New FTS and camera dilemma

[mcliffy2]

So I finally took the time to turn off the flow, and set up the tripod to try to get a good FTS. However, I'm still unhappy with the results. They seem soft/out of focus and lacking in detail. The setup I used was my Pentax K10D with the stock 18-55mm lens. I know the stock lens isn't the greatest, but I think it may have taken better shots when I first got it. I also purchased the Pentax SMC DA* Series 16-50mm f/2.8, and Gary played around with it and concluded the lens was defective (wouldn't focus properly), so I returned it. However, given the results I'm getting I'm wondering if there is also a problem with the camera body.

So I face a dilemma - do I buy a new Pentax K20D body? I have about 1k in Pentax lenses, so this is definitely the less-expensive route. Or do I suck it up and switch to Canon/Nikon? Or is it possible I just need a better lens?

Here's the recent FTS:

And here is a shot taken about 10 months ago with the same camera (when the tank was first set up):

 

[Jonreefer]

I think the Recent FTS is pretty good..What settings did you shoot this at ISO,ShutterSpeed,Aperture, Focal length?..you have to take into consideration that you are fitting MUCH more into the scene as apposed to zooming in alot closer on one subject and you will not get that level of detail.... Are you adding some Unsharp Mask in post production as well..Thats almost a givin thing needed to digital photography

 

[mcliffy2]

I'll have to check the exact details when I get home. Also, in Aperture 2 (my photo editing software), do you know what unsharp mask commands are available?

 

[FaviaFreak]

BEautiful! love it!!!

 

[I-K@ndY]

Regardless of what camera you use Mike .. Your tank Rocks!

 

[Jonreefer]

I'll have to check the exact details when I get home. Also, in Aperture 2 (my photo editing software), do you know what unsharp mask commands are available?

no sorry...I use Photoshop CS4

 

[mcliffy2]

Wow, just got my Tamron 18-250 F/2.8 back from repairs that weren't done (long story, but I'll never buy Tamron again), BUT the optics were not affected by the manf. defect in the lens, and I must say, this lens produces A LOT more detail. So I think the combo of trying the stock lens and getting a defective SMC DA* Series 16-50mm (a $650 lens that should have produced nice wide angle shots, but actually was worse than the stock lens). Here is a pic I just snapped, handheld, with only sunset lighting on:

 

[JuniorMC8704]

Looks much better.

Thats too bad about the lens. I had the tamron 90 for 3 years, and loved it. 90% of my old pics were with that lens.

However, its pale by comparison to the Nikon 105....one of the best lenses nikon has ever released.

 

[revhtree]

Your tank is beautiful!

 

[Jonreefer]

Wow, just got my Tamron 18-250 F/2.8 back from repairs that weren't done (long story, but I'll never buy Tamron again), BUT the optics were not affected by the manf. defect in the lens, and I must say, this lens produces A LOT more detail. So I think the combo of trying the stock lens and getting a defective SMC DA* Series 16-50mm (a $650 lens that should have produced nice wide angle shots, but actually was worse than the stock lens). Here is a pic I just snapped, handheld, with only sunset lighting on:

dont put Tamron off..the tamron 17-50, 28-75, and 90macro are ALL KILLER lenses optically..they are not as fast in the AF department but the Image quality the put out will rival any pro lens out there..my old 28-75 2.8 is optically just as good as my 24-70L...the only difference is the AF speed and build.

 

[SaraB]

You should see this tank in person Looks great Mike!

 

[mcliffy2]

Its the customer service of Tamron that put me off. Its an 18-250 lens and the zoom pieces came loose within a month of purchasing, so if you hold the lens vertically it falls out to 250mm (and sometimes just falls and zooms a bit if you are pointing down somewhat). Clearly a manufacturing defect. I emailed them and they said to send it in for repair. I included a printout of the email documenting that the problem had been reported within the first month from purchase. I didn't get around to sending it in for a couple months, and so they said I had to pay $160 labor to get it fixed - absolutely ridiculous. So I told them just to send it back to me and they lost a future customer. I'm happy with the quality of the lens but its annoying as it is always slipping and thus zooming itself out of focus.

