Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Rob Studdert]

On 7 February 2013 16:16, David Savage  wrote:

> I see a lot of people buying FF cameras simply because the sensor is
> bigger. They still shoot the same crap they always did & don't really
> get the full benefits of what the larger sensor can offer.

I saw this effect or worse last week shooting with a bunch of Nikon
toting amateurs, the assumption is that they need full frame. Most
were already wielding FF bodies and the ones that weren't were quick
to say that they soon would be going full frame. I didn't see a great
deal of photographic experience there.

-- 
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Bill]

On 06/02/2013 2:13 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

Bill wrote:


On 06/02/2013 11:07 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.

Whatever. I suppose by the same logic, an 80-200/2.8 is a specialized lens.

The 17-55/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 are probably standard kit for the
photojournalist target market for the D4.
  

The owner of the camera is, by coincidence, a photojournalist.
He also has very big muscles, I suspect in part from hauling around that 
rig.


bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[kwaller]

Thanks Mark.

I'm still shooting with a K20D and recently did a 24" X 36'' print (biggest 
I've ever done) from a slightly cropped file that just blew me and others 
away with it's detail. Its hard for me to justify a new body just for a ff 
sensor or 24MP.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Roberts" 

Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!



Kenneth Waller wrote:


So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?


Several things.

First of all, the 24MP has given me more options, like making a
panoramic shot by cropping from a single frame rather than stitching
multiple frames together (I usually don't shoot that way deliberately
but sometimes, like one shot from GFM last year, I "see" the pano
composition later when I get home -- I'm still pissed off that I
brought the K-5 on that hike rather than the A850). I can also shoot
stitched panos with three or even two shots, which makes stitching
much faster and easier.

The full-frame part lets me get better prints at a given size - often
even when using non-megadollar glass. That goes contrary to popular
wisdom, number crunching and pixel peeping: You'll read that
high-megapixel full-frame cameras are much more demanding of glass and
show the weaknesses of less-than-stellar lenses. Which is true. But
it's usually seen making measurements or peeping at 100% magnification
in Photoshop. But when making a print of any given size (let's say 12
x 18) the image from a full-frame camera requires significantly less
magnification. An APS-C image gets magnified about 19:1 to make that
size print. Full-frame gets magnified 12.7:1 so using the same lens on
both, even if it's not a top-dollar lens, I can get a better print
from full-frame. Sure, when your print size gets *really* big, and
what you see on the print gets closer to what you see on your monitor
at 1:1 you'll need megabuck glass on your full-frame. But apparently
that is much bigger than the 13 x 19 that's my usual max. (Never say
never, though: I have access to some big wide-format printers at
school...)

Making prints is a whole different game than pixel peeping.

I expect Pentax will use a variant of the Sony 24MP sensor that's in
the D600, which is fine by me. But a 36MP sensor intrigues me not for
the additional (potential) resolution; I've been reading about its
superior tonality in B&W (which I'm leaning toward more these days). A
side effect of the Bayer pattern sensor, I expect - when you throw out
your color information you probably need a little extra spatial data
to make up for what you threw away in color data (similar to the way
large-scale contrast can make lenses appear sharper in color than they
"really" are in B&W tests).



--
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: The No. 1 SuperBowl ad was a *still photography* slideshow

[John Coyle]

IMHO, the appeal lies in the mostly superb imagery, together with the lack of 
the usual shouting
lunatic voice-over and ear-splitting music that accompanies so many ads 
nowadays.
For me, the most evocative images were the portraits of the farmers themselves.

John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia



-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Darren Addy
Sent: Thursday, 7 February 2013 9:17 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: The No. 1 SuperBowl ad was a *still photography* slideshow

If you watched the SuperBowl, I hope you saw the 2 minute RAM commercial 
entitled "Farmers". I live
in farm country, but even if I didn't I would have been struck by the 
incredible still imagery. If
you haven't seen the ad, it is here:
http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/06/a-closer-look-at-chryslers-god-made-a-farmer-super-bowl-commerci
al/
along with links to a blog post giving some background by one of the 
photographers used for the
commercial.

The ad is really just a slideshow over the audio of a speech that Paul Harvey 
gave to a Future
Farmers of America convention years ago. But what imagery in a mix of Black & 
White and color! A
subtle Ken Burns effect is given to some of the images. The only image that 
appears to have movement
is the one of the horses legs as the sunlit dust cloud to the left moves 
subtly, but even that may
be a blending of still images taken at x frames per second. A few of the images 
are a bit garishly
HDR for my taste, but no single image is on the screen for very long.

The Petapixel post and the links it contains may provide you some diversion. 
Would be interested to
know what others think of the ad and it's imagery.

I think it says something for the power of still imagery that this ad garnered 
the attention and
acclaim that it did.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[David Savage]

I had, and still have, an impressive collection of FA, FA* & Limiteds.

I didn't jump ship to join the FF bandwagon. I jumped ship because
Pentax's cameras couldn't do what I needed (I had a K20D at the time).

Around the time of the D700's release I had been shooting a lot of
long exposure night sky scenes...and then spending several hours in
Photoshop cleaning up the sensor heat bloom that stained all my shots.

The D300/D300s had the same issue, the equivalent APS Canon at that
time had similar problems.

When the D700 came out I went to the official product launch here. I
was suitably impressed. The metering, AF,  flash & high ISO all just
worked in a way that Pentax never seemed to be able to match. Also the
sensor didn't turn magenta at exposures longer than 5 minutes.

My going full frame was a by-product of getting a camera that enabled
me to shoot what I wanted without having to clean up the mess the
camera made in post.

I see a lot of people buying FF cameras simply because the sensor is
bigger. They still shoot the same crap they always did & don't really
get the full benefits of what the larger sensor can offer.

DS

On 07/02/2013, Darren Addy  wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage  wrote:
>> When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
>> 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, plus their 50 f1.4 & 85 f1.4).
>
> Earlier upthread I said:
> "Realistically, you probably need to commit to spending nearly 10K to
> get a decent compliment of lenses for the D800 and the computer
> upgrade you will have to have, as
> well."
>
> David's 5 lenses total about $7800 (B&H prices) so it looks like my
> ballpark estimate (including computer/storage upgrades) was pretty
> close. With the D800/E body at $3K you are looking at $11K outlay.
>
> Now assuming you are a Pentaxian with a complement of full frame
> lenses already at your disposal, I would say that a Pentax full frame
> body that comes in with a $2500-3000 price tag would be a relative
> bargain, compared to dumping everything and going Nikon to get your
> full frame fix. In fact, you'd have a relative savings of $7800+ to
> rationalize buying a few of the FA Limiteds that you don't already
> have.
>
> All of this is assuming that the Pentax full frame will perform
> comparably to the Nikons, which remains to be seen. But for that much
> money, I can afford to be quite content for QUITE a while.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Use at your own risk: how to disable SDM and enable screw driven AF on DA* lenses

[Aahz Maruch]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013, Boris Liberman wrote:
> 
> http://www.pentaxiste.org/pratique/depannage/article/how-to-deactivate-sdm-and-allow?var_mode=calcul
> 
> I would certainly suggest that you use it only as the very last
> resort. But as a technical possibility - this is rather interesting.

