New lens

I am now the happy owner of an Olympus Zuiko 45mm f/1.8. All reviews are unanimous in considering this is an excellent lens with a moderate price. I agree.

Olympus E-P2 + Olympus Zuiko 45/1.8

Autumn (III)

Olympus E-P2 + Olympus Zuiko 45/1.8

Don't touch anything!

Pentax K10D + Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8 + off-camera flash

Unless I'm doing "studio" work, I don't usually move objects around before taking a photo. I like the challenge of getting a good composition from what I find, without interfering on the way things are already laid out. This probably sounds a bit pretentious. It is just a little idiosyncrasy of mine. There are worse things...

Pentax K10D + Zeiss Planar 50/1.4

Two vases

Here's a very classic exercise with an external flash. I find the result quite nice, though.

Pentax K10D + Zeiss Planar 50/1.4 + external flash

I had a single flash on the left, placed on a tripod, and held a stretched sheet of cooking paper in front of it, to obtain a soft diffused light. On the right I had a sheet of aluminum paper - that had been previously crumpled and then stretched out - as a reflector. This gave just a hint of light to define the contour of the vase on the right.

Will the Pentax K-7 be a high-ISO disappointment?

I have written before that I would like to use a camera capable of generating high ISO (well above 1600) images with negligible digital noise and artifacts (like banding). Such cameras exist in the full-frame sensor range, the Nikon D700 being an extraordinary example. Even some cameras with APS-C sized sensors show quite "clean" results, like the Nikon D300.

The announcement of the new Pentax K-7 has created a lot of fuss around it's noise performance. After all, the official news release announced: "With the adverse effects of digital noise greatly reduced, the sensitivity can be increased from ISO 100 up to the highest level of ISO 6400 (via a custom function) without worry." When photos taken with pre-production cameras started showing up all over the internet, people started closely inspecting the quality of the pixels originated at high sensitivity levels, burning their eyelashes against computer screens over countless sleepless nights. A lot of the commentary seems to indicate that, in terms of digital noise, the K-7 is similar to the K20D, which is not exactly spectacular (but is not that terrible either). Many Pentaxians went into deep depression after knowing this. I'll wait to see the first "official" reviews from the sources I trust - a few photography magazines and websites - before making my own opinion. But I find all this discussion a bit... let's say... irritating.

I like to look at an image as a whole - admiring the noiseless smoothness of 100% crops seems a bit geeky.

I have a K10D, which can only go up to ISO 1600 (the K20D goes up to 6400, same as the new K-7). At ISO 800, noise is already so evident that many "pixel-peepers" would vomit over the computer screens, unable to control their repugnance. At ISO 1100-1600 the images are considered unusable by many, unless they can be saved by some specialized noise reduction software. Actually, many consider that ISO 1600 is unusable even on the K20D!

Even though - allow me to repeat - I would appreciate being able to experiment with a camera capable of producing cleaner images, I'm far from despising the high ISO output from my K10D! Let's look at a quick and dirty example. I've taken the photo below (two objects placed on our black dining table, under the room's regular tungsten lighting) with the camera set to ISO 1100 and the in-camera noise reduction turned off, even though I think it only kicks in at longer exposure times. Note that similar results were obtained with ISO 1600, I'm showing this example just because I like the composition better. The photo was taken at 1/15 sec and f5.6. The exposure was set manually, as I didn't want to go lower than 1/15 sec in this handheld shot. The image below was converted from the original RAW file, using Silkypix 3, setting all the noise reduction parameters to zero (that means no noise reduction applied) and without any exposure or color adjustments.

Pentax K10D + Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8 (ISO 1100, unprocessed RAW file)

It doesn't look very good, really, but that isn't necessarily because of the noise. So I used Silkypix to make some modifications and try to obtain the result I had in mind. But I kept all the noise reduction settings at zero - I actually was going for a "grainy" image - except for the false color control, which stayed at the default value of 30%. I used the tone curve to adjust contrast, making the table top darker and the coffee cup lighter. I also adjusted the white balance. It is a known fact that the auto white balance in Pentax cameras does not (intentionally?) correct the yellowish tint caused by tungsten lighting. That's OK, sometimes one want's to preserve that warmer tone.

