Shutterfinger

The Pentax K-7: Post-review Reflections

This is the Masonic Temple in Center City Philadelphia, shot with a Pentax K-7 and 35mm f/2.8 Macro DA at ISO 100. If you think this JPEG looks good you should see the print!

As most of you know, I finished a 3-part review of the Pentax K-7 for Mike Johnston’s TOP blog a few weeks ago. Although I pointed out a few weakness, such as the sometimes bewildering number of menu options, distracting noise at high ISOs when shooting JPEGs, and slow AF speed in low light, the review was positive.

And why not? I judge a camera by how much I enjoy using it to take pictures, not by how it looks on paper or how “inferior” it is to a camera I can’t afford or would never buy because it’s too big and heavy. My experience has been (and still is) that there are few practical situations for which the K-7 is not be up to the task. The trick is knowing how to get the best out of it. Now that I’d had the chance to get even more familiar with it, here are a few tips and observations I’d like to pass along to anyone else interested in how to do so.

What Type of Photographer Are You?

You can tell a lot about a photographer from the lenses he or she uses. Here are a few of my own personal observations based on the types of non-pro photographers I'm most familiar with. Yes, I'm stereotyping, but that's the whole point. That said, please don't interpret these observations as moral judgements. There are no “right” or “wrong” choices in this list, at least not in the absolute sense; just indicators of a certain frame of mind. So with this brief prelude, here’s the list:

The Purist—The Purist’s motto is “Less is more.” He therefore carries only one lens and it’s almost always a fixed focal length. The advantage of this approach, as he sees it, is that he becomes intimately familiar with the way a particular lens “draws” a scene, its angle of view, its strengths and its weaknesses. Purists can see a scene and know exactly how it will photograph with their lens of choice. Anything they should happen to see that can’t be shot with The One Lens simply isn’t worth shooting.

The Prime Fetishist—The Prime Fetishist’s motto is “It’s all about the lens.” A Fetishist is easy to mistake for a Purist because they both shoot only with primes. The difference is that the Prime Fetishist owns many primes; the more obscure, exotic, and hard to find the better. Unpronounceable names (such as Goerz Dagor or Apo-Apocalypse) earn bonus points. Any given scene can best be interpreted by only one particular lens, which must then be mounted to a camera with an equally obscure adapter. The Fetishist’s main challenge is finding a subject worthy of his lenses.

The Lugger—The Lugger’s motto is “Be prepared.” With that in mind, he (and it’s always a he) carries enough glass during his photo excursions to cover every focal length from super-wide angle to telephoto, with macro capability thrown in for good measure. Zooms are his optics of choice because they are so “practical and versatile.” A standard accessory includes a bottle of Motrin to dull the pain radiating from their back and shoulders. Luggers favor cameras with good low-light performance because by the time they have everything sorted out and are ready to shoot, the sun has begun to set.

The Artist—The Artist’s motto is “It’s just a lens.” They therefore take pride in using what other photographers would politely refer to as “junk.” Equipment that’s twenty years old, dented, scratched and worn offers evidence of continuous use for Artist Purposes, even if it was bought at a yard sale the week before. As for the results, where you see flaws the Artist sees “style and character.”

The Kit-Zoomer—Kit-Zoomers don’t really have a motto. They just use the lens that came with the camera and make the best of it. They zoom until the image in the viewfinder looks pretty good and then they click the shutter. If zooming doesn’t do the trick they move closer or further away, if they can. Kit-Zoomers take an equally casual attitude toward lens aperture, which is probably just as well: Kit-zooms are so slow there are only four full stops to choose from anyway. This freedom from the boring details of photographic technique frees Kit-Zoomers to produce photographs that, much to their surprise and delight, are acceptably sharp and well-exposed.

So the question for today is, did I leave anyone out? More importantly, which one of these types are you?