Why would one want to do this?
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  <*>   <*>   <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Use at your own risk: how to disable SDM and enable screw driven AF on DA* lenses

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

Found this link on Russian Pentax forum:

http://www.pentaxiste.org/pratique/depannage/article/how-to-deactivate-sdm-and-allow?var_mode=calcul

I would certainly suggest that you use it only as the very last resort. 
But as a technical possibility - this is rather interesting.


Standard disclaimers apply: if you break your gear, it is not my fault...

Boris

P.S. I wonder if one can ask official Pentax Service to perform such a 
procedure for them.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Pentax Has New Firmware

[John Francis]

On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 09:17:57PM -0500, Matthew Hunt wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> 
> > How is this OT? :)
> 
> Doesn't everyone here shoot Nikon or Sony FF now?

Or Olympus 4/3 ..


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[John Sessoms]

From: Darren Addy


On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage  wrote:

When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
14-24, 24-70, 70-200, plus their 50 f1.4 & 85 f1.4).


Earlier upthread I said:
"Realistically, you probably need to commit to spending nearly 10K to
get a decent compliment of lenses for the D800 and the computer
upgrade you will have to have, as
well."

David's 5 lenses total about $7800 (B&H prices) so it looks like my
ballpark estimate (including computer/storage upgrades) was pretty
close. With the D800/E body at $3K you are looking at $11K outlay.

Now assuming you are a Pentaxian with a complement of full frame
lenses already at your disposal, I would say that a Pentax full frame
body that comes in with a $2500-3000 price tag would be a relative
bargain, compared to dumping everything and going Nikon to get your
full frame fix. In fact, you'd have a relative savings of $7800+ to
rationalize buying a few of the FA Limiteds that you don't already
have.

All of this is assuming that the Pentax full frame will perform
comparably to the Nikons, which remains to be seen. But for that much
money, I can afford to be quite content for QUITE a while.


If it comes in with a price comparable to Nikon's offerings, the 
performance is going to have to be at least as good, if not better. 
Otherwise, I might as well give up and switch to Nikon.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Pentax Has New Firmware

[Jeffery Johnson]

No not yet. If I do jump ship it would probably be over to Sony.

On 2/6/2013 8:17 PM, Matthew Hunt wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:


How is this OT? :)

Doesn't everyone here shoot Nikon or Sony FF now?



--
Jeffery Johnson
Photo Captures by Jeffery 

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Pentax Has New Firmware

[Matthew Hunt]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:

> How is this OT? :)

Doesn't everyone here shoot Nikon or Sony FF now?

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT: Pentax Has New Firmware

[Darren Addy]

How is this OT? :)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Pentax FF is going to happen

[J.C. O'Connell]

The difference in DOF between FF and apsc is approx 1 fstop.

-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 7:43 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax FF is going to happen

George Sinos wrote:

>One difference not often mentioned is that it is easier to achieve
>shallow depth of field with a larger sensor.  gs

I find the difference in DOF between APS-C and FF is so small it's not
worth mentioning. When you get up to 6x7 format, though... Then DOF
gets small enough to be a real issue at times. (And why large format
cameras need lens tilt.)
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

OT: Pentax Has New Firmware

[Jeffery Johnson]

There are several new firmware updates
http://www.pentax.jp/english/support/download_digital.html

--
Jeffery Johnson
Photo Captures by Jeffery 

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax FF is going to happen

[Mark Roberts]

George Sinos wrote:

>One difference not often mentioned is that it is easier to achieve
>shallow depth of field with a larger sensor.  gs

I find the difference in DOF between APS-C and FF is so small it's not
worth mentioning. When you get up to 6x7 format, though... Then DOF
gets small enough to be a real issue at times. (And why large format
cameras need lens tilt.)
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax FF is going to happen

[Bruce Walker]

Which is implicitly covered by "the 1.0 crop factor". AOV, DOF are
both different. You get the "35mm look" which is undoubtedly a
desirable feature.

But it gets even better with a medium format camera (645D anyone?) and
better still with a large format. I think my own shooting could
benefit from something like a Phase One back on a Mamiya body.
Absolutely gorgeous tonal rendering and bokeh in portraits, like
nothing you can get with any FF or APS-C.



Ooops, back to the Real World. :-)

(But I see that Vistek has a special on a used P25: $5300. All I need
now is the Mamiya and some lenses ...)

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, George Sinos  wrote:
> One difference not often mentioned is that it is easier to achieve
> shallow depth of field with a larger sensor.  gs
>
> George Sinos
> 
> gsi...@gmail.com
> www.georgesphotos.net
> plus.georgesinos.com
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Bruce Walker  wrote:
>> ...snip...
>>
>> Besides the 1.0 crop factor sensor, is there anything _fundamentally_
>> different between FF cameras and comparable APS-C cameras?
>
> ...snip...
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



--
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Mark Roberts]

Kenneth Waller wrote:

>So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?

Several things.

First of all, the 24MP has given me more options, like making a
panoramic shot by cropping from a single frame rather than stitching
multiple frames together (I usually don't shoot that way deliberately
but sometimes, like one shot from GFM last year, I "see" the pano
composition later when I get home -- I'm still pissed off that I
brought the K-5 on that hike rather than the A850). I can also shoot
stitched panos with three or even two shots, which makes stitching
much faster and easier.

The full-frame part lets me get better prints at a given size - often
even when using non-megadollar glass. That goes contrary to popular
wisdom, number crunching and pixel peeping: You'll read that
high-megapixel full-frame cameras are much more demanding of glass and
show the weaknesses of less-than-stellar lenses. Which is true. But
it's usually seen making measurements or peeping at 100% magnification
in Photoshop. But when making a print of any given size (let's say 12
x 18) the image from a full-frame camera requires significantly less
magnification. An APS-C image gets magnified about 19:1 to make that
size print. Full-frame gets magnified 12.7:1 so using the same lens on
both, even if it's not a top-dollar lens, I can get a better print
from full-frame. Sure, when your print size gets *really* big, and
what you see on the print gets closer to what you see on your monitor
at 1:1 you'll need megabuck glass on your full-frame. But apparently
that is much bigger than the 13 x 19 that's my usual max. (Never say
never, though: I have access to some big wide-format printers at
school...)

