Re: Motherboard upgrade: Seeking advice from all (but it's probably gonna be mostly from Larry)
On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 10:48 PM Mark Roberts wrote: > > Bill wrote: > > >That's pretty much what my build was last year. I ended up with the > >Aorus x670E Master but a little less processor, I put in the Ryzen 7 > >7700X. I stayed with Gigabyte for the video card, but mine is also a > >3060 with 12gb ram. > > > >When I was bench marking stuff I discovered that my intended MB was > >slower with 128gb of ram than it was with 64 so I went with less ram. I > >figured using the M.2 cards as swap would be fine, and so far I've only > >gone to swap a few times with 64b, and that was with hugely deep focus > >stacks off the X-T5 where it's decided a hundred exposures are required. > > Here's what I bought for a CPU cooler: > https://www.newegg.com/noctua-nh-d15-chromax-black/p/13C-0005-00324?Item=9SIAADYA5G4033 > The second fan is optional, which is a good thing because it won't fit > in my application. Not being a gamer, I really doubt I'll ever push > this system to the point where I need a second fan. > With the variable-speed fans that only run as fast as necessary it's > really quiet in my usage. No reason to go watercooling when there are air coolers like that. Quieter and less problematic - can't have a water leak if there's no water. I'll upgrade my PC someday (probably not this year), and my planned solution looks similar to yours. Except I'll go Zen 5 (Ryzen 9700X, likely), as they'll be available by then. Regards, Alex -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Algorithm That 'Removes' Water From Underwater Photos
Algorithm? We used to call that "drought" ;-) Alex On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 12:09 PM Steve Cottrell wrote: > > On 18/11/19, Daniel J. Matyola, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >https://digg.com/video/this-researcher-created-an-extraordinary- > >algorithm-that-removes-water-from-underwater-photos > > Thanks for posting Dan. > > Here's a direct Youtube link: > > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExOOElyZ2Hk> > > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__UK Shoot / Edit and > || (O) |Live Broadcast News > -- > _ > > > > -- > 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: Will Ricoh sell *Pentax* cameras after 2020?
The "rumor" didn't made sense from the beginning: *we* don't know the details about the Ricoh-Hoya deal, but Ricoh definitely does. Yet we're supposed to believe that Ricoh - who is preparing for the November anniversary - is either a. unaware they would lose the right to Pentax brand or b. investing money into promoting the brand then suddenly stop? Alex On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 2:58 AM Igor PDML-StR wrote: > > > I suspect some PDMLers may have seen this on DPreview, Pentax Rumors, or > elsewhere, but I thought some might be curious to hear this. > > There was a short "rumor" posted on Pentax Rumors in May, that > apparently, Ricoh's rights to use the Pentax brand name will end in 2020: > https://pentaxrumors.com/2019/05/20/rumors-ricohs-rights-to-use-the-pentax-brand-name-will-expire-in-2020/ > > 10 days later, DPreview obtained a statement from a Ricoh spokesperson > who denied that: > https://www.dpreview.com/news/1202805327/ricoh-denies-rumours-it-will-lose-the-right-to-use-the-pentax-brand-name > > Cheers, > > Igor > > > -- > 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: PT: Ricoh G III
The GR cameras were always Ricoh (this goes well before they bought Pentax). That the GR III is a Ricoh branded camera is expected - just like the DSLR products being branded Pentax (like the newly launched DA* 11-18mm) Don't worry, Ricoh isn't phasing out the Pentax brand - if anything, they aren't phasing out the Ricoh brand ;) Alex On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:10 AM Daniel J. Matyola wrote: > > I have received several emails about the new Ricoh G III. > > Is there/will there be/ a Pentax version? > > Is Ricoh phasing out the Pentax label? > > 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: A reason to want the 150-450
I'm able to photograph the place where the concert was. Alex On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:25 PM Jostein wrote: > > It could be worse, Larry. > > You could have excelled in photographing microphones where a singer has > recently been. > > That's about my level of skill at concert photography. > > Jostein > > Den 13.12.2018 00:52, skrev Larry Colen: > > It is only exceeded by my ability to take perfectly focused photos of > > microphones in front of singers. > > > > P. J. Alling wrote on 12/12/18 3:32 PM: > >> I think that's a skill we all share. > >> > >> On 12/12/2018 4:53 PM, Larry Colen wrote: > >>> In other news, I'm getting pretty good at photographing the spot > >>> where a bird recently had been. > >> > > > > > > -- > 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: K-1 Mark II Upgrade?
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 8:44 PM John wrote: > > On 10/25/2018 12:01, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > Has anyone sent in a camera for the upgrade? I think both Stan and Bill have > > done so. How long did it take? Is there a marked improvement in performance > > over the original? Any downside other than price? > > > > Paul > > > > I was thinking about that just the other day (Monday in fact). Isn't it > getting > close to the end of the period Ricoh were offering the upgrade? > > I hope someone who has had the upgrade done & has had a chance to evaluate the > upgrade will share so that some of us who are still on the fence about it will > still have time to send ours in if it turns out to be a good deal. The period ended last month; but check for an extension if you want to do the upgrade. Around here (Europe, the upgrade done by the Hamburg service) I was told that I had to register for the upgrade until the end of September, but the upgrade itself will be done later - and they're still waiting for another batch of K1 II mainboards. Alex -- 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: Sounds like Pentax/Ricoh's resources are spread pretty thin...
I see, thank you for the clarification. However, I disagree with your interpretation; it can't possibly mean that. We have paragraphs like: "We have lots of requests for lenses, especially from K-1 users. They want more lenses that match the higher resolution of the K-1, so that’s one objective which we would like to implement.", or "This form factor is iconic for the Theta. We think it’s important. On the other hand, if there is demand, we would like flexibly to think about any other possibilities, even for other form factors." telling the complete opposite. Actually I'm not sure what he meant... but let's not forget, he's a Japanese speaking in a foreign language. Maybe they decided on the upgrade because of the feedback? Maybe people are offering feedback on the upgrade? But it can't be not incorporating our feedback into new products... the K-1 itself was made because we demanded it. OTOH... people's demands are all over the place, often mutually exclusive. Listening doesn't mean meeting all our requests. Alex On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 10:35 AM, mike wilson <m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > "Feedback, especially from K-1 owners, is more focused on the upgrade > services." > > I see that as saying that feedback is used primarily to upgrade existing > models, not on new model direction. > > >> On 07 April 2018 at 08:26 Alex Sarbu <alexandru.sa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Interesting statement; as I'm seeing several times in the interview >> that owner feedback is very important to them. But I don't see >> anywhere the statement you're talking about. >> >> Alex >> >> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:57 AM, mike wilson <m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >> On 06 April 2018 at 21:13 Gonz <rgonzoma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/3329510590/ricoh-interview-the-development-of-the-k-series-is-our-first-priority >> >> >> > >> > Interesting statement that owner feedback has little (at best) effect on >> > new model develpoment. That will hit some other forums right in the ego >> > feels. > > -- > 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: Sounds like Pentax/Ricoh's resources are spread pretty thin...
Interesting statement; as I'm seeing several times in the interview that owner feedback is very important to them. But I don't see anywhere the statement you're talking about. Alex On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:57 AM, mike wilson <m.9.wil...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> On 06 April 2018 at 21:13 Gonz <rgonzoma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/3329510590/ricoh-interview-the-development-of-the-k-series-is-our-first-priority >> > > Interesting statement that owner feedback has little (at best) effect on new > model develpoment. That will hit some other forums right in the ego feels. > > -- > 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: Hint on reviving old rechargable batteries
Indeed, "intelligent" chargers would detect "bad" batteries and refuse to charge them; and often you can jump-start them in a "dummy" charger. Apparently that's a feature. You could use the BC 900 to test or refresh the batteries (don't leave the charger unsupervised! - nor near flammable materials). I assume the old batteries had no signs of physical damage/leaks/corrosion. Alex On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Igor PDML-StR <pdml...@komkon.org> wrote: > > > I've discovered that NiMH AA batteries that were in the old Pentax DS body > (remember those?) were completely dead. > I tried to put them in renown La Crosse charger (BC-900), and that refused > to charge them. > > I was able to resuscitate them by putting them into a "fast" Duracell > charger, and then trying to start charging a few times by plugging that > charger into the power outlet. At first, that charger also refused to charge > them, but after 3-4 attempts, the first pair started charging, and then > (after that pair was somewhat charged, so that I can put them in BC-900), I > did 2-3 more attempts with the second pair, and it worked. > > I suspect BC-900 was a bit too gentle with the initial charge attempt. > But it is also possible that it could have worked if I tried a few more > times. > > I am not sure how well these batteries will work, the time will show. > But at least this allowed to charge them up. > > An alternative would be to use a 1.5 V power supply, but this trick was > simple enough. > > I thought this might be useful to somebody. > > > Igor > > > -- > 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 Cloud storage
