Also the K-5 has a new AF system, but word is it's not that big of a change.
So, really, that's the one thing I don't like: predictive AF is terrible.
If a kid is running at you, you need to pre-focus and snap at the right time. If you try to do a burst of AF-C shots, you'll get maybe one in focus.
I also wish the flash lineup was as sophisticated as Nikon's.
Oh hey. I just realized that for the micro-adjust thing, there's an Even Easier Way.
1) put camera in contrast detect in live view, and focus with live-view on. 2) press LV button to turn off live view, hit AF button. 3) note direction of change. 4) tweak adjustment setting, hit LV button to turn LV back on, and repeat.
The beauty of this is that you don't need a fancy target.
Pentax AF definitely lags, but I do think it improves on the K-7. It is probably the weakest link for the K-5 though. Beyond that, I liked the camera enough to buy two of them.
The AF is plenty fast for still subjects and even for moving subjects that aren't coming right at you (or running away). You'll find a lot of complaining about Pentax AF if you search, but it's really basically this case that's the problem, and on the echo chamber of the internet it becomes "pentax AF is slow".
And on that note, if you find a blog by a guy named "Rice High", just stay away. He's got some weird anti-Pentax crusade that he makes a point of pride out of.
@rfusca - ended up getting the 50mm f/1.8 lens you recommended the other day. Was playing with it a bit (just seeing it works, of course...) Holy crap but that is a nice lens!
I will be getting my nikon d5100 today. It will be with default lens 18-55. So, just wondering, if I need to get any filtering lens along with it...or the base kit is alright for learning?
@user495402 its good stuff to learn but won't break the bank
ah, ok
didn't realize you were the same
a lens with a larger aperture (a lower f number) will allow you to get some of the thin depth of field shots (where your subject is in focus, but the background is blurry) that the kit lens won't do except in special circumstances.
When I travel I take photos of a variety of subjects like waterways, buildings, cultural events, the local people, landscapes, conveyances, nightlife, myself and my wife, things I see around me -- pretty typical stuff. I rarely plan for photographs. Instead I just take the best shots I know how a...
@rfusca the lens that you suggested is Nikon 50mm f/1.8G but the store that I am buying my camera from has Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D Lens. So, looking at the the names the difference I am seeing is G vs D. So, are they significantly different?
What I'm not looking forward to, is seeing my aps-c specific lens second hand prices drop to the floor upon release of the mk3 - right when I want to sell them
not right now, my laptop died yesterday and i'm still transfering stuff from the dead one to this one
there's two (maybe three?) kinds of astrophotography
one, stars with landscapes ...a single long exposure trying to get some stars on a nice landscape....sometimes with star trails ,sometimes not
wide field astro - all sky, usually stacked of several shorter (as little as 30 seconds, or as much as 20-30 minutes) shots to reduce noise...good to get a high def shot of the whole milky way
prime focus astro - taking a picture through the telescope of a galaxy or a planet or something
the first one is the easiest, second one requires a tracking mount to keep up with the rotation of the earth, and the third requires a bit of specialized gear
most of the time, we're talking about the second
but i think @jrista does some timelapse astro - or has in the past?
but he might have just been doing that for stacking's sake
It's bad enough I can't afford to buy a backpack full of "L" lenses, but I'm gonna need a raise if I'm going to put a photo telescope into space. Maybe even an income tax refund or two.
I got a 5" (?) Meade reflector when my son started showing interest, but we don't use that as much as we should. We went up to an observatory near here last year, and there were a bunch of guys out there with really nice scopes -- 10" and up. No way I'm going to be able to do that, let alone find a place to store it.
There's a grinding facility in the basement of the observatory, and a couple of the guys were talking about the precision that goes into making those mirrors. I couldn't believe it.
When you have to start accounting for the temp of the mirror, I guess maybe liquid starts making sense. Just nuts, though, when you think about it (for me, anyway).
@rfusca I have done some. Mostly moon timelapses. I've tried a few milky way timelapse sequences, but my camera does really poorly. I have to use ISO1600, and that just destroys any useful detail.
actually, I'd probably just spend the bucks to set up one of those solar energy generators, hook into the power grid, and sell the excess, rather than pay Xcel Energy a shit ton of money for energy each month
I guess technically speaking I understand the amount of DOF is dependent on "focal length"....but those pancake lenses usually look thinner than their focal lengths...