Making prints is a whole different game than pixel peeping.

I expect Pentax will use a variant of the Sony 24MP sensor that's in
the D600, which is fine by me. But a 36MP sensor intrigues me not for
the additional (potential) resolution; I've been reading about its
superior tonality in B&W (which I'm leaning toward more these days). A
side effect of the Bayer pattern sensor, I expect - when you throw out
your color information you probably need a little extra spatial data
to make up for what you threw away in color data (similar to the way
large-scale contrast can make lenses appear sharper in color than they
"really" are in B&W tests). 


 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax FF is going to happen

[George Sinos]

One difference not often mentioned is that it is easier to achieve
shallow depth of field with a larger sensor.  gs

George Sinos

gsi...@gmail.com
www.georgesphotos.net
plus.georgesinos.com


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Bruce Walker  wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> Besides the 1.0 crop factor sensor, is there anything _fundamentally_
> different between FF cameras and comparable APS-C cameras?

...snip...

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: QUESTION

[Steve Cottrell]

On 6/2/13, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:

>> Did anyone ever come up with a clever routine to simulate Live-Preview on
>> the older models?
>
>I just look over top of the pop up flash

Thanks mate. Come and clean my screen!!!

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Producion
--
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Mark Roberts]

Steve Cottrell wrote:

>On 6/2/13, J.C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>>on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
>>VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.
>
>Come on JC - that needs all full caps - you wimped out on two words. I'm
>gutted!!

NO YOU'RE NOT!
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Steve Cottrell]

On 6/2/13, J.C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:

>on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
>VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.

Come on JC - that needs all full caps - you wimped out on two words. I'm
gutted!!

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Producion
--
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The No. 1 SuperBowl ad was a *still photography* slideshow

[Paul Stenquist]

It says a lot about the power of emotion. Chrysler has reinvented itself by 
championing Detroit, the. Armed services and farmers. It has become the car 
company that Americans love to like, and sales have skyrocketed -- with a 
minimal amount of new product. Marketing genius, imported from Italy.

Paul via phone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:17 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:

> If you watched the SuperBowl, I hope you saw the 2 minute RAM
> commercial entitled "Farmers". I live in farm country, but even if I
> didn't I would have been struck by the incredible still imagery. If
> you haven't seen the ad, it is here:
> http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/06/a-closer-look-at-chryslers-god-made-a-farmer-super-bowl-commercial/
> along with links to a blog post giving some background by one of the
> photographers used for the commercial.
> 
> The ad is really just a slideshow over the audio of a speech that Paul
> Harvey gave to a Future Farmers of America convention years ago. But
> what imagery in a mix of Black & White and color! A subtle Ken Burns
> effect is given to some of the images. The only image that appears to
> have movement is the one of the horses legs as the sunlit dust cloud
> to the left moves subtly, but even that may be a blending of still
> images taken at x frames per second. A few of the images are a bit
> garishly HDR for my taste, but no single image is on the screen for
> very long.
> 
> The Petapixel post and the links it contains may provide you some
> diversion. Would be interested to know what others think of the ad and
> it's imagery.
> 
> I think it says something for the power of still imagery that this ad
> garnered the attention and acclaim that it did.
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: The No. 1 SuperBowl ad was a *still photography* slideshow

[Matthew Hunt]

My contemporaneous remarks:

"Brilliant photography in that Paul Harvey Dodge ad. That wins."
https://twitter.com/coneslayer/status/298264624195829760

There was certainly nothing that came after it that changed my mind.

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> If you watched the SuperBowl, I hope you saw the 2 minute RAM
> commercial entitled "Farmers". I live in farm country, but even if I
> didn't I would have been struck by the incredible still imagery. If
> you haven't seen the ad, it is here:
> http://www.petapixel.com/2013/02/06/a-closer-look-at-chryslers-god-made-a-farmer-super-bowl-commercial/
> along with links to a blog post giving some background by one of the
> photographers used for the commercial.
>
> The ad is really just a slideshow over the audio of a speech that Paul
> Harvey gave to a Future Farmers of America convention years ago. But
> what imagery in a mix of Black & White and color! A subtle Ken Burns
> effect is given to some of the images. The only image that appears to
> have movement is the one of the horses legs as the sunlit dust cloud
> to the left moves subtly, but even that may be a blending of still
> images taken at x frames per second. A few of the images are a bit
> garishly HDR for my taste, but no single image is on the screen for
> very long.
>
> The Petapixel post and the links it contains may provide you some
> diversion. Would be interested to know what others think of the ad and
> it's imagery.
>
> I think it says something for the power of still imagery that this ad
> garnered the attention and acclaim that it did.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Stan Halpin]

Does that mean you have a high IQ?

stan

On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

> All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
> 24MP full-frame for a couple of years.
> 
> -- 
> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
> www.robertstech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax FF is going to happen

[Larry Colen]

> And that, pretty much, is how I feel about FF.  My photo course starts up
> again on Friday (another three years to go for us part timers) and I still
> don't have the unbearable itch to go FF even as my classmates look at 5D
> III and D600s. There is so much that I can do that doesn't require FF that
> I can wait another year or two. I waited long enough for the *ist-D, I can
> do it again. It would be nice to have tethering software but that is the
> only thing I couldn't do that my Nikon and Canon classmates could (I am
> the only non Nikon or Canon shooter).

When I bought my K100 about five years ago, the cost of DSLRs had finally
dropped below my pain threshold, and the goal was a short term investment
that would last me a few years until a camera with the performance I
wanted was available.  I wasn't even going to buy anything beyond the kit
lens, as I had gone almost 20 years with just a 58/1.4, then my 35-105
series 1 pretty much did everything I needed since then.  That lasted
almost a week until I tried some low light photography, and bought an FA31
the following Monday.
Initially, except for the 18-250 I only bought lenses that would work on
full frame.  Fast forward a K20, a K-x and 3-4 years and the K-5 was
released.
It was the DSLR that I had been wanting ever since I first started looking
at them.  It has some warts, though most of them are things I could fix
with access to the source code.
Assuming that I'm still employed, I'll probably get a full frame body
if/when the price is below $2500.  There is very little that I *need* it
for, but it would sure be nice to widen the field of view of my 20, 31 and
50mm fast lenses for shooting indoors at what on APS would be 14/1.8,
20/1.8 and 31/1.4.
Also, my 50/2.8 macro would be a good walkabout in the forest lens, so I
wouldn't need to get a 35/2.8.  My bigma would go from standard to long
rather than short tele to very long tele, and then be surprisingly useful
as a rather large walkaround lens.
So, as you can see, since I took care to buy mostly lenses that would work
on full frame, buying a full frame body would be easy to justify on the
basis of the money that it would save me on lenses that I would
effectively get for free with it.