Hello, I'm trying to choose a cloud storage myself. Crashplan sounds interesting if you have large amount of data - though, how large is "unlimited"? Cloud is nothing more than "someone else's computer"; trust is very important, as Bill pointed out. How I'm planning to do it: I bought a NAS unit (a QNAP TS431p, inexpensive but can do a lot) for main, redundant storage. With the ongoing ransomware epidemics, I want to give my PC as little access as possible to the data (which a DAS or external drives can't do). That cheap NAS has tons of neat features, I still have a lot to explore. For example, it's now getting snapshots - the ability to revert your data to just before that ransomware encrypted it. It can also detect silent data corruption using RAID scrubbing (only with non-degraded RAID 5 and 6 arrays - and some would say ZFS is a better solution), and being a NAS I can access it from anywhere (even from my mobile). It has sync folders between multiple devices - with versioning. The NAS unit itself can take care of backups, on external drives and on the cloud. As for a cloud, I've made no choice yet, I was thinking about Amazon Glacier as I wouldn't need fast data access - nor something like an "unlimited" storage. I cannot stress enough the threat of ransomware (or other forms of data corruption). Backups are useless if corrupted data overwrites good data - use backup with versioning. And use at least 2 backups - main storage, even on a NAS with redundancy, doesn't count as a backup. Have fun, Alex On Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 4:50 PM, David J Brooks <pentko...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been using multiple ext hard drives for my back ups mostly > phots and documents. I'm going to have to purge somethings next year, > running out of HD space probably by mid 2018 at current shooting rate. > U have everything on the Ext but would like to put it al in one spot > as well. One of our camera club members uses Crashplan but just > wondering what others can recommend to me. Crash plan does not offer > individual storage anymore just business but its $10 a month for > unlimited storage so its got that going for it. > > > Dave > -- > 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: More news of trouble at Ricoh
"When in panic or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout" ;-) Please ignore the alarmist Nikkei article - FTR Ricoh had to officially deny 2 such "news", the one about closing down the camera business (denied) and one about selling the leasing and semiconductor businesses (not sure it means they won't sell those, or they didn't decide if to sell or not). Information can be found directly on Ricoh's site: http://www.ricoh.com/IR/data/pre/pdf/h29q4_qa.pdf http://www.ricoh.com/IR/pdf/presentation_text_2017.pdf So, things are not rosy mostly due to their core copier business, and they're reacting to prevent making a loss in FY2019. Ricoh Imaging isn't doing that bad with the Theta and K-1. Have fun, Alex On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Darren Addy <pixelsmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/For-Ricoh-it-s-a-sink-or-swim-moment > > This gives more credence to the story that Bipin shared back in April: > http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Ricoh-may-close-shutter-on-personal-camera-business > > I have to believe that the Pentax division has made a name (and a > larger market for itself) enough that it would be an attractive target > for SOMEONE to purchase, but I **can't believe** that Pentax could be > looking at yet another transitional period. > > Now that Pentax is using so many Sony chips, the company that really > makes sense owning Pentax is Sony, IMHO. > > We'll have to see how this plays out. > > darren > > -- > “The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ” > ― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above > > -- > 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: ok guys , NOW you can wish me Happy birthday :-)
Congratulations and happy birthday! Alex On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 4:06 PM, ann sanfedele <ann...@nyc.rr.com> wrote: > It really is today, Dec 10th - 80 years and feeling fine - > > Hoping for twenty more > > ann > > > -- > 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: k-1 square crop test
I've done some pseudo-investigation (actually, just opened a 1:1 RAW in Silkypix and Pentax DCU). They're saving the entire 3:2 frame, but with a tag for 1:1 cropping; so you can recover the "extra" data - assuming your preferred image processing software's crop tool supports this operation. Silkypix does, and so does the Pentax DCU. Of course, for JPEG there's nothing to recover. Alex On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 3:11 PM, P.J. Alling <webstertwenty...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm sorry, I may have slandered the wrong group of idiots, the thread that > gave me a headache was on dpReview, the Pentax Fora thread was slightly > less, err, horrible... > > > On 10/23/2016 8:06 AM, P.J. Alling wrote: >> >> I know nothing about the 1:1 crop mode, so I decided to do a little >> research... >> >> After reading the first few posts on a Pentax Fora thread, I wanted to >> yell at my computer screen: "IT'S CALLED AN IMAGE CIRCLE!"; idiots. >> >> Like reading arguments by theologians about how many angels can dance on >> the head of a pin, or theoretical physicists, about how many possible sub >> atomic particles there are beyond the standard model. >> >> Ultimately headache inducing. >> >> Since I have no information let /me/ speculate wildly, or reason >> rationally, whichever. >> >> I assume you're using a full frame lens on the K-1. So I don't see any >> particular reason to use crop mode on the camera. As you said the files >> don't seem to be any smaller. >> >> The 1:1 crop mode is designed to allow more sensor surface use with the >> APS-C image circle, so once again, since I don't really know anything, I'll >> assume that the firmware simply throws away anything outside the 24mmx24mm >> square, much as it does the information outside the APS-C crop, so it's not >> recoverable. >> >> In fact given the performance improvements in APS-C mode, it is probable >> that the camera really is only reading the center crop portion. I have no >> actual data on the 1:1 mode but if there are similar though not as great >> performance improvements then I expect the same is true in this mode as in >> APS-C. >> >> One or maybe two more assumption(s), the encoding is less efficient for >> 1:1 crop mode because the job to get it included in the firmware update was >> rushed, and the efficiency will be improved on the next release. Either >> that, or since it's storing ~24mp worth of data, the files are all on the >> small size for K-1 files and pretty much in the normal range for biggish K-3 >> files, but you just didn't notice. >> >> So there you go, in crop mode the data isn't recoverable because it isn't >> there, and unless you're using an APS-C lens there's no real advantage to >> using 1:1 crop mode*. >> >> >> *I pulled all of this out of my ass, and standard disclaimers apply. >> >> >> >> On 10/23/2016 2:37 AM, Larry Colen wrote: >>> >>> When I was photographing a seminar at the dojo today, I tried >>> photographing in square crop mode. >>> >>> On the bright side, it worked great for the photos that I was taking. two >>> people practicing Aikido can nearly fill a square composition, where they >>> leave a lot of the 3:2 frame empty. >>> On the down side, the raw files are no smaller. I also don't see any easy >>> way of recovering (in lightroom) the image that was cropped off to either >>> side, so the frames where someone's limb left the frame, I would have been >>> better off shooting uncropped. >>> >>> If the square crop gave us 24 MP square images (rather than 36 3:2) it >>> would be awesome, it would save space on the card, and more importantly in >>> the buffer. As it is, all it saves me is selecting a bunch of frames and >>> cropping them square. >>> >> >> > > > -- > I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve > immortality through not dying. > -- Woody Allen > > > -- > 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: Some Pentax sales spotted, including 70-200/2.8
The HD Pentax D FA* 70-200mmF2.8 ED DC AW doesn't use the same type of SDM micromotors as the DA*-series lenses. Actually it doesn't use SDM at all - but DC motors. Fast, reliable. Last Pentax lens with these SDM micromotors was announced in 2008. Since then we had 3 K-mount "SDM" lenses, all using Tamron's "ultrasonic"-type motors (in case of the D FA 24-70 and 15-30, ring-type "ultrasonic" motors). Alex On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 1:21 AM, Gonz <rgonzoma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmmm nice deal. Is this lens one of the ones that has the unreliable > SDM focusing mechanism I heard about with the 60-250 or such? > > > > On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Igor PDML-StR <pdml...@komkon.org> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Just in case someone is shopping for lenses... >> B has some sale on Pentax items. I don't know how good all the prices are, >> - but D FA* 70-200mm/2.8 is only $1696, which is $100 lower than what is was >> going for (1800). >> Adorama has the same price for this lens. >> >> Here are other sale items: >> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/items/ci/32002/ipp/48/N/3638625979/view/GRID >> >> HTH, >> >> Igor >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > > > -- > -- Reduce your Government Footprint > > -- > 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 KAF4 Lens Mount on latest HD 55-300 f4.5-6.3 PLM WR lens
Obviously, that it's too expensive to reverse engineer the new electronic aperture control protocol ;-) Alex On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Bipin Gupta <bip...@gmail.com> wrote: > Just some two months back, 3rd Party Lens Manufacturers were > complaining that do not do too many Pentax Lenses because of the > mechanical Aperture coupling. > > I wonder what excuse they will now use, that Ricoh - Pentax have made > life easier for them with the electronic Aperture coupling?? > > Regards > Bipin > from the IT Capital of the world - Bangalore. -- 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: Extremely OT: Check your pulse if this performance doesn't give you goose pimples
Yep, the Disturbed version is not bad, but IMO it doesn't hold a candle to the original. Alex On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Daniel J. Matyola <danmaty...@gmail.com> wrote: > I prefer the original. Perhaps I find something incongruous about > shouting the words to "Sounds of Silence." > > What is the matter with his chin? > Dan Matyola > http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/danieljmatyola > > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Darren Addy <pixelsmi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk7RVw3I8eg >> >> -- >> “The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ” >> ― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above >> >> -- >> 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: Extremely disappointed: K-1 does not appear to work with ...
