Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 79 of 79

Thread: need faster AF than a K20D..

  1. #61

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    so TS r u still jumping ship to canon gang? since i believe the senior had alrdy give u their point of view on AF on Kr and K5.
    maybe u can hop ard the gathering session on macro outing and hope to see any member carry kr / 60d for macro and use it before u decide to buy. PEACE
    Shoot More Learn More

  2. #62

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by detritus View Post
    eh? is that how it works?

    when using a 1:1 macro lens, your max magnification is only 1:1. even when stepped down, DOF is only a few mm at min focusing distance.

    with a reverse lens setup, u can increase it to larger than 1:1... actual magnification is determined by dividing the FL of the reversed lens with the FL of the mounted lens... so if u use a 100mm prime mounted and a 24mm prime reversed, you can get abt 4x magnification.

    at that level of magnification and working distance, DOF is really shallow whether u're using an MPE-65, a raynox, or TC.

    i'm not sure if the inability to stop down the reversed lens is the reason for shallow DOF.

    i've always been under the impression that its because of the very short working distance and large magnification.

    No worries! Don't need to know about DOF; lighting; magnification; etc
    A better camera will solve all your problems

  3. #63

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by pinholecam View Post
    No worries! Don't need to know about DOF; lighting; magnification; etc
    A better camera will solve all your problems
    oh no! that means my setup is not good enough! i need a 645D!

  4. #64

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by detritus View Post
    oh no! that means my setup is not good enough! i need a 645D!
    maybe can ask chow yun fat about this..
    Shoot More Learn More

  5. #65

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    I fail to see the value added to the discussion by the last few posts, actually.

    Why does there seem to be this need to denigrate my level of knowledge? it would actually be funny if I truly believed that "a better camera will make my macro look better." I do know better than that -- I do know about lighting: I use external flash. I do know about DOF and magnification. So why the smug comments?
    Last edited by orlyandico; 24th December 2010 at 11:58 AM.

  6. #66

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by orlyandico View Post
    I fail to see the value added to the discussion by the last few posts, actually.

    Why does there seem to be this need to denigrate my level of knowledge? it would actually be funny if I truly believed that "a better camera will make my macro look better." I do know better than that -- I do know about lighting: I use external flash. I do know about DOF and magnification. So why the smug comments?
    welcome to pentax subforum! XD

  7. #67

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by orlyandico View Post
    I fail to see the value added to the discussion by the last few posts, actually.

    Why does there seem to be this need to denigrate my level of knowledge? it would actually be funny if I truly believed that "a better camera will make my macro look better." I do know better than that -- I do know about lighting: I use external flash. I do know about DOF and magnification. So why the smug comments?
    Too long a post to follow. Pl allow me chip in here on macro and gear.

    At 1:1 magnification, at f2.8 or f16, the difference in DOF is a small mm distance. That makes a lot of difference to macro shooters.

    Comparing K10 or 20d, to current K5, it does makes a lot of difference as the current K5 allows the use of smaller aperture thru higher usable iso ie iso 800, 1600, 3200 and corresponding higher shutter speed. My K10d allows me about iso 400 without noticeable noise. I believe K20d is almost the same. K5 differs in this respect and means a lot to me. I can attest to this as my latest macro was all shot with K5. K 5 allows more versataility with smaller f -stop and higher shutter. If difference in cost is not an issue, I highly recommed this K5. . I still maintain my K10d for my backup as iso 100 is great for this camera.

    marcus

  8. #68

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    I was a bit hasty in one of my statements though.. I just tested and stopping down the rear lens in a reversed set does increase the DOF. Stopping down the front lens causes major vignetting (as I mentioned) but does not increase the DOF.

    Mea culpa.



    p.s. regarding the ISO, it's not a huge deal for me because I use off-camera flash (wireless P-TTL strobe) so I'm usually at low ISO anyway. Granted I have to stay at ISO 400 so that grain isn't too obtrusive. This means I have to pretty much stick with f/11 to f/13 at most (instead of going all the way to f/22 or f/32) because I don't want to drain all the flash power on every shot. So yes, higher ISO performance (could be a K-x or K-r even) would benefit me, but not that much. I'm still at the level where I need help with focusing.