-- 
l...@red4est.com via squirrelmail


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Fw: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Kenneth Waller]

I meant to include fill-frame in that question.

-Forwarded Message-
>From: Kenneth Waller 

>Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!
>
>So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?
>
>-Original Message-
>>From: Mark Roberts 
>>Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!
>>
>>All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
>>24MP full-frame for a couple of years.
>> 
>>-- 
>>Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
>>www.robertstech.com
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Kenneth Waller]

So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?

-Original Message-
>From: Mark Roberts 
>Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!
>
>All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
>24MP full-frame for a couple of years.
> 
>-- 
>Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
>www.robertstech.com



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax FF is going to happen

[Bruce Walker]

Besides commercial studio shooting and classroom situations, is there
any real need for tethering?

Besides the 1.0 crop factor sensor, is there anything _fundamentally_
different between FF cameras and comparable APS-C cameras? We should
really think long and hard about how some other manufacturer's FF body
would enable us to improve our photography or enable us to shoot
subjects that are impossible to shoot now.

I'm not saying there aren't good uses for a FF, but many of us are
evaluating the leap from, say a K-5 to a Nikon 800E. Feature-wise
that's really a jump from a semi-pro to a pro level camera. The
features you gain there aren't attributes of FF per se, but rather
they are pro level features.


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Paul Ewins  wrote:
> And that, pretty much, is how I feel about FF.  My photo course starts up 
> again on Friday (another three years to go for us part timers) and I still 
> don't have the unbearable itch to go FF even as my classmates look at 5D III 
> and D600s. There is so much that I can do that doesn't require FF that I can 
> wait another year or two. I waited long enough for the *ist-D, I can do it 
> again. It would be nice to have tethering software but that is the only thing 
> I couldn't do that my Nikon and Canon classmates could (I am the only non 
> Nikon or Canon shooter).
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 06/02/2013, at 7:17 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:
>
>> I'd guess that my raw technical skill and ability to get a clear, sharp, 
>> photograph is likely in the upper half of people who own DSLRs and three or 
>> more lenses for them. I choose three to distinguish from the people who buy 
>> a DSLR kit with one or two lenses and use them as an expensive point and 
>> shoot.
>>
>> If Pentax were to make a full frame version of the K-5, i.e. same pixel 
>> density and performance on a 24x36 sensor, and the same performance and 
>> features otherwise, I expect that I would see two advantages:
>> 1) I would effectively have nearly twice the number of lenses, because most 
>> of my glass would work without vignetting, and I'd get 1.5x wider AOVs on 
>> all of my lenses. Mind you, my 50 on APS would be the same AOV as my 77 on 
>> FF, so the actual difference is probably closer to 1.5 times the lens 
>> choices rather than 2 times.
>>
>> 2) Due to the physics limitations of registration distance, I'd see a 
>> substantial improvement in performance at the wide end, particularly in low 
>> light.
>>
>> I would, however, be surprised to find a huge difference in the sharpness, 
>> clarity, technical excellence, whatever in the vast majority of my photos.  
>> I'm pretty good at pushing the limits of performance of my gear in stupid 
>> low light, but landscapes and such, in good light. First, I'll need to spend 
>> a lot of money on a much better tripod and head than I have.  And then there 
>> are all of the physical limitations as mentioned in other posts in this and 
>> the sister thread on the topic.
>>
>> I think that it would be accurate to say that for the vast majority of 
>> people that might buy a camera, the only two things that a full frame DSLR 
>> Pentax would give them over an APS equivalent are bragging rights and less 
>> money in their bank account. So, in a reality based market, Pentax would be 
>> a little foolish to bring out a FF DSLR.
>>
>> The market, however, is not reality based.  There are a tremendous number of 
>> people that won't buy Pentax, or are considering changing to another brand 
>> because Pentax doesn't have a FF option.  Never mind that in most respects 
>> the K-5 will outperform a large percentage of FF DSLRs, and we can probably 
>> expect a significant improvement in the next generation of body.
>>
>> If the goal of Pentax were to produce a camera system with the absolute best 
>> possible image performance they would (cue wailing and moaning and gnashing 
>> of teeth) abandon the DSLR format and develop a mirrorless system that uses 
>> a 24x36, or larger, sensor.  The physical limitations of a mirrorbox, 
>> combined with the jarring and vibration of a 24x36 mirror bouncing around 
>> every time that you take a photo are direct impediments to the imaging 
>> system.  As soon as you have to add lenses for retrofocus you lose speed and 
>> sharpness of your lens.  If the mirror bouncing around weren't a problem, 
>> there wouldn't be so much attention paid to mirror lockup, and two second 
>> delays. I'm sorry, but physics is simply an unforgiving bitch.
>>
>> I suppose that Pentax could try some sort of crazy end run and keep the 
>> K-mount and registration distance by doing something like putting a 645D 
>> (36x48) sensor in something like a K-01.  A medium format sensor and a 35mm 
>> registration distance, and you have at least the theoretical potential for 
>> wider AOV without the retrofocus elements, but I don't think that even 
>> Pentax's pet mad scientists are quite that crazy.  Hell, I don't think that 
>> even I'm th

Re: QUESTION

[Kenneth Waller]

With my left eye on the viewfinder I keep my right eye on the scene to get the 
live view.