Same photo as before, after tone curve and white balance adjustments

So how does the image look like now? Quite nice, in my humble and biased, opinion. How did this happen? Darkening the shadow areas helped a lot. The table top became closer to solid black and the noise speckles less intrusive. The image is still noisy, as you can see it in the crop on the left - the cup was outside the depth of field, so please don't comment on sharpness. But does this mostly untreated digital noise render the photo unusable? Not at all, I actually think it looks nice and fitting to the context of the image. Some professional photographers work at high ISO specifically to get some "grain" on their images. Others use software to simulate that fabled "film grain" look.

The K-7 seems to be an interesting camera in many aspects. High ISO perfection might not be one of them. How important is that, though? Digital noise can be seen as an image property, just like exposure or white balance. As long as one is shooting RAW, it can usually be manipulated within a reasonable range, in order to produce results in accordance to the photographer's personal taste. Complete elimination of visible noise is not necessarily the desirable goal. There are exceptions, of course - I would avoid a noisy output if I were trying to preserve detail in a macro shot. A different issue is when one wants to shoot JPEG straight out of the camera. In that case, the post processing possibilities are much limited and a camera with a "cleaner" output might be a wiser choice, if one intends to work at high sensitivity levels.

Lemon balm

When I looked at the kitchen counter and saw that abandoned branch of lemon balm, I knew what I had to do: get the camera and try a few different perspectives. This was the one I liked the most:

Pentax K10D + Zeiss Planar 85/1.4

It was a perfect moment: the soft sunlight coming from behind, the leaves spreading over the tip of the counter, even the dirt on the surface looked good! And the lens attached to my camera was the Planar 85/1.4... By the way, did I say already that this is the best lens ever made?

Written on sand

Beauty is in the details. And a sand beach is full of details. All one needs is some time for a stroll and keep looking down.

Pentax K10D + Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8

Fishing harbor

Fishing harbors are always a good place to look for photo subjects. Here's a couple from Esposende, in the Northern Portuguese coast.

Pentax K10D + Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8

I remember, when I was a kid, that the harbor was always busy with seasoned fishermen and the coming and going of boats. Now only a few small boats are still active, as the town's main economic activity has turned to tourism. Sign of the times.

Stones and melons

Recently, when visiting some relatives, I saw a pile of stones and melons lying in the garden of their house. The stones were for decorating flowerbeds and the melons were for making jam. The fact that they were together was just a coincidence. The winter afternoon sunlight reflecting from the white wall of the house created a beautiful soft lighting on that unexpected set. I quickly grabbed the camera and took some photos.

The rest of the family must have thought "For God's sake, why doesn't he take photos of the kids instead?!"

I actually ended up taking some photos of the kids. But the truth is that the stones and the melons came out better...

Pentax K10D + Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8

My "new" Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8

Pentax K10D + Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8

Thanks to Leitax converters (once again) I've now added a new (used) lens to my setup: the Zeiss Sonnar 85 mm f2.8 AE, converted from Contax to Pentax mount. I got it as a replacement for my cherished Planar 85/1.4, which cannot be adapted due to its slightly different bayonet size.

Even though 85 mm was my favorite focal length for shooting film, with the K10D's APS-C sized sensor the 85 turns into something like 128 mm. I find this is an awkward length for portraits, having to stand too far away from the subject (useful if snapping a photo inconspicuously is intended, though). For some reason the Planar 50/1.4 is now my favorite lens on the K10D, being equivalent to 75 mm focal length on 35 mm film.

But an 85 on the K10D works well for isolating objects and framing details. I think I will be using this lens mainly in this context. And this lens must definitely be used! It produces sharp, well contrasted, images and is remarkably compact.

I think there will be quite a number of photos labeled "Sonnar 85/2.8" showing up on this blog...

Pentax K10D + Zeiss Sonnar 85/2.8

Death in the fields

Some photos are just asking to be black and white...

Pentax K10D + DA 18-55/3.5-5.6

We found this cow skull during a hike in the Douro region. It was so "picture-perfect" that I've actually considered bringing it home for using later on other photos... Nah!