    What I normally do is get within the range by manual-focusing, then half-press the shutter to fine-tune. This doesn't work most of the time.. I'm hoping that a better AF system would at least let me do that.
    Last edited by orlyandico; 24th December 2010 at 12:16 PM.

  9. #69

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by orlyandico View Post
    I fail to see the value added to the discussion by the last few posts, actually.

    Why does there seem to be this need to denigrate my level of knowledge? it would actually be funny if I truly believed that "a better camera will make my macro look better." I do know better than that -- I do know about lighting: I use external flash. I do know about DOF and magnification. So why the smug comments?
    just some light-hearted comments on a fine christmas eve.

    take a chill pill.

    certainly not the intention of anyone to cause any offence but TS, seriously, i don't see how a 2nd body will help u other than to lighten your wallet.

    instead of having it descend into a pointless and unpleasant flame war, maybe you should just close the thread.

  10. #70

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by detritus View Post
    just some light-hearted comments on a fine christmas eve.

    take a chill pill.

    certainly not the intention of anyone to cause any offence but TS, seriously, i don't see how a 2nd body will help u other than to lighten your wallet.

    instead of having it descend into a pointless and unpleasant flame war, maybe you should just close the thread.

    Agreed. I'll get back to you guys when and if I try out a Canon macro (and either get disappointed, or get happy).


    edit: Marcus, checked your flickr and got (unpleasantly) reminded of that A* 200mm macro! had forgotten about it..
    Last edited by orlyandico; 24th December 2010 at 12:24 PM.

  11. #71

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by orlyandico View Post
    I was a bit hasty in one of my statements though.. I just tested and stopping down the rear lens in a reversed set does increase the DOF. Stopping down the front lens causes major vignetting (as I mentioned) but does not increase the DOF.

    Mea culpa.



    p.s. regarding the ISO, it's not a huge deal for me because I use off-camera flash (wireless P-TTL strobe) so I'm usually at low ISO anyway. Granted I have to stay at ISO 400 so that grain isn't too obtrusive. This means I have to pretty much stick with f/11 to f/13 at most (instead of going all the way to f/22 or f/32) because I don't want to drain all the flash power on every shot. So yes, higher ISO performance (could be a K-x or K-r even) would benefit me, but not that much. I'm still at the level where I need help with focusing.

    What I normally do is get within the range by manual-focusing, then half-press the shutter to fine-tune. This doesn't work most of the time.. I'm hoping that a better AF system would at least let me do that.
    Interesting, May I know what lenses you use? working distance? Must be very near to the subject.. I have never tried two lenses before. I know my 28mm reversed gives me more than 2 X mag. but the viewfinder is extremely dim. Only one fix focus distance. So small aperture is a challenge in reverse lens set-up.

    marcus

    marcus

  12. #72

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by orlyandico View Post
    Agreed. I'll get back to you guys when and if I try out a Canon macro (and either get disappointed, or get happy).


    edit: Marcus, checked your flickr and got (unpleasantly) reminded of that A* 200mm macro! had forgotten about it..

    A*200 macro I have a new name for it, Power lens.

    Enjoy your macro which ever body you are buying.

    Merry Christmas to you and all the kakis here

    marcus

  13. #73

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by orlyandico View Post
    I was a bit hasty in one of my statements though.. I just tested and stopping down the rear lens in a reversed set does increase the DOF. Stopping down the front lens causes major vignetting (as I mentioned) but does not increase the DOF.

    Mea culpa.



    p.s. regarding the ISO, it's not a huge deal for me because I use off-camera flash (wireless P-TTL strobe) so I'm usually at low ISO anyway. Granted I have to stay at ISO 400 so that grain isn't too obtrusive. This means I have to pretty much stick with f/11 to f/13 at most (instead of going all the way to f/22 or f/32) because I don't want to drain all the flash power on every shot. So yes, higher ISO performance (could be a K-x or K-r even) would benefit me, but not that much. I'm still at the level where I need help with focusing.

    What I normally do is get within the range by manual-focusing, then half-press the shutter to fine-tune. This doesn't work most of the time.. I'm hoping that a better AF system would at least let me do that.
    F22 / F32 will cause diffraction so that's not really a problem. F11, F16 is probably optimum.

    with your focusing technique, AF has a high chance of messing up your shot. i've tried it. it doesn't work for anything other than a big green grasshopper on a smooth brown tree trunk. and even then, u get no assurance that AF will focus on the right part of the subject.

    if u're using a tripod, a better way would be to MF all the way. if u're doing hand-held or with a monopod, MF to the distance, and shift the camera forward or backward for sharpness.

    trust your eyes. its superior to any AF.