The Vanishing "Sweet Spot"

When it comes to the choices people make in photographic equipment I'm generally a live-and-let-live kind of guy. "Use whatever you can afford and that makes you happy," is my motto. That said, I sometimes shake my head in wonderment at the popularity of so-called "walkaround" zooms for DSLRs. These are zooms that start out somewhere around 17mm (wide angle on an APSC sensor camera) and stop at 100mm or so (medium telephoto). A few even go up to 200 or 250mm.

I am not singling this particular lens out for criticism. It's a wonderful product and if you own one you made a brilliant choice. It just happens to be an example of the type of lens I'm referring to, that's all.

It's not the zoom ratio that bothers me. I "get" the convenience of having one lens that replaces many. What bothers me is the maximum aperture. At the wide end its generally something like f/3.5. At the long end it's almost always f/5.6. Not so coincidentally, that's the smallest aperture at which most autofocusing systems can still function in low light.

What most photographers using these lenses don't realize is that most DSLRs these days with resolutions above 10 megapixels are diffraction-limited at roughly f/8. That means that when you stop down to f/11 or f/16 you loose image resolution and contrast simply from the effect of light diffracting off the edges of the aperture blades. It's a function of the physical size of the aperture opening itself, so compact digicams with tiny lenses and aperture openings are often diffraction-limited at f/5.6.

But back to DSLRs attached to slow zooms. The effect of using a lens that has a maximum aperture of f/5.6 is that you have a "sweet spot" of only two full apertures (i.e. f/5.6 and f/8.0) before you start to lose image quality--and that's assuming the image quality is good at f/5.6!
       
Now some of you may ask "What about the wide end? That's still f/3.5 or so, right?" To which my response is, "That depends." What often happens is that if you're in Program mode and your lens is at maximum aperture (f/3.5) the maximum aperture will automatically decrease (to f/5.6) when you zoom to the maximum focal length. But when you zoom back to the wide end, some cameras will keep the aperture at f/5.6. Clever, eh? No wonder so many of these lenses come with image stabilization: The resulting shutter speeds are slow there's no other way you could get a reasonably sharp image unless you cranked up the ISO or mounted the camera on a tripod.

Contrast this with the situation you're in if you're using a reasonably good prime lens. Let's say the maximum aperture is f/2.0. Let's say the corners don't catch up with the center resolution until you stop down to f/2.8. Even so, you'd have a "sweet spot" with a range of four full stops (f/2.8 - f/8.0) rather than two. That gives you a lot more options for shutter speeds and depth-of-field, which translate into more creative options. You'd have only one option for focal length though--but if it was the right focal length you might find you'd miss the ability to zoom less than you'd miss having a broader choice of apertures.

Another option is to switch to a zoom with a constant aperture of f/2.8; however, if you've priced such lenses you don't need me to tell you that they tend to be rather pricey, not to mention large and heavy.

In photography as in life, you don't get something for nothing. If you want a small, affordable lens you can carry everywhere and that has a wide zoom range, you're going to have to live with a very small sweet spot. Only you can decide if the trade-off is worth it. I've already made my decision and I suspect don't have to tell you what it is.

To Filter or Not to Filter

One of the easiest ways to get an argument started among photographers is to ask whether or not it's a good idea to use a UV or Skylight 1A on your lenses. Those who say yes argue that such filters help protect the front element. Those who say no argue that a filter degrades the optical quality of the lens. If you care to know what I say, read on.

Is It Worth the Wait?

One of the constant issues on photo forums is whether to wait for an upgrade to whatever DSLR seems close to the end of its product cycle or whether to buy now, when prices are at their lowest. Product cycles these days range from 16-24 months, depending on whether the camera is designed more for amateurs (faster cycles) or enthusiasts (slower cycles).

As always, the answer is "It depends." If you simply must have the latest and greatest, then you might as well wait--but with the understanding that you might be waiting longer than you expected. There's often a lag between when a camera is introduced and when it's actually in stock. Once it's available and the reviews start rolling in, you may discover that it falls short of your expectations. Dreams and reality seldom coincide. Finally, you'll be paying a price premium. Most retailers charge close to list price when a camera has just been introduced. Rebates and discounts appear only after a camera has been on the market for a half-year or so. Still, if you can't stand the thought that you could have had a "much better camera" (though not necessarily better pictures) if you had only waited, then by all means wait.