Is there any (real) advantage of old-style, mechanical cable releases compared to the electronic ones? Just curious. Alex (I have a CS-205 somewhere...) On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Mark C <pdml-m...@charter.net> wrote: > I use various IR remotes for snowflakes and stacked macros and literally > have taken tens of thousands of exposures with them in recent years. The > only problem I had was when I upgraded to the K3 and found that some third > party remotes were unreliable with it. I think they cost a couple dollars > apiece. The genuine Pentax remote and my phone have been 100% reliable. > > The only issue with a wireless release is lack of a bulb setting. AFAIK, you > need a cabled release for that. Too bad the K1 does not have T as well as B > shutter mode. > > > On 2/22/2016 4:40 PM, Brian Walters wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016, at 05:36 AM, Ken Waller wrote: >>> >>> What's wrong with using an infra red remote release? >> >> >> Everything, in my opinion. They are the most unreliable gadgets ever >> invented, especially when you're working off a tripod while trying to >> concentrate on capturing a particular moment and trying to line up the >> damn thing with the IR receiver. >> >> The moment you want to capture arrives, you press the button on the >> release... press again ...press again... nothing! You take your eye >> away from the viewfinder to concentrate on lining up the remote and >> eventually it fires - but the object you want to capture is already in >> the next county. >> >> You might have guessed. I loath the things. >> >> Anyway - most manufactures seem to agree and are building wifi apps that >> allow use of a smartphone instead. Much better! >> >> >> Cheers >> >> Brian >> >> ++ >> Brian Walters >> Western Sydney Australia >> http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ >> >> >> >> >>> Kenneth Waller >>> http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> From: "John" <sesso...@earthlink.net> >>> Subject: Re: Extremely disappointed: K-1 does not appear to work with ... >>> >>> >>>> I think it must be humor of some sort. >>>> >>>> AFAIK, none of Pentax's DSLRs work with a mechanical release. I think >>>> the last Pentax film camera that accepted a mechanical release was the >>>> A3000. >>>> >>>> On 2/22/2016 12:36 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Silly... Either I miss some kind of a pun thread or continuation >>>>> thereof, but totally for free you can download an app (Android, at >>>>> least) that will release the shutter via IR port... >>>>> >>>>> Speaking of that mill from which some say they run... I've recently >>>>> bought a wireless Qi charger for my cell phone. It was like less than >>>>> USD 4 from AliExpress... If I did not tell you - I doubt that even >>>>> with close inspection you would be able to tell it apart from the >>>>> original Samsung piece of kit. Sturdy, same font, good build, etc... >>>>> Works like a charm, by the way... >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Igor PDML-StR <pdml...@komkon.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ... Remote Shutter Cable Release... >>>>>> ... a simple and reliable one that looks like this: >>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006O3LTQQ/ >>>>>> >>>>>> "I guess I'll be putting off the purchase for a while." >>>>>> ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> >>>>>> Igor >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> PS. Notice the lonely "Customer Question" at the bottom. :-) >>>>>> (Not from me...) >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >> >> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > -- > 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: What grabbed me reading the specs
Yes, you can use the Image Sync application to control the camera from your smartphone or tablet. Transferring files is probably slow. You can use wired tethering via the Image Transmitter application (I don't think it's free though). The sensor is moving inside a well calibrated plane, it doesn't tilt at all. Yes, I know they wrote that. The 5 axis refers to the axis of movement/shake the system can compensate for, not the sensor's movement. So there's no sensor tilt. Regards, Alex On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 5:10 PM, Collin B <coll...@brendemuehl.net> wrote: > N speed WiFi. > -- I wonder if WiFi can be used for a tethered control panel of some sort. > --Also wondering how long it takes to transfer a full image to a pc. > > New & improved shake reduction looks awesome. > > Pixel shift might perhaps accommodate the feature of a tilt lens since it > "tilts the image sensor unit in all directions"? > --unless they've not written firmware for that feature yet ... > > > > > > -- > 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: My K-7 is dying
Hello, Doug, I'd say, skip the K-5 and get a K-5II - which indeed is a K-5 done right, and with some tweaks added. If you liked the K-7, you would like the K-5II even more. I had a K-5, replaced it with a K-5IIs - it's worth the difference, IMO. P.S. Both cameras have the excellent 16MP Sony sensor, much less noisier than the K-7's Samsung. Alex On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Doug Brewer <d...@dougbrewerphoto.com> wrote: > Hi, troops. As you can see, my beloved K-7 is about to bit the dust. It's > become a little reluctant to change shutter speeds, and I'm not sure what > shutter speed it's ever on any more. I have used and abused it for years, > and now it's tired and wants to go home. > > I can maybe afford,if a client comes through, a used K5, and here's my > question: is it worth getting. I know there have been upgrades to it, but it > seems to have gotten decent reviews whe it came out. > > My other option is to spend a bit more and upgrade my Fuji X100 to the > X100S, but that would put me out of the Pentax game. I'd like to stick > around, maybe, if the K5 is worth it. > > What say 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: Happy New, 2016, Year!
Happy new year! Alex (long time lurker) On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Jack Davis <jdavi...@comcast.net> wrote: > Thanks, Igor!! Happily I haven't made anew years resolution to lose weight > and then be disappointed with myself > > J. > > - Original Message - > From: "Igor PDML-StR" <pdml...@komkon.org> > To: "PDML" <PDML@pdml.net> > Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 9:07:49 AM > Subject: Happy New, 2016, Year! > > > > To all PDMLers, for whom the new 2016 has already started, and for those > who still have a few years in 2015: > Happy New Year! > > I wish you all joy from and success in everything you'll be doing in 2016. > Let it be peaceful and happy for you and your family! > > Igor > > PS. Before the year ends, I still need to deal with the refrigerator where > the air duct from the freezer to the "fresh products" side is frozen up... > > -- > 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: Merry Christmas to Pentax marketing: 645z is #1 at DxOMark
On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Bruce Walker <bruce.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > This should be good for some Pentax visibility. > > << Pentax 645z medium-format digital SLR camera is now on the top of > the DxOMark camera list with the highest score of 101. >> > > #2 is the Sony A7R II; #3 is the Nikon D810. And very curiously, the > 645z gets the highest score for sports photography. Wha? > > http://www.dailycameranews.com/2015/12/pentax-645z-medium-format-camera-scored-101-at-dxomark/ > > -- > -bmw Thanks, strangely the results so far are only mentioned in the RX1R II's review - but if you go to the Cameras Scores list the 645Z is not there. As for the "sports" score, it's really just high ISO. Alex -- 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: DFA 150-450, first impression
Thank you; I might replace the 60-250 with this lens so I'm quite interested in user feedback. Most of the sharpness was lost by using ISO3200, but I won't be nitpicking about some quick, first samples. I'm looking forward to hear more impressions about this lens. Alex On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Paul Stenquist <pnstenqu...@comcast.net> wrote: > The 150-450 zoom arrived today. It’s dark and gloomy in Michigan and raining > intermittently, so I resisted the urge to go looking for birds and instead > set the fine focus adjustment, then took a couple of sample pics. My tests > showed the lens was back focusing a bit, and a +4 setting brought it right in > throughout the range. It’s built like a tank, there’s no wobble or looseness, > and the zoom is as tight as any lens i’ve ever owned. (One reviewer mentioned > zoom creep. If that ever was a problem, it’s definitely been resolved. You > have to expend a fair amount of effort to change the focal length.) I shot > some dead ferns off a tripod at 450mm, ISO 3200, f5.6, 1/60th. > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=18141845=lg > > Here’s a 100% crop of the area where I placed the focal point > > http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=18141846=lg > > Very pleased thus far. Can’t wait to try it out on some birdies. > > Paul > -- > 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 - Anyone with experience with hiking poles?
Hi Brian, I love using hiking poles even though I’m a young guy with no major health issues. I can hike fine without poles but they definitely makes it easier on really long, strenuous hikes with big elevation changes, or if I’m carrying a lot of gear; I usually don’t bother on short hikes. I once did a big hike with a friend who was out of shape and having a difficult time on the way back, so I lent him one of my poles and it helped. They do help with balance, but also takes some impact off the feet and knees, but the arms are now in on the action. It’s not about using less energy but redistributing it which I think can make things easier. There is some technique to get used to, but it’s not hard to get into a rhythm with them. I think hiking poles are worth a try. I’ve improvised a monopod on one of my hiking poles and it’s proved useful. I’ve never heard of the Manfrotto ones and I may check them out myself. Alex On Mar 2, 2015, at 22:02, Brian Walters apathy...@lyons-ryan.org wrote: G'day all Ever since I had that stroke a couple of years ago I'm finding I get exhausted a lot quicker than I used to. This is curtailing my bushwalking somewhat. I'm wondering whether one or two hiking poles might help - these are the ones I'm considering: http://www.photographybay.com/2015/01/16/manfrotto-officially-launches-off-road-backpacks-walking-sticks-tripods/ One of the side benefits is that one of the poles has a camera mount, so can be used as a monopod. I should add that I'm not talking about extreme bushwalking - I doubt I'd be covering more than perhaps 4 or 6 km over uneven ground in any one walk. -- 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: Mac, PC, and portable external drive
There are also software/drivers that you can install that allows Windows to read the Mac HFS+ file system. MacWindows.com has a list: http://www.macwindows.com/disks2.html Alex L. First time poster and lurker -- 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: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: Given that it has the same angle of view as a 21mm full frame lens why is it so much bigger and heavier than the FA20/2.8? I thought that the idea behind smaller image circle lenses was so that they could be lighter and smaller? APS-C sized sensors built into bodies with regular lens mounts (such as the Pentax-K) don't solve the hardest problem of building very wide angle lenses. The rear element of the lens can't get any closer to the sensor/film than it could with a full frame lens. Imagine the cone of light coming into the camera. With a 14mm lens it needs to have a focal point 14mm from the sensor/film. That is just about at the center of the mirror and well behind the last element in the lens. Now remember that the front element has to be large enough to prevent vingetting for this cone of light. With a 14mm lens you get a very wide angle of view, so that element needs to be very large. Put it all together and you end up with a large lens. Compare it to a full frame 14/2.8 lens and you'll see that it is small, light, and cheap. http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/14mm.asp shows the Tamron 14/2.8 as weighing 661g and being 89mm long and 87mm in length. The DA 14/2.8 is 420g (about 30% lighter) and only 69mm long and 83mm in diameter. On the other hand you can rejoice that a 50/1.4 (which has the angle of view of a 75/1.4 in 35mm) is so nice and light. alex
Re: Cracked Lens, exposure question, and a PESO
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Jerome Reyes wrote: Oh, certainly! I know it would have. And yes, I know that such filters are a whole lot less expensive than new lenses (or front elements). So, yep, get in line and you can kick me in the butt right after I kick myself first. Whats worse, is that simply using the hood would have avoided this accident... but here's the thing: I don't know if it's just my sample or not, but the hood to the DA 16-45mm simply will not STAY ON. Get them to fix it while they fix the front element of your lens. My DA 16-45 hood has no problem staying in place. alex
Re: New lenses from Pentax
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Gonz wrote: Bruce Dayton wrote: I have to say that I consider it great news. Choosing to support full frame, aperture ring and on top of that, picking some primes speaks very positively. These represent to me that they are looking beyond the first time buyer and trying to provide for more serious photogs. The aperture ring is puzzling. Does this mean that they are going to make a digital body that supports the old aperture linkage again? I tend to doubt if they did this to support old bodies, which are all film. A DSLR with full backwards support would almost imply a super-D, not a baby-D. Of course they may have also have gotten so much flak for not making the *istD fully compatible with older lenses that they did an about face. We've already seen them try to alleviate that with the firmware fix that gives partial functionality back. These aren't reduced image circle lenses, so they are also useable on Pentax film cameras. Since the MZ-S doesn't have body control of aperture it makes sense to put an aperture ring back onto the lens. I don't think that this changes any of Pentax's plans though. alex
Re: 50 or 100 mm
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Anders Hultman wrote: Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, but wouldn't life size 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? What difference does it make then? 100mm gives you a longer working distance, but reduced depth of field. The longer working distance can be really helpful when you are trying to get enough light on the subject (so that the camera or your head isn't shading it). Depth of field is always a challenge with macro photography though, so the little increase from a 50 could probably help. The 16-45/4 has a much closer close focusing distance than advertised by Pentax and I haven't found myself desiring a macro lens since picking it up. I also own the Tamron 90/2.5 (MF) and used to use it a lot with my film cameras, but I hardly use it with the *ist D. It is a heavy beast though, and the new D-FA lenses look more reasonable. alex
Re: Seriously OT: Canon S60 or Sony V1 ?