  14. #74

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by otc View Post
    Interesting, May I know what lenses you use? working distance? Must be very near to the subject.. I have never tried two lenses before. I know my 28mm reversed gives me more than 2 X mag. but the viewfinder is extremely dim. Only one fix focus distance. So small aperture is a challenge in reverse lens set-up.

    The reproduction ratio you get is X:1 where X = FL of long lens / FL of short lens.

    Here's the test I just did: 50mm f1.8 lens reverse-mounted on the front of the D-FA 100mm clamped at its shortest focusing distance. So the front lens is basically a glorified close-up diopter.

    rear lens @ f/2.8, front lens @ wide-open:


    rear lens @ f/10, front lens @ wide-open:


    rear lens @ f/10, front lens @ f/8 or so:


    of course the point of focus is different for the three, but it seems there's no difference in the depth of focus of #2 and #3. All these are the full image, the "16" is the f/16 aperture indicator on the ring of an SMC-A 50mm f/2 lens.

    I used the cheapo Yungnuo external flash on Slave 2 mode, triggered by the pop-up flash. Actually the Yungnuo is less hassle than the AF360FGZ, because the Pentax flash is quite unreliable for me in wireless P-TTL mode, so I end up using it in full-manual mode off-camera.

  15. #75

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    i have read the whole thread...

    i think i understand TS's need...

    lets wait for TS to try out other cam and update us...

    my guess is: cannon is faster in AF but still miss in AF on tiny insect

  16. #76

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by orlyandico View Post
    I fail to see the value added to the discussion by the last few posts, actually.

    Why does there seem to be this need to denigrate my level of knowledge? it would actually be funny if I truly believed that "a better camera will make my macro look better." I do know better than that -- I do know about lighting: I use external flash. I do know about DOF and magnification. So why the smug comments?
    Don't read too much into it. (Really)
    We always spout nonsense here just to lift the mood.

  17. #77

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Got a 40D cheap from a friendly CS'er. Now to find a macro lens..

    It's quite different interface-wise from my old 350D. It does some things better than the K20D (the Live View is much better, and it meters better with manual lenses). But the build is not as good, it creaks when I grip it and has minimal weather resistance.

    Overall I would still give the edge to the K20D usability-wise. But then I haven't cracked the manual, but I imagine setting things like custom WB will be a lot more complicated than the K20D. I haven't had a chance to test the AF speed yet, as I have no AF lenses (been using my old Pentax Super-Takumar on the 40D with an old M42-EOS adapter I had from before).
    Last edited by orlyandico; 25th December 2010 at 01:43 AM.

  18. #78

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by orlyandico View Post
    Got a 40D cheap from a friendly CS'er. Now to find a macro lens..

    It's quite different interface-wise from my old 350D. It does a lot of things better than the K20D (the Live View implementation is much better, and it meters better with manual lenses). But the build is not as good, it creaks when I grip it, and the interface was designed by a bunch of computer programmers.

    Overall I would still give the edge to the K20D usability-wise. But then I haven't cracked the manual, but I imagine setting things like custom WB will be a lot more complicated than the K20D. I haven't had a chance to test the AF speed yet, as I have no AF lenses (been using my old Pentax Super-Takumar on it with an M42 adapter).
    Wait, if u said the K20D AF slow, but u dun have AF lenses then how u know its slow? . Or did I miss some paragraph on page 1...?

    Well, anyways. Congrats on ur purchase.
    My Flickr iownthislensthatlensthislensthatlens

  19. #79

    Default Re: need faster AF than a K20D..

    Quote Originally Posted by ricsal View Post
    Wait, if u said the K20D AF slow, but u dun have AF lenses then how u know its slow? . Or did I miss some paragraph on page 1...?

    Well, anyways. Congrats on ur purchase.
    Thanks.

    I don't have any AF lenses for the Canon yet so can't compare..
    Last edited by orlyandico; 25th December 2010 at 01:42 AM.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •