Min optik er dog kun knap 40 år gammel. Den er fra en periode hvor Voigtländer var ejet af Rollei, men er baseret på et design fra Carl Zeiss, den tidligere ejer af mærket. På trods af sit navn og arv, er min optik dog fremstillet i Singapore, ikke i Tyskland.

Men den har alle de egenskaber som kendetegner en klassisk 50 mm optik fra film-æraen: lysstærk, skarp og en solid konstruktion i metal. Denne udgave er med M42 standard-gevind til montering. Den kan bruges på en moderne DSLR med bajonet-fatning, som min K-5 II, ved hjælp af en adapter – i dette tilfælde en M42 til K-mount.

Color-Ultron på min K-5 II

Det ville ikke være fair at bedømme en optik som denne fra kun et par dages brug. Især ikke på denne tid af året, hvor vi knap nok ser solen og de fleste billeder derfor er taget i gråvejr eller mørke. Men mit første indtryk er positivt: den tegner tilsyneladende skarpt, har meget god kontrast – sikkert en arv fra Zeiss – og jeg synes i det hele taget godt om resultaterne indtil videre.

Objektivet har auto-blænde, der, som med de fleste M42’er styres af en lille pind der stikker ud på bagsiden af objektivet. Men ved brug af en adapter er der intet til at aktivere pinden, så den skal trykkes i bund og fastholdes på en anden måde. Jeg fandt ud af, at den kan trykkes ned og vippes lidt ind under pladen der dækker objektivets bagside, og derefter fastgøres med en dråbe lim.

Objektivets bagstykke + adapteren

Med det klaret, kan objektivet monteres og blænden indstilles ved at dreje på blænderingen. Med andre ord: der kan kun fotograferes ved arbejdsblænden. Det betyder desværre i praksis, at søgerbilledet bliver meget mørkt ved de mindre blændeåbninger, hvilket kan gøre det meget svært at fokusere.

På den anden side er dybdeskarpheden meget lille ved de store blændeåbninger, især ved lille afstand til motivet. Det kan være meget fint, for eksempel til portrætter. Men det betyder også, at nøjagtig fokusering bliver kritisk.

Kort sagt: dette objektiv er en skønhed, men det er godt nok besværligt at bruge.

Faktisk har jeg en anden manual 50 mm optik, som er om ikke helt så dog næsten lige så gammel som Voigtländeren: en SMC Pentax-A 1.4. Det har måske ikke helt den samme kontrast, og jeg kan ikke afvise at det er en lille bitte smule mindre skarpt ved største blændeåbning. Men det er stadig et godt objektiv og endda 0,4 blænde hurtigere. Fokus-ringen bevæger sig også mere jævnt og præcist. Og vigtigst: den har K-bajonet, hvilket betyder at den passer til min K-5 II helt uden brug af adapter og med fungerende auto-blænde.

I praksis vil jeg derfor nok vælge Pentax’en frem for Voigtländeren i 9,5 tilfælde ud af 10. Men hvorfor så have besværet med at få Voigtländeren til at fungere på mit nuværende kamera? For at være ærlig: primært af nostalgiske årsager. Det var det objektiv som sad på mit allerførste spejlreflekskamera, et Voigtländer VSL-1, som jeg købte tilbage i 1976 da jeg var 14 år gammel. Det tjente mig godt i mange år, men i hen ved tre årtier har det ligget og samlet støv. Det var en fornøjelse at kunne montere denne gamle ven på en moderne DSLR og bringe den tilbage til aktivt liv, om end kun for en stund.

Her følger nogle billeder taget med Color-Ultronen. For de fleste har jeg ikke fået skrevet blænde og andre detaljer ned, og de er alle redigeret i Lightroom. Det er altså ikke egentlige test-fotos – bare eksempler på praktisk brug:

It was such a success, that a larger facility was needed, an in 1924 a new, modern factory was build in the Copenhagen South Port area. The factory was designed by Albert Kahn, the architect responsible for some of Fords most iconic industrial complexes in Detroit. Inside, the production technology also closely resembled that used in Detroit.

But when it came to industrial relations, there were profound differences. In Detroit, Ford was fighting hard against any attempts by his worker to organize in trade unions, and not before 1941 an agreement was finally made with the United Auto Workers. However, in Denmark the workers were all unionized from day one, and collective bargaining was a matter of course.