-Original Message-
>From: Alan Cole 
>Subject: QUESTION
>
>The K20D was the first Pentax digital with Live-Preview mode.
>
>Did anyone ever come up with a clever routine to simulate Live-Preview on 
>the older models?
>
>Alan



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Mark Roberts]

All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
24MP full-frame for a couple of years.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: QUESTION

[Bruce Walker]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:49 PM, David J Brooks  wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Alan Cole  wrote:
>> The K20D was the first Pentax digital with Live-Preview mode.
>>
>> Did anyone ever come up with a clever routine to simulate Live-Preview on
>> the older models?
>
> I just look over top of the pop up flash

Cue rimshot. :-)

-- 
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PAW161 - Winter forest

[David J Brooks]

Lovely, looks like a painting

Dave

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:11 PM, DagT  wrote:
> http://www.thrane.name/Pictures/PAW/files/page7-1000-full.html
> Pentax K-5, DA*16-50mm, f/2.8, 1/50s, ISO100.
>
> DagT
> http://www.thrane.name/
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[David J Brooks]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:11 AM, David Savage  wrote:
> Basically I've notice that the "aperture" sweet spot is even more
> critical at such a high MP count.
>
> When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
> 14-24, 24-70, 780-200, ptus their 50 f1.4 & 85 f1.4).
>
> On the D700 I never really had any image quality issues with them.
> Those same lenses on the D800 are noticeably softer away from their
> respective "sweet spots". f5.6 - soft, f8 - shaper, f11 sweet, f16 -
> softer...

Humm, wonder if that why iwas having soft issues with my D200 shooting
jpeg, sharpeness increased when shooting Raw.

Dave
>
> Also the high resolution shows up flaws in your hand holding
> technique. The old rule of thumb of shutter speed being the inverse of
> the focal length doesn't really work any more. Double it to be sure,
> or use a tripod.

Good to know
>
> The D800/D800E manual came with a series of instructions on how to
> maintain sharpness & detail.
>
> DS
>
> On 04/02/2013, Bob Sullivan  wrote:
>> Dave,
>> How about giving us some more personal insights on 'diffraction issues
>> with most lenses.'
>> I'd like to know so I could get out in front of that issue.
>> Regards,  Bob S.
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM, David Savage  wrote:
>>> And loving it!
>>>
>>> ...except for the diffraction issues with most lenses...
>>>
>>> On 3 February 2013 12:30, Boris Liberman  wrote:
 Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some
 :-).

 On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
>
> Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.
>
> Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe
> I
> heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.
>
>   -Charles
>
> --
> Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
> Minneapolis, MN
> http://charles.robinsontwins.org
> http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson
>
>


 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>>> follow the directions.
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Darren Addy]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage  wrote:
> When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
> 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, plus their 50 f1.4 & 85 f1.4).

Earlier upthread I said:
"Realistically, you probably need to commit to spending nearly 10K to
get a decent compliment of lenses for the D800 and the computer
upgrade you will have to have, as
well."

David's 5 lenses total about $7800 (B&H prices) so it looks like my
ballpark estimate (including computer/storage upgrades) was pretty
close. With the D800/E body at $3K you are looking at $11K outlay.

Now assuming you are a Pentaxian with a complement of full frame
lenses already at your disposal, I would say that a Pentax full frame
body that comes in with a $2500-3000 price tag would be a relative
bargain, compared to dumping everything and going Nikon to get your
full frame fix. In fact, you'd have a relative savings of $7800+ to
rationalize buying a few of the FA Limiteds that you don't already
have.

All of this is assuming that the Pentax full frame will perform
comparably to the Nikons, which remains to be seen. But for that much
money, I can afford to be quite content for QUITE a while.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax FF is going to happen

[Paul Ewins]

And that, pretty much, is how I feel about FF.  My photo course starts up again 
on Friday (another three years to go for us part timers) and I still don't have 
the unbearable itch to go FF even as my classmates look at 5D III and D600s. 
There is so much that I can do that doesn't require FF that I can wait another 
year or two. I waited long enough for the *ist-D, I can do it again. It would 
be nice to have tethering software but that is the only thing I couldn't do 
that my Nikon and Canon classmates could (I am the only non Nikon or Canon 
shooter).

Sent from my iPhone

On 06/02/2013, at 7:17 PM, Larry Colen  wrote:

> I'd guess that my raw technical skill and ability to get a clear, sharp, 
> photograph is likely in the upper half of people who own DSLRs and three or 
> more lenses for them. I choose three to distinguish from the people who buy a 
> DSLR kit with one or two lenses and use them as an expensive point and shoot.
> 
> If Pentax were to make a full frame version of the K-5, i.e. same pixel 
> density and performance on a 24x36 sensor, and the same performance and 
> features otherwise, I expect that I would see two advantages:
> 1) I would effectively have nearly twice the number of lenses, because most 
> of my glass would work without vignetting, and I'd get 1.5x wider AOVs on all 
> of my lenses. Mind you, my 50 on APS would be the same AOV as my 77 on FF, so 
> the actual difference is probably closer to 1.5 times the lens choices rather 
> than 2 times.
> 
> 2) Due to the physics limitations of registration distance, I'd see a 
> substantial improvement in performance at the wide end, particularly in low 
> light.
> 
> I would, however, be surprised to find a huge difference in the sharpness, 
> clarity, technical excellence, whatever in the vast majority of my photos.  
> I'm pretty good at pushing the limits of performance of my gear in stupid low 
> light, but landscapes and such, in good light. First, I'll need to spend a 
> lot of money on a much better tripod and head than I have.  And then there 
> are all of the physical limitations as mentioned in other posts in this and 
> the sister thread on the topic.
> 
> I think that it would be accurate to say that for the vast majority of people 
> that might buy a camera, the only two things that a full frame DSLR Pentax 
> would give them over an APS equivalent are bragging rights and less money in 
> their bank account. So, in a reality based market, Pentax would be a little 
> foolish to bring out a FF DSLR.
> 
> The market, however, is not reality based.  There are a tremendous number of 
> people that won't buy Pentax, or are considering changing to another brand 
> because Pentax doesn't have a FF option.  Never mind that in most respects 
> the K-5 will outperform a large percentage of FF DSLRs, and we can probably 
> expect a significant improvement in the next generation of body.
> 
> If the goal of Pentax were to produce a camera system with the absolute best 
> possible image performance they would (cue wailing and moaning and gnashing 
> of teeth) abandon the DSLR format and develop a mirrorless system that uses a 
> 24x36, or larger, sensor.  The physical limitations of a mirrorbox, combined 
> with the jarring and vibration of a 24x36 mirror bouncing around every time 
> that you take a photo are direct impediments to the imaging system.  As soon 
> as you have to add lenses for retrofocus you lose speed and sharpness of your 
> lens.  If the mirror bouncing around weren't a problem, there wouldn't be so 
> much attention paid to mirror lockup, and two second delays. I'm sorry, but 
> physics is simply an unforgiving bitch.
> 
> I suppose that Pentax could try some sort of crazy end run and keep the 
> K-mount and registration distance by doing something like putting a 645D 
> (36x48) sensor in something like a K-01.  A medium format sensor and a 35mm 
> registration distance, and you have at least the theoretical potential for 
> wider AOV without the retrofocus elements, but I don't think that even 
> Pentax's pet mad scientists are quite that crazy.  Hell, I don't think that 
> even I'm that crazy.  
> 
> Yes, in good light, optical viewfinders have all sorts of advantages over 
> electronic.  But in lousy light electronic viewfinders work better, and in my 
> opinion the quality of the final image is more important than the quality of 
> the image in the viewfinder.  If an optical viewfinder were that important, I 
> could just buy an optical viewfinder to slip in the hot shoe.  
> 
> But, no matter what path they take, I'm fairly sure it will be one that will 
> allow me to use most of my existing lenses, at least with an adapter, and 
> that if the full frame body costs less than $3,000, and I'm still employed, 
> I'll probably buy one.
> 
> --
> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to