 

[Jonreefer]

thats called zoom creep..many lenses do that with the longer focal lengths..if pointed down it will start to zoom out..thats not really anything out of the ordinary to happen. Unless your lens is just dropping all the way to full zoom with a bang to its stop when point down thats not really an issue. If you point it down and it slowly starts to extend as its zooming..thats a normal thing. my Sigma 50-500 did that, my 100-400L does that, even my 24-70L does it sometimes. its just gravaty

 

[mcliffy2]

]Unless your lens is just dropping all the way to full zoom with a bang to its stop when point down

Thats pretty much what happens

 

[gparr]

Jonreefer, none of my zoom lenses do that. I'd be rather disappointed if they did. I should be able to shoot at an angle with a zoom lens and not have to worry about holding the zoom in position. I guess I don't consider that normal behavior for a quality lens.
Gary

 

[gparr]

Mike,
Are you satisfied that your camera/lens combinations are working properly and/or have you determined where the problems lie? If you need additional help, let me know. I'm sure I could be convinced to travel to the big city to help, as long as you let me photograph your corals/fish again.

That most recent shot looks pretty good, though it would benefit from a white balance adjustment and some sharpening.

Let me know if you need additional help.

Gary

 

[Jonreefer]

Jonreefer, none of my zoom lenses do that. I'd be rather disappointed if they did. I should be able to shoot at an angle with a zoom lens and not have to worry about holding the zoom in position. I guess I don't consider that normal behavior for a quality lens.
Gary

what lenses do you have...This is not an uncommon thing for larger zooms to do..especially ones that the barrel extends on zoom. I mean the elements in there are pretty decent in weight and if you hold the lens pointed down for some time..they are going to start to creep down.

 

[mcliffy2]

Gary - I am happier now that I am able to get a more detailed/crisp shot, but still not 100% satisfied. The Pentax definitely is not as good in low light as what I'm seeing from Canon and it gets VERY noisy around ISO 1600. I think I will likely make the switch over to Canon when the T1i comes out - it looks like a heck of a camera for the price! When I'm making the switch I'll definitely need to talk to you about lens purchases.

That pic had its white balance adjusted to 35k! That is pretty much what the tank looks like with only the blue plus and actinic bulbs on. Now that you mention it does look like there is some vignetting, and it could be sharpened in areas a bit more.

 

[gparr]

Jonreefer, I have the 100-400L. It has a manual zoom-tension adjustment ring, so it really doesn't count. I use a friend's 70-200L frequently (he probably wonders why I just don't buy my own) and have never had it creep. My SigmaEX 24-70 has hung face down many times while shooting top-down shots and it doesn't creep. In fact, the zoom ring on it is tight enough that it takes a small amount of effort to zoom. My 17-40L doesn't creep, but it's so relatively light that I wouldn't expect it to do so. The rest of my lenses are primes. You're the first person I've heard from that has viewed zoom creep as acceptable and expected. Now you have me curious. I think I'll ask in my favorite photo forum to see what others are experiencing and/or expect for zoom behavior.
Gary

 

[gparr]

Gary - I am happier now that I am able to get a more detailed/crisp shot, but still not 100% satisfied. The Pentax definitely is not as good in low light as what I'm seeing from Canon and it gets VERY noisy around ISO 1600. I think I will likely make the switch over to Canon when the T1i comes out - it looks like a heck of a camera for the price! When I'm making the switch I'll definitely need to talk to you about lens purchases.

That pic had its white balance adjusted to 35k! That is pretty much what the tank looks like with only the blue plus and actinic bulbs on. Now that you mention it does look like there is some vignetting, and it could be sharpened in areas a bit more.

Canon's sensors/software are very good at high ISO/low-light capture. I would agree that Pentax doesn't measure up. In fact, I'd be shocked if it did. Unless you're trying to "freeze" your fish in your fts, you shouldn't have to shoot at high ISO settings. What are your ISO, shutter, and aperture settings for your most recent tank shot?

I didn't realize you were trying to retain the blue look of your tank. In that case, you've succeeded. My inclination is to remove the blue so the true colors of the coral can be seen. It's a personal preference.

gary