Ford assembly plant in Copenhagen South Habour. Photo from Thalbitzer: "Ford Motor Company A/S gennem 25 Aar", 1944. Unknown photographer.

Never the less, the production methods and –technologies introduced by Ford proved to be a challenge to the unions. Especially the systematic attempt to use unskilled workers wherever possible was felt as a threat by the craft based unions. The high wages paid by Ford was also tempering any inclination to militant union behaviour. Consequently, when the Danish management, by direct orders from Detroit, decided no longer to have a union agreement, the workers could find no common ground to fight for a continuation of the agreement.

At the same time, the Labour governments in power 1924-26 and from 1929 onwards, was determinated to promote industrial modernization. This was strengthened in the 1930’s by a desire to secure and create workplaces during times of economic depression. In this context, Ford Motor Company was pointed out by the labour movement as a positive example of a job creating and high paying industry, based on rational methods of mass production.

Ford T's waiting for shipment to customers, Copenhagen ca. 1925. National Museum, unknown photographer.

While the Danish Ford plant was successful from a business point of view during most of the 1920’s and 30’s, it came under pressure from larger Ford facilities elsewhere in Europe during the 1950’s. In 1966 car assembly was finally closed down, and the plant converted to producing farm equipment.

I have written about the history of Ford in Denmark in the interwar years, with an emphasis on industrial relations, in an article which has been published in Labor History vol. 55 no. 3 2014, under the title “Between Denmark and Detroit: unionized labour at Ford Motor Company, Copenhagen, 1919-1939”.

A PDF-version of the article can be bought from the publisher’s website. Alternatively, you may download a copy of the accepted manuscript (AKA post print) for free from here.

The other day I was going through some older photos in Ligthroom, weeding out some of those that I should never have kept in the first place.

This one for instance. It was taken at the Detroit Riverwalk on an early summers evening two years ago. There was very much contrast to the scene, and the camera has obviously metered for the sky, resulting in severe underexposure of the children playing in the fountain. I should of course have dialled in +1 or 2 EV when I took the picture, but I didn’t.

However, milliseconds before hitting “delete”, it occurred to me that something might be hiding there in the darkness. So I decided to give it a chance, and after adjusting exposure and contrast in Lightroom the picture looked like this:

Much better, but still not optimal. The colours are a bit too weird – especially the pink, which attracts attention from the little guy in the middle, which I think is the main character. There is an unfortunate moiré effect in the drain. And there are generally too much going on in the picture.

Cropping was the first thing to do. I could have adjusted the colours and desaturated the pink, but I decided to go monochrome. After tweaking the contrast further, applying a graduated filter to the sky and using a lightening brush on some of the characters, the final image looks like this:

It might not be a masterpiece, but it is definitely useable – contrary to the original. In fact I like it

I seriously doubt that I could have gone away with such intensive editing, if the picture had not been in raw format from the beginning. If you google “raw vs. jpeg” you will get a ton of information, which I’m not going to repeat here. But here are the basics:

Every time I take a picture, the sensor in my camera captures 14 bits of information. In other words: it’s capable of recording 16,384 levels of brightness for red, green and blue respectively, or a total of 4.4 trillion colours. These can all be contained in the raw-file, which are – more or less – the raw data from the sensor, hence the name. A jpeg file is 8 bit per channel only, adding up to “only” 16.7 million colours. That is less than 0.0004% of what the raw-file is potentially capable of.

Now, that’s theory. Who needs 4.4 trillions of colours in real life, you may ask? Probably no one, when it comes to the final picture, at least for on-screen viewing. Most computer screens are 6 or 8 bit, so 16 million colours should be enough. To be honest, I’m not completely sure about the math when it comes to printing. I have just found out that my new printer can handle 16 bit input – but I haven’t figured out the practical implications of that yet.

But the point here is not the final image; it’s the converting and editing. When you edit a digital photo, whether you are adjusting exposure, contrast, saturation or something else, what you are doing is basically changing the brightness level of each of the RGB-channels for each of the pixels in the picture – and the more you edit, the more shifting around of values take place. Popular speaking: the raw-file simply gives you 64 times as much room for moving around, than a jpeg file does. In practical life, you can edit a raw-file much more than a jpeg file, before you begin to see unpleasant effects such as banding or blown out colours.

