really enjoying the Pentax.

[jonoslack]

C'mon you guys - we wants pictures - otherwise I'll set the dog on you





100 WR macro - -10C brrrrr

[jonoslack]

Two More


100 macro


18-135 zoom

[TRSmith]

What a nice group of photos! The macros are terrific. I think we live in remarkable times to have so many cameras that perform so well. And so many photographers here who manage to use them to full advantage. Why bother reading reviews when you can just wait for one of the members here to post examples? Thanks Jono.

[m3photo]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

C'mon you guys - we wants pictures - otherwise I'll set the dog on you


100 WR macro - -10C brrrrr

Does the dog have shake reduction too? He doesn't seem to be shivering.

I'll post my K5 pictures next year, when I buy one, promise ...

[MPK2010]

Afraid I have not been too inspired recently, but here are a few to help keep this worthy thread going.


ISO 3200 * 40 Ltd


ISO 80 * 18-135


ISO 200 * 21 Ltd


ISO 80 * 31 Ltd


ISO 1600 * 31 Ltd

[MPK2010]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

C'mon you guys - we wants pictures - otherwise I'll set the dog on you





100 WR macro - -10C brrrrr

The cold just permeates this picture. I like how the white balance contributes to the feeling.

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by TRSmith

What a nice group of photos! The macros are terrific. I think we live in remarkable times to have so many cameras that perform so well. And so many photographers here who manage to use them to full advantage. Why bother reading reviews when you can just wait for one of the members here to post examples? Thanks Jono.

Thank you Terry
I quite agree - they all seem to do the business, it's just the icing on the cake if they're so nice to use!

Originally Posted by m3photo

Does the dog have shake reduction too? He doesn't seem to be shivering.

I'll post my K5 pictures next year, when I buy one, promise ...

Ah yes - the dog certainly does have shake reduction - he comes from the Pyrenees, and isn't even slightly worried about the cold - in fact he seems to really like it.

Originally Posted by MPK2010

The cold just permeates this picture. I like how the white balance contributes to the feeling.

Thanks - yes it was cold - I had it on 'daylight', but I think it pretty well represents the actual light.

[jonoslack]

Phew - thanks for coming on board, it wasn't meant to be 'jono slack has fun with the K5!

Originally Posted by MPK2010

ISO 3200 * 40 Ltd


ISO 1600 * 31 Ltd

I especially like these two - great colour and depth on the first one . . . and then there's something splendidly camp about the pose in the black and white shot. Excellent!

[Paratom]

day-trip for x-country-skiing-which camera to bring? m4/3? enough DR for snow? M9-do I really want to carry in that condtions? - D700-too big. finally K5 (with just 21/3.4)

[jonoslack]

brrrr. Certainly the right camera for the job - looks pretty darned cold to me (cold enough here (-10) , but no snow for us).

Love the first shot especially

[Paratom]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

brrrr. Certainly the right camera for the job - looks pretty darned cold to me (cold enough here (-10) , but no snow for us).

Love the first shot especially

thanks Jono-I am not sure if the focus is spot on in this image though

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by t_streng

thanks Jono-I am not sure if the focus is spot on in this image though

Well, I assumed you were focusing on the fourteenth snowflake from the left and the 234th one from the top? Shoot me down in flames if I'm wrong.

[jonoslack]

Chilly here today, but the dog doesn't mind.
Here are a few snaps, all with the 18-135 WR

[jonoslack]

Then, when I got home, the sun was shining through the kitchen window.








again - all with the little 18-135, it may not be perfect, but it's remarkably good!

[raist3d]

You know that plate with grapes looks *really good*. That's the kind of color I wanted to see. All that with that lens? Maybe I should get that one and use it for weddings, skip on the high end one? I wonder.


- Raist

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by raist3d

You know that plate with grapes looks *really good*. That's the kind of color I wanted to see. All that with that lens? Maybe I should get that one and use it for weddings, skip on the high end one? I wonder.


- Raist

It's so difficult isn't it. Certainly, as a 'walk about' lens, it's a cut above the rest - and of course the high ISO makes it even better. But it is a bit slow (not slow to focus however).

But I don't think it's as good as the 16-50 when that's good - just that the two copies I had were not evenly good. I might easily try again.