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Caveman wrote: I definitely like the sliding cover method of protecting the lens/camera in the Oly, so I would like to see it in the digicam. Canon wins, very nice design for pocketable camera. However, I was attracted by the nightshot feature of the Sony. Now that's really cool, taking pics in the dark without anyone noticing it (no flash whatsoever, just IR). However, do you guys think this would be really useful or just a gadget that would enable wife to take me pics while snoring without waking me with the flash ? Anyone that found some good uses for IR nightshots ? I had a DSC-F717 and DSC-F707 for over two years and hardly used the nightshot feature. The one cool thing is that you can shoot IR photography with it by also using an IR filter, because the camera moves the IR-blocking filter out of the way when you are in nightshot mode. To prevent you from really getting good use of this feature they also prevent it from working in daylight by limiting exposure time to 1/60 of a second or slower and increasing the ISO. This means that you need to use a strong ND filter to get IR pictures during daylight and they are still kinda grainy. If Sony hadn't done that (and I believe they did it because a few years back people were using the nightshot mode of their video cameras to see warm body parts through skin tight swimsuits) their Nightshot-enabled cameras would be superb for IR photography. I will say that I like the design of the Sony cameras with a thumbwheel, and that includes the V1. I find it very easy to operate them in manual and semi-manual modes. If you think you'll use those then I'd give it a second look compared to the S60. alex
Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, graywolf wrote: You do not want to compare that 5n's viewfinder to a clean MX's. You would immediately sell the camera, and never take another photo for the rest of your life. When I got my MX (just CLA'd) I didn't use the ZX-5n for quite a long time. There were many reasons for this, but the viewfinder was one of them. I still have both, but don't shoot film anymore. However the MX would be the last of my film cameras to be sold. alex
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Cotty wrote: On 23/7/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, offered: Answer the question, please, Cotty. What's so good about CMOS? I don't know if anything is so good about it, but when I was looking into digital, I read that on the whole, CCDs are (were) supposed to be better at recreating digitally what was in front of the lens, but required more battery power. Then I read comparisons between 6MP CCDs and 6 MP CMOSs and there was little difference. This tipped the balance in favour of CMOS for me. I have to say that the power consumption on the CMOS continually amazes me. I put to batteries in and with just picking up the camera occasionally, no major shooting, just pottering about, I can go for weeks without recharging. The battery life on the *ist D feels similar to me. I rarely charge it. One big thing about digital SLRs is that the image sensor spends a very little amount of time turned on. This is different from PS cameras where the users are typically using the CCD and LCD as their viewfinder. Given the tiny amount of itme that the sensor spends turned on I don't think that it makes a huge difference in battery life on our cameras. alex
Re: *istD settings
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Kenneth Waller wrote: I've had my ist D for a few weeks like using it. However, I don't think I'll give up shooting slides any time soon. I've pretty much kept things simple by going with the default settings. I saw Tan's post where she talked about the settings for an imasge she posted and saw that she was shooting with contrats, saturation sharpness settings all set to high. How many of you *istD shooters are not using these defaults and why? I have been leaving them on the defaults since I'm shooting RAW. All of those things can be changed later easily and with no downsides by using RAW. Also how many are setting custom white balance and not using the presets? What's your process when you set the white balance? I use custom white balance sometimes when I'm shooting inside and won't be using raw. I set it off of a white wall (I don't normally carry a grey card around). When I'm using RAW I leave it on auto white balance since this can easily be changed later. If you can afford the storage costs RAW is really the way to go. alex
Re: *istD settings
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: In his former life as a egzotic dancer alex wetmore wrote on 23.07.04 17:57: If you can afford the storage costs RAW is really the way to go. That's not only storage costs, but it is also time spent to convert all these RAWs with right settings :-) Something a'la digital darkroom work. This doesn't take me any longer than it takes me to review the images anyway. I use the defaults (how the camera shot it) much of the time, and only tweak when necessary. I need to look at the pictures, otherwise there was really no point in shooting them :). I use C1DSLR for my conversions. alex
Re: using C1 DSLR
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Larry Hodgson wrote: Hi Alex, You wrote: I use C1DSLR for my conversions. alex How do like C1DSLR? Have you compared it to the results from Photoshop? Is it worth the money? Please give some thoughts on your experience with this product. It is pretty good. I'm using the $99 version which has some annoying limitations to try and make you buy the $250 version. 1) The batch conversion queue can't have more than 20 images in it at a time. If I convert after reviewing or adjusting each image then this isn't a big problem. 2) You can't easily copy image settings from one image to another. This is one good reason to get the white balance right up front. I don't use Photoshop so I haven't done any comparisons. So far I'm very happy. From inside the tool I can do 90% of the image edits that I ever made (cropping, change contrast/exposure/saturation) from inside it. If I need to work in something else then I export the image to work in Picture Window Pro (my image editor). I think that it is expensive for what it does, but then again it is a tool for a niche market. The current version has some memory leaks and general flakiness, but they claim to be fixing this in the next dot release. It is good enough that I bought it now anyway, because I haven't seen anything better. I do have a comment on Picture Window Pro. I own version 3.0. They just came out with version 3.5 a few months ago. They have deleted all patches that they ever made for 3.0 to force people to upgrade (for $35). I think that this is a terrible business practice and it makes me wonder if I'm going to continue using the product (which is still much cheaper than Photoshop) or if I should find an alternative. I've evaluated 3.5 and don't see any new features that I want, but I would like the patches that they already made for 3.0 and which I had on my old PC. This came up when I moved stuff over to a new laptop. alex
Re: *ist D and Power sources
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, DagT wrote: Some non-Pentax people have been praising the AA compatibility of the *istD as a great advantage with the camera. It is a major selling point for me. On vacations I don't want to carry one charger per device. Having more devices that can use a common AA charger is a big benefit. On recent long vacations I've brought: * laptop - proprietary charger * digital camera - proprietary charger (no more with the *ist D) * GPS - AA * iPod - proprietary charger * cell phone - proprietary charger * flashlight/bicycle headlight - AA This makes for a massive mess of cables. One less recharger is a big benefit (and would be even bigger if I switched to a MP3 player that used AA... I figure I have little choice with the cell phone or laptop). alex
Re: *ist D and Power sources
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, William Robb wrote: Sure, as long as you in fairly civilized areas I agree. But sometimes I go outdoors and stay there for some days and other times I travel to countries were charging is not readily available. In both cases AA batteries are available in any shop I can find, which gives me a nice option. I talked to a D100 owner last week, and he was not very happy with the battery solution it had. Sometimes you just have to look at the digital problems and find that a nice mechanical film camera is the solution. A roll of film is about as big and heavy as two CRV3 batteries (or a little lighter, but as bulky, as 44 AA ones). It only takes 36 pictures though, where I can shoot a few hundred to a few thousand on the batteries. A 4gb Microdrive when shooting JPEG is enough for quite a lot of backpacking or bicycle touring time for me. The amount of gear that I'm carrying related to photography has dropped with digital, not increased. On one week bike tours (camping) I'd always end up carrying my MZ-5n, spare batteries, and about 10 rolls of film. Film gets bulky. alex
RE: *ist D and Power sources
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Alex, are you using Auto focus? Flash? I am amazed that you can get so much! I assume that if you say 270, then you are shooting RAW? (As I do, and I can get 282 exposures) What the heck am I doing wrong?!?!? I use auto focus, but I don't use the flash. Are you using the RTF? I would guess that for weddings you use an external flash, and this shouldn't have much, if any, additional drain on the batteries in the body. 270 was a guess, I didn't have my *ist D in front of me and didn't remember exactly how many raw photos fit on the 4gb microdrive. I am shooting RAW. One thing though, is that I will often delete in field, so I guess for every time I fill the card with 282 exposures, you could probably add another 100 that I've already deleted. Obviously, that would drain the batteries too... I expect that I could shoot and delete another 100 pictures without changing the batteries. I usually shoot and delete about 30-50 pictures in the field, but not 100. I've never actually had the batteries die in this camera, I've just changed them after long days of shooting figuring that they might die if I keep going. alex
why i haven't switched to canon
http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax/reduced/d30-vs-istd.jpg On the left is a Canon EOS-D30 (with grip) and the 28-135IS lens (not sure on max apertures). On the right is the *ist D with the 16-45/4 lens (the largest one that I own). The Canon stuff is probably great, and there is no doubt that the selection of lenses is wider, but that is just too big. I don't know who is going to keep the small SLRs alive though if Pentax doesn't do it. The Olympus E-1 is also quite large and Minolta seems to be releasing D-SLRs even more slowly than Pentax. alex
RE: *ist D and Power sources
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Shaun, if anyone *has* come up with such a solution - I WANT IT! Try using the *istD with the Hitachi microdrive, no battery grip, and see just how long the batteries last! I use this setup and have no problem with filling up the drive (about 270 exposures) on a single set of AA batteries. I am using 2200mah AA NiMH cells, nothing too fancy. alex
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Tom Reese wrote: demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right) I think this might actually be the case for some of the popular lenses. I ordered my FA 35/2 in Feb or March and it showed up in April. During that time everyone showed it as backordered. It was still shown as backordered when it finally arrived from Adorama. I expect that the *ist D is causing people to change their lens lineup. It has for me. Before purchasing the *ist D I didn't own any of the lenses except for my 50/1.7 that I now carry on a regular basis. The 35/2 is a pretty obvious normal lens choice for the *ist D (28/2.8 is another, but a stop slower). I'm making the wild guess that most of the 35/2s which are being sold now, and forcing them into backordered status, are being used on the *ist D. alex
Re: PAW: New Macro Test
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote: What's interesting is that you can actually make out the hexagonal pattern in the bokeh. BTW, these flowers are EVERYWHERE in Rockbridge county right now. They are lilies and this is the time of year for them. I shot this one on a hike two weeks ago: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3507.jpg http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3701.jpg Focus is off in the second one. I past the same flower in the hike twice and was drawn to it both times. *ist D, f8.0, 1/500, ISO 400 *ist D, f5.6, 1/125, ISO 400 alex
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Alan Chan wrote: there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your frustration. Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? Pentax usually isn't full of surprises. We heard about the DA lenses 4-6 months before they were released, and the new Baby-D was announced almost 6 months before it will be released (with rumors coming much earlier). They've been eliminating or having on backorder many more FA lenses than the number of DA lenses that they have announced. It would be really nice to see a roadmap of what is coming, along the lines of the one that Olympus released after the E-1 came out. alex
Re: OT:The PDML is Dying
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Joseph Tainter wrote: It happens, I suspect, anytime Pentax goes too long with a new product for us to ponder, query each other about, and debate the merits of. We just got the DA 14/2.8 and the new Optio MX and there are rumors about the new digital SLR coming in the fall. All of these have been active products recently. alex
Re: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jostein wrote: I like the C1 converter very much. Unlike the Photoshop CS converter, you can work with curves and levels directly at the conversion, and there are eyedropper tools for setting blackpoint and whitepoint. In all the images I have played with so far except one, it took less time to achieve a good result with the C1 than with PSCS. The PRO version has a steep price, though. If I buy it, I will have to consider one of the lighter versions. I bought the $99 version (I think it is called LE). It works pretty well and gives me most of what I wanted from PRO and SE. The main annoyances: * can't copy settings from one image to another * you can't batch up more than 20 images at a time to convert Both are annoying, but neither feature is worth $150 to me (the cost to upgrade to SE). alex