When you convert the raw-file to jpeg, the levels of each channel for each pixel might be shifted around too, to fit them into the much less amount of colours available. Some subtle nuances, typically in the shadows, might get discarded in that process. If you let your camera do the conversation to jpeg and later decide to try to lighten an underexposed photo and lift out details from the shadows, they might no longer be there for you to work with. Just too bad. That’s why you should do your editing in raw, and not convert (or rather: export) to jpeg before the last minute.

There are other reasons why you should do your editing in raw, such as greater flexibility in handling the white balance, the possibility of loss-less editing (versus a jpeg which degrades due to decompression and recompression every time its opened for editing), etc.

There used to be a myth that working with raw-files was difficult and time-consuming compared to jpeg. That is not my experience. It might be correct if you seldom do any editing at all to your pictures, as raw-files always requires at least a little bit of editing. But editing a raw-files is no more complicated than editing a jpeg file. In fact, in a program like Lightroom or any other, which is optimised for a raw workflow, it is probably easier, since you have more flexibility before things turn ugly, and you have the added benefit of non-destructive editing, giving you the possibility to experiment as much as you like without fear of destroying your original.

On a recent trip to Berlin I happened to buy a couple of photo books. One was about Tina Modotti (1896-1942), whom I already knew vaguely, another about Edith Tudor-Hart (1908-1973) whom I frankly had never heard about before. The book was still wrapped in cellophane, so I could not take a look inside, but I decided to buy it based on the text on the back-cover alone.

Accidentally, Modotti and Tudor-Hart seem to have had a lot in common. They were both women, obviously, and not very far apart in age.  They both lived most of their lives in exile or as immigrants. And they were both very much involved in the political struggles of their time, as communists and antifascists.

Modotti was born in Italy, but emigrated to USA with her family as a young girl. She became a model – and lover – of Edward Weston, with whom she travelled to Mexico in 1923. Here she evolved into a photographer in her own right. And while her relationship to Weston dried out, she became gradually involved in the social and political struggles taking place in Mexico. She made friends with activists and intellectuals of the left, such as the painter Diego Rivera, and joined the communist party.

In 1929 her lover, an exiled Cuban revolutionary, is brutally assassinated, and the next year she is expelled from Mexico. Via Berlin and Moscow she goes to Paris, from where she carries out undercover missions in Europe on behalf of the International Red Aid. During the civil war she is in Spain, where she meets Robert Capa and Gerda Taro – but at that time, she has already given up her own career as a photographer.

In 1939 Modotti returns to Mexico. She socialises with artists in exile, such as Anna Seghers and Pablo Neruda, while her political activities becomes less intense. In 1942 she dies suddenly from a heart failure.

Tudor-Hart was born Edith Sushitzky. Her father was a secular Jew and social democrat, who ran a bookstore and publishing house in Vienna. As a young girl she worked in Montessori-kindergartens. She probably learned photography as part of her studies at the Bauhaus in 1930. It seems she was an organized communist from her youth. For that she was kept under observation by Special Branch when she visited London in 1930-31, and finally expelled from Britain for political reasons.

Back in Vienna she had some photographs published in the early 1930’s, but in 1933 she was arrested by the Dollfuss-regime while doing underground work for International Red Aid. However, she managed to escape from Austria and marry an Englishman, Alexander Tudor-Hart, whom she had met previously in London. This made her a British citizen, and for the rest of her life she lived in England. Her younger brother fled to England to, while her father took his own life as a reaction to the advance of fascism in Austria.

Tudor-Harts marriage didn’t last long. Meanwhile, she gave birth to a son, who suffered from autism. For the next 20 years or so, she worked as a freelance photographer for various magazines, made book illustrations, etc. She seems to have lived a modest life on a very low income. At the same time, however, she was involved in clandestine activities for the Soviet Union. There are some suggestions, that she was connected to the Cambridge spy ring. She is known to have destroyed many of her photographic notes and some negatives in 1951, when Kim Philby was taken into interrogation, probably out of fear that her home would be searched by the police.

Her last photo-essay was published in 1956, and she seems to have lived a quiet and unspectacular life until her death in 1973.

Modotti and Tudor-Hart both lived a life, which was from conventional. One must admire the courage, with which these women took their destiny in their own hands and confronted the great challenges of their time. They certainly paid a high price.

The works of these two remarkable women shares some common features, but are also clearly different. There is of course a social and political awareness among both, manifesting itself in choice of motifs: political manifestations, labour rallies and emphatic depictions of the daily life of the working class.

