Re: New iMac 5K: M380 vs. M390 graphics

[Bryan Jacoby]

> You can swap in RAM. I have 32 gig in my iMac 27 5k. Installed half of it 
> after purchase.

Yeah, you can on the 27", just not on the 21.5" models.

-- 
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: New iMac 5K: M380 vs. M390 graphics

[Bryan Jacoby]

Thank you, Steve and Paul.  I think in the end I will get the "top"
standard configuration with the M395,  2 TB fusion drive (and upgrade
the RAM myself of course, probably to 24 GB).  Thunderbolt external
drives/enclosures/docks aren't cheap, and I am slightly unhappy with
the idea of an external boot drive on an "all-in-one."  The upgrade
path will be the option to, in a couple of years, replace the fusion
drive with a big internal SSD (when those are less expensive and the
machine is old enough that I'm not afraid of breaking it).


On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Paul Stenquist  wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
> I have the IMac27 Retina 5K with the Radeon R9 M395  graphics chip, 2 gigs of 
> VRAM, the i7 4 ghz processor and 32 gigs of RAM. I don’t have anything to 
> compare it to, but it’s very efficient. I do a lot of PhotoShop work on 1 
> gig+ scans of 6x7 negs, and the machine never hesitates. i can do gaussian 
> blurs and rotations in near real time. And a long burn-in session will result 
> in only 10 seconds or so of down time. I opted for the 3 terabyte fusion 
> drive, which comes with a 128 gig SSD. I find that it tracks my work flow 
> very well and brings up current projects and current folders almost 
> instantly. A 1.5 gig image file saves in a couple of seconds.
>
> Paul
>> On Nov 25, 2015, at 5:27 PM, steve harley  wrote:
>>
>> brief answer: my hunch is the graphics chip difference won't matter much 
>> because the VRAM matters more — and both have 2GB; i would personally 
>> greatly prefer an external SSD to a Fusion Drive; however choose carefully — 
>> most Thunderbolt solutions will use a SATA drive, whereas PCIe is a lot 
>> faster with the right SSD
>>
>> On 2015-11-25 11:38 , Bryan Jacoby wrote:
>>> I am thinking of buying a new 27" iMac, one of the standard
>>> configurations (so I can get a discount this weekend).  I'm looking at
>>> the base and middle option.  The differences are:
>>>
>>> AMD M380 vs. M390 graphics
>>> 1 TB 7200 RPM HD vs. 1 TB fusion drive
>>> $200
>>>
>>> Photo editing (lightroom) is probably the heaviest lifting the machine
>>> will do.  I know that Lr can use the GPU but I haven't been able to
>>> find much information about the difference between the M380 and M390.
>>>
>>> Now that the SSD component of the fusion drive is only 24 GB I'm not
>>> sure how much of an advantage that is over the straight HD.  If I get
>>> the straight HD I will almost certainly use an external Thunderbolt
>>> SSD for most things, and use the internal drive for photo + music
>>> libraries.  If I get the fusion drive, maybe that will be fast enough
>>> on its own, I'm not sure.  If it's not and I still end up with the
>>> external SSD boot drive, I'm wondering if the fusion drive will
>>> actually be worse for photo and music libraries since it is presumably
>>> a 5400 RPM drive.
>>>
>>> (I guess, for the price of the middle M390 + 1 TB fusion drive model +
>>> external Thunderbolt SSD, I could get the top standard configuration
>>> with M395 + 2 TB fusion drive + slightly faster processor.  The 2 TB
>>> fusion drive has 128 GB of flash.  I'm just not sure how that would
>>> perform compared to an SSD boot drive).
>>>
>>> Thanks for any advice.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.

New iMac 5K: M380 vs. M390 graphics

[Bryan Jacoby]

I am thinking of buying a new 27" iMac, one of the standard
configurations (so I can get a discount this weekend).  I'm looking at
the base and middle option.  The differences are:

AMD M380 vs. M390 graphics
1 TB 7200 RPM HD vs. 1 TB fusion drive
$200

Photo editing (lightroom) is probably the heaviest lifting the machine
will do.  I know that Lr can use the GPU but I haven't been able to
find much information about the difference between the M380 and M390.

Now that the SSD component of the fusion drive is only 24 GB I'm not
sure how much of an advantage that is over the straight HD.  If I get
the straight HD I will almost certainly use an external Thunderbolt
SSD for most things, and use the internal drive for photo + music
libraries.  If I get the fusion drive, maybe that will be fast enough
on its own, I'm not sure.  If it's not and I still end up with the
external SSD boot drive, I'm wondering if the fusion drive will
actually be worse for photo and music libraries since it is presumably
a 5400 RPM drive.

(I guess, for the price of the middle M390 + 1 TB fusion drive model +
external Thunderbolt SSD, I could get the top standard configuration
with M395 + 2 TB fusion drive + slightly faster processor.  The 2 TB
fusion drive has 128 GB of flash.  I'm just not sure how that would
perform compared to an SSD boot drive).

Thanks for any advice.

-- 
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.

Can K-5 do depth of field bracketing?

[Bryan Jacoby]

I am going to shoot some portraits and would _like_ shallow DoF (like
f/2.8) but I _need_ a sharp subject.  I was thinking it would be nice
to have each shot at 2 apertures, with the smaller aperture (maybe f/4
or so) as insurance.  Is there a way to get the camera to suto-bracket
the aperture but adjust shutter or ISO to compensate, so that overall
exposure is the same?

-- 
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: Full Frame Confused

[Bryan Jacoby]

That "camera" looks suspiciously like the output of a 3D printer, so
I'm not going to get too fixated on the details at this point (and by
details I mean anything beyond the fact that it's K-mount and has a
roughly 24x36mm sensor).  I think all we know for sure is that Ricoh
has publicly committed to building a full frame camera in the
foreseeable future.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Ken Waller  wrote:
> It seems to me that what was shown is obviously a mock up/early prototype -
> notice the lack of labeling on the controls, the black flash shoe etc.
> Wouldn't suprise me if it were just a solid block - non functional.
>
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>
> - Original Message - From: "P.J. Alling"
> 
> Subject: Re: Full Frame Confused
>
>
>
>> I hope that's not the final design, the tilt screen needs to be better
>> integrated into the body, and it doesn't say anything on the back...  Maybe
>> it will someday.
>>
>> On 2/12/2015 11:02 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:
>>>
>>> Well the label says Pentax on the front and back of the camera, so its a
>>> Pentax!
>>>
>>> I think its beautiful. Also: never say never ;)
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Steve Cottrell 
>>> wrote:

 I think that my hat's going to give me indigestion. What a ghastly
 object!

 

 And is it Ricoh or Pentax??

 --


 Cheers,
Cotty


 ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
 ||  (O)  |Web Video Production
 --
 _
>
>
>
> --
> 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: sigma 18-35 review

[Bryan Jacoby]

Sorry, I wasn't clear.  What I meant was does the AF performance seem
adequate/typical in the context of the depth of field one gets at
f/2.8 (for a more fair comparison with other fast zooms).

Actually, I think the aperture used for TTL AF is set by the AF
system, not the lens.  So while it's true that the lens is open to
f/1.8 during focusing, I think it's effectively only focusing at f/5.6
or f/2.8 depending on which camera and AF point you're using.

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Rob Studdert  wrote:
> TTL AF is always performed with the lens wide open regardless of the
> taking aperture.
>

-- 
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: sigma 18-35 review

[Bryan Jacoby]

On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Rob Studdert  wrote:
> no phase detect AF system
> is designed for an 18mm f1.8 lens.dc-hsm-art/aberrations-and-flare.html

That's true, but at the same time dpreview had no complaints about AF
performance with this lens on Nikon (but they did have problems with
Canon).

What do you think of the AF at more typical apertures, say f/2.8?

-- 
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? In case you are having some insomnia tonight...

[Bryan Jacoby]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> <>

why?

-- 
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? In case you are having some insomnia tonight...

[Bryan Jacoby]

The other side of the coin is that, to produce the same picture (same
depth of field and shutter speed), the full frame camera will only be
getting half as many photons per unit area, so has to shoot at 2x the
ISO of the crop camera.  So the common wisdom that you get a stop
extra ISO out of a full frame camera is true but misleading, because
you _need_ a stop higher ISO on full frame to produce the same image
as you would with an APS-C camera.

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Bryan Jacoby  wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>> To try to find lenses that still give you that focal length and
>> maximum aperture becomes an expensive proposition, when it is possible
>> at all.
>>
>> Extreme example: DA* 200mm f2.8 can be bought for under $1K. (More
>> like $700, used) 300mm equiv. FOV on APS-C
>> Move to a full frame, now you need a 300mm f2.8 to replicate that FOV.
>> Price one of those lately? A Sigma is $3400. A more reasonable choice
>> would be a 300mm f4. You've replicated the FOV, but lost a full stop
>> of light.
>
> Not really (I mean about losing the stop of light).  It's true that
> f/4 on full frame will only produce an image half as bright on the
> sensor compared to f/2.8 on APS-C, but that's half as bright in the
> sense of photons per second _per unit area_.  The full frame sensor
> has a little over twice the area, so it will actually be collecting
> slightly more photons per second _over the whole image_, which is what
> actually matters (or, another way to think of it is they will both get
> the same number of photons per second per pixel if the two sensors
> have the same number of pixels).And a 300 f/4 on full frame would
> have about the depth of field as the 200 f/2.8 on APS-C.  So these two
> scenarios are actually very comparable.

-- 
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? In case you are having some insomnia tonight...

[Bryan Jacoby]

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> To try to find lenses that still give you that focal length and
> maximum aperture becomes an expensive proposition, when it is possible
> at all.
>
> Extreme example: DA* 200mm f2.8 can be bought for under $1K. (More
> like $700, used) 300mm equiv. FOV on APS-C
> Move to a full frame, now you need a 300mm f2.8 to replicate that FOV.
> Price one of those lately? A Sigma is $3400. A more reasonable choice
> would be a 300mm f4. You've replicated the FOV, but lost a full stop
> of light.

Not really (I mean about losing the stop of light).  It's true that
f/4 on full frame will only produce an image half as bright on the
sensor compared to f/2.8 on APS-C, but that's half as bright in the
sense of photons per second _per unit area_.  The full frame sensor
has a little over twice the area, so it will actually be collecting
slightly more photons per second _over the whole image_, which is what
actually matters (or, another way to think of it is they will both get
the same number of photons per second per pixel if the two sensors
have the same number of pixels).And a 300 f/4 on full frame would
have about the depth of field as the 200 f/2.8 on APS-C.  So these two
scenarios are actually very comparable.

-- 
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: Not short primes for me

[Bryan Jacoby]

If you don't mind a little more size and weight, the new Sigma 18-35mm
f/1.8 looks like it might be a good replacement for wide primes in
terms of image quality and speed (actually it's faster than any primes
I know of in the shorter end of its range).  It's not cheap but
neither are those lenses on KEH.