Re: DxOMark Analysis

[P. J. Alling]

I should really spell check before I hit send but oh, well.

On 2/6/2013 3:15 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
Like everything else it's a price performance issue. If like me, you 
think that the ultamate output of the photographic experience is 
making a print, the question is can I make a descernibly better print, 
(at some particular size), from a FF camera than I can from an APS-C 
camera and at what cost. There are a lot of factors involved, 
currently I think, (don't know for sure yet), my desktop will handle 
the16mp files from a K5, I know it does pretty well with K20D files. 
The maximum size of my current printer will handle is 13x19". However 
I'm in the position of having a decent enlarger and lens combination 
that is sized for up to 11x14" prints from 35mm and maybe will handle 
6x6 format, (thought I probably should invest in a dedicated enlarging 
lens for the larger format). If I move up to 36mp files it would be 
like going to 4x5" skipping all the formats in between, and printing 
20x30". The damned negative won't even fit in my enlarger. The prints 
won't fit in my trays, the damned new enlarger won't even fit in my 
darkroom on the old table. It's more than just the camera, it's the 
entire system, and in spite of the fact that I really want to make 
prints most of the time I just look at the contacts anyway.


On 2/6/2013 1:57 PM, Tom C wrote:

A long, interesting, and fairly technical article on Luminous Landscape.

Those looking for a reason to move to full frame will find it. Those
wishing not to will find reason not to.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras2.shtml 



Tom C.







--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in 
the bank account).


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Perhaps the rumors of a Pentax FF cameras are true after all...

[P. J. Alling]

It hasn't been listed on the http://www.pentaximaging.com web site for 
any of that time.  It was officially discontinued at B&H three years ago 
and by Pentax at the same time.  I don't think it's been there all that 
time, I kept haunting there hoping to find one.


On 2/6/2013 2:47 PM, Bryan Jacoby wrote:

That lens has been back on B&H for almost two years now (that I've
been aware of it) so I don't think it's proof of full frame.  The last
time I checked the price was $475, though.

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:48 PM, P. J. Alling
 wrote:

Look what shows up as a current product at B&H

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/180121-USA/Pentax_22190_Wide_Angle_35mm_f_2_0.html

I thought this lens was discontinued years ago.

--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds
in the bank account).


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.



--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in 
the bank account).


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: QUESTION

[Mark Roberts]

Alan Cole wrote:

>The K20D was the first Pentax digital with Live-Preview mode.
>
>Did anyone ever come up with a clever routine to simulate Live-Preview on 
>the older models?

Nope. Earlier models had CCD sensors, not CMOS.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: DxOMark Analysis

[P. J. Alling]

Like everything else it's a price performance issue. If like me, you 
think that the ultamate output of the photographic experience is making 
a print, the question is can I make a descernibly better print, (at some 
particular size), from a FF camera than I can from an APS-C camera and 
at what cost. There are a lot of factors involved, currently I think, 
(don't know for sure yet), my desktop will handle the16mp files from a 
K5, I know it does pretty well with K20D files. The maximum size of my 
current printer will handle is 13x19". However I'm in the position of 
having a decent enlarger and lens combination that is sized for up to 
11x14" prints from 35mm and maybe will handle 6x6 format, (thought I 
probably should invest in a dedicated enlarging lens for the larger 
format). If I move up to 36mp files it would be like going to 4x5" 
skipping all the formats in between, and printing 20x30". The damned 
negative won't even fit in my enlarger. The prints won't fit in my 
trays, the damned new enlarger won't even fit in my darkroom on the old 
table. It's more than just the camera, it's the entire system, and in 
spite of the fact that I really want to make prints most of the time I 
just look at the contacts anyway.


On 2/6/2013 1:57 PM, Tom C wrote:

A long, interesting, and fairly technical article on Luminous Landscape.

Those looking for a reason to move to full frame will find it. Those
wishing not to will find reason not to.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras2.shtml

Tom C.




--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in 
the bank account).


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Mark Roberts]

Bill wrote:

>On 06/02/2013 11:07 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
>> on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
>> VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.
>Whatever. I suppose by the same logic, an 80-200/2.8 is a specialized lens.

The 17-55/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 are probably standard kit for the
photojournalist target market for the D4.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: QUESTION

[P. J. Alling]

I don't think that's even possible. The sensor isn't designed for 
continuous output so the support circuitry for live view isn't even there.


On 2/6/2013 1:25 PM, Alan Cole wrote:

The K20D was the first Pentax digital with Live-Preview mode.

Did anyone ever come up with a clever routine to simulate Live-Preview 
on the older models?


Alan






--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in 
the bank account).


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[P. J. Alling]

On 2/6/2013 12:33 PM, Bill wrote:

On 06/02/2013 11:07 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.
Whatever. I suppose by the same logic, an 80-200/2.8 is a specialized 
lens.


bill



I kind of hate to agree with him, but up quite until recently it was.

--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in 
the bank account).


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Perhaps the rumors of a Pentax FF cameras are true after all...

[Bryan Jacoby]

That lens has been back on B&H for almost two years now (that I've
been aware of it) so I don't think it's proof of full frame.  The last
time I checked the price was $475, though.

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:48 PM, P. J. Alling
 wrote:
> Look what shows up as a current product at B&H
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/180121-USA/Pentax_22190_Wide_Angle_35mm_f_2_0.html
>
> I thought this lens was discontinued years ago.
>
> --
> Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds
> in the bank account).
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT Light trails fashion

[Bruce Walker]

Pawing, yeah: definitely not good!

But if the LED array comes into contact while creating the desired
design, and especially if the model understands this is likely, I
don't see any issues there. And there's probably about a dozen other
people in on the shoot so safety and security is good.

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:49 PM, David Savage  wrote:
> No problem I guess. I'd just feel a bit weird doing it.
>
> Too many photographers who paw at the models. Always comes across as
> really seedy to me.
>
> DS
>
> On 6 February 2013 21:50, Bruce Walker  wrote:
>> Those shots are really fine, Dave. Nice touch with the reflective floor.
>>
>> I assume that the "light dress" lighting involves camera Bulb mode,
>> manually triggering the flashes, then walking around for 15 seconds
>> with the LED light bars. He probably does touch the model with the LED
>> bar as he paints -- why not?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:45 PM, David Savage  wrote:
>>> I've had a bit of a crack at something along similar lines:
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>> The guy who did the ones you linked to swears that they're not
>>> photoshopped. I'd really like to know how he does it if that's the
>>> case. Short of physically touching the model with the lights, I can't
>>> see how he does it.
>>>
>>> I think he shoots the model, then the light & then dresses the model
>>> in post like this guy:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> DS
>>>
>>> On 05/02/2013, Bruce Walker  wrote:
 Calling Mr. Savage:

 http://weburbanist.com/2013/02/03/invisible-apparel-material-free-dresses-made-of-light/

 --
 -bmw

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.

>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>>> follow the directions.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -bmw
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



-- 
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT Light trails fashion

[Bruce Walker]

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Charles Robinson  wrote:
>
> Could he not:
>
>  1. Shoot model with flash
>  2. Have model leave the area
>  3. Paint around where the model WAS with the light.

Trouble with your #3 is that the viewer would expect the model to
occlude the light behind her and if she's not physically there, no
occlusion. You'd then have to monkey around in Photoshop to remove it,
and that'd be a big chore.

--
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT Light trails fashion

[Charles Robinson]

On Feb 5, 2013, at 22:45 , David Savage  wrote:

> I've had a bit of a crack at something along similar lines:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The guy who did the ones you linked to swears that they're not
> photoshopped. I'd really like to know how he does it if that's the
> case. Short of physically touching the model with the lights, I can't
> see how he does it.
> 

Could he not:

 1. Shoot model with flash
 2. Have model leave the area
 3. Paint around where the model WAS with the light.

The only question is: How would he be able to restrict his movement to 
specifically where her body was?  Seems almost impossible.

> I think he shoots the model, then the light & then dresses the model
> in post like this guy:
> 
> 

That would be a hell of a lot easier.

 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

OT - For Boris

[Paul Sorenson]

Please see my off-list message...

-p

--
Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

QUESTION

[Alan Cole]

The K20D was the first Pentax digital with Live-Preview mode.

Did anyone ever come up with a clever routine to simulate Live-Preview on 
the older models?


Alan



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT Light trails fashion

[David Savage]

No problem I guess. I'd just feel a bit weird doing it.

Too many photographers who paw at the models. Always comes across as
really seedy to me.

DS

On 6 February 2013 21:50, Bruce Walker  wrote:
> Those shots are really fine, Dave. Nice touch with the reflective floor.
>
> I assume that the "light dress" lighting involves camera Bulb mode,
> manually triggering the flashes, then walking around for 15 seconds
> with the LED light bars. He probably does touch the model with the LED
> bar as he paints -- why not?
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:45 PM, David Savage  wrote:
>> I've had a bit of a crack at something along similar lines:
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>> The guy who did the ones you linked to swears that they're not
>> photoshopped. I'd really like to know how he does it if that's the
>> case. Short of physically touching the model with the lights, I can't
>> see how he does it.
>>
>> I think he shoots the model, then the light & then dresses the model
>> in post like this guy:
>>
>> 
>>
>> DS
>>
>> On 05/02/2013, Bruce Walker  wrote:
>>> Calling Mr. Savage:
>>>
>>> http://weburbanist.com/2013/02/03/invisible-apparel-material-free-dresses-made-of-light/
>>>
>>> --
>>> -bmw
>>>
>>> --
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>>> follow the directions.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow the directions.
>
>
>
> --
> -bmw
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Bill]

On 06/02/2013 11:07 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.

Whatever. I suppose by the same logic, an 80-200/2.8 is a specialized lens.

bill


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[J.C. O'Connell]

on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.

-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bill
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:17 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

On 06/02/2013 2:24 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> well its certainly a specialty lens.
It's a wide angle to normal zoom. Nothing specialized about it.

bill

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[Bill]

On 06/02/2013 2:24 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

well its certainly a specialty lens.

It's a wide angle to normal zoom. Nothing specialized about it.

bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: OT Light trails fashion

[Bruce Walker]

Those shots are really fine, Dave. Nice touch with the reflective floor.

I assume that the "light dress" lighting involves camera Bulb mode,
manually triggering the flashes, then walking around for 15 seconds
with the LED light bars. He probably does touch the model with the LED
bar as he paints -- why not?


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:45 PM, David Savage  wrote:
> I've had a bit of a crack at something along similar lines:
>
> 
> 
>
> The guy who did the ones you linked to swears that they're not
> photoshopped. I'd really like to know how he does it if that's the
> case. Short of physically touching the model with the lights, I can't
> see how he does it.
>
> I think he shoots the model, then the light & then dresses the model
> in post like this guy:
>
> 
>
> DS
>
> On 05/02/2013, Bruce Walker  wrote:
>> Calling Mr. Savage:
>>
>> http://weburbanist.com/2013/02/03/invisible-apparel-material-free-dresses-made-of-light/
>>
>> --
>> -bmw
>>
>> --
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
>> follow the directions.
>>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.



--
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Pentax in the movies

[J.C. O'Connell]

looked like the 135/2.5 prime lens mounted on it too.

-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of J.C. O'Connell
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 6:54 AM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: Pentax in the movies

Saw part of a 1975 Pam Grier movie last night on tv and she was shooting
away with was clearly a screwmount black ESII mint with a smc lens on it.
The camera looked so nice.
-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Pentax in the movies

[J.C. O'Connell]

Saw part of a 1975 Pam Grier movie last night on tv and she was shooting
away with was clearly a screwmount black ESII mint with a smc lens on it.
The camera looked so nice.
-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PAW161 - Winter forest

[Bruce Walker]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:43 PM, David Mann  wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Bruce Walker  wrote:
>
>> If you were to ask someone for an opinion on some pie you baked, would
>> you then also spread some fruit, yeast, sugar and flour on the table
>> and say, "here's the original unprocessed pie for comparison"?
>
> I've not used yeast in a pie before ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Dave the occasional baker (made caramel slice today)

It was an HDR pie.