Among Modottis pictures, however, are also experiments with other types of motifs and with form. Her use of unusual viewpoints, diagonals and contrasts is clearly influenced by modernist photography. I would not be surprised, if she was inspired by a photographer like Rodschenko, even though there is no evidence of this. Some of her pictures can be seen here (not necessarily those in the book)

Tudor-Harts pictures are, with very few exceptions, not very experimental. Her best works are photo-essays and street photography, in which she captures the spirit and mood of the time and the people. She might be radical in her storytelling and humanism, as other central European photographers in this period, but not in form – despite her Bauhaus-experience. The book is also the catalogue for an exhibition, and som of the pictures can be seen here.

The two books are rather different. The one on Tudor-Hart is medium sized, with a great number of good quality prints. There is ample room to unfold her work, even in small series around the same theme, giving a good impression of her essayistic work. Many photos are reproduced from new ink-jet prints from her original negatives, but they look good. The week point is the text, which consists of five essays by three different authors. It is not that it is bad; on the contrary it is both learned an informative. But it is not very well structured, there are overlaps and missing points and the chronology is often unclear. It is also hard to use the book as a reference – an index would have helped a lot. But all in all, if you have just a slight interest in this type of photography, it’s worth the price.

The book on Modotti, on the other hand, is a bit smaller in size with significantly less pages – and consequently also fever prints. Some of the prints are rather small, but worse: most are in less than optimal quality. They have a rather low contrast appearance, sometimes with visible raster dots. The text is also shorter than in the Tudor-Hart book, but well written, well structured and to the point, and there is a good biographical overview at the end.

The Modotti book is clearly a labour of love from a small, dedicated publisher, and for that reason alone I would very much like to recommend it. But for the quality of the reproductions I hesitate. I have another book on Modotti from the Aperture Masters of Photography series, which features many of the same pictures in a better quality. But none of them are expensive, so you could always get both

Tina Modotti. Fotografien einer Revolutionärin.
Text (in German) by Christiane Barckhausen-Canale and Reinhard Schultz. 2012.
ISBN 978-3-939828-86-0, Hardcover, 21cm x 25cm, 96 pages, 19,90 €.
Verlag Wiljo Heinen

Edith Tudor Hart. Im Schatten der Diktaturen.
Text (in German, English edition available) by Duncan Forbes, Anton Holzer and Roberta McGrath. 2013.
ISBN 978-3-7757-3566-7, Hardcover, 25 cm x 29 cm, 127 pages, 35,00 €.
Hatje Cantz Verlag

]]> http://blog.christianehoej.dk/2014/03/women-in-politics-and-photography/feed/lang/da/ 0 http://blog.christianehoej.dk/2013/11/light-in-the-night/ http://blog.christianehoej.dk/2013/11/light-in-the-night/#comments Sun, 10 Nov 2013 22:11:21 +0000 http://blog.christianehoej.dk/?p=1149 [...]]]> On the night of November 9, 1938, the Nazis attacked Jewish homes, shops and synagogues all over Germany, effectively initiating the holocaust. This horrible night has since become known as the Kristallnacht – or Crystal night – because of all the shattered glass in the streets.

The Kristallnacht is commemorated every year in central Copenhagen, as a manifestation for human rights, against racism and fascism. This year there were speakers, among them Hans Goldstein, a surviving eyewitness of the Kristalnacht, music and torches. It was a small, but dignified and moving manifestation.

Here are a few pictures – a few more can be seen on Flickr.

On a photographic note, I used one of my old lenses, the Sigma 28 1.8 aspherical. I like this lens a lot, since it is compact, but with good image quality. The 28 mm translates into the equivalent of 42 mm in FF-terms, a focal length which I find very useful as a “short normal”. And 1.8 is of course quite fast, and even though it was very dark, I was able to get some decent handheld shots at ISO 1600 and 3200.

But the evening also revealed one of the shortcomings of this old lens: it is not coated for digital and therefore it is very prone to flare. Especially at night in the city, when it is dark but with a lot of bright, pointed sources of light. Luckily, when converted to black and white, the flares become less obvious. But for colour, it makes the lens almost unusable at night – despite all of its other qualities.

Maybe it’s time for a replacement……

Beklager – denne post findes kun på engelsk.

Kort efter købte jeg min K-5 ii, som stjal opmærksomheden for en tid. Men nu har jeg endelig haft X10’eren til reparation. Og heldigvis ser det ud til, at den stadigvæk kan ta’ billeder

I am not exactly an art blogger, but since I have veneration for Detroit, I think I would make a short contribution anyway.