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: I second that, Tom. I would prefer to be able to see PDML stuff on the screen, even if there are children present, at work, the libraries etc., where I don't want do cause others to feel embarrassed. There was plenty of warning on these images. I was curious to see them, but first read the messages while I was at work. I went to look at them from home, but they had already been removed by then. PAWs should be allowed to display anything which is legal to display. If the content might offend some folks then there should be a warning saying that. Among a group of friends who often forward things to each other we just put a small tag not worksafe before links which wouldn't be appropriate to have on your display in most companies. alex
Re: FA 28-70 f4
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Robert Woerner wrote: Good price for new. BH was selling them for that a couple of years or so ago new. Don't know about Samys reputation as far as add on pricing. Beware. Based on my recent experiences (elements in two of these lenses delaminating from each other) I don't think I would buy another one. If this is a time problem (which I expect that it is) then a new one isn't going to be less likely to have the problem than a used one. alex
RE: PAW: Lyle Lovett
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Amita Guha wrote: Had friends over for watching Fireworks -- I'm getting to like shooting digital (borrowed friends) scary, eh? :) I got excellent firewroks shots near my apt. with the istD. I don't think I'll ever shoot them with film again. It was great not having to change rolls in the dark! I'll post some soon. I shot some the other day: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/july4-04/ I'm actually kinda bored shooting fireworks now and don't think that I'll bother again next year. This is my favorite of the ones from this year: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/july4-04/reduced/IMGP3833.jpg It isn't the most exciting set of fireworks, but I like that you can see the city lights around the lake. This is the best fireworks photo that I've taken with digital, even thought it was shot through window glass (and you can see some reflections from the multi-pane glass): http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/newyears2001/reduced/fireworks.jpg And a bunch from last year: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/july4-03/ Some of the contact sheet ones (generated by a special mode in my old DSC-F717) are kinda fun: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/july4-03/reduced/july4-03%20063.jpg http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/july4-03/reduced/july4-03%20061.jpg I agree that digital is the way to go for shooting fireworks. alex
Re: *ist D Metering Issue
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Tom C wrote: I thought that in Hyper Program mode that the camera would only allow shutter/aperture values that resulted in a 'proper' exposure. In the first email you said: All were taken within a 60 second time span. All were taken with multi-seg metering and Shutter Speed Priority AE mode. That is not HyperProgram, that is Shutter Priority (Tv). In Tv or Av mode the camera will allow you to hang yourself. In Tv it will use the shutter speed that you told it, and only adjust the aperture. If the lens can't be stopped down enough then you'll get this over exposure. alex
PAW
These are from a hike on Noble Knob near Mt Ranier that I took on Saturday July 3rd, 2004. Shot with the *ist D and DA 16-45/4 (I also carried my FA 35/2 and M 135/3.5 that day, but never used those). I like the texture in this one a lot: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3665.jpg There are a lot of landscape/scenic shots there, but I think that this is my favorite of them: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3679.jpg I also like this one, because it was a better indication of the weather for most of the hike, and the wildflowers were a big part of the hike and are front and center: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3521.jpg The whole gallery is here, but I really need to cull some more images (shot 200, down to 87, would like to be down to 25 or less) to make it more browsable: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/ alex
Re: PAW
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, John Mustarde wrote: On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:05:50 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: Very good shots, there were enough photo ops on this one hike to last a month of Sundays. I enjoyed browsing this paw as much as any in the past year. But you left me wanting for info - who are the folks, and why only one coloring book. They are the friends who I went hiking with. Kathy is on the left, Christine (my wife) was on the right. Why only one coloring book? Not sure, they only picked up one. That was while we were getting breakfast before the hike. I'm glad that you enjoyed the photos. alex
Re: Just to be sure.. About DAs
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Thibs wrote: These lens (DA ones) are really only usable on the IST-D right? Or are these like some Sigma/Tamron, optimized for digital but you can still use them for 24x36 ? I just hope Pentax will make Fas with the new focus mechanism of the DAs DA lenses have a reduced image circle. The 16-45 appears to be usable from somewhere around 24 to 28mm on my ZX-5n. I haven't run film through it to see when the vingetting actually disappears. alex
Re: What % AF? (was Af speed of the *ist D)
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote: I think it is important to remember that, AF or MF, it's still an SLR. If you use AF and everything you want looks nice and sharp, then you won't do better with MF. I use MF for since I like to do macro, and like the MF feel of the A lenses. (I'm actually going to get the A50 2.8 macro as a walking around macro lens). I think the ideal system would AF and then you could tweak it without a clutch, i.e., just tunr the ring. I think some systesm works like this. That is how the clutch on the DA 16-45/4 works. You can leave the camera in auto focus and manual focus at any time. alex
RE: Re:Selling Pentax 35mm gear (WAS RE: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: Because today good cameras are based on very sophisticated technology - AF-systems, Data Processing, Imaging-/Sensor Technology - as well as high quality lens design/lens making. Pentax may survive as a lens maker - if it can find corporate lens buyers. As a camera maker, Pentax may survive in PS market - not in the high-end camera market. Mediocre does not do the trick anymore. Perhaps history has already proven this? Doesn't Pentax build these systems for other companies currently? For instance I thought that Nikon licensed AF technology from Pentax. alex
Re: some shots from the new Air and space Museum
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Jim Apilado wrote: Thanks for these shots. What an awesome building. The Boeing 307 Stratoliner, I believe, crashed into Elliott Bay in Seattle, WA a couple of years ago. It had been restored and was flying back to D.C. They were able to repair the restoration and flew it back. I've got to see this museum. There is a similar museum in Seattle too, the Boeing museum. It isn't quite as spectacular sounding, but it does have an SR71 on display. alex
Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Sid Barras wrote: Well, I'm getting less and less inclined to lug around the entire SMC tak prime lens collection these days... So, I'm wondering, to all the screwmount afficanados, I ask the question: The best (available, anyway-- I intend to seek and buy the lens) zoom lenses for M42. My requirements would be two or three good quality zoom lenses in screw mount to cover the 28 (or 24 if I'm really fortunate) to 300 or so zoom lenses. It wouldn't have to be one of those 28-300 mega zooms like the tamron K mount I've got. It could be two three or four even lenses that together would cover that range. 4 zooms covering that range in K mount would be about as heavy as the primes covering that range, if not heavier. alex
RE: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: no way, the primes? 24 28 35 40 50 55 85 105 135 200 300 I assumed that one was carrying a selection of the primes in a set of increments, not everything. I don't see any reason to carry 35, 40, 50, and 55. 35 and 55 maybe. Likewise for 24, 28. Or 105, 135. From that selection I would probably take: 24, 35, 50, 105, 200, 300 or maybe just: 28, 50, 85, 135, 200 I've done many trips just carrying a 24 and a 50 and that has worked well for me. alex
Re: The public and Pentax
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Jim Apilado wrote: Konica and Minolta merged. Could Pentax merge with another company that has more name recognition, like Nikon? That might improve the stature of both companies. Konica's SLR line has been dead for years or decades. If that happened I expect that Pentax mount cameras and lenses would stop being supported and Nikon would buy them for their facilities and patents. alex
RE: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: That's right. Works great for my SONY. I hardly ever think of the missing viewfinder anymore. It works great - and even enlarges the image center for manual focusing. One of my favorite things about switching from the Sony DSC-F717 to my *ist D is that I finally get an optical viewfinder again. The Sony viewfinder is good for what it is, but manual focusing (even with the zoomed center) was much harder for me than focussing the *ist D is. The Sony viewfinder also wasn't very useful in low light (but neither was the camera, since the max ISO was 800 and that was very noisy). I do miss the waist angle finder function of the DSC-F717 though. That was very handy for many types of shots. alex
Re: Selling Pentax 35mm gear (WAS RE: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander Perkeo 120 folder)
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jeff Post wrote: I am wrestling with that same question, although it sounds as if you have far more gear then me. My largest investment is in a single lens. Since the *istD works with A* lenses, I do not expect them to depreciate considerably. The value of my LX I expect to drop like a rock, if it hasn't already. The questions become, do I buy an *istD, do I sell all my 35mm gear and buy a cannon 10D, do I sell my 35mm gear and buy a 645 or 67? If I thought the *istD was going to evolve into yearly updates with either bigger sensor size or greater megapixel sensors I would not consider anything else. With all the talk of a babyD I would be surprised to see anything above the *istD (even if it was only the Sony 8 megapixel sensor slapped in) for a couple of years. I'm not aware of any suitable Sony 8mp sensor for the *ist D. Have they started making an APS sized one? The 8mp sensor used in the Sony F828, Canon Pro1, and other cameras is a tiny 8.8x6.6mm and won't work for a digital SLR. I'd have been more tempted to switch brands if other brands made cameras which had the same usability features as the *ist D. I like the AA batteries, small size and weight, and high quality images. I'd probably consider switching if the image quality wasn't up to par, but all of the 6mp cameras, including the *ist D, are very good. I see no reason to pick anything else. alex
Re:Selling Pentax 35mm gear (WAS RE: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jeff Post wrote: I have my sensors confused. I knew Sony made a 8 meg sensor, but I was thinking of the canon sensor. Yes, I know it is an evil word, but in a year I would be surprised if that canon 8 meg sensor isn't in a camera at the 10D price point. The rumors that I've read are a 1.3x crop factor 8mp sensor in the Canon 10D mk 2 for $2200 list, about $1900 street, coming out around Photokina (or whatever the sept show is). This is what makes Canon so tempting. I can replace my wife's 35mm canon A2 with the 10D and start to get a few high quality lenses. When the 8 meg sensor comes into a camera I can afford, then I could buy it, having already procured the lenses for my wife. This is what is so frustrating about Pentax. There is no pentax path of this kind. Ah, and before you say why not just buy the *istD for the wife, she would look at me like I had three heads if I tried to get her to shoot with it. Even though she loves the output of my LX, she knows. and loves, the EOS system (you know, turn the dial to the running guy so she can shoot a tennis match.) This is where Pentax has, and is continuing, to miss the boat. How many of us who love to shoot with Pentax gear jump ship because either the product we want isn't available or we don't have faith that they will ever produce the product we need until 1 to 2 years after it has been produced by other manufacturers? Pentax is a small company (as far as camera equipment goes, I know that they are large in other businesses) with little pro support to fund developing all of those goodies. If you aspire to high end products then I don't think that they are really the right choice right now. On the other hand I'd be waiting forever for Canon or Nikon to make a body the size of the *ist D which took AA batteries. I've used the D30, 10D, and 300D and they are all nice cameras, but not for me. THe 300D is about the same weight, but doesn't have the same build. alex
Re: wouldn't it be nice
Every file format produced by the Pentax *ist D can be rotated losslessly. Whatever orientation a sensor produces could always be considered a best guess, and you could re-rotate it as you prefer afterwords. alex On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Herb Chong wrote: what happens when you use the remote release or the cable release. there are times when i tilt the camera at an angle such that the framing has nothing to do with up or down as detected by any sensor or position of the shutter release. Herb... - Original Message - From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 11:43 AM Subject: Re: wouldn't it be nice I think it could be done on the ist-D in a firmware upgrade. I figure if the camera could know when the vertical release is used on the D-BG1 then it could easily mark those images for rotation in whatever browser you are using.
