Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 27, 2007, 12:30 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

Re the recent discussions of kit lenses, here are a couple of shots of a medallion, the left with an L-Ring light and the right with oblique illumination. Images were taken hand-held with the K100D and the 18-55 kit lens. Images are straight from the camera without manipulation, originally at 1536X1024 each, cropped and reduced for combination into one emailable jpeg at 72dpi and a little under 640X320 pixels.


Attached Images
 
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 27, 2007, 6:59 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 1,868
Default

Just goes to show the quality of the kit lens!


Darren
Dal1970 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 27, 2007, 8:35 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 16
Default

This shot I just took like 10 minutes ago. Same setup except for the x7 closeup filter I added.

I wanted that cake oh well.
Attached Images
 
maj0rglitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2007, 4:41 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

That doesn't count you could put one of those on any lens, just as I can put a .45x WA lens on the front of my lens and say my 28mm is a 14mm lens.... does the job pretty well... but not quite the same.

And of course end result is what matters... but for true macro that's a bit soft just as my .45x WA has more curvature distortion than a true 14mm.... but $400+ plus more for a true 14mm... no not really for my occassional needs.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2007, 12:42 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

penolta,
these aren't really macros but closeups. hey, so what. i shot this one soon after getting the DS. it's a nice lens, i like it a lot. since i have a dedicated macro i seldomly use the kit lens for closeups.



here's another of a robber fly dining on a wasp.



maj0rglitch,
you fly shot will clean up marvelously, give me a little time and i'll show you.

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2007, 1:13 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

maj0rglitch

your fly was an excellent shot because of it's sharpness. it just needed a tad adj.
this one is good for the wall. i also resized it to a more web friendly size.
i've gotten good results diopters but nothing takes the place of a good 1:1 macro lens. how do you like it ??

roy
Attached Images
 
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2007, 2:27 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 16
Default

Roy,

I like it, it is sharper. Thanks for taking time, it is always nice to have a feedback.

What adjustment did you made? I haven't really done anything with my shots aside from adjusting the exposure.
maj0rglitch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2007, 8:19 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

robar wrote:
Quote:
penolta,
these aren't really macros but closeups. hey, so what.
Strictly speaking, you may be right, but that depends on how strictlyone applies the definition, as in use "macrophotography" can be broader than just the production of macrophotographs alone. If you listen to the lens manufacturers, their "macro" lenses are anything from 1:1 to 1:5 ormore - just look at the marked macro range on some of your lenses. It is hard to find two definitions the same. One of thestrictest ones I have found resricts the range (of a macrophotograph) from 1:1 to !0:1; on the other hand "Macrophotography . . . embraces those close-ups and macrophotographs which lie between photomicrography and normal photography. It may be said to cover the whole field from plants down to the most minute insects, for any object smaller that 12 inches is an ideal macro subject." (from Focal Press' Macrophoto and Cine MethodsI have several texts on the subject, and as you might expect, the most technical apply the strictest definitions, and the most popular ones the loosest. I think in practical useage, "macro" is applied to the range below the "normal" close-focus limit of alens without a "macro" range - such a lens would better becalled a "macro-focussing lens", whilea true "macro lens"should be onlya flat-field lens of 1:1or greater (I have never seen a 2:1, but 1:2 is often justified with a 1:1 adapter). Manufacturers seem to prefer "macro" to the more accurate "close-focussing" which iseither a deliberatemarketing ploy or another example of the loss of precision taking place in today's language, but we are stuck with it for better or worse.

The medallion, incidentally, is 45mm in diameter. If you accept Pentax's 1:2 macro lens as a true macro, this would be well within the macro range provided it was withina 70mm border (at 1:2 that is2X the 35mm frame size at 1:1; this excludes the the dslr 1.5 correction factor, which only complicates things further).

I, too, prefer to use dedicated macro lenses in the more extreme close-up ranges.I took these as demos of the kitlens's capabilities for emailing tofriends who were contemplating a Pentax DSLR purchase. I was surprised at how well it did for an inexpensive lens. Ain't no flies on that little ol' lens!

Your robber fly shot is great - it sure turned the tables on that nasty oldwasp.
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 28, 2007, 9:40 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

I'm old school. macro = 1:1 or higher. 1:2 is a closeup. knowing macros , i'd say maj0rglitch's shot is at least 1:1. and it's a very fine one at that.
something you might want to look up-- there is nomagnification factor at 1:1 or 1:2ratio or any other factor. only a crop factor..
1:1 is 1:1 at the film/sensor plane
it's the same with lenses 100mm= 100mm. the only difference is the viewable size of the image.

maj0rglitch
i'll get back to you on the steps taken. it's mainly just sharpening.

penolta

''I have never seen a 2:1,''.

one thing i can say is a 1:5 ratio does not even come into the realm of macro.

here's a 3-4:1 macro. now you can say you've seen one. i'll be happy to explain



roy

robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 29, 2007, 12:28 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

robar wrote:
Quote:
I'm old school. macro = 1:1 or higher. 1:2 is a closeup
And the again something you can be virtually ON TOP OF and no feeling (veggie not animal going to fl)

And ok 1:1 is nice but how many things ARE under 2 inches???

Nice you can all do that when ALGEA like life.... butr real animated world sufff easily scared off???... but for by GREAT LUCK, maybe?

How about suoer macro.... like a 0.5:1 lens for something real tiny.... Got a spare $10k YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH




Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:51 AM.