Detroit has been in decline for decades. It now has only less than half the population it had, when the auto industry was at its highest. But worse: parts of the inner city have become more or less a wasteland. The wealthier has moved out to the suburbs or elsewhere, and taken their tax money with them. This has forced the city administration to gradually close down public facilities like schools, libraries, fire stations, etc. – thus creating a negative spiral of more people moving out.

Visitors to the DIA admiring Diego Riveras famous murals.
More pictures from Detroit at Flickr.

Never the less, there a still more than 700.000 people living in Detroit. Many of them are rightfully proud of their city, and struggling to keep it alive. There are good things happening in Detroit. There are places where people live and enjoy life. And there are islands of magnificence in the midst of despair. One of them being DIA, the world famous art museum.

Recently, the city leaders have made the desperate move of filing for bankruptcy. The debt is enormous, and there is no money to pay the creditors – let alone the wages of those working for the city. As part af the bankruptcy process, all assets of the city has to be evaluated. This includes the collections of the DIA, which is owned by the city. Representatives of Christie’s auction house are already at work, like vultures circling over a wounded, but still living body.

There is no easy solution to Detroit’s problems. Basically, they are the result of an economic system which makes people servants to the market, instead of the other way around. As one commentator remarked: There is hubris to the fact that America thinks it can rebuild a country like Afghanistan, when it cannot even take care of its own cities.

But one thing is for sure: closing down even more public facilities, and selling out all of the assets that makes the city worth living in, will not help the people of Detroit. On the contrary: the thought that Diego Rivera’s famous murals, celebrating the workers of the auto industry  – and the human spirit of ingenuity and creativity in a broader sense – should be auctioned off, ripped down from the walls and moved to some private collection is truly bizarre. It would be an assault to the heritage and historic legacy of the city. And it would only be adding insult to injury for its people.

Billederne burde poppe op på baggrund af en nedtonet udgave af siden, som her. Men i stedet åbner de i nogle tilfælde på en ny side, som her.

Jeg arbejder på at løse problemet….

At kalde K-5 II for retro-design vil være en overdrivelse. Men som det fremgår her, hvor den ses i selskab med en Super A, har man lånt designelementer som de skarpe kanter på prisme-huset og øjerne til remmen fra de gode, gamle dage.

K-5 II har et ret dybt greb, og ligger fint i min ikke alt for store hånd. Betjeningen følger traditionen fra tidligere topmodeller fra Pentax, idet der både er et display på toppladen og to indstillingshjul, placeret der hvor man naturligt vil placere tommel og pegefinger. Det har naturligvis hyper-program mode. De to drejehjul kan i øvrigt programmeres i vidt omfang. Eksempelvis kan man bestemme om det i blændeprioritering skal være det bagerste eller forreste hjul, man vælger blænde med – og om det andet hjul så skal kunne skifte ISO eller EV-kompensering. Mens systemet med de to hjul er uændret fra K10D, så er der flyttet lidt rundt på de øvrige knapper. Der er ikke længere en knap til at slå billedstabiliseringen fra og til – hvilket er fint med mig, da jeg altid har det slået til. Til gengæld er der kommet en dedikeret ISO-knap. Den sidder lige bag ved udløseren, sammen med knappen til EV-kompensation, så det er nemt at flytte pegefingeren til en af de to knapper og dreje på indstillingen med tommelfingeren.

I det hele taget er betjeningen logisk og gennemtænkt, og dermed også forbedret en smule i forhold til den ellers udmærkede K10D. Eneste smutter er knappen til aktivering af Live View som er placeret sådan, at man lidt for nemt kommer til at aktivere den, når man vil dreje på vælgeren til fokuserings-måde. Sidstnævnte, som er en lille arm der kan drejes mellem tre positioner (centrum, individuelt valg af fokuspunkt og auto-valg) går i øvrigt lidt stramt. Men det er jo nok prisen for at forhindre, at man kommer til at dreje på den ved et uheld.