Re: DA16-45 underexposure very disappointing
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Mark Stringer wrote: Dr. Heiko Hamann wrote: The 16-45 is told to underexpose one stop. I am very disappointed in my DA16-45 which I bought with my istD. I cannot count on it to produce useable photos. My first outing was to see my daughter at an equestrian event on a bright day. Everything is washed out, even close ups of my daughters face. Is there a fix for this? Is Pentax acknowledging this? I do not want to have to make additional settings to cope with this problem. I would like to trade it in for a DA14. Anyone else notice this problem? I have compared it to other lens and it is obvious. What metering mode are you using? What is your contrast setting? Are you shooting raw? What exposure program are you using? There is a learning curve with exposure on digital SLRs unless you are coming from a slide background. There is a lot less exposure latitude on them than when shooting negative film. With RAW you do get some extra latitude, but blown out highlights tend to remain blown out. On a bright very high contrast day the scene dynamic range is almost definately going to be larger than what the sensor can capture. If skin tone is important than you are going to need to meter for that, but you'll give up a little shadow detail in exchange. Shooting on low contrast (which captures the widest dynamic range possible) or using RAW so that you can tweak it later provide the best flexibility. I haven't noticed any differences in metering with my DA 16-45/4 compared to any of my other lenses. I haven't done a back to back comparison though. If I get a chance I'll do this with my FA 35/2 and A 24/2.8 since they are the two other lenses that I own in this focal length range. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote: I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their results seem to match my experience so far). Photodo just measures sharpness. A lot of list members seem to cherish Pentax lenses for the harder to quantify qualities such as smooth bokeh and good contrast. Photodo doesn't measure these things, so their numbers might not be so important if that is what you are looking for. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: alex wetmore wrote: I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, and I think that is feasable. What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. It isn't made anymore and I'm usually not very happy with the build of F lenses. On the other hand it is cheap, so I'm picking one up from KEH to try it out. This lens was last made in 1989, and it seems like zoom optics have come a long way since then. Does it have a rotating front element? alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote: The problem with the FA28-70/4 is that it was designed to have poor built quality. This is, of course doesn't matter if it didn't fall apart like some Sigma lenses do. In my experience with two FA28-70/4 lenses they self destruct after about 5 years. The contact cement between two elements fails, leaving you with a low contrast and not very sharp 28-70/4. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: reputation of F-lenses comes from people seeing faded, peeling, dirty, poorly looked after specimens in second-hand shops. I guess the F-lenses don't stand up as well to abuse as earlier lenses but if you find a well-looked after, as-new, example I think you may be pleasantly surprised. Since the lens in question hasn't been made in 15 years the chances of finding a like new speciman is low. I don't like the manual focus feel on the F lenses that I've tried. All have been consumer grade zooms, but this seems to be one too, so I'm not expecting much. A DA version of this lens could be made smaller, and the build quality of the DA 16-45 is better than any F lens that I've used and many of the FA lenses. I like the Quick Focus Clutch mechanism too. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: Steve Desjardins wrote: I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow zooms might be a good paln with in-camera IS. How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same as a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that! Me too. I'd take an f4 version too. I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower than pro, smaller lenses for Pentax. I think that this would fit in well with their current direction. That probably means that they won't do it. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: I wrote: How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same as a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that! alex wetmore wrote: Me too. I'd take an f4 version too. I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower than pro, smaller lenses for Pentax. I think that this would fit in well with their current direction. That probably means that they won't do it. How about splitting the difference and having a f3.4 version - best of both worlds! Lighter, cheaper, more compact than a f2.8 and only 1/2 stop slower - but still 1/2 stop faster than a f4! It really depends on the size and weight. The DA 16-45/4 is large. I can give them that, because it is a very sharp lens and I understand that it is difficult to build sharp and high quality wide angle optics for SLRs due to the mirror getting in the way. I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, and I think that is feasable. Compact size and weight are more important to me than lens speed, especially since the *ist D is pretty noise free up to ISO 800 and still very usable at ISO 1600. Compact size and weight, and quality are also more important for me than a lens which extends all the way to 200mm. alex
Re: Any compact digitals with wide-angle lenses?
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Chaso DeChaso wrote: Are there any compact digital point-and-shoots that have a wide-angle lens? It seems most are around 35-to-something or 38-to-something, equivalent. How compact? Nikon's 5000 had a 28mm equivelent lens. I don't know what the followup model is called (5400 maybe?), but I think it has the same lens. I haven't found any pocketable digital compacts with a 28mm wide angle lens since my old (and sadly now dead) Canon Powershot from many years ago. That was a 1.3mp camera though and very limited compared to modern models. alex
RE: SMC K 2.8/24mm
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Andy Chang wrote: I have this lens and I think I paid around USD160 for it second hand Great lens, worth every penny for it! I believe that the A 24/2.8 has the same optics. Since most Pentax bodies no longer work with pre-A lenses as well as post-A lenses I would suggest holding out for the A version over the K version. Pricing on these can really vary. I bought my sample from KEH 5 years ago for about $300. In the meantime I've seen them from $100 to $300 with most prices between $200 and $300. alex
RE: SMC K 2.8/24mm
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: I don't know which Pentax bodies, that will not work with K and M lenses, Alex??? They will allow work, but many won't meter properly. Sorry, I don't know the models of the exact film cameras which this is true for. When I bought my MZ-5n it was true of the MZ-50. I think it is true of the *ist. I don't know anything about the other current film cameras like the MZ-60. The *ist D will meter with a workaround that makes it less convinent to work with compared to an A lens. I own a *ist D and will still buy K/M lenses when they are a good deal and not in a length that I plan to use a lot, but if there is a widely available A alternative for about the same amount of money I would get the A lens. alex
Re: IS in Pentax *istD (was Re: canon vs pentax)
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Nick Clark wrote: Is there any reason IS couldn't be implemented in software? You could produce a 5MP image from a 6MP sensor by using the extra pixels to shift the image. You'd need to measure the movement of the camera, which could be done using a sensor of some sort in the body, or could conceivably be done by measuring the movement of the image on the CCD. This could mean that IS could be added to the *istD by a firmware upgrade. This is all speculation, and I could be talking rubbish. Any comments? You would need a match faster CCD which operated in video mode, and software which lined everything back up frame by frame. alex
Re: A-lenses aperture indication
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Both my PZ-1 and my ZX-5n will show the aperture setting in the viewfinder if the aperture ring on an autofocus lens is set to other than A. AF lenses are different than the A lenses. The AF lenses have an extra contact which digitally communicates the current aperture, focal length, and MTF. alex
Re: *istD Raw Converter
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Mark Dalal wrote: I haven't really been playing close attention to the discussion on converting RAW files from the *istD. The little bit I have read has given me the impression that people aren't totally pleased with the Pentax converter and have been happier with the Photoshop CS converter. Has anyone tried the C1 RAW Workflow Software featured on the http://www.rawworkflow.com/ website? The website indicates that it supports RAW files from the *istD. The LE version is $99. Just lookin' for a little feedback about this piece of software. I've been playing with it. When it works it works well. It has a tendency to crash pretty easily and it also leaks a lot of memory. The only support is through the forums on rawworkflow.com, and no one is answering my queries about crashes, even though I provided pretty good repro steps. If they fix these problems I'll happily plop down my $99 (expensive, but cheaper than Photoshop CS and I can keep using my preferred Picture Window Pro). alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote: From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote: Can someone explain the Giving up on the FA 28-70/4 subject to me, I have one in need of a clean (fungus) wouldn't want much for it, I'll keep it for spares otherwise. http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss%40pdml.net/msg185702.html is my original message, which explains it all. alex Just out of curiosity were the two lenses made in Japan? My original sample was. The other one is boxed up and ready to mail, so I can't tell. I think that it was though. Here is a photo of the damage: http://www.phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax/lens-ghost.jpg The one that I'm sending back is only about half as bad, but constrast and resolution are still reduced. alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote: This is all a little worrying when I have one fitted to my MZ-3 most of the time, it's nice to know the rest of the camera bag is full of Pentax A primes and a couple of Sigma primes. Just check it on a regular basis. Since this was a cheap lens to begin with there isn't much to complain about when it does go. alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote: Can someone explain the Giving up on the FA 28-70/4 subject to me, I have one in need of a clean (fungus) wouldn't want much for it, I'll keep it for spares otherwise. http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss%40pdml.net/msg185702.html is my original message, which explains it all. alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Robert Leigh Woerner wrote: I doubt the manual focus feel is any different on the SMC version. Does the 28-70 f4.0 fare better in this area? I couldn't find the Takumar-F 28-80/3.5-4.5 that I own this morning to compare. I remember it being really really loose though. The SMC-FA 28-70/4 has the worst manual focus feel of any of my FA lenses (35/2, 50/1.7 are the other two) but it is at least usable. I got the Takumar-F thrown in with a ME Super that I bought many years ago and the manual focus was nearly unusable on that camera because it was so loose. The DA 16-45/4 has the best manual focus feel of any of my autofocus lenses, but I've never used an FA* lens. alex
Re: Camera backpack with drawers
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Amita Guha wrote: Does anyone remember who made a camera backpack with front-loading lens drawers? I'm not talking about the Lowepro Trim Trekker. The interior was yellow. I thought it was Domke but I think I was wrong. Amita, still in search of the perfect camera backpack What do you mean by front loading lens drawers? It sounds like you could be talking about one of the smaller Crumpler backpacks. They have the camera area in the bottom, and I believe that they are front loaded. I have a larger Crumpler backpack (Brian's Hottub is the model) and like it a lot, but you do need to take it off to get to the lenses. This is the Crumpler model that I was thinking of: http://www.crumplerusa.com/products/camerabag/the_formal_lounge.html This is what I have: http://www.crumplerusa.com/products/camerabag/brians_hot_tub.html alex
Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
Some folks might remember that I discovered two elements of my FA 28-70/4 were coming apart, making it unusable. I picked up a replacement on eBay and found that it is in the early stages of the same problem. It is being mailed back to the seller. Sadly there don't seem to be any great replacements to consider. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di XR seems to be highly regarded and is very small for a lens of that length, but is more than twice the weight (510g vs 240g) and a lot more expensive. The 24-90/3.5-4.5 seems like a reasonable compromise, but they are still pretty expensive. Any other suggestions? This will be for a *ist D. It won't get tons of use but I find this focal length to be fairly useful for certain types of events. Is the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 any good? The only other moderately fast lens in this range seems to be the Sigma 28-70/2.8-4. At $119 (bhphoto) I can't really imagine that it is very good. Comments? From photographyreview.com it sounds like there is a lot of distortion at the wide end. alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Stan Halpin wrote: The FA 20-35/4.0 won't give you the same reach as the 28-70, even on the *ist-D, , but it is a nice lens. Worth looking at. I already own the 16-45/4.0, so I'm looking for something longer. I find the 16-45 to be my normal every day lens, and liked the 28-70 as a slightly longer lens for events (weddings, etc). I don't shoot people that often, so the 28-70/4.0 didn't get tons of use, but it got enough to justify replacing it. alex
Re: baby-D wish/expect list
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -at least 4MP. I'd expect the same 6MP sony sensor as the *istD. If there's a better sensor availible Pentax would be wise to upgrade the *istD with it and put the cheap, well-understood sony one in the baby. Nobody seems to be jumping on the Foveon sensor. I'd expect image quality to be at least *istD quality. Hopefully, experience will make it better as the *istD is arguably the worst of the DSLRs in image sharpness. The sharpness is all software. It is the same sensor as the D100 and I think the D70. Too much sharpness makes it hard to do processing later on (and it increases noise), too little and people complain. -easily accessible manual exposure and metering. In the name of user-friendliness the current baby DSLRs are a bit weak here. I wouldn't be surprised if Pentax is too, on the theory that the average $900 DSLR buyer won't want manual anything. I expect that it will have the *ist (not *ist D) controls. One control wheel instead of two. -at least as much old-lens compatability as the *istD. I'm not sure that metering a $900 camera with a handheld meter because I have a screwmount or K lens on it would be acceptable. I expect that it won't have the Green button solution that the *ist D has for metering with K/M lenses. -reasonable ISO range. Assuming the standard Sony sensor, I'd expect about the same as the *istD has, perhaps less at the top end. I've got no need for ISO 50 or 100 unless they are coupled with higher quality as they are in film. I wouldn't be too surprised if they dropped ISO 3200 just as Canon did in the D-Rebel. -something new cosmetically, such as a new color or the slanted top of the MZ-S. Pentax is still a leader in such things. Consider that Hasselblads now come in primary colors--why not DSLRs? Nikons are resolutely black, and the Canon 300D has hijacked that Pentax chrome/titanium color. Maybe gold-tone? Ugh, I hope not. The color of the 300D makes it look really cheap. I like the *ist D black. I was fine with the MZ-5n silver/black. -An upgraded *istD at the same time. Pentax COULD still do something aggressive and improve it's $1500 price-point DSLR to be superior in some noticeable way to its Nikon, Canon, and Sigma rivals. I'd expect Nikon to get there first, now that the D70 has basically taken over from the D100 (Nikon D70/D100 Canon 300D/10D, in terms of relative quality of siblings). Realistically, the baby-D is going to have to be quite cheap or pretty competitive with the *istD to make it competitive with the D70. I'd expect Pentax brand-loyalty to be a less-important factor in baby-D sales than *istD sales. Common sense would say that the *ist D would need to be rev'd pretty quickly since it isn't that much more expensive (25%) and on paper will probably have many of the same features. On the other hand Canon still seems to be selling the 10D and has waited a while to rev it even though the same is true for the 10D and 300D. I think Pentax is stuck with what Sony or other companies are doing for APS sized DSLR sensors. I haven't read of anything being available better than the 6mp sensor being used now. alex
Re: tan is a dickhead...
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Am I missing something? Aren't USB cables, well ... universal? There are four cables here, two that came with different card readers, one that came with a USB hard drive, one that came with the Sony digicam ... oh, and another from some strange purchase ... and they all work interchangeably. Does the Pentax have a unique cable? There are two types of mini-USB connectors. One that about 90% of devices use, and one that about 10% of devices use. Guess which one Pentax went with? The common one is small and flat. The uncommon one is small and round. alex
RE: *istD in the (battle)field
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote: I really like how you caught that shockwave in flame. I've never seen that before. A friend and I were curious about this picture. Was it taken with a flash? It looks like a preflash caught the mortar and then a long exposure caught some of the flames erupting from it. Is that accurate? It is a very impressive shot. alex
Re: Zenitar 16/2.0 on istD, other istD questions
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: Alex, you are wrng as Dpreview is. *istD has buffer for 6 frames no matter if RAW or JPEG. One thing is nowhere mentioned - you have to turn noise reduction off, as it apparently reserves some buffer space for image processing. After all N.R. is useless during fast continuos shooting so you loose nothing. And the number of frames in one burst is independent from card speed as Dario suggested. I didn't know that about the NR. Thanks for the information. The number of frames in one burst doesn't depend on the card speed, but the recovery time for the next frame does. That is the timing that the dpreview article covers in good detail. alex
RE: Take a wild guess
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: Thanks for you reactions, all. You are of cource all right. DOF, colour cast, and frame format gave it away. The first one is from a Sony, the second from a Pentax. The correct exposure values are Sony: f6.3, 1/1250 sec Pentax: f8, 1/750 sec I used better aperture for the analog picture to try to compensate for DOF, but this difference was aparentlly too small. The CCD on the Sony DSC-F717 is 8.8x6.6mm. You need to adjust the f-stop much more to compensate for DOF (I think you'll need to compensate about 3 stops, but I haven't played with the DOF calculator for a F717 in a long time). I am, however, still quite amazed that the small, cheep SONY (paid 700 USD for it, used 1 year) performes so well. The DSC-F717 is a great camera. It has more noise than a DSLR due to the tiny little CCD, but on the other hand it is pretty inexpensive. It has less noise than most PS cameras which use even smaller CCDs. You get a sharp and fast F2-F2.4 lens with a good zoom range (38-190mm equivelent). The UI is pretty good too and I found it easy to use in aperture priority mode. I think that Sony has gone downhill with the F828. Trying to stick another 3 million sensors in that same 8.8x6.6mm space didn't do them any favors. I don't regret selling my DSC-F717 to purchase the *ist D, but I'm glad that I was able to own one (and the earlier F707) for over two years before the *ist D was released. The F7x7 cameras held their value well too and I was able to sell my DSC-F717 for $650us after purchasing it (originally a DSC-F707) 2 weeks after it was released for $800us (plus $100 for a 2 year extended warranty). I was able to upgrade for free because I had an extended warranty and my DSC-F707 was one of the early models with flash issues. alex
PAW: a few DSC-F717 pictures
After the conversation on the DSC-F717 I thought I would do a PAW with a few of my favorite photographs from that camera: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/nz02/christchurch/botanical-gardens/reduced-800/butterfly-in-field.JPG or http://tinyurl.com/3d6zr http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/nz02/kaikoura/reduced/DSC00308.JPG http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/nz02/westcoast-hoki-to-fox/reduced/DSC00486.JPG or http://tinyurl.com/2kmym http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/carbon-river-7-14-02/reduced/DSC01571.JPG or http://tinyurl.com/2v52r alex
RE: a few DSC-F717 pictures