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Bill  wrote:
> On 25/08/2014 8:57 AM, Eric Weir wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Bill 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> primarily casual amateurs who were buying zoom lenses, and the 15,
>>> 20 and 24 just didn't sell in great numbers. The A15/3.5 is also
>>> rather a horse (I have one that is in absolutely cherry condition).
>>> If you want something that wide, you would be better to get the
>>> 15/4 Limited, or buy a Fuji and pick up their 14/2.8.
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Bill. I want something a little wider than the 28 and fast. I
>> find myself in a lot of low-light situations. Contrary to my original
>> post, I might have to go for one of those shorter a’s. Just not right
>> now.
>>
>
> If you want a 21/3.2 LTD, I could probably be coaxed into parting with mine.
> I rarely use it, and when I want something that wide I tend now to reach for
> my Fuji and the 23/1.4.
> email me off list if you are interested.
>
> 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: WAY OT: I want to build a pair of speakers

[Bryan Jacoby]

Photographic corollary:

If you desire a long-term hobby to carry you for a decade or more,
then photography is a fine choice. But if you like good photographs,
I'd just grab something from the internet.

:)

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Mark Roberts
 wrote:
> Bruce Walker wrote:
>
>>If you desire a long-term hobby to carry you for a decade or more,
>>then speaker building is a fine choice. But if you like good sound,
>>I'd just buy new speakers.
>
> Sums it up nicely. :)
>
>
> --
> 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: Imaging Resource is impressed with the 645Z

[Bryan Jacoby]

Bruce, I know you don't believe that moire really exists, but I'm
afraid it does. :)

I'm looking at the full-res.  I see printing process dots with
superimposed blobs/arcs/lines of color variations (for instance, there
is a blue blob under the second R in BREWERY, and lots of fine
blue/green lines on the left and right sides of the greenish area).
I'm pretty sure those color variations are moire.  The moire isn't as
bad in the 645Z as in the other AA-filter-less cameras in the
comparison (I guess because the printing dots are better-resolved by
the 645Z), but it is there.

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Bruce Walker  wrote:
> Are you looking at the screen-resized shots or the full-rez downloads?
> If the former you are seeing down-size artifacts (induced moire), not
> image moire. I'm looking at the downloaded image 100% and I see no
> moire. I see printing process dots.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Bryan Jacoby  wrote:
>> Lovely moire on that top set of comparison shots (the green area on
>> the bottle) from all the cameras.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/08/20/pentax-645z-first-shots-now-posted
>>>
>>> After looking at the test shots realize it is time to dust their still
>>> life set. First Lab test shots:
>>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-645z/pentax-645zA7.HTM
>>>
>>> --
>>> Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs
>>> look like photographs.
>>> ~ Alfred Stieglitz
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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: Imaging Resource is impressed with the 645Z

[Bryan Jacoby]

Lovely moire on that top set of comparison shots (the green area on
the bottle) from all the cameras.

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/08/20/pentax-645z-first-shots-now-posted
>
> After looking at the test shots realize it is time to dust their still
> life set. First Lab test shots:
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-645z/pentax-645zA7.HTM
>
> --
> Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs
> look like photographs.
> ~ Alfred Stieglitz
>
> --
> 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 Sigma 18-35/1.8

[Bryan Jacoby]

Zos, I think you mean 1/(1.5 * FL), assuming that the 1.5 comes from
the crop factor (and not that you are just steadier than the average
bear).

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
> Eric,
>
> You should look up the focal length rule. Its generally 1.5/FL =
> shutter speed minimum for APS-C. SR will give you a couple stops more,
> but its a good idea to not really count on that if possible. I usually
> go for just 1/FL and find that pretty sufficient with SR. You'll find
> with wide lenses (under 28mm) that you can shoot at fairly slow speeds
> with proper technique.
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Eric Weir  wrote:
>>
>> Someone here recently recommended that I try shooting at 1/80. I’ve been 
>> experimenting with shutter speeds in that range pretty effectively since. 
>> Never woulda occurred to me to go as low as this.
>>
>> On Aug 20, 2014, at 9:16 AM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
>>
>>> I regularly hand hold shots down to 1/10 of a second at focal lengths
>>> below 50mm. I have more than a couple of 1/4s shots that are very
>>> sharp and even a 1/2s shot that was usable. At wide focal lengths SR
>>> is very, very good.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Eric Weir  wrote:

 On Aug 20, 2014, at 1:01 AM, Rob Studdert  wrote:

> I don't normally do this but just to get an idea of what this lens can
> do check out this sample 10MP jpg image directly from my K5IIs, hand
> held, 1/13, f2.0, ISO12800 at 35mm FL, focus was the audio desk
> (5.5MB)
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9304908/temp/IMGS00017.JPG

 Handheld at 1/13?? Amazing.

 --
 Eric Weir
 Decatur, GA  USA
 eew...@bellsouth.net

 “...we are a form of invitation to others and to otherness..."

 - David Whyte


 --
 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.
>>
>> --
>> Eric Weir
>> Decatur, GA  USA
>> eew...@bellsouth.net
>>
>> "What does it mean...that the world is so beautiful?"
>>
>> - Mary Oliver
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.

Re: Pentax K-S1

[Bryan Jacoby]

My Canikon-shooting friends are going to have a field day if it really
has decorative blinky lights.  I take enough abuse already every time
Pentax comes out with new colors.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Bruce Walker  wrote:
> No Post To Instagram button either, so that's something anyway.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
>> No movie record button or mode. I find this odd. Also why show it with
>> the old DAL 18-55?
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>>> Pentax has over the years seemed to become the most Japanese of the
>>> Japanese camera companies. This camera (K-S1) seems intent on
>>> recapturing the "smallest, lightest DSLR crown". Lightness seems to be
>>> a big thing at Pentax. "Unbelievably small-size and light-weight
>>> interchangeable lenses that are no burden to carry" is one of the "5
>>> reasons to purchase Pentax" on the Ricoh Imaging web site:
>>> http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/products/five_reasons_to_choose_pentax
>>> Pentax also seems sensitive to the Japanese love of all things small
>>> and also of whimsical colors (particularly typified by the Q line).
>>>
>>> The thing that nobdy has really talked about is the interesting
>>> features seen on the BACK of the camera. It appears to have the first
>>> touchscreen LCD in Pentax history. The right side of the LCD looks
>>> like the familiar 4-way button.
>>> http://www.photographybay.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/pentax_k-s1_b001.jpg
>>>
>>> Meanwhile the familiar 4-way button has been replaced by a much more
>>> complicated button/dial combination. No top LCD... all info is on the
>>> back. I'm guessing that the landing lights are somehow involved in the
>>> self-time countdown function (rather than a single blinking light)
>>> which WOULD make a lot of sense.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Daniel J. Matyola  
>>> wrote:
 EGADS!

 Dan Matyola
 http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola


 On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 6:19 PM, Brian Walters  
 wrote:
> A new DSLR on the way?
>
> http://www.photographybay.com/2014/08/19/pentax-k-s1-leaks-out/
>
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>
> ++
> Brian Walters
> Western Sydney Australia
> http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs
>>> look like photographs.
>>> ~ Alfred Stieglitz
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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: OT Sigma 18-35/1.8

[Bryan Jacoby]

That's good news.

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Rob Studdert  wrote:
> Bryan I've been using it mainly on a K5IIs and occasionally on a K3,
> focus is pretty snappy even in marginal light on either body, I also
> have the USB dock which I've not yet used to fine tune the focus
> points but it seems pretty accurate so far and I've been using it wide
> open most of the time.
>
> On 20 August 2014 00:51, Bryan Jacoby  wrote:
>> Rob -- how has the AF been performing for you?  And what body are you
>> using it on?  Thanks for the update!
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Rob Studdert  
>> wrote:
>>> Just an update, the Sigma 18-35/1.8 is a killer lens, even used wide
>>> open, it weighs about as much as the 50-135/2.8 it seems but the extra
>>> bulk and weight is worth if for the photographic flexibility it
>>> affords. I'm finding the zoom range a little limiting but when the
>>> light is low it's superb and as it's so sharp images can be cropped
>>> with better results than a poorer longer lens covering the frame. I've
>>> also been using it in studio for group shots, damn impressive. There
>>> may be some very nice older lenses on the chopping block soon.
>>>
>>> On 9 July 2014 17:32, John Coyle  wrote:
>>>> I have the earlier still Sigma 18-35 3.5-4.5 - and it is very sharp!  Only 
>>>> issue I have found it
>>>> occasionally locks up when focusing on the ist-D, but a quick reset fixes 
>>>> it.  It should be a great
>>>> lens for the shows you'll be doing, I think.
>>>>
>>>> John Coyle
>>>> Brisbane, Australia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Rob Studdert
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014 2:52 PM
>>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>>> Subject: OT Sigma 18-35/1.8
>>>>
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>>
>>>> Well the now not so new Sigma Art series 18-35/1.8 lens is now finally 
>>>> available in K-mount, I
>>>> picked mine up today first shipment into my local pushers this morning, 
>>>> I've played a little, it
>>>> damn nice wide open and its build quality is superb. It's a bit big 
>>>> though, only slightly smaller
>>>> than the DA*50-135 in stature so it has displaced my Samyang 8/3.5 and DA 
>>>> 35/2.8 Macro from my go-to
>>>> kit for the moment.
>>>>
>>>> I have three shows to shoot before Sunday so it will get a good work-out 
>>>> in place of my Sigma
>>>> 17-50/2.8, conditions permitting. I will report back on performance, 
>>>> particularly AF speed and lock
>>>> wide open.
>>>>
>>>> Size comparison:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ybuc4gc4b0bejkk/AACi53mrqBwt172NjDbv9t9_a
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.

-- 
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 Sigma 18-35/1.8

[Bryan Jacoby]

Rob -- how has the AF been performing for you?  And what body are you
using it on?  Thanks for the update!

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Rob Studdert  wrote:
> Just an update, the Sigma 18-35/1.8 is a killer lens, even used wide
> open, it weighs about as much as the 50-135/2.8 it seems but the extra
> bulk and weight is worth if for the photographic flexibility it
> affords. I'm finding the zoom range a little limiting but when the
> light is low it's superb and as it's so sharp images can be cropped
> with better results than a poorer longer lens covering the frame. I've
> also been using it in studio for group shots, damn impressive. There
> may be some very nice older lenses on the chopping block soon.
>
> On 9 July 2014 17:32, John Coyle  wrote:
>> I have the earlier still Sigma 18-35 3.5-4.5 - and it is very sharp!  Only 
>> issue I have found it
>> occasionally locks up when focusing on the ist-D, but a quick reset fixes 
>> it.  It should be a great
>> lens for the shows you'll be doing, I think.
>>
>> John Coyle
>> Brisbane, Australia
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Rob Studdert
>> Sent: Tuesday, 8 July 2014 2:52 PM
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: OT Sigma 18-35/1.8
>>
>> Hi Guys,
>>
>> Well the now not so new Sigma Art series 18-35/1.8 lens is now finally 
>> available in K-mount, I
>> picked mine up today first shipment into my local pushers this morning, I've 
>> played a little, it
>> damn nice wide open and its build quality is superb. It's a bit big though, 
>> only slightly smaller
>> than the DA*50-135 in stature so it has displaced my Samyang 8/3.5 and DA 
>> 35/2.8 Macro from my go-to
>> kit for the moment.
>>
>> I have three shows to shoot before Sunday so it will get a good work-out in 
>> place of my Sigma
>> 17-50/2.8, conditions permitting. I will report back on performance, 
>> particularly AF speed and lock
>> wide open.
>>
>> Size comparison:
>>
>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ybuc4gc4b0bejkk/AACi53mrqBwt172NjDbv9t9_a
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.

-- 
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: Camera Choice

[Bryan Jacoby]

The K-50 looks amazing for the price: prism (vs. mirror) viewfinder,
AF microadjustment (one of the reasons I upgraded from my K100D Super
was that my FA 50mm f/1.4 backfocused badly on it and there was
nothing I could do about it), dual control wheels, weather sealing,
etc.  If you are happy with the feel of the K100D (plastic body vs.
metal in the others) it's hard to imagine how the K-50 would be a
disappointment.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Bill  wrote:
> On 12/08/2014 11:34 AM, Ed Keeney wrote:
>>
>> My K100D is running itself into the ground.  There is something wrong
>> with the viewfinder that I can't fix (hard to see through, something
>> inside the viewfinder itself).  Pictures still come out great,
>> although some hot pixels here and there.
>>
>> I think I can start to scrape together some funds for a replacement.
>>
>> Current versions of the Pentax SLR line (prices from B&H)...
>>
>> K500  -  $400 (kit)
>> K50  -  $450
>> K5 IIs  -  $700
>> K3  -  $1200
>>
>> Since I'm on a limited budget and already have multiple lenses, I'm
>> looking at a body only to save a few dollars.
>>
>> I know all are an upgrade over my 7+ year old K100D.
>>
>> I shoot family gatherings, kids sports and landscapes.  I don't think
>> I want to get into video, so that portion of any camera is of limited
>> interest right now.
>>
>> My question really is do I spend more on the higher lines or stick
>> with a lower level camera?  Right now, leaning towards a K50, but
>> wondering if I should scrape up more funds and go with the K5 IIs.
>>
>> Just looking for your thoughts as I jump into online reviews my
>> decision making processes.
>
>
>
>
> Cameras are terrible things to bankrupt yourself over. The K3 is a lovely
> camera if you can stretch the budget, but if 16mp will do and your needs and
> budget are modest, I suspect the K50 would do you just fine. I suspect all
> you would be giving up over the K5II is the build. IIRC, the K50 is a
> plastic body while the K5 is metal.
>
> 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: OT: Sort of fascinated by what Sony has done with the a7s

[Bryan Jacoby]

Steve: I think I misread one of your earlier emails before I wrote one
of my earlier emails.  Yes, all the other technical stuff matters (not
just photons statistics) when comparing two cameras, which is usually
the practical question at hand.

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 2:06 PM, steve harley  wrote:
> on 2014-08-06 7:47 Bryan Jacoby wrote
>
>> I'm sorry, I don't see how using a different word changes anything.
>> Averaging together more noisy measurements vs. fewer less noisy
>> measurements can indeed lead to the same result.
>
>
> and it could lead to a better or worse results when there are so many
> variables controlling the noise in the source
>
> i think it's important to consider that as photosites get smaller, the
> overhead of signalling, isolation and on-chip optics may not decline
> linearly; newer sensor designs may (try to) compensate for this (as the K3
> sensor is newer than K5), but sensors are not composed of perfectly abutting
> square pixels, so it's not a pure signal processing equation; the practical
> design (and the economics of sensor fabrication) mean real world tests are a
> better bet than theory
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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: PESO: Whatzis

[Bryan Jacoby]

How can you tell?  (I'm not saying you're wrong.)

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:09 PM, David J Brooks  wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:15 PM, Bill  wrote:
>> On 03/08/2014 6:03 PM, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
>>>
>>> I find this critter clinging to the siding of our house this morning,
>>> high on the second story.
>>> Does anyone know what it might be?
>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17827130
>>> Comments are invited.
>>>
>>
>> It's green.
>
> and a Canon shooter
>
> Dave
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.

-- 
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: Sort of fascinated by what Sony has done with the a7s

[Bryan Jacoby]

I don't claim to know if the K-3 is or is not more noisy than the K-5.
I'm just talking about the fundamental question of noise in more vs.
fewer pixels.  Read noise, etc., is a whole other ball of wax, but
photon statistics is the one thing that you can't get away from with
ever-improving technology.  Throw different in-camera jpeg engines
into the mix and really this is a comparison not worth making, if you
want a basic understanding of how pixel count relates to noise.

I remember in the original glowing DXO reviews of the K-5 they
mentioned that some noise reduction is applied even to RAW files at
high ISO.

On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
> That's not factoring in read noise, processing and quite a few other
> variables. My take is that the K-5 series produces cleaner files out
> of the box at any ISO. How much I can push shadows without seeing
> noise is of great interest to me. I feel that you can likely get files
> from the K-3 with equal noise characteristics with post processing,
> but honestly, side by side jpegs out of the camera reduced to web
> resolution show more noise from the k-3. Also you have to factor in
> the resolution loss when the k-5 hits over 1600. Its clearly doing
> some NR wizardry in its pipeline and reducing the resolution somewhat.
> How much the K-3 does that I do not know, but have read that it does
> something similar.
>
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Bryan Jacoby  wrote:
>> It's all about photon counting statistics a.k.a. Poisson statistics
>> a.k.a. shot noise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise
>>
>> If we ignore the mysteriuos details of de-Bayering (let's pretend all
>> cameras are like the Leica M Monochrom), and that we are in a
>> situation where photon counting statistics are the dominant source of
>> noise (which is what we should be talking about, since we are
>> concerned with the fundamental question of noise in more vs. fewer
>> pixels, not other noise sources that will vary from one sensor design
>> to another), then all that matters is how many photons end up each
>> pixel of the final output image.
>>
>> Consider this simple case: you want to order an 8 x 12 print from
>> Mpix, which they will print at 250 dpi, for a final output image with
>> 6 MP, and we don't do any noise reduction.
>>
>> If you take the image with a 6 MP sensor (kind of like a K100D
>> Monochrom, but with a modern sensor), each sensor pixel/photosite will
>> translate directly to an output pixel, so input or sensor image noise
>> = final image noise.
>>
>> If you take it with a 24 MP sensor (K-3 Monochrom), each photosite
>> will on average get 1/4 as many photons as the K100D's photosites.
>> Poisson statistics tell us that the noise goes as the square root of
>> the number of photons, so each of these pixels will have a
>> signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) that's only half of the SNR of the K-3
>> pixels.  But when you average together groups of 4 pixels from the
>> K-3, the SNR of the aggregated pixels will increase by the square root
>> of 4, which is 2.  1/2 * 2 = 1; like I said it all comes out in the
>> wash.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:38 PM, steve harley  wrote:
>>> on 2014-08-05 13:50 Bryan Jacoby wrote
>>>>
>>>> I think this idea of bigger/fewer pixels leading directly, as in
>>>> through the very basic physics of photon noise, to lower noise is
>>>> wrong-headed.I couldn't care less what the signal-to-noise ratio of
>>>
>>>> _pixels in my sensor_ is.  What I care about is the SNR of pixels in
>>>> the output image, whether that be an image displayed on a screen or
>>>> the dots made by a printer.
>>>
>>>
>>> i have pondered this too, and i suppose the question is whether one could
>>> average the pixels on a 24 Mp sensor to get as clean a 12 Mp image as from a
>>> 12 Mp sensor; i suspect there are multiple factors beyond the number of
>>> photons hitting a photosite that make the relationship non-linear (so that
>>> lower Mp would net lower noise even after averaging)
>>>
>>> but since in general we'd expect the 24 Mp sensor, in bright enough light,
>>> to capture much more detail with a comfortably low noise floor, i think we
>>> have to choose between low-ISO detail and high-ISO SNR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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

Re: OT: Sort of fascinated by what Sony has done with the a7s

[Bryan Jacoby]

It's all about photon counting statistics a.k.a. Poisson statistics
a.k.a. shot noise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise

If we ignore the mysteriuos details of de-Bayering (let's pretend all
cameras are like the Leica M Monochrom), and that we are in a
situation where photon counting statistics are the dominant source of
noise (which is what we should be talking about, since we are
concerned with the fundamental question of noise in more vs. fewer
pixels, not other noise sources that will vary from one sensor design
to another), then all that matters is how many photons end up each
pixel of the final output image.

Consider this simple case: you want to order an 8 x 12 print from
Mpix, which they will print at 250 dpi, for a final output image with
6 MP, and we don't do any noise reduction.

If you take the image with a 6 MP sensor (kind of like a K100D
Monochrom, but with a modern sensor), each sensor pixel/photosite will
translate directly to an output pixel, so input or sensor image noise
= final image noise.

If you take it with a 24 MP sensor (K-3 Monochrom), each photosite
will on average get 1/4 as many photons as the K100D's photosites.
Poisson statistics tell us that the noise goes as the square root of
the number of photons, so each of these pixels will have a
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) that's only half of the SNR of the K-3
pixels.  But when you average together groups of 4 pixels from the
K-3, the SNR of the aggregated pixels will increase by the square root
of 4, which is 2.  1/2 * 2 = 1; like I said it all comes out in the
wash.

On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:38 PM, steve harley  wrote:
> on 2014-08-05 13:50 Bryan Jacoby wrote
>>
>> I think this idea of bigger/fewer pixels leading directly, as in
>> through the very basic physics of photon noise, to lower noise is
>> wrong-headed.I couldn't care less what the signal-to-noise ratio of
>
>> _pixels in my sensor_ is.  What I care about is the SNR of pixels in
>> the output image, whether that be an image displayed on a screen or
>> the dots made by a printer.
>
>
> i have pondered this too, and i suppose the question is whether one could
> average the pixels on a 24 Mp sensor to get as clean a 12 Mp image as from a
> 12 Mp sensor; i suspect there are multiple factors beyond the number of
> photons hitting a photosite that make the relationship non-linear (so that
> lower Mp would net lower noise even after averaging)
>
> but since in general we'd expect the 24 Mp sensor, in bright enough light,
> to capture much more detail with a comfortably low noise floor, i think we
> have to choose between low-ISO detail and high-ISO SNR
>
>
>
> --
> 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: Sort of fascinated by what Sony has done with the a7s

[Bryan Jacoby]

I'm sorry, I don't see how using a different word changes anything.
Averaging together more noisy measurements vs. fewer less noisy
measurements can indeed lead to the same result.



On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 5:42 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi  wrote:
> That's what happens when they use the wrong term. Sensors don't have pixels, 
> they have photosites. Replace the term 'pixels' with 'photosites' and what 
> they say makes good sense.
>
> Photosites aggregate through processing to become picture elements—pixels. 
> Lower sensor noise as in better SNR from the photosite array does indeed lead 
> to cleaner results in the pixel aggregate at the end of the processing chain.
>
> Godfrey
>
>
>> On Aug 5, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Bryan Jacoby  wrote:
>>
>> "The larger pixel size means that each pixel
>> can collect physically more light. The more light per pixel, the
>> better the signal to noise ratio for that pixel and so that pixel will
>> more accurately detect the incoming light than a smaller pixel would."
>>
>> I think this idea of bigger/fewer pixels leading directly, as in
>> through the very basic physics of photon noise, to lower noise is
>> wrong-headed.  I couldn't care less what the signal-to-noise ratio of
>> _pixels in my sensor_ is.  What I care about is the SNR of pixels in
>> the output image, whether that be an image displayed on a screen or
>> the dots made by a printer.  A camera with more pixels will have more
>> of those pixels averaged together in each pixel of a given final
>> output image, and it all comes out in the wash.
>>
>> This is not to say that all sensors are equal.  Just that the amount
>> of light collected by each pixel of the sensor isn't what matters.
>>
>> (Darren, I am ranting at petapixel, not you.
>
> --
> 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: Sort of fascinated by what Sony has done with the a7s

[Bryan Jacoby]

"The larger pixel size means that each pixel
can collect physically more light. The more light per pixel, the
better the signal to noise ratio for that pixel and so that pixel will
more accurately detect the incoming light than a smaller pixel would."

I think this idea of bigger/fewer pixels leading directly, as in
through the very basic physics of photon noise, to lower noise is
wrong-headed.  I couldn't care less what the signal-to-noise ratio of
_pixels in my sensor_ is.  What I care about is the SNR of pixels in
the output image, whether that be an image displayed on a screen or
the dots made by a printer.  A camera with more pixels will have more
of those pixels averaged together in each pixel of a given final
output image, and it all comes out in the wash.

This is not to say that all sensors are equal.  Just that the amount
of light collected by each pixel of the sensor isn't what matters.

(Darren, I am ranting at petapixel, not you.)

-- 
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: Whatzis

[Bryan Jacoby]

I'm not an expert, but that looks to me like some sort of katydid.

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:
> I find this critter clinging to the siding of our house this morning,
> high on the second story.
> Does anyone know what it might be?
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17827130
> Comments are invited.
>
> Dan Matyola
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
> --
> 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 II vs K5 IIs (vs K5) VS K3

[Bryan Jacoby]

I am silly IYO.

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Zos Xavius  wrote:
> The K-5 II is discontinued, so prices are rising now. The K-5 IIs is
> not discontinued officially yet. A few months ago, prices on the K-5
> II were much better. Some people want the AA filter because they have
> concerns about moire. Those people are silly IMO.
>
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 3:31 PM, J.C. O'Connell  wrote:
>> On 7/11/2014 3:00 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe that J.C. is using very sound reasoning, economically. The
>>> K-5 iis is considered by many to be one of the very special cameras
>>> that Pentax has ever produced. I have a Pentax K-5 ii, which I am very
>>> happy with but if I could trade it straight across for a iis I
>>> certainly would. The K-5ii was $925 when I bought it and the s was
>>> another $200 or so, at the time. Getting a new one for $700 now is a
>>> Good Buy, IMHO.
>>
>>
>> Today, I did an ebay search and found I can get brand new in box bodies for
>> approx inc. shipping :
>>
>> K5 - $650
>> K5II - $700
>> K5IIs- $700
>>
>> so it seems the premium for K5IIs has disappeared. is this a fluke? or is
>> there a real advantage
>> to the K5II that some are willing to pay as much for one as a K5IIs?
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Bruce  wrote:

 That is what I did.  I could not afford or justify the K3, but as my old
 K5 was worn beyond rated life expectancy,  I picked up the K5iis.  At that
 time the K3 was $1300 and I got the K5iis for $700.

 --
 Bruce

 Sent from my iPad

> On Jul 11, 2014, at 10:40 AM, "J.C. O'Connell" 
> wrote:
>
> well the main reason Im considering the K5 IIs is they are still
> available new in box and cost only $700 compared to around $1100 for a K3.
> The K5 IIs seems to have gotten good reviews and is significantly
> cheaper than a K3. Of course, its not the same as a K3, but it should be
> worth $700.
>>
>> On 7/11/2014 1:26 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
>> Objective testing by various web sites and magazines have come to the
>> consensus that there is a small but noticeable difference in sharpness, 
>> at
>> the pixel level with a greater chance of noticeable moire.  Since most 
>> of us
>> don't print at the pixel level, I wouldn't worry about it either way.  
>> The
>> K5II has much improved auto focus at lower light levels.  There's also 
>> some
>> possibility that Ricoh put more effort into sourcing better components 
>> than
>> Hoya so K-5(( cameras may have longer trouble free lifetimes than K-5
>> cameras. That last is conjecture, and may or may not be important given 
>> the
>> shortened life cycle of digital photo equipment, as the K-5 series is
>> already obsolete as a product.
>>
>>> On 7/11/2014 11:53 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
>>> Im considering selling one of my lenses and buying a K5 II or IIs with
>>> the funds but I am undecided because I dont know a couple of things 
>>> about
>>> these two bodies.
>>> 1. How much real sharpness difference do you really see between the II
>>> and IIs when using a really sharp lens?
>>> 2. How often and how much of a problem is moire with the IIs body
>>> using really sharp lenses?
>>> Any guidance would be appreciated, and thanks in advance.
>>> P.S. 3. Could someone remind me what is the difference between a K5
>>> and a K5II?
>>> --
>>> J.C. O'Connell
>>> hifis...@gate.net
>>> --
>
>
> --
> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.

-- 
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: Need opinions on photo choice for contest entry

[Bryan Jacoby]

#1 is amazing, and #3 is almost as amazing (and the rest are great too).

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:50 PM, knarf  wrote:
> #1!
>
> Anyone who says any different is just wrong.
>
> Cheers,
> frank
>
> On 9 July, 2014 1:18:49 PM EDT, Darren Addy  wrote:
>>I'd appreciate everyone's input on which of the following images (pick
>>only ONE) that YOU think has the most impact as a contest entry. I
>>need some objective help here.
>>:)
>>I guess another way to put it is: These 5 images are the only entrants
>>in the contest. Which one wins?
>>
>>http://www.antiqueauto.org/assets/pick1.html
>>
>>You can either reply to this thread or email me directly.
>>
>>Mucho Nachos.
>
> “Analysis kills spontaneity.” -- Henri-Frederic Amiel
>
>
>
> --
> 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: 'L' Bracket for K-3

[Bryan Jacoby]

One other supplier: there is a company (or person or something) called
Mestos that sells Korean-made Arca bits on ebay.  I have read good
things about them.  They have an L-bracket for the K-3 with vertical
grip in case anybody needs one of those, model PD-K3HL.  They also
make an L-bracket that is supposed to fit K-7, K-5, and K-3 (model
PD-K5L) but it's not that much less than the RRS model you bought.

On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Ralf R Radermacher  wrote:
> Am 17.04.14 23:08, schrieb Ken Waller:
>
>> I received my 'L' bracket from Really Right Stuff -
>
>
> Manfrotto have something similar for their hexagonal clamp system. Been
> using it for years.
>
> Ralf
>
> --
> Ralf R. Radermacher  -  Köln/Cologne, Germany
> Blog  : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com
> Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf
> Web   : http://www.fotoralf.de
>
>
> --
> 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 Sigma 18-35/1.8

[Bryan Jacoby]

Congrats!  I am very interested to hear how the AF performs on Pentax
(DP Review suggests that AF works better on the Nikon version than the
Canon).

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Darren Addy  wrote:
> Congrats on the acquisition, Rob! I will also be looking forward to
> your impressions.
>
> For those looking for image samples (on the mounts made available
> earlier) there are a couple of dedicated Groups on Flickr that have
> about 7000 images between them (and also relevant discussions):
>
> Image Pools: https://www.flickr.com/groups/2236148@N24/ and
> https://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma18-35mm/
> Discussions: https://www.flickr.com/groups/2236148@N24/discuss/ and
> https://www.flickr.com/groups/sigma18-35mm/discuss/
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Bob Sullivan  wrote:
>> Wow that is a biggie!
>> Looking forward to your field test report.
>> Regards,  Bob S.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Rob Studdert  
>> wrote:
>>> Hi Guys,
>>>
>>> Well the now not so new Sigma Art series 18-35/1.8 lens is now finally
>>> available in K-mount, I picked mine up today first shipment into my
>>> local pushers this morning, I've played a little, it damn nice wide
>>> open and its build quality is superb. It's a bit big though, only
>>> slightly smaller than the DA*50-135 in stature so it has displaced my
>>> Samyang 8/3.5 and DA 35/2.8 Macro from my go-to kit for the moment.
>>>
>>> I have three shows to shoot before Sunday so it will get a good
>>> work-out in place of my Sigma 17-50/2.8, conditions permitting. I will
>>> report back on performance, particularly AF speed and lock wide open.
>>>
>>> Size comparison:
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ybuc4gc4b0bejkk/AACi53mrqBwt172NjDbv9t9_a
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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.
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs
> look like photographs.
> ~ Alfred Stieglitz
>
> --
> 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 Luminous Landscape previews 645Z

[Bryan Jacoby]

This is not inconsistent with my general impression of LL; I'm not
sure it's any worse than it ever was.

On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 11:25 AM, P.J. Alling  wrote:
> In which after deciding it's pretty good, the author says since I don't
> really need it, probably no one else does...  Is it me or is every
> photography news blog becoming Kennyboy's?
>
> --
> A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the
> crazy, crazier.
>
>  - H.L.Mencken
>
>
> --
> 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: filter ???

[Bryan Jacoby]

Sure, if you already have skylight filters you can always fix the
white balance or shoot AWB.  But it makes no sense to buy new skylight
filters for digital.

I'm guessing that a lot of older skylight filters would have no AR
coatings, in which case I would expect flare to be a bigger problem
than color.  Uncoated filters can produce a lot of flare:
http://www.lenstip.com/113.24-article-UV_filters_test_Tiffen_72mm_UV.html
While the flare from filters with quality AR coatings is dramatically less:
http://www.lenstip.com/113.22-article-UV_filters_test_Marumi_77_mm_WPC_UV.html

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:59 PM, David J Brooks  wrote:
> I basically use a skylight with any of my lenses used for equine
> photos just to help with dust,. I am thinking of getting one or the
> other for the Sigma as i will use it now for some equine and farm
> work.
>
> Dave
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Mark C  wrote:
>> I use skylight filters on a few lenses with no issues. I think plain glass
>> is probably best, but I bought skylight and UV filters back in the film days
>> and see no need to replace them. I wound up with some skylight filters
>> because I stumbled onto some Pentax SMC skylights at a good price and I
>> figured that a SMC filter would be a good choice to minimize flare.
>>
>> These days I don't use protective filters on many lenses, though I do use an
>> SMC skylight on the A*200mm macro, which accounts for most of my shots. The
>> nature of macro work - this lens has been poked, gone face down into the
>> mud, and suffered other indignities that are less frequent in general
>> shooting. Unlike the 100mm macros I use, the front element is not recessed
>> so I like to have the protection of a filter on it.
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>
>> On 5/6/2014 11:09 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>> One of the several reasons i wanted to get the Pentax 17-70 was its
>>> filter size. I have a number of 67mm filters and did not have to add
>>> to the lot. Although the Sigma is a much nicer lens IMO even with the
>>> reverse zoom, buit its a 72 mm filter. The salesman asked if i needed
>>> protection, and i told him no need i did not want any more children
>>> 
>>> I said i'm sure i have a 72 filter some were, ( opps they are 77mm)
>>> and he said if not come back and he'll set me up, "JUST DON'T GET A
>>> SKYLIGHT" he said. I did not ask him why he thought that way, but then
>>> it started to think about it.
>>>
>>> Why not a skylight for protection, is the UV1 better suited,??
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.

-- 
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: filter ???

[Bryan Jacoby]

A skylight or other warming filter is going to mess up all of the
white balance presets and waste a tiny bit of light.  These are color
correction and they make no sense on a digital camera with adjustable
white balance; they were designed to be used with daylight film under
non-daylight (shade, etc.) lighting.

UV will do no harm relative to a clear filter, but no good either,
since normal cameras are not sensitive to UV anyway.

Personally I like the Marumi Super DHG clear protective filters
(available from 2filter.com); they have a hydrophobic coating so you
don't have to give up the water-shedding properties of the WR and DA*
lenses if you want to use a filter, and the quality seems very nice
for the money.  I suspect that the coating is similar to the one
tested here (which is a UV filter that I have not seen for sale in the
US): 
http://www.lenstip.com/113.22-article-UV_filters_test_Marumi_77_mm_WPC_UV.html

On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi  wrote:
> Skylight 1a, 1b etc are warming filters designed to reduce the influence of 
> open, blue sky light on skin tones with color slide film. UV or Haze filters 
> absorb ultraviolet light which contributes to haze from atmospheric scatter 
> when using older B&W films that are overly UV-blue sensitive.
>
> Neither is needed for digital capture. Neither influences digital sensors 
> much: white balance obviates the need for warming filters, and sensors are 
> not particularly sensitive to UV.
>
> For occasional protection use when working in dusty, muddy, or other 
> physically abusive circumstances, a clear, multicoated protective glass 
> filter is best.
>
> Godfrey
>
>
>> On May 6, 2014, at 8:09 AM, David J Brooks  wrote:
>>
>> One of the several reasons i wanted to get the Pentax 17-70 was its
>> filter size. I have a number of 67mm filters and did not have to add
>> to the lot. Although the Sigma is a much nicer lens IMO even with the
>> reverse zoom, buit its a 72 mm filter. The salesman asked if i needed
>> protection, and i told him no need i did not want any more children
>> 
>> I said i'm sure i have a 72 filter some were, ( opps they are 77mm)
>> and he said if not come back and he'll set me up, "JUST DON'T GET A
>> SKYLIGHT" he said. I did not ask him why he thought that way, but then
>> it started to think about it.
>>
>> Why not a skylight for protection, is the UV1 better suited,??
>>
>
> --
> 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: On bokeh

[Bryan Jacoby]

I don't mean to be particular (sometimes pronounced "jerk"), but I
believe that bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the out of focus areas
of an image.  What you are talking about is the degree to which the
background is out of focus (akin to, but not precisely the same as,
depth of field -- I say not precisely the same as because even in your
f/5.6 image the background flowers are clearly outside the depth of
field).  Your usage of bokeh is quite common (in fact perhaps becoming
so common that I'm in the minority here, in which case you may call me
a misinformed jerk rather than just a jerk), but I'm not sure that
it's correct.

From the OED:

The visual quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photographic image,
especially as rendered by a particular lens:
'a quick, visual survey of the foreground and background bokeh of a
variety of lenses'
'It is easily light enough for a handheld supertelephoto lens, but
what would the bokeh be like?'
'Many buy this lens to escape the often poor bokeh of the Vega, but is
it really better?'
'Some folks feel the best bokeh has an undefined, blurred edge.'

Nice photos, though!

On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Tim Bray  wrote:
> Thinking about the differences between an F1.4 and an F5.6 tulip:
> https://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2014/05/04/Bokeh-or-not
>
> --
> - Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
> https://keybase.io/timbray)
>
> --
> 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: White balance

[Bryan Jacoby]

In Lightroom, if you select a bunch of photos and turn on auto synch
any change you make in one photo will be applied to others.  So you
have one photo with a white balance card in it, and then a bunch of
other photos taken under the same lighting but without the white
balance card (unless you find white balance cards to be aesthetically
pleasing, in which case you can keep it in all of the photos).  Click
on the white balance card with the white balance eyedropper and it
will correct the white balance in all of the selected images.  It does
not matter if the individual images were shot with AWB or the same
fixed white balance setting, they will all end up with the same white
balance after you do this.



On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 12:01 PM, John  wrote:
> What are you clicking on with the WB dropper & how does it work if that
> item isn't in every frame?
>
>
> On 5/2/2014 12:06 AM, Bryan Jacoby wrote:
>>
>> I just confirmed that in Lightroom (4) even if two frames shot with
>> AWB have different temperature and tint you can batch adjust them with
>> the WB eyedropper and they will end up the same.  So no reason to fear
>> AWB.
>>
>> It's worth repeating that any shutter speeds that don't take in an
>> integer number of florescent color shift cycles will be tough to
>> correct with a neutral reference (grey card, color checker, etc.) from
>> a different frame.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Bryan Jacoby 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't have Lightroom in front of me to test it out, but doesn't
>>> selecting a bunch of photos and using the white balance eyedropper set
>>> all of the photos to the same temperature and tint (versus the same
>>> _change_ to temperature and tint), which means that it will cause no
>>> headaches if AWB was used and each photo has a slightly different
>>> starting white balance?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> AWB will evaluate and adjust the wb setting each time an exposure is
>>>> made. They means if you're shooting a lot of exposures around a variety of
>>>> subtly different light conditions, each will vary a little bit from the
>>>> others. Each frame needs to be adjusted individually.
>>>>
>>>> Setting any fixed WB setting will hold that setting throughout your
>>>> shooting. It might not be optimal for the lighting condition, but if the
>>>> light is similar through most of the shoot, one adjustment can be used for
>>>> most or all of the exposures.
>>>>
>>>> Godfrey
>>>>
>>
>
> --
> 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: White balance

[Bryan Jacoby]

I just confirmed that in Lightroom (4) even if two frames shot with
AWB have different temperature and tint you can batch adjust them with
the WB eyedropper and they will end up the same.  So no reason to fear
AWB.

It's worth repeating that any shutter speeds that don't take in an
integer number of florescent color shift cycles will be tough to
correct with a neutral reference (grey card, color checker, etc.) from
a different frame.

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Bryan Jacoby  wrote:
> I don't have Lightroom in front of me to test it out, but doesn't
> selecting a bunch of photos and using the white balance eyedropper set
> all of the photos to the same temperature and tint (versus the same
> _change_ to temperature and tint), which means that it will cause no
> headaches if AWB was used and each photo has a slightly different
> starting white balance?
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi  wrote:
>> AWB will evaluate and adjust the wb setting each time an exposure is made. 
>> They means if you're shooting a lot of exposures around a variety of subtly 
>> different light conditions, each will vary a little bit from the others. 
>> Each frame needs to be adjusted individually.
>>
>> Setting any fixed WB setting will hold that setting throughout your 
>> shooting. It might not be optimal for the lighting condition, but if the 
>> light is similar through most of the shoot, one adjustment can be used for 
>> most or all of the exposures.
>>
>> Godfrey
>>

-- 
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: White balance

[Bryan Jacoby]

I don't have Lightroom in front of me to test it out, but doesn't
selecting a bunch of photos and using the white balance eyedropper set
all of the photos to the same temperature and tint (versus the same
_change_ to temperature and tint), which means that it will cause no
headaches if AWB was used and each photo has a slightly different
starting white balance?

On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi  wrote:
> AWB will evaluate and adjust the wb setting each time an exposure is made. 
> They means if you're shooting a lot of exposures around a variety of subtly 
> different light conditions, each will vary a little bit from the others. Each 
> frame needs to be adjusted individually.
>
> Setting any fixed WB setting will hold that setting throughout your shooting. 
> It might not be optimal for the lighting condition, but if the light is 
> similar through most of the shoot, one adjustment can be used for most or all 
> of the exposures.
>
> Godfrey
>
>
> On Apr 30, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Eric Weir  wrote:
>
>>> On Apr 25, 2014, at 11:26 PM, John  wrote:
>>>
>>> What white balance do you have your camera set to? In many ways it doesn't 
>>> matter which one you choose as long as you choose a specific one and *NOT* 
>>> auto white balance.
>>>
>>> Auto white balance in the camera will change the white balance for every 
>>> image.
>>>
>>> If you choose a specific white balance, even if it's the wrong one, all of 
>>> the images will be the same. You get the first one color corrected and all 
>>> the rest can be synchronized to it.
>>
>> Thanks, John. I find this a bit confusing. You say AWB changes the white 
>> balance for "every image.” And that with all the other settings “all the 
>> images will be the same.
>>
>> What’s the difference? And when you say all  the images will be the same, is 
>> that just saying they’ll be the same till the setting is changed.?
>
> --
> 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: World's largest pinhole photo

[Bryan Jacoby]

Haven't seen it yet:

http://airandspace.si.edu/about/newsroom/release/?id=343

-- 
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: K-3 mirrior problems

[Bryan Jacoby]

Canon did acknowledge the 5Diii light leak problem (and put some black
tape inside to fix it:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/05/the-fix-is-in).  But I think
the way they handled this was a major failure on the part of the
marketing department.  Imagine what could have been: "The new Canon 5D
Mark III, now with a built-in incident light meter!"

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:36 PM, P.J. Alling
 wrote:
> Didn't some K-5s have this problem as well?
>
> Just further proof that in the modern world final quality control is the end
> user.  Ricoh will fix the problem eventually.
>
> Nikon is finally admitted the oil splatter issue with the D600. Though I
> don't know if Canon ever admitted that there was a problem with the top
> display backlight, (caused metering problems), on one of their full frame
> models.  Every manufacturer seems to have these issues.  The Pentax problem
> seems to be in the programming as the mirror box on the K-3 is supposed to
> be a new design.  The Nikon a bad run of shutters, the Canon a design issue.
> I think I'd rather have the software issue, it's easier to fix.
>
>
> On 3/16/2014 2:26 PM, David J Brooks wrote:
>>
>> The PF has a survey to send to Ricoh
>>
>>
>> http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/254464-k3-crazy-mirror-sickness-mirror-flapping-lockup-report-yours-here.html
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
>
> --
> A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the
> crazy, crazier.
>
>  - H.L.Mencken
>
>
>
> --
> 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: DST and O-GPS

[Bryan Jacoby]

Further proof that DST is the worst idea ever.

On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Rob Studdert  wrote:
> I did exactly that on a shoot with two bodies a few weeks back and was
> too lazy to fix it after the fact so my gallery when sorted by date
> was all over the place.
>
>
> On 10 March 2014 06:48, Larry Colen  wrote:
>> I've been bitten by this before.  When I set up my K-5 to update the time 
>> from GPS, and it sets it to non-DST.
>> I tried looking in the manual for the Daylight Savings Time setting, but it 
>> wasn't in the index.
>>
>> What you need to do is go into world time, then go into the city and enable, 
>> or disable DST there.
>>
>> It's one of those annoyances that bites me when I'm using two cameras, and 
>> one is an hour off of the other.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.

-- 
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: K-1000 Table Lamp?

[Bryan Jacoby]

I've seen some vintage enlargers that are quite beautiful and wondered
if they could be turned into table lamps.  Never thought of this.

On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:
> That is quite funny.  Thanks for sharing it.
> Dan Matyola
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Charles Robinson  wrote:
>> Weird.
>>
>> http://minneapolis.craigslist.org/ank/pho/3651239211.html
>>
>>  -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.

Re: FA 100mm f2.8 Macro at KEH

[Bryan Jacoby]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Aahz Maruch  wrote:

> What about the 35/2.8 macro?  That's a nice lens -- I used it last week.
> (Although I ended up deciding as a result of my field test that I really
> wanted the 100mm macro.)

I just personally would prefer something closer to a true normal focal
length, which doesn't seem too much to ask given that Pentax has made
many 28mm lenses over the years.

35mm is equivalent to 52.5mm on film, which is even longer than 50mm,
which (as I understand it, though I don't know where I read it and
would appreciate it if anybody can point me to a more
detailed/documented account) became the default lens on film because
in the early days it was lot easier/cheaper to make fast 50mm lenses
than something closer to the true film diagonal (= 43mm, as in the FA
43mm Limited).

Since prime lenses are one of the unique strengths of the Pentax
system, it surprises me that they don't make a 28mm.  Heck, I'd be
happy if they just kept the FA 28mm in production like the FA 50mm
(which I have and love).  The 31mm Ltd is close enough, I just can't
afford it.

-- 
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: FA 100mm f2.8 Macro at KEH

[Bryan Jacoby]

This reminds me, I really wish Pentax made a normal AF prime that
doesn't cost as much as the FA 31mm (you know, like the FA 28mm or
better still something slightly faster).  I'm surprised that they
don't; after all this is the brand that brought us a 43mm lens.

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Mark Roberts
 wrote:
> Charles Robinson wrote:
>
>>On Feb 27, 2013, at 14:42 , Walt  wrote:
>>
>>> How good a lens is the FA 28/2.8?
>>>
>>> If it's good, it might make it a goal. I could use a wider-angle AF prime, 
>>> and that seems like a realistic semi-near-term possibility.
>>>
>>
>>I've got the "A" which I think is the same optical formula.
>>
>>I'd rate it "fine".  Not as nice (although wider) as the DA35 f/2.4 though, 
>>in my experience.
>
>  According to Boz and other sources, the A, F and FA 28mm/2.8 lenses
> are all different designs. The FA is generally regarded as the best of
> them, though. (The K 28/3.5 and M 28/3.5 are even better)
>
> --
> 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: PESO: Breaching Whale

[Bryan Jacoby]

Very nice, Dan.  I was in Maui once and was lucky enough to see a very
similar scene while just glancing toward the ocean, but I didn't have
my camera in my hand and by the the time I got it the show was over.
Thanks for reminding me of that time.

-- 
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: New Japan rumors: 24MP K-3 in April, 645Dii in June

[Bryan Jacoby]

Here's an apples-to-apples comparison of a star test pattern from the
D800/D800E:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=65927.msg523744#msg523744

Keep in mind that these are unsharpened.

-- 
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: d7100 samples...

[Bryan Jacoby]

Despite my general feelings about AA filters, that sample image is
very nice indeed.

I don't think I've ever gone above ISO 12800 on my K-5, and I try very
hard not to go above 6400, so I don't think this is a meaningful
limitation.

I wonder what the Canon 7D's successor will look like.  I read a
recent quote from a Canon rep that seemed to question the future of
crop sensor DSLRs.  I thought that was funny/interesting, as (in my
completely unobjective opinion) Canon's crop sensor cameras haven't
been terribly competitive for quite a while 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: New Japan rumors: 24MP K-3 in April, 645Dii in June

[Bryan Jacoby]

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:

> I wish he had provided raw files for the tree scene, and preferably
> files from "twin" cameras (D800/D800E or K-5 II/IIs)

> (I found it odd, for example, that the red and cyan patches were so
> large, in terms of the number of pixels, given the non-periodic
> structure of the branches.)

It's worse than the cameras just not being twins: the Fuji X-E1
doesn't have a traditional Bayer filter pattern (which may be related
to the large false color patches).  So I agree that it could have been
done better, and that the tone is a bit over the top.  But I thought
it was a useful piece because it makes the point that the extra detail
that you get without an AA filter doesn't come for free; even if there
is no visible moire there is still aliasing.  I haven't seen that
point made elsewhere on the photo interwebs.

In this test target image, there is lots of extra "detail" inside the
region of obvious color artifacts, but this detail is clearly not
real.
http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/foto/tippstricks/aliasfilter/files/stacks_image_5430.png
We know what the test target looks like, and the lines are not curved
as they appear here.  This sort of thing will be a general feature of
aliased sampling, though the details may change depending on, well,
the details.

If one wants to make this tradeoff, that's fine with me.  Personally,
I dislike image artifacts more than I desire increased detail, so I
would prefer not to see the industry go toward cameras without AA
filters being the default as with the D7100.

-- 
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: New Japan rumors: 24MP K-3 in April, 645Dii in June

[Bryan Jacoby]

I think we're thinking about slightly different things.  I agree with
what you say about visible moire, but I'm also thinking about
non-moire aliasing artifacts.  These still represent (in my mind at
least) a corruption of the image, but they are not easily visible in
the image (without comparison to reality which people aren't usually
able to do when looking at a photo) and therefore not aesthetically
objectionable.  One might say that if they aren't visible they don't
really matter, and that's fine.  I'm just pointing out that some of
the perceived detail increase you get from omitting the AA filter
isn't accurate/real, but I realize that some may be willing to pay
that price for sharper looking images.

If the image projected on the sensor (including lens imperfections,
diffraction, camera shake during the exposure, etc.) has the right
amount of blur to be Nyquist sampled by the pixel pitch then you won't
get aliasing, and adding an AA filter might unnecessarily decrease the
resolution by something like sqrt(2).  So in that case there would be
no advantage to an AA filter and for all I know that may be a common
situation.  Personally, I think I would rather give up a little
resolution to know that I won't be adding artifacts to the image (but
I've never used an AA filter-free camera so this is all theory), so I
hope I'll continue to have that choice as with the K-5 II and IIs.

Nothing in here will be news to you, but I found this recently (via
PetaPixel) and thought it was pretty good (though admittedly it
approaches from the "all artifacts are bad even if you can't see them"
point of view):
http://www.martin-doppelbauer.de/foto/tippstricks/aliasfilter/index.html

P.S. For the record, if anybody wants to give me a Leica with no AA
filter I will not turn it down!


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:30 PM, Bryan Jacoby  wrote:
>
>> I agree that it will be a practical problem very rarely given the
>> pixel pitch.  But I think that is another way of saying that the
>> sensor is over-resolving what the lens, etc. can do.  Which I think is
>> another way of saying what you're mostly getting is bigger files, not
>> more real detail in the images.
>
> Well, I don't think that's quite right... with good lenses at a sharp
> aperture and careful technique, I think you can make use of the sensor
> resolution and achieve high detail. But to provoke moire, you need a
> pattern with just the right spatial frequency in the same part of the
> image where you're achieving that sharpness. I think it's the
> combination of those two factors that makes it so rare in practice,
> rather than it just being a matter of the sensor always over-resolving
> the optics.
>
> --
> 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: New Japan rumors: 24MP K-3 in April, 645Dii in June

[Bryan Jacoby]

I agree that it will be a practical problem very rarely given the
pixel pitch.  But I think that is another way of saying that the
sensor is over-resolving what the lens, etc. can do.  Which I think is
another way of saying what you're mostly getting is bigger files, not
more real detail in the images.


On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Bryan Jacoby  wrote:
>
>> I am surprised that the D7100 is only being made without an AA filter
>> (unlike D800/E and K5 II/s).  I hope this isn't contagious.
>
> Moire already seems to be pretty rare on the K-5 IIs and D800E by most
> accounts, and with 24 MP in an APS-C format, it will be even more rare
> on the D7100 due to the small pixel pitch. I'd probably be impressed
> with my technique if I managed to provoke it.
>
> --
> 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: New Japan rumors: 24MP K-3 in April, 645Dii in June

[Bryan Jacoby]

I am surprised that the D7100 is only being made without an AA filter
(unlike D800/E and K5 II/s).  I hope this isn't contagious.

(I suppose the same is true of the 645D, but that's not really a
mainstream product.)



On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Darren Addy  wrote:
>
>> This is apparently from the March issue of Nippon magazine (pg 179)
>> Google translation of discussion thread.
>> http://translate.google.com/translate?twu=1?sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A//s.kakaku.com/bbs/K416049/SortID%3D15794099/
>> or
>> http://goo.gl/No5uD
>>
>> The translation is hard enough to read. But the K-3 introduction in
>> April would be in line with what was rumored earlier, that Sony needed
>> 6 months lead time in the market for the 24MP sensor that Pentax will
>> be getting more out of than Sony did.
>> : )
>
> It seems plausible, since Nikon just announced the D7100 (24 MP,
> APS-C, no AA filter). K-3 : D7100 :: K-5 : D7000...
>
> --
> 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: 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: Red 645D

[Bryan Jacoby]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Walt  wrote:

> I'm betting it's Ace Photo:
>
> http://acephoto.net/contact.aspx

Yep.

-- 
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: Red 645D

[Bryan Jacoby]

It's a pretty amazing store (especially since it's in Ashburn, VA,
which is not exactly like Manhattan).  Last time I was there they had
a plain old black 645D, but I never expected to see a red one.

In another case they had a silver K-5, DA* 55, 16-50, and 50-135's,
some 645 lens, a K-30, an a K-01.  And that's just what's in the
display case.

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:03 AM, P. J. Alling
 wrote:
> I'm just shocked that your local camera store has Pentax.
>
>
> On 1/11/2013 10:58 AM, Bryan Jacoby wrote:
>>
>> I was in my local camera store the other day, and to my amazement they
>> had a limited edition 645D with the (outrageously expensive) red paint
>> job on display.  I never expected to see one of those in the flesh.
>> If you have $15k to burn and want a camera that nobody else at the
>> party will be wearing, I know where you can get it.
>>
>
>
> --
> 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: 5DmkIII impressions

[Bryan Jacoby]

It still wins. :)

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Eric Featherstone
 wrote:
> On 25 April 2012 21:25, Bryan Jacoby  wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Eric Featherstone
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> There was the Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG designed for both film
>>>> and APS-C digital.
>>>
>>> Nice, I wasn't aware of that one. Sigma seems to be doing nice work in
>>> the wide angle market these days.
>>>
>> I think this Nikon 6mm wins:
>> http://www.petapixel.com/2012/04/24/ridiculous-nikon-6mm-lens-reappears-priced-at-16-in-the-uk/
>
> Nah, that's cheating. It's a fisheye not rectilinear :)
>
>
> --
> Eric
>
> --
> 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: 5DmkIII impressions

[Bryan Jacoby]

I think this Nikon 6mm wins:
http://www.petapixel.com/2012/04/24/ridiculous-nikon-6mm-lens-reappears-priced-at-16-in-the-uk/

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Eric Featherstone
>  wrote:
>
>> There was the Sigma AF 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG designed for both film
>> and APS-C digital.
>
> Nice, I wasn't aware of that one. Sigma seems to be doing nice work in
> the wide angle market these days.
>
> --
> 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: PDML Digest, Vol 72, Issue 161

[Bryan Jacoby]

Three cheers for instant rebates!

When I bought my K100D Super there was a $100 mail-in rebate.  I had
to send it in 3 times before they stopped losing it, and then by the
time Pentax sent me the check they had switched rebate processing
companies and the check bounced.  They finally sent me another check,
but I lost a $10 fee to my bank because of the bad check.  I expect
that Pentax would have given me the $10 if I had asked but by that
time I was more than $10 tired of the whole process.

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:57 AM, George Sinos  wrote:
> I can verify that.  A few years ago, I bought a couple of Nikon lenses
> from my local dealer and the rebates were applied at the register.  gs
>
> George Sinos
> 
> gsi...@gmail.com
> www.georgesphotos.net
> plus.georgesinos.com
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Tom C  wrote:
>>> Steve Harley wrote:
>>>
 Bunnell's column holds out upcoming rebates as some sort of price relief

 i hate rebates, they make me feel like a clerk in the film Brazil
>>>
>>> Do you know how many $100's of rebates I lost in the last 10 years?
>>
>> Not all rebates are mail-in. Lots of photographic rebates are instant.
>> I think the Nikon ones are instant, for example.
>>
>> --
>> 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.

Re: PESO: Discovery's last flight

[Bryan Jacoby]

Thanks!

Sadly, no, I was in a shopping center parking lot, very close to the airport:
www.flickr.com/photos/bryan_jacoby/7095175813/



On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Jack Davis  wrote:
> Extremely well done, Bryan!.
> How did you get this perspective? Were you flying a chase plane?
>
> Jack
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: Bryan Jacoby 
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2012 8:16 AM
> Subject: PESO: Discovery's last flight
>
> No great artistic value here but I thought some might be interested:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryan_jacoby/7095178799/lightbox/
>
> --
> 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.

PESO: Discovery's last flight

[Bryan Jacoby]

No great artistic value here but I thought some might be interested:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bryan_jacoby/7095178799/lightbox/

-- 
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 Client of the Day

[Bryan Jacoby]

So, have you answered the ad yet?  Sounds like a great opportunity
(for a funny story).

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Matthew Hunt  wrote:
> On the Pittsburgh Craigslist:
>
> I am looking for someone who can take prom pictures of my son and
> daughter whio is not going to charge an arm and a leg or gauge my eyes
> out when it comes to prices. This is the only time I will ever have
> this happen and I want something done nice!
>
> http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/pho/2968823704.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.

-- 
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: Is this the Camera Pentax should have built?

[Bryan Jacoby]

Sure, this is what Pentax should have built instead of the K-01, in a
fantasy universe where EVFs are free and this camera doesn't therefore
cost several hundred bucks more than a K-01 (and almost as much as a
K-5). :)

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 7:02 PM, Brian Walters  wrote:
> Instead of the K-01
>
> It's now on my short list.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/products/samsung/slrs/samsung_nx20
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Brian
>
> ++
> Brian Walters
> Western Sydney Australia
> http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/
>
>
> --
> 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: PESO - Lost & Found

[Bryan Jacoby]

For anyone not following Matt's A28 project, his wrap-up post is well
worth reading:
http://scotchtape.ductwhisky.com/2012/04/lenten-project-wrap-up.html


On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Daniel J. Matyola  wrote:
> The size of the clouds towering over the trees, and the rays of
> sunlight breaking though make this a very effective image.
>
> Dan Matyola
> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Cotty  wrote:
>> On 16/3/12, Matthew Hunt, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>>On the way home from work today, I took back roads I didn't know, and
>>>got lost on purpose. I found this:
>>>
>>>http://stdw.us/Flickr-LnF
>>
>> Very nice! I could do with some darker clouds and more contrast :)
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>  Cotty
>>
>>
>> ___/\__
>> ||   (O)  |     People, Places, Pastiche
>> --      http://www.cottysnaps.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.

-- 
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: simple-as-dirt focus calibration method

[Bryan Jacoby]

That applet is a great explanation of how phase detection AF works,
but I don't think it explains lens-to-lens variation in AF.

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, George Sinos  wrote:
> OK, I found my answer, and some animated examples here.
> <http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178/applets/autofocusPD.html>
>
> The short story is that phase-detection measures the error and tells
> the lens which direction and how far to move to get into the correct
> position.  It's faster, but depends on everything being calibrated.
> Sort of like saying "go three feet to the east and you'll be there."
> If you both have accurate rulers and compasses it will work fine.
>
> The contrast detection method used with live view is iterative and
> keeps sending correction messages until the image is focused.  Slower,
> but more accurate.
>
> So it boils down to the fact that lens and body manufacturing
> tolerances are wide enough that, for phase-detect focus to be spot-on,
> each lens-body pair needs to be micro-calibrated.
>
> If you can live with the slower contrast-detection focusing of live
> view, it will probably be more accurate.
>
> Anyway, that sheds light on the old "my copy of this lens isn't
> focusing" statement.  It's more like "this copy of the lens on this
> copy of the body aren't a good match."
>
> Bottom line,  now I think I understand why the simple calibration
> method can work.
>
> gs
>
> George Sinos
> 
> gsi...@gmail.com
> www.georgesphotos.net
> plus.georgesinos.com
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Bryan Jacoby  wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, George Sinos  wrote:
>>
>>> If that's true people should be saying this "camera body back-focuses
>>> with this lens" instead of the more commonly phrased "this lens has a
>>> back-focus problem."
>>
>> I can't say I understand exactly why this is, but phase detection AF
>> errors can apparently be caused by the body or the lens.
>>
>> I understand why a lens with spherical aberration could front/back
>> focus when used at an aperture setting that's not the same as what the
>> AF sensor is using (often f/5.6); I'm not sure if this would be
>> significant.  But there seems to be more to it than that: different
>> copies of the same lens apparently will focus differently on the same
>> body (see 
>> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths).
>>
>> Aside from the optics, at least in some systems, maybe all, AF lenses
>> tell the camera body what the focus distance setting is.   This,
>> combined with the "how far out of focus is it" information from the AF
>> sensor, lets the camera body calculate how much to adjust the focus.
>> I would think that errors in this focus distance encoding would lead
>> to multiple iterations before locking on focus, but not errors in the
>> final locked focus point.
>>
>> Can anybody explain the origin of lens-related phase detection AF errors?
>>
>> --
>> 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.

Re: simple-as-dirt focus calibration method

[Bryan Jacoby]

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM, George Sinos  wrote:

> If that's true people should be saying this "camera body back-focuses
> with this lens" instead of the more commonly phrased "this lens has a
> back-focus problem."

I can't say I understand exactly why this is, but phase detection AF
errors can apparently be caused by the body or the lens.

I understand why a lens with spherical aberration could front/back
focus when used at an aperture setting that's not the same as what the
AF sensor is using (often f/5.6); I'm not sure if this would be
significant.  But there seems to be more to it than that: different
copies of the same lens apparently will focus differently on the same
body (see 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/12/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths).

Aside from the optics, at least in some systems, maybe all, AF lenses
tell the camera body what the focus distance setting is.   This,
combined with the "how far out of focus is it" information from the AF
sensor, lets the camera body calculate how much to adjust the focus.
I would think that errors in this focus distance encoding would lead
to multiple iterations before locking on focus, but not errors in the
final locked focus point.

Can anybody explain the origin of lens-related phase detection AF errors?

-- 
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: simple-as-dirt focus calibration method

[Bryan Jacoby]

I think that should work (and does indeed sound like a simpler way to
go about it), but I'd still want to use a flat surface for the target.
 There's no guarantee that the AF sensor is locking on exactly the
same part of the scene as the live view AF, so a wine bottle (with a
curved surface) might not be the best choice.

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Christine Nielsen  wrote:
> A chore I have put off for a while, too.  And I think my FA-50 1.4
> could use a little calibrating... I would love for it to be this
> simple... I await the bubble-poppers...
>
> :)
> -c
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Charles Robinson  wrote:
>> I don't know why I never thought of doing it this way...
>>
>> My FA-50 1.7 has always given me "surprisingly soft" results and I've always 
>> suspected that the focus needed to be calibrated but never had the time.  In 
>> the kind of low-light situations where I use it, manual focus is as dodgy as 
>> auto.
>>
>> Yesterday I found a website which described a dead-simple way to do it if 
>> you have LiveView (and the K7 has exactly that).   No focus targets or brick 
>> walls needed.  Here's how it works:
>>
>> 1. Set up a target a few feet away.  I used a wine bottle.
>> 2. Set up camera on tripod with center focus point selected.
>> 3. In Live View, press AF and wait for focus to be locked.
>> 4. Turn off Live View
>> 5. Press the AF button again and watch which way the focus ring moves.   
>> Ideally it shouldn't move at all!
>> 6. If it does move... go into the focus calibration settings in the custom 
>> menu and add/remove points.
>> 7. Repeat steps 3-6 until the damned ring holds still.  Done.
>>
>> My FA-50 needed seven correction steps to the left (can't remember if that's 
>> "plus" or "minus") - SERIOUSLY out of whack.  My DA-35 only needed 2 steps 
>> in the other direction.  My Tamron 28-200 was dead on as is my 16-50.  I 
>> can't wait to use the FA-50 in another low-light situation to see if it 
>> nails the focus in a real-world situation now.  It never has before.  :-(
>>
>> It was so simple and easy to do I almost wished I had more AF lenses to try 
>> it on!
>>
>> If anyone would like to pop my bubble, please go ahead and tell me why this 
>> isn't the right way to go about it...
>>
>>  -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.

Re: New lens prices

[Bryan Jacoby]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Mark Roberts
 wrote:
>
> The Penatx 16-50, for example, is now priced in the same ballpark as
> its Canon and Nikon equivalents.

Right.  So the question is: is that a good idea, given Pentax's
position in the market?

-- 
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.

New lens prices

[Bryan Jacoby]

So, how 'bout them new lens prices?!?

I have been pretty impressed with what I've seen in the Ricoh era
(yes, I think the K-01 is a great idea) and therefore I've been
optimistic about the future.  But these new lens prices seem, shall we
say, less than well-considered.

I guess I can understand a pricing policy designed to give
bricks-and-morter shops a chance to compete, but I don't see how it's
necessary to nearly double the price of some lenses to do that.
Sorry, but I don't see people lining up to pay $1500 for a DA*
16-50mm.  Can anybody explain this to me?

On the bright side, the price of the FA 31mm Limited hasn't changed,
and in comparison it now seems like a heck of a deal.  How could I not
buy one?

-- 
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

[Bryan Jacoby]

The only thing I found annoying about it is that they sent me an email
announcing this "announcement."  A funny April 1 "news" item, yes, but
not worth spamming me over (especially given that they write about
this all the time).  I think I may have to turn down the email volume
in my PF preferences.

I for one am not convinced that full frame is the way for Pentax to
go.  I'm not sure there's anything magical about 24x36mm.  Sure,
bigger is generally better, but full frame sensors are very expensive
(in absolute terms or per square mm) and IMO APS-C is adequate for
reasonable depth of field control, etc.  Sure, the mirror box could be
smaller if the system was originally designed around APS-C (a la
four-thirds), but life is full of compromises.  Maybe Pentax is just
being realistic (i.e. smart) about the market for $2000+ full-frame
bodies, larger, more expensive lenses, etc.  One of the many reasons I
find PF often not worth my time is the significant fraction of its
content spent whining about the absence of full frame.

I think that Canikon treat their APS-C users as second class citizens
to some extent.  For instance, neither makes an APS-C equivalent of
the classic 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom, if you want that effective focal
length range you have to use a real 70-200mm on a full-frame body.
Pentax is the only camera mfr I'm aware of to make something like the
DA* 50-135mm.  I don't see myself paying the price for a full-frame
system, so I'd rather live in Pentax land with really nice crop sensor
options.

I'm not saying that I don't want Pentax to make a full frame camera.
If they can do it profitably then I hope they do.  But the assumption
often seems to be that they're crazy to not venture into that part of
the market, and I don't see that as inherently obvious.


On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Steven Desjardins  wrote:
> Good point.  I should have added "in a way that results in a
> functional camera" :-o
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:03 PM, John Sessoms  wrote:
>> From: Steven Desjardins
>>
>>
>>> A question to the more engineering oriented ones on the list.  How
>>> hard would it be for Pentax to stick a FF sensor in something like a
>>> K5 body?
>>
>>
>> Ball peen hammer, hydraulic press, some duct tape or super glue ... no
>> problem; oughta' fit right in there.
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>
>
>
> --
> Steve Desjardins
>
> --
> 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 -- Really annoying Photo.net behavior

[Bryan Jacoby]

The most annoying photo.net behavior I've run into is this article:
Building a Digital SLR System
(http://photo.net/equipment/building-a-digital-slr-system/), which
includes pearls of wisdom such as:

"The market leader in the professional/advanced amateur photography
world is Canon. If you don't have a major investment in lenses you
will probably want to buy a Canon digital SLR. The number two spot is
occupied by Nikon, which is also a reasonable choice. ...  the
companies that make the more obscure systems don't have a large enough
market share to invest enough money to build competitive bodies."

I prefer to put the photos from my obscure, non-competitive Pentax on flickr.

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Tim Bray  wrote:
> I also practice such a policy, mostly.  And for PESOs here, I’m way
> less likely to click on them if the URL includes photo.net.
> -T
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Bob W  wrote:
>> No, I'm endorsing a stop-shoving-ads-in-my-face-or-I'll-stop-visiting-your
>> site policy.
>>
>> B
>>
>>> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
>>> Bob Sullivan
>>>
>>> So Bob W, you are actively endorsing a no win policy?  Regards,  Bob S.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Bob W  wrote:
>>> >> Well, they are offering a "free" service.
>>> > [...]
>>> >> Nothing is free.  You have to pay for it somehow.
>>> >
>>> > they're not offering me a service at all. The people who use it are
>>> > getting the so-called service, but if nobody looks at their pictures
>>> > because the so-called service provider is pissing people off then
>>> nobody wins.
>>> >
>>> > B
>>> >
>>> >> -Original Message-
>>> >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf
>>> >> Of George Sinos
>>> >> Sent: 25 March 2012 18:42
>>> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> >> Subject: Re: OT -- Really annoying Photo.net behavior
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, they are offering a "free" service.  And they do have to pay
>>> >> the bills. They aren't doing anything many other sites are doing. I
>>> >> agree that the interstitial ads are more annoying, but they are
>>> >> easily dismissed with a single click.
>>> >>
>>> >> The most annoying ads, for me, are the flash animated ads you see on
>>> >> many sites.  That's a sure way to drive me away.
>>> >>
>>> >> I did sign up several years ago, but other than looking at the links
>>> >> people post here, I haven't been there for years, not because of
>>> ads,
>>> >> it just didn't fit my needs.
>>> >>
>>> >> One of the reasons I use Smugmug is the lack of ads, and their
>>> policy
>>> >> of not constantly bugging your customers with follow up emails.
>>>  But,
>>> >> they have to pay the bills, too.  And for that, you pay between $50
>>> >> and
>>> >> $150 per year.
>>> >>
>>> >> Nothing is free.  You have to pay for it somehow.
>>> >>
>>> >> gs
>>> >>
>>> >> George Sinos
>>> >> 
>>> >> gsi...@gmail.com
>>> >> www.georgesphotos.net
>>> >> plus.georgesinos.com
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Bob W 
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On
>>> >> >> Behalf Of George Sinos
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> This sounds right.  Every time I go to photo.net I get an
>>> >> >> advertisement that is a full screen overlay.  There is an "x" in
>>> >> >> the upper right hand corner to dismiss it.  They started doing
>>> >> >> this
>>> >> several weeks ago.
>>> >> >> Sounds like the problem is a side effect of this.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Like all advertisements, it's annoying, but they have to support
>>> >> >> themselves somehow.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > they've been doing similarly annoying things with their ads for
>>> >> years.
>>> >> > Whether or when you see them seems to be random, but it seems to
>>> go
>>> >> in runs.
>>> >> > When you get them they are extremely intrusive, and they can't be
>>> >> > excused by 'they have to support themselves somehow' because
>>> >> > driving people away from the site can't possibly be a good
>>> business model.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Since they started doing this I never knowingly follow a photo.net
>>> >> > link, just as I don't give time of day to chuggers, doorstep
>>> >> salesmen,
>>> >> > Jehovah's Witnesses, spammers or cold-callers. A plague on all
>>> >> > their
>>> >> houses!
>>> >> >
>>> >> > B
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > 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 UNSUBSCRI

Re: K-5 on sale at B&H ($999 body only)

[Bryan Jacoby]

I wouldn't be surprised if the K-5's price doesn't drop quite as much
as has historically been the case.  It seems to me that the K-5 is the
first Pentax DSLR without any significant deficiencies, so it's
unlikely that the K-3 or whatever will be as big an improvement over
the K-5 as the K-5 was over the K-7, etc., and therefore such a steep
discount may not be required to sell the remaining stock.  And if the
K-r is any indication there may not be a glut of K-5 inventory after
the K-3 is released.

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 2:18 PM, P. J. Alling
 wrote:
> Just remember the K20D was a great camera too, and it dropped to ~$600 not
> long after the K-7 began to ship.  I expect that the K-3 will have the new
> Sony APS-c 24mp sensor, which is a fairly big jump in resolution and gives a
> 20"x13" print to those who want to use the 300dpi rule of thumb for
> printing, (as opposed to the K-5 which gives a 16 1/3 x ~11 using the same
> "rule"). So I expect that the market will be flooded with used K-5 and K-7
> which will significantly depress the market for new K-5s, I don't think
> Pentax will have much say in the price drop.   -Most- No retailers will not
> want to be stuck with old stock, digital cameras.
>
>
> On 3/22/2012 1:12 PM, Miserere wrote:
>>
>> On 21 March 2012 17:05, P. J. Alling  wrote:
>>>
>>> I could be wrong, but I expect it to hit the $600-$700 mark by fall.  I
>>> expect this because I think the K-3, (or whatever the hell it will be
>>> called),  will be announced a month or two after the K-r replacement is
>>> common knowledge.  That will be the time to buy.  For the difference in
>>> price I can get new DA 17-70, a used DA* 16-50, or some new lighting
>>> equipment, to replace that which has mysteriously disappeared,  and those
>>> considerations are important these days.
>>
>>
>> You are probably not wrong, P.J., but I thought if somebody wanted it
>> NOW then they'd appreciate saving a few hundred bucks. Though I'd be
>> surprised to see it go below $700 in the Autumn (as I imagine Pentax
>> will use Photokina to announce the K-3); that would just seem too low
>> for such a great camera.
>>
>> Then again, we *are* talking about Pentax, who love randomness like
>> they invented Quantum Physics.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>    —M.
>>
>>     \/\/o/\/\ -->  http://WorldOfMiserere.com
>>
>>     http://EnticingTheLight.com
>>     A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment
>>
>
>
> --
> Don't lose heart!  They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid
> a lengthily search.
>
>
> --
> 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.