Fun with the 645D

[tsjanik]

Steven:
I really like the 2nd shot. The 35mm A seems to be doing well for you.

Dave:
Thanks. I like the bokeh or out-of-focus regions of the 300 at f/4, had I stopped down it would have caused the background leaves to be less blurred and less pleasing to my eye. This seems to be unique advantage of stacking, the out-of-focus blur of a wide open lens with increased depth of field. Increased shutter speed is also a plus.

Tom

 

[tsjanik]

The weather in the northeast has returned to normal, i.e., it's unpleasant. I took some bird shots with the 400mm today. First is the most miserable-looking Blue Jay I've ever seen (excluding the baseball team), second is a grosbeak, a little unkempt and last is an oriole who looks on with apparent distain. (heavy crops at 800 ISO)

 

[D&A]

The weather in the northeast has returned to normal, i.e., it's unpleasant. I took some bird shots with the 400mm today. First is the most miserable-looking Blue Jay I've ever seen (excluding the baseball team), second is a grosbeak, a little unkempt and last is an oriole who looks on with apparent distain. (heavy crops at 800 ISO)

It's quite ironic that you've posted these images today (Sunday). I was on my way back from a shoot, which the 645D played a prominant role. Skies were dark as it was raining a good part of the day, but just before it got compltely dark, I passed a small bird wildlife designated area and decided to stop. I walked about 100 feet down a boardwalk while cyclists passed by (I'm generally on of them), casuing tremendous ground vibration while I quickly set up the 645D and a 300mm lens. Some small birds like yours showed up on branches and I was already at rediculously low shutter speeds and ISO 800 but went ahead and took a few shots. Lets just say I admire your small bird captures, these and your previous ones. Not as easy to do as with 35mm DSLR equipment, especially if the light is low.

Your descriptions of the bird's dispositions seem dead on and none look particulary happy...but then again, who's to say what they are really thinking. In my case, they probabaly thought "stupid MF photographer"

Always nice to see your nature shots...as I too use the 645D for a variety of things besides the conventional landscape type images.

Dave (D&A)

 

[gurtch]

645D with 300mm & 1.4X Experience?

I found and purchased a very, very reasonable used 300mm manual focus 300mm A* EDIF. I also found a brand new (old stock) 1.4x converter for $399, & free shipping. For a new item with warranty, this also seemed very reasonable. I noted in the lens data section on the Pentax Forum, that the 1.4 converter is dedicatted to the 300mm A*, but also useable with the 120mm & 200mm (which I have, but can't imagine using it with these lenses). Does anyone have 645D experience:

1) The 300mm without the 1.4X at around f11 for long distance landscape work?

2) The 300mm with 1.4X, also at f11 for long distance landscape work, or closeups of distant landscape details?

Thanks in advance

Dave in NJ

www.modernpictorials.com

 

[D&A]

Hi Dave,

I have access and tested the FA 300 f4 645 lens which I believe has the same optical formula as the manual focus version you have and also have access to the 1.4x but haven't yet gotten around to testing that combination. I hope to do so soon.

Dave (D&A)

 

[gurtch]

Hi Dave,

I have access and tested the FA 300 f4 645 lens which I believe has the same optical formula as the manual focus version you have and also have access to the 1.4x but haven't yet gotten around to testing that combination. I hope to do so soon.

Dave (D&A)[/QUOT

Dave: Thanks. I am travelling to see kids'and grankids' graduations, and will not return until June 1, and the two items will be waiting for me. If I get a chance berfore you do, I will publish my findings. I was also wondering about the 2X with this lens. I know 2X extenders tend to soften results more than 1.4X, but I have a Canon 500 f4 L IS, and with the Canon 2X, I made very sucessful 24"x30" prints.
Thanks again
Dave

 

[D&A]

Hi Dave,

I too will post my findings after I have a chance to test this particular combination. I've heard from most, that the Pentax 2x for 645 is mediocre at best and only one person said it was decent. It's not surprising since most times 2x converters generally result in too much loss of resolution. The Canon and the new Nikon 2x teleconverters are the exception. The older Nikon 2x was generally to be avoided but their new 2x is the first 2x teleconverter I've used by anyone where the results were astonishingly good. In any case, have fun on your travels!

Dave (D&A)

 

[rjones]

Two images from 645D with FA 150/2.8 at f3.5, ISO 200 (and -2 ev fill flash), supported on monopod. Full frame and 100% crop.

No PS'ing; developed in Raw Developer with only slight color balance adj (...colors on posted image seems off from what I observe in the original and in print; ah, but better once enlarged, so just thumbnails look strange).

The 645D has exc AF accuracy and the 150 is bitingly sharp at it's plane of focus, center to edge.

 

[rjones]

645D, FA 150/2.8 at 1/125, f3.2, ISO 200.

 

[D&A]

HI rjones,

Very cute photo of the young child!

The 150 f2.8 645 lens is a superb lens on the 645D with the caveat that a "good performing sample is found. I tested quite a few 150mm f2.8 lenses and it took some time before one was found that performed as you described....excellent sharpness across the frame, even wide open. The shallow depth of field with certain subjects is icing on the cake.

Dave (D&A)

 

[kuau]

Spring time Tulips FA 120mm Macro
Steven

 

[D&A]

What can one say Steve except...simply lovely!!! Great color and subtle OOF and tonal transitions. Would make a great print for the wall! You mentioned Springtime was just arriving your way? Looks like its made a grand entrance and you captured it nicely!

Dave (D&A)

 

[tsjanik]

Nice one Steven. Are those in your yard? I love tulips but the local rabbit population doesn't allow many. This shot could be a good candidate for focus stacking as well.

Tom

 

[D&A]

Nice one Steven. Are those in your yard? I love tulips but the local rabbit population doesn't allow many. This shot could be a good candidate for focus stacking as well.

Tom

Agree Tom! It would be interesting to compare the shot as taken above, compared to a one taken with focus stacking. I suspect that I would prefer this particular shot just the way it is, with a nice smooth transition to OOF areas as opposed to one where the entire field of flowers was within the depth of field (ie: sharp). Then again, that's just a preference.

Dave (D&A)

 

[Shashin]

Just for fun. I am just preparing for the summer Milky Way. DFA 55mm, f/4.5. 188 seconds, ISO 1600. The corners are not the greatest at f/4.5, I will have to try f/5.6 and see if it tightens up the star images. The Pentax 67 105mm (late) gave better corners at f/4. Shot on an Astrotrac mount.

I have been playing with my 645D over the last month or so--kicking the tires and slamming the doors. It is a very versatile machine.

 

[kuau]

Nice one Steven. Are those in your yard? I love tulips but the local rabbit population doesn't allow many. This shot could be a good candidate for focus stacking as well.

Tom

Tom and Dave, Thanks
Nope not in my backyard, this was taken down in salt lake city at a place called thanksgiving point, during the tulip festival, it was a tricky day to shoot, overcast light was perfect but it was wind, so lots of movement, focus stacking would have been almost impossible.

Steven

 

[gurtch]

Tom and Dave, Thanks
Nope not in my backyard, this was taken down in salt lake city at a place called thanksgiving point, during the tulip festival, it was a tricky day to shoot, overcast light was perfect but it was wind, so lots of movement, focus stacking would have been almost impossible.

Steven

Steven: can you tell me if you use a specialized program to do focus stacking? It interests me as a technique I could use for landscapes?.
Dave

 

[Analog6]

The tulips are marvellous! And the astronomical one looks pretty good too - an area where my kit falls down, I've found.

You can do focus stacking in Photoshop (but it is not called that), I did find a tutorial on it online somewhere, a British photographer guy who puts little films up on you tube.

Here

 

[tsjanik]

Dave:

I'm just now learning the technique. I've used photoshop for stacking and it seems to work well with simple scenes. Zerene Stacker Pro was recommended to me on the Pentax forum. PS seems to have trouble with complicated scenes, e.g. in this example from yesterday, PS masked perfectly in-focus areas and allowed blurred areas to show, I modified some of the masks but certainly not an automatic process.
Tom

 

[D&A]

Hi Tom,

Interesting composition. Textures, colors and detail is lovely! I don't have the near the experience in focus stacking as you do but have run into the situation in PS as you described. Have you found any drawbacks to Zerene Stacker Pro? Thanks!

Dave (D&A)