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: I'm glad I'n not the only one with a F717. Your shots are very nice. I like your butterfly the best. It's brilliant. Perfect focus/DOF. I believe digital is better for close-ups (greater DOF due to smaller format) than landscapes, where resolution is often crusial. I agree. Digital cameras are great for macro and closeup work. Actually I'm a little afraid to get disappointed with the *ist D (should I ever get one) - it's just one more MP at the cost of 300% of that of the SONY. www.dpreview says it's the best resolution they have seen yet on a 5MP camera. They even compare the image quality with that of the Olympus E-1! AS I have said before, I can'ot believe Pentax hasn't made a digital camera like this (all-in-one). It would porbably be a great success. What makes the *ist D a wonderful upgrade is the higher ISO of the camera. I can shoot in much lower light with much less noise than I ever could with the F717. The F717 has about three stops more noise than the *ist D (ie, ISO 100 on the F717 is about as noisy as ISO 800 on the *ist D). This is really cool for handheld available light photography. The low noise as ISO 200 and 400 is also amazing. That butterfly shot took a lot of post processing to make a decent 13x19 print of, mostly due to distracting noise. I think that it would have been a lot easier if it had been shot at ISO 200 on the *ist D. That shot was made at ISO 100 on the F717 and there is still a lot of noise. alex
Re: Trip report
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Rob Studdert wrote: On 23 May 2004 at 22:22, Christian Skofteland wrote: Funny how you didn't seem too impressed by the *ist D when I was there in October but now you seem very enthusiastic about it! Still not that pleased with the camera, more so the medium. It's doing the job however I am still shitty about the AOV limitations. I only had enough room for my 20/2.8 in my travel pack so I was somewhat limited in quite a few instances, hopefully the multi-image shots will stitch OK. It should be pretty easy to make room by removing your longest lens. For instance if you used to carry something like: 28, 50, 85, 135, 200 now you can carry something like 20, 28, 50, 85, 135 I don't like that the *ist D forced me to rethink some of my lens collection because of the new AOV, but it hasn't changed too much what I carry. The people who get hurt the most are those who liked to carry two lenses, 28-70 and 70-200. With the *ist D you get 16-45 but nothing to fill in the long end. Hopefully a DA 40-160 or 35-135 or something like that is coming. alex
Re: Take a wild guess
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: I took the same photograph twice: One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. Which one was made with a PENTAX? http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html Sony http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html Pentax Sony pushes the blue and this is noticable in the color of the blue post in the background. f8 on a DSC-F717 also has a much greater depth of field than f8 on a 35mm camera and you can see this in the background. Finally the exposure on the Pentax scan is a little off and having owned a Sony DSC-F717 and an Epson scanner I think that the scanner is more likely to give you incorrect exposure than the camera. If anything the camera overexposes and it has borderline done that hear (no detail in the boat deck). alex
Re: Truncated links (was Re: eBay Listings)
On Sat, 22 May 2004, Doug Franklin wrote: On Sat, 22 May 2004 08:34:16 +0200, Anders Hultman wrote: Sorry if the link truncatees. I can't set my page width any higher. A handy tip is to place long links between and marks. Several e-mail programs then will recognize that it's one continuing URL even if it's broken over two or more lines. Something else you can try is turning off word wrap in the sending email program. Most email programs will line break when receiving as needed, and often they will recognize the full URL within the un-line-broken message coming in and maintain them when word wrapping the message for display. Honestly, I don't think that any of the approaches we've discussed will work all of the time, and some of them will work better or worse with different email agent software. one approach which always works is to use tinyurl. http://www.tinyurl.com It will take any long URL and make another URL for it that is about 15 characters long. It is trivial to use and works great. alex
Re: OT : Camera Fanny Pack (GFM)
On Thu, 20 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anyone use one that they like? And why? I have a LowePro Offtrail that I like. It has two lens pouches which can hold one or two lenses each (you can stack two shorter primes into one). The main bag easily fits any Pentax SLR. The only thing that it needs is a little pocket in the lid for batteries or memory cards. My bag was made for film cameras, so it does have two elastic loops in the main pocket that will hold a roll of film each. http://www.lowepro.com/pages/series/trekking/oftrail1.htm Without the lens pouches attached it is a good size for carrying around in a daypack or a bicycle handlebar or saddle bag to provide extra camera protection. My Off Trail is almost 10 years old and holding up very well. alex
Re: OT: Refrigerator Organization and Use
Okay, so you all want fridge pictures. For some reason I actually have an assortment of these: This is my beer fridge from right after I added two taps to it: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/beer/reduced/fridge-closed.jpg It now has two more and a drip tray. This is what it looks like when open: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/beer/reduced/fridge-open.jpg It can hold 4 soda kegs, a CO2 canister, and about 30 12oz bottles of beer and a smaller number of 22oz bottles. I brew my own beer (and ginger beer soda) and that is what fills the kegs. In this picture of my brewing you can see the outside of my normal fridge on the right: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/beer/reduced/IMGP2221.JPG That brewing session made a wonderful porter. I think I'll have some when I get home. --- Recently a friend asked me to take pictures of his fridge and condo. He took the time to turn his loft into a collection of homemade art (mostly using found objects from the kitchen) and puzzles. Ignore the terrible white balance, I took these snapshots for him the day before leaving on a trip and never went back through to correct it (I do have the images in RAW). I strongly doubt that these pictures are what anyone had in mind when asking for fridge pictures... http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/brian/4-14-2004/ alex
Re: Future Practicality of Film
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Mark Cassino wrote: No matter what digital camera you purchase, a better one will be coming along. Today's 6 megapixel DSLR's a nice, but digital will only get better and, if other digital revolutions can be used as a guide, they will get a LOT better a LOT faster. If a few years, our *ist-D's will look like silly toys. There will be better D-SLRs in 5 years, but the *ist D will still be capable of making great 8x10 and 13x19 prints. It'll be great when these things are $200 on eBay. alex
Re: Future Practicality of Film
On Tue, 18 May 2004, graywolf wrote: As I have mentioned before, I used to do a lot of event photography. If that is your thing then you can almost not afford not to go digital. However, strange as it may be, 80+% of the folks on this list seem to be landscape/nature photographers. Why in the world would you even want a digital camera? In fact, why would you use 35mm? I'm also an amateur. Digital really reduces the feedback loop and has helped me become a better photographer and has made it much cheaper to experiment. I enjoy making my own prints and don't have the space for a darkroom. Digital gives me close to the equivelent without needing the space. I say close because I haven't been happy with the digital BW solutions that I've seen (starting with the cameras, I really want a *ist D with no color filter). I enjoy nature/landscape photography, but I don't make huge prints. 6mp is more than enough resolution. I probably wouldn't carry MF or LF stuff with me anyway because that is more equipment to carry while backpacking. alex
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Antonio Aparicio wrote: John, nobody is bashing anyone. Calm down. We are just discussing the merits of one OS over another. They are just tools/machines. Clearly virus and spyware are more prevalent on the Windows OS thatn elswhere PRECISELY because of the design of that OS. To date there have been Zero, thats right a 0 viruses on Mac OSX for example. They are plenty of published exploits for OS/X (google for exploit os/x if you want to see them). OS/X is largely built on top of FreeBSD which also has had it's fair share of exploits. No one has written a virus for it because it just isn't a very common platform. It wouldn't be hard to write a worm or virus which used the known exploits in FreeBSD (or the default services that install with it) but that hasn't been done yet either because it is even less common than OS/X. You do get additional security by using these less popular platforms, but in a odd catch-22 any additional use of them makes it more likely that they will be targetted by security vulnerabilities. I don't know what any of this has to do with pentax cameras. My *ist D doesn't run Windows, OS/X, or Linux to my knowledge. alex
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Cotty wrote: So anyway, looks like the MZ-S will be the last ever Pentax film SLR. * ist (not the *ist D) came out after the MZ-S by a couple of years, didn't it? alex
Re: Word on New Digitals?
On Mon, 17 May 2004, William M Kane wrote: You're right about it being the better choice, but this is difficult for me to explain to her. The Canon comes with a lens for 999, while the Pentax is 1300 with the lens counting the rebates. The Canon comes with a pretty cheap lens though. If she compared it with a good lens the difference would be much less. BH sells the Canon 17-40/4 lens for $650 after rebate. The 300D is $900. That is $1550 in total, or $1300 for the Pentax *ist D with a similar quality lens (although the Pentax goes wider and longer) and better quality body. Batteries for the *ist D are much cheaper too. alex
Re: Seattle camera shops. Was: Washington State trip
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Cycad wrote: The business part of my trip is at the Fred Hutchison Cancer Centre, and I assume I'll be staying nearby. Can you tell me which of these camera stores will be within walking distance? Glazer's and Optechs are within walking distance. Jim's would require taking the bus into the U District. This is pretty easy. http://transit.metrokc.gov has a tool which will find you the best route from one address to another. Kenmore Camera is about 15 miles away and would require a longer bus ride. Ballard Camera has a good selection of used Pentax glass and is a pretty short bus ride away (about 20 minutes). alex
Re: Automatic Sensitivity Setting on *ist D
On Sat, 15 May 2004, Peter Loveday wrote: Actually, my Canon S45 digicam has this Custom mode (the G3/G5 etc have more than 1 I think), which is also on the mode-dial. What a great feature I thought to start, I set it up so that mode was flash-disabled, ISO 400 (high as it goes), etc thinking I'd use it for low-light where I don't want to be setting off a flash (like a gallery, or whatever). Unfortunately being on the mode dial meant I had to choose P/Tv/Av/M also, I could not switch this and still use the custom settings, rendering the feature useless to my mind. The Pentax *ist D has 3 custom modes. You can program different settings for each one and change between them very quickly (a couple of button presses). I haven't experimented to see if these change things like the flash mode, or only the custom function settings. I think that the *ist D raises the ISO until the camera can be used handheld when you have it in the auto-adjust ISO mode. alex