This lens does seem pretty consistent.

Incidentally, all were shot raw and processed in aperture - no colour changes, just a little exposure / levels adjustment where it seemed appropriate.

all the best

[Diane B]

What lovely images Jono. I'm a sucker for those from everyday around home life, as you know. I also saw your well thought out reasoning of why NOT to go MF. It's hard to resist those urges when you can swing the purchase and I give you a lot of credit for understanding why you think your photography succeeds.

Diane

[ecsh]

Originally Posted by Diane B

What lovely images Jono. I'm a sucker for those from everyday around home life, as you know. I also saw your well thought out reasoning of why NOT to go MF. It's hard to resist those urges when you can swing the purchase and I give you a lot of credit for understanding why you think your photography succeeds.

Diane

Same here as well. I was reading the S2 thread. Why does it seem to be that MF shooters are higher maintenance, LOL
I can see where you photography could actually suffer using a camera such as the S2. What may have been instinctual before, could be lost.

[jonoslack]

Diane and ecsh
Thank you - I'm definitely a toys kind of a guy, but I do realise that it's rather at odds with any kind of skill I might have as a photographer. But I really wanted an S2 - I think it's beautiful, and beautifully designed . . . but actually that's not it's purpose.

I have a little (childish) saw which I have to keep repeating to myself:

If it's interesting, nobody cares if it's technically good . . . . and if it isn't interesting, nobody cares at all.

Medium format can certainly help one to technically good, but if that's all it does?

[photogerald]

Originally Posted by raist3d

You know that plate with grapes looks *really good*. That's the kind of color I wanted to see. All that with that lens? Maybe I should get that one and use it for weddings, skip on the high end one? I wonder.

What focal length do you typically use for weddings?

I was going to suggest pairing the DA18-135 with the DA*60-250, but if you need f2.8 at shorter FLs, then the DA*16-50 might suit your needs better (provided you can find a good copy of this lens).

[Paratom]

Again, I really like those images Jono and while I stay with my opinion that the K5 images do not have the last claritiy and byting sharpness I find them exceptiopnal regarding color and "film like" look. Overall very much to my taste.

[MPK2010]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

I especially like these two - great colour and depth on the first one . . . and then there's something splendidly camp about the pose in the black and white shot. Excellent!

Thanks! The shot of the grapes shows great color and light. And t_streng I like the below snow shot -- those are the conditions I bought the K-5 for. Hopefully I'll get some chance to put it to use over the holiday.

Originally Posted by t_streng

[photogerald]

Originally Posted by t_streng

Again, I really like those images Jono and while I stay with my opinion that the K5 images do not have the last claritiy and byting sharpness I find them exceptiopnal regarding color and "film like" look. Overall very much to my taste.

Is this assessment based on in-camera JPGs or JPGs processed from RAW? If it's the former, you can try playing with the in-camera sharpness settings - Extra Fine Sharpness +1 or +2 seems to work well from what I've seen.

[m3photo]

Originally Posted by t_streng

Again, I really like those images ../.. I find them exceptional regarding color and "film like" look. Overall very much to my taste.

Mine too. In fact it's what prompted me to buy my first Pentax DSLR, the K10D and now considering retiring the K20D for the K5.

[Paratom]

Originally Posted by photogerald

Is this assessment based on in-camera JPGs or JPGs processed from RAW? If it's the former, you can try playing with the in-camera sharpness settings - Extra Fine Sharpness +1 or +2 seems to work well from what I've seen.

from dng converted in LR, with noise reduction turned of and sharpness slightly increased.

[jonoslack]

Here are a couple with the (soon to go back) 15mm:


f7.1 (and still soft off centre - even at this resolution)

Still, sometimes the curvature of field (towards one at the corners / edges) can work in one's favour.
The DR of the camera never ceases to amaze me - just a few minutes in Aperture to bring up the foreground:

[jonoslack]

Here are some with the (absolutely here to stay) 100 macro WR








of course, with APS-c it's tough to control DOF (at least, that's what everyone tells me)

[jonoslack]

And 3 more with the 100 macro in the kitchen:



ISO 6400


ISO 3200


ISO 1250

[jonoslack]

Ah yes, then there's these three - also from the fen - I like them
again, all with the 100 WR macro - which, unlike almost any other macro I've used (apart from the pentax 35) actually has a very presentable bokeh, and is almost unbelievably small!








