1996-1999: Casio QV10A1999-2004: Nikon Coolpix 9502004-2007: Olympus C-50602006-2006: Fujifilm F202007-2010: Fujifilm F31fd2007-2007: Pentax K100D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2007-2009: Pentax K10D (mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2009-2012: Pentax K-7 (still mostly with DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited)2009-2011: Fujifilm F200EXR2012- : Pentax K-5ii (+ 15mm, 40mm, 70mm Limiteds)2015- : Fujifilm X-T10 (+ 23mm and 56mm)Now you know. :)
Pat Cullinan Jr: The sample photos need heavy post-processing.
A lot of them _do_ seem to have a tending-towards-lower-key exposure choice — I suspect that's part of the design towards creating a specific film-like look.
I'm not a Fujifilm shooter (at least, not at present...) but I don't think there's a way to bias this other than using EV compensation or adjusting the exposure each time, which is a little bit unfortunate. You can adjust saturation ("color density") and shadow and highlight detail, but not this. With Pentax, each of the tone curves (roughly analogous to Fujifilm's film simulation) also has a "high key / low key" slider. Ah well — nothing's perfect.
Karroly: All the pics in the gallery look underexposed...
I think it's mostly intentional, as part of the intended "film look". If you don't like that, expose differently.
The exposure choice looks great to me. It may be that you just have a different preference. Alternately, you may want to check your monitor calibration.
Howard S: it looks a lot like http://flashhavoc.com/godox-witstro-ar400-ring-flash-coming/
Cheetahstand also has amazing customer service. Not that Adorama is bad in this respect either, but I've been very, very happy with the personal touch.
HeyItsJoel: If it's done right, it should have the ability to tilt upwards so it can bounce flash off the ceiling!
It'd have to be way more powerful for that to work.
For what it's worth, we had this rumor for Pentax last year — http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52214695
fmian: The 3-4 Metz flashes I have handled recently (modern models) felt incredibly bad. Poor component fitting. Loose door covers. Cheap feeling external materials. High price though.If that's the first impression I got after using YongNuo and Canon flashes, then I'm sure other potential customers got the same impression.
Having said that, I've seen some old Metz flashes that were quite nice.
iudex -- look at where they're made. The Metz 36 AF5 is a licensed product, made by Tumax/Icorp http://www.icorpandtumax.com/DSL88Series.html in Hong Kong. The 44 AF and higher models are still German-made.
Mike Yorkshire: Very sad news. Sadly the camera manufacturers have designed flash systems closely integrated with their cameras and then had the resulting flash made by Chinese workers. Metz would always find it difficult to keep up in this market - their products were always second to none.
For the last few years, Metz has done exactly that — all of their lower range (36 AF and down) is made in China and bears a strong resemblance to Tumax/Icorp generic rebadged flashes.
ThePhilips: As cameras' high ISO performance improves, a need for a proper flash lessens.
Otherwise, as an amateur, I was always surprised by the lack of advancements in the lighting equipment. Flash designs, and the accompanying technics, are very old. The problems with them - are as old. Yet pretty much nobody tries to improve something there. Flash is still the same largish expensive-ish clunky device I have hard time to justify to buy and dedicate the space in my bag for it. As if interchangeable lenses weren't enough of the hustle.
> As cameras' high ISO performance improves, a need for a proper flash lessens.
I'd argue that the need for _proper_ flash is constant. The need for flash for taking snapshots in dim rooms may lessen, but that's basically irrelevant.
Paul Farace: In 1977 Pentax stormed the camera world with a simple SLR, the K1000, that only came in black leatherette and chrome. It dominated the lower level camera market for years... now they only seem to make pretty collectibles... sad in a way. I love my art deco box cameras but these seem to be way beyond that!
I like the one that looks like a bowl of sherbet!
Have you looked at the K-3 (or, for that matter, K-50 or K-500)? All are very highly rated as serious cameras, not just "collectables". If they want to make candy-colored models (primarily for the Japanese market, as I understand it) to bring in some money, fine by me!
Marty4650: Pentax is just doing something to set themselves apart from the competition.
They make very good APSC cameras and lenses, but so do their competitors Nikon, Canon and Sony. And it seems anything Pentax can do, their competitors can do as well or better. So they need something to set themselves apart. That something is "a mind dazzling array of color combinations."
This may sound silly, but there is a market for this. A niche market perhaps, but still a market. And if no one else wants it then Pentax will take it for themselves.
I haven't seen anyone else do prime lenses like the Limited series — that's what I'm in it for. (Possible exception of Fujifilm and their X lineup.)
Wait, 20× magnification? Or... 20× zoom?
Hmmm. Still doesn't look my idea here: http://photo.stackexchange.com/a/38329/1943
Matthew Miller: Fun and confusing fact! "High key lighting" and "high key photographs" are different concepts with different meanings and different history. The former comes to us from cinema, where "key" means the main light; the latter is much older and comes from painting and classical art, and "key" is closer to its use in music, and means the preponderance of tones — everything is shifted to a brighter average exposure, with little or no dark or black tones.
This tutorial focuses on high-key lighting, and the results aren't _really_ high key images in the classical sense (although we can argue about influence of the white background). The model's hair and clothing here have definite dark tones.
Generally, this isn't a huge difference for _high key_, since they're both kinda bright, but there is generally a different emotional effect:
* High-key image: ethereal, delicate, dream-like* High-key lighting: cheery, upbeat, energetic
but if we go to _low key_, there's a huge difference: low key *lighting* usually means that there's a lot of contrast from a hard non-key light. This is often dramatic and dynamic, whereas a low key image in the classical sense has an overall sense of darkness, often without contrasting highlights:
* Low-key image: somber, restrained, depressing* Low-key lighting: dramatic, mysterious, taut
In some ways this is a tangent to the tutorial, but it's something I see a lot of people get mixed up, and it's confusing when people are using a similar-sounding term to mean very different things.
Fun and confusing fact! "High key lighting" and "high key photographs" are different concepts with different meanings and different history. The former comes to us from cinema, where "key" means the main light; the latter is much older and comes from painting and classical art, and "key" is closer to its use in music, and means the preponderance of tones — everything is shifted to a brighter average exposure, with little or no dark or black tones.
joyclick: If Pentax can do K3 what stops them beat'em all superzoom? They have too many superzooms but none outstanding !
Simple. They stopped actually designing and making anything but DSLRs several years ago. Unlike the K-3, this isn't _really_ a Pentax — it's just a thing they commissioned and put the Pentax name on in order to make some money in an easy market segment.
Eleson: So, is the road noew open for millions of patents designed as: "Placing a flash in loc A and a flash in loc B to produce shadowing on subjects that can only be done with flashes in those two specific places."
Try taking a product shot after that. :)
Welcome to writing any non-trivial software program right now.
Jimmy Dozer: Great. About 10 days ago, I sent in a Bowens/Calumet Monolight in to their repair facility. Now what?
Sadly, you are probably out of luck. You will be so far down the list of people the bankruptcy proceedings care about that you're probably best off just buying a replacement elsewhere.
bobbarber: Given: Sensor technology gets better every year.
A. Therefore, people will need larger sensor cameras in the future.
B. Therefore, people will need smaller sensor cameras in the future.
Looking back to the history of large format, medium format, and 35mm film cameras is cheating. The logic behind your choice must come from your own ideas.
Because... god forbid we learn from history?
The punchline of each of these photos seriously cracks me up. Nice.