On the other hand, if you buy now, you'll be getting a proven commodity at a price that's about as low as it's going to get. For examples you need look no further than the Canon EOS 40D, which is now selling in the U.S. with a $200 instant rebate, and the Nikon D80, which is now selling for $200 less than when it was introduced. You can find similar examples among the other brands as well. For many photographers, $200 is the difference between being able to afford a camera and not. For others, it's the difference between having to settle for the kit lens or upgrading to something better.

There is, of course a third option: Keep whatever you've got now. It costs nothing, strengthens your character, and demonstrates that you are an independent thinker, immune to the enticements of the marketeers. Whatever you decide, rest assured that that camera you own today will take much better photographs than the one you hope to own one day.

Tripods: The Ultimate Image Stabilizer

One of the hot features these days is image-stabilization, a.k.a. vibration-reduction, shake-reduction, etc. The idea is that either the optics within a lens or the digital sensor itself will move in such a way that they counteract the movement from hand-holding a camera. I've used both systems and can report that they perform reasonably close to their inflated advertising claims. So is image stabilization (IS) useful? Yes, undoubtedly. Is it indispensable? Well... I wouldn't go that far.

The problem is that IS doesn't eliminate the effects of camera shake, it just reduces them. At some point your shutter speed will be so slow you'll see a noticeable blur from camera motion, subject motion, or both. IS also doesn't help much with macro work, where the slightest motion forward or back can knock the subject out of focus. The fact is that no matter how useful IS is, it's still no substitute for a good, reliable tripod; one that, for all practical purposes, eliminates camera motion from the equation.

Are tripods bulky and inconvenient? Yes. Does a good tripod/head combo cost at least as much as a high-quality lens? Yes, again. But I can tell you this: Once you've seen what even an average camera and lens can do when mounted on a good tripod, you'll understand that while IS can often substitute for a tripod, it can't replace one.

Farewell to the Olympus E-510

I recently bid farewell to an Olympus E-510 DSLR. I had bought it with a 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko, with the idea of using the combo as my "travel kit." The E-510 accompanied me to London and back. It rewarded me with many fine photographs, but in the end we had to go our separate ways. Its design quirks--a small viewfinder, limited dynamic range, high noise at ISOs above 400--had become tiresome, especially with so many more flexible choices available. Apparently, Olympus itself agrees, because just today it introduced the E-510's successor, the E-520. I'm sure it's a better camera. Good enough to gain market share over Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax? I doubt it, but there will always be a soft spot in my heart for Olympus.

Cameras Do Matter (But Not as Much as You Think)

This straightforward street photo could have been taken with practically any camera that has a medium-wide or normal lens. It could also have been taken by practically any photographer. What's most important to most viewers is not who you are or what  you use, but what you shoot.

Ken Rockwell, a photography pundit with a website, has generated some controversy by claiming that your camera doesn't matter. Other pundits and online forum opinionators have felt obliged to argue the opposite: Your camera does matter--a lot.

Arguing strongly for either side is as pointless as arguing about which side of a coin is most important. Your camera does matter to the extent that it needs to be sufficient for your intended purpose. If you want to photograph birds or sports you'll need a camera that accepts telephoto lenses. If you're interested in architectural photography it helps to have a camera that accepts wide angle lenses and that allows you to adjust the lens and focal planes. If you just want a camera that will take acceptable pictures of a variety of subjects in good light, almost any general purpose camera will do.

The point that often gets lost by the "camera matters a lot" crowd is that a camera is just a tool. Owning an excellent tool does not automatically bestow expertise on the owner. At best, with enough automation, it may simply ensure that every photograph you take is in focus and correctly exposed. All things being equal, you'll get better results overall if you improve your skills than if you improve your camera.