So - now - Michael - you'd better nip out and get your K5 quick - Tom and Ricardo - you aren't pulling your weight - anybody else - please join in!

[biglouis]

Jono

Please stop posting these pictures. They are really making me lust for a K-5. That puddle shot has fantastic luminance, sharpness and bokeh.

LouisB

[raist3d]

@Jono- how did you find the 35 DA Limited "pancake" macro? That's the one I am considering next. I decided to skip the 40mm and for the macro so I can do macro plus another more reasonable focal length (to me).

- Raist

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by raist3d

@Jono- how did you find the 35 DA Limited "pancake" macro? That's the one I am considering next. I decided to skip the 40mm and for the macro so I can do macro plus another more reasonable focal length (to me).

- Raist

Hi Ricardo
As far as I'm concerned it's the best of the lot. Not sure you'd call it a pancake though? It's about the same size as a 50 'cron. Complete with slide out lens hood.
It's a bit noisy focusing, but seems quick enough. The real treat ( for a short macro) is really splendid bokeh.
Absolutely recommended. Unlike my 15, which is going back.
Have a great holiday!

[m3photo]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Ah yes, then there's these three - also from the fen - I like them

So - now - Michael - you'd better nip out and get your K5 quick - Tom and Ricardo - you aren't pulling your weight - anybody else - please join in!

Ah, the fens. Reminds me of school runs from King's ...

K5 soon I promise.

[LoSenior]

Jono,
Thanks for sharing your experiences with the K 5.
The pictures are an inspiration showing your range of skills.

Jerry

[arashm]

Jono and all
thank you for posting these images.
For Jono, I'm wondering how you're going to feel about your Sony Gear in a while and if the K5 and alpha's are going to manage to co-exist.
Thank you once again.
am

[ecsh]

Originally Posted by jonoslack

Here are a couple with the (soon to go back) 15mm:


f7.1 (and still soft off centre - even at this resolution)

Still, sometimes the curvature of field (towards one at the corners / edges) can work in one's favour.
The DR of the camera never ceases to amaze me - just a few minutes in Aperture to bring up the foreground:

Well, now i do not feel like i was the crazy one returning the same lens. You can just tell when a lens is just too soft, especially in the center of the pic, even stopped down. I read so many user reviews of the lens telling of how sharp this lens was. I must have been mass hypnosis or something
People were telling me how wrong i was in PMs, that the lens was sharp.

In any case, with Jono returning the lens as well, i feel a little better.
Joe

[jonoslack]

Originally Posted by ecsh

Well, now i do not feel like i was the crazy one returning the same lens. You can just tell when a lens is just too soft, especially in the center of the pic, even stopped down. I read so many user reviews of the lens telling of how sharp this lens was. I must have been mass hypnosis or something
People were telling me how wrong i was in PMs, that the lens was sharp.

In any case, with Jono returning the lens as well, i feel a little better.
Joe

Hi Joe
not crazy at all - I tell you what though, it's a really odd lens - sometimes it's sharp - and sometimes it isn't - the pictures above show this pretty clearly, the bottom one really is quite sharp enough, even to the corners, whereas the top one of the tree, shot at a smaller aperture, is much worse - and worse than that, there is a section quite near the centre (off centre slightly and upwards on the right) which is much softer than the rest of the lens.

I suspect with most of these lenses that if you get a good copy, then it can be really good, but that they don't make much effort (Pentax is certainly NOT alone here). My guess would be that they've done the cost / benefit analysis, and it more cost effective to send out variable lenses, in the knowledge that 9/10 poor lenses will never be returned.

all the best
HAPPY NEW YEAR

[jonoslack]

Party time.
All with the 18-135 at f4.5

first two at 12800 ISO:





This one was at 25600 - I didn't quite nail the focus, but it really was dark, and at least I got the shot! (all those elbows)

[jonoslack]

No weather to be testing a wide angle zoom!

This was taken with the Sigma 10-20 f3.5

16mm f8
dreary weather!

[jonoslack]

Snoozing in comfort?
This was taken with the Pentax 35 limited macro at f2.8 ISO 800