You can tell I'm not a baker. :-)

-- 
-bmw

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax FF is going to happen

[Steve Cottrell]

On 5/2/13, David Parsons, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Whatever Pentax is planning with FF, they are up to something.

Mark!

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Producion
--
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax FF is going to happen

[Steve Cottrell]

On 6/2/13, Brian Walters, discombobulated, unleashed:

>That seems at odds with this marvelous image that you, yourself,  
>posted and which doesn't seem to have any trace of chocolate (Belgian  
>or otherwise) in its composition.
>
>
>http://www.cottysnaps.com/yum.html

Oh *that* one. I ate that a couple of years ago with a sharp Muscadet if
I recall correctly. I think the context might have been something to do
with 'if William Robb rejoins the list, I'll eat my...'

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Producion
--
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: LeeAnn

[Larry Colen]

On Feb 6, 2013, at 1:06 AM, Walt wrote:

> On 2/6/2013 2:29 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
>> If nothing else, while on the back of a Harley.
> Good idea with a good possibility of happening. I have a cousin who's been 
> pestering me to shoot his Harley.
> 
>> No, for me to*really*  like it, she should be some place that*I*  can 
>> photograph her.
>> 
>> And no, she wouldn't need to be wearing leather, or anything else for that 
>> matter.
> Maybe some paint.

A smile would be enough for me.


--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: LeeAnn

[Walt]

On 2/6/2013 2:29 AM, Larry Colen wrote:

If nothing else, while on the back of a Harley.
Good idea with a good possibility of happening. I have a cousin who's 
been pestering me to shoot his Harley.



No, for me to*really*  like it, she should be some place that*I*  can 
photograph her.

And no, she wouldn't need to be wearing leather, or anything else for that 
matter.

Maybe some paint.


-- Walt

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PAW161 - Winter forest

[Bulent Celasun]

Thank you, Dag!

Your image shines on my monitor...

Bulent
-
http://patoloji.gen.tr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bc_the_path/
http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2226822
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/bulentcelasun

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: PESO: LeeAnn

[Larry Colen]

On Feb 5, 2013, at 10:26 PM, Walt wrote:

> From what I can tell about her so far, that's not outside the realms of 
> possibility.

If nothing else, while on the back of a Harley.


> 
> -- Walt
> 
> On 2/5/2013 3:58 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>> For Larry to be really like it she should be wearing leather...

No, for me to *really* like it, she should be some place that *I* can 
photograph her.

And no, she wouldn't need to be wearing leather, or anything else for that 
matter.


--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: K5 RAW file size - yow!

[J.C. O'Connell]

well its certainly a specialty lens.

-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bill
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 12:50 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

On 05/02/2013 2:09 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
> why a FF 17-55mm F2.8 lens ?? That wouldnt be normal usage on FF.
Because that was what was on the D4 that was being passed around at the 
meet up I was at.

bill


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Pentax FF is going to happen

[Larry Colen]

I'd guess that my raw technical skill and ability to get a clear, sharp, 
photograph is likely in the upper half of people who own DSLRs and three or 
more lenses for them. I choose three to distinguish from the people who buy a 
DSLR kit with one or two lenses and use them as an expensive point and shoot.

If Pentax were to make a full frame version of the K-5, i.e. same pixel density 
and performance on a 24x36 sensor, and the same performance and features 
otherwise, I expect that I would see two advantages:
1) I would effectively have nearly twice the number of lenses, because most of 
my glass would work without vignetting, and I'd get 1.5x wider AOVs on all of 
my lenses. Mind you, my 50 on APS would be the same AOV as my 77 on FF, so the 
actual difference is probably closer to 1.5 times the lens choices rather than 
2 times.

2) Due to the physics limitations of registration distance, I'd see a 
substantial improvement in performance at the wide end, particularly in low 
light.

I would, however, be surprised to find a huge difference in the sharpness, 
clarity, technical excellence, whatever in the vast majority of my photos.  I'm 
pretty good at pushing the limits of performance of my gear in stupid low 
light, but landscapes and such, in good light. First, I'll need to spend a lot 
of money on a much better tripod and head than I have.  And then there are all 
of the physical limitations as mentioned in other posts in this and the sister 
thread on the topic.

I think that it would be accurate to say that for the vast majority of people 
that might buy a camera, the only two things that a full frame DSLR Pentax 
would give them over an APS equivalent are bragging rights and less money in 
their bank account. So, in a reality based market, Pentax would be a little 
foolish to bring out a FF DSLR.

The market, however, is not reality based.  There are a tremendous number of 
people that won't buy Pentax, or are considering changing to another brand 
because Pentax doesn't have a FF option.  Never mind that in most respects the 
K-5 will outperform a large percentage of FF DSLRs, and we can probably expect 
a significant improvement in the next generation of body.

If the goal of Pentax were to produce a camera system with the absolute best 
possible image performance they would (cue wailing and moaning and gnashing of 
teeth) abandon the DSLR format and develop a mirrorless system that uses a 
24x36, or larger, sensor.  The physical limitations of a mirrorbox, combined 
with the jarring and vibration of a 24x36 mirror bouncing around every time 
that you take a photo are direct impediments to the imaging system.  As soon as 
you have to add lenses for retrofocus you lose speed and sharpness of your 
lens.  If the mirror bouncing around weren't a problem, there wouldn't be so 
much attention paid to mirror lockup, and two second delays. I'm sorry, but 
physics is simply an unforgiving bitch.

I suppose that Pentax could try some sort of crazy end run and keep the K-mount 
and registration distance by doing something like putting a 645D (36x48) sensor 
in something like a K-01.  A medium format sensor and a 35mm registration 
distance, and you have at least the theoretical potential for wider AOV without 
the retrofocus elements, but I don't think that even Pentax's pet mad 
scientists are quite that crazy.  Hell, I don't think that even I'm that crazy. 
 

Yes, in good light, optical viewfinders have all sorts of advantages over 
electronic.  But in lousy light electronic viewfinders work better, and in my 
opinion the quality of the final image is more important than the quality of 
the image in the viewfinder.  If an optical viewfinder were that important, I 
could just buy an optical viewfinder to slip in the hot shoe.  

But, no matter what path they take, I'm fairly sure it will be one that will 
allow me to use most of my existing lenses, at least with an adapter, and that 
if the full frame body costs less than $3,000, and I'm still employed, I'll 
probably buy one.

--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.