Første gang man trykker på udløseren bemærker man også, at lyden er meget dæmpet. I forhold til K10D (men knap så meget i forhold til de nyere modeller) har skærmen på bagsiden fået et vældigt løft. Den er nu på 3” og 921.000 punkter. I forhold til K-5 er den dækket med ridsefrit glas og monteret med en ny teknik, som skulle gøre den nemmere at se i sollys. Den er i hvert fald meget lysstærk – så lysstærk, at når man ser på den i dæmpet belysning kan man fejlagtigt tro, at ens billeder er overbelyste. Løsningen på det er naturligvis at bruge histogrammet til at vurdere belysningen. Menuer og informationer har også fået et løft, og især det sidste er blevet klart mere overskueligt. Live View og video (i fuld HD) er også nyt i forhold til mit gamle K10D. Jeg har ikke afprøvet det systematisk endnu, men det virker som om Live View fungerer fint, med en ganske hurtig autofokus. Billedkvaliteten i video er fin, selv med håndhold kamera. Eneste ulempe er, at autofokus ikke fungerer mens man filmer. Under alle omstændigheder er video for mig et supplement til det egentlige formål.

Ud over et par væsentlige, nye funktioner og en række små forbedringer i betjeningen, så er det imidlertid på to vigtige punkter, at K-5 II viser sig markant bedre end K10D: billedkvaliteten og autofokus.

1/400, f8, ISO 200 Sigma 18-50 EX DC, 35mm, stativ Konverteret fra RAW i Lightroom 4 med standardværdier – ingen ekstra skarphed, etc.

100% crop af billedet ovenfor

DxO har testet billedkvaliteten til at være blandt de allerbedste APS-C klassen, og endda på højde med nogle full-frame kameraer. I forhold til K10D, så er der tale om en stigning i opløsning fra 10 til 16 Mp. Men lige så vigtigt er det, at dynamikken er høj og støjniveauet er lavt, også ved relativt høje ISO-tal. Jeg har ikke printet nogle af mine fotos fra K-5 II endnu, men efter at have studeret dem på skærmen i 100 % størrelse vil jeg vurdere at 800 ISO er problemløst. Ved 1600 ISO begynder støjen at blive tydelig, men ikke så meget at det ikke kan dæmpes tilfredsstillende i Lightroom. De højere ISO-tal har jeg ikke prøvet endnu.

Topkapi-paladset, Istanbul 1/40, f3,5, ISO 1600 Pentax DA 18-55 AL WR, håndholdt Dette og alle følgende billeder er efterbehandlet i Lightroom 4

Autofokus har tidligere været et lidt svagt punkt for Pentax, men her er der sket afgørende forbedringer. K-5 II fokuserer markant hurtigere og mere præcist end k10D, og samtidig fungerer autofokus nu ned til -3 EV, hvilket i praksis vil sige nærmest i mørke. Den kontinuerlige autofokus, som i K10D var lidt tvivlsom, fungerer også fint. Kontinuerlig optagelse sker med 7 billeder i sekundet.

Måge jager brødkrummer, Marmara 1/640, f11, ISO 200 Pentax DA 18-55 AL WR. Kontinuerlig AF

Til sammen betyder disse forbedringer især to ting: K-5 II kan uden problemer bruges til motiver i hurtig bevægelse – noget der ikke var K10D’s stærke side. Og kombinationen af indbygget billedstabilisering, lavt støjniveau ved høje ISO-tal og en autofokus der fungerer stort set i mørke gør K-5 II til et godt værktøj, når der skal fotograferes ved lavt lys.

Gladsaxes borgmester haster forbi demonstranter 1/100, f4, ISO 800 Sigma 18-50 EX DC, kontinuerlig AF

K-5 II findes i to versioner. Ud over den ”almindelige” har Pentax, som Leica og Nikon før dem, valgt at tilbyde en model uden lavpasfilter. Lavpasfilteret skal forhindre moiréeffekt ved mønstrede motiver, men nedsætter samtidig skarpheden en anelse. Billedkvaliteten fra K-5 II er dog som sagt allerede høj, og da det koster ca. 1500 kr. ekstra at undvære lavpasfilteret valgte jeg standardmodellen. Som det nok er fremgået, er jeg ret begejstret for K-5 II. Det kan bestemt ikke udelukkes, at der på længere sigt dukker irritationspunkter op, som jeg ikke oplevet endnu. Men lad os nu se…..

Kulkran, Nordhavn 1/250, f7,1, ISO 100 Sigma 18-50 EX DC

Svanemølleværket 1/400, f10, ISO 100 Pentax A 135

Kultorvet 1/250, f7,1, ISO 200 Pentax DA 21 AL Limited

Fiolstræde 1/640, f8, ISO 200 Pentax DA 21 AL Limited