oks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: more K20D autofocus adjustment results
>
>
> > So my Pef's are compressed and my Nef's are not.
> >
> > My head hurts.
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 6
> My head hurts.
Maybe its compressed?
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: "David J Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: more K20D autofocus adjustment results
> So my Pef's are compressed and my Nef's are
So my Pef's are compressed and my Nef's are not.
My head hurts.
LOL
Dave
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:53 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know whether the DNGs in the K20D are
> > compressed or not.
>
> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2008/03/05 Wed PM 11:58:22 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: more K20D autofocus adjustment results
>
> So far I've adjusted the FA 50/1.4, the FA 35/2 and now the DA
> 16-45/4. The 50/1.4 cam
Dave,
My DNG's are 23 meg, but the PEF's are 12-16 meg.
And would you believe Picasa can decode them into images.
(Hard to put much over on those Google folks.)
Regards, Bob S.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 6:14 AM, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Paul Stenquis
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know whether the DNGs in the K20D are
> compressed or not.
It doesn't look like it.
And if the .pefs are, there isn't much compression going on.
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http:
The PEF files on the K10D are compressed, and the size
varies with the amount of detail in the image.
The K10D DNG files are not compressed, and are
consistent in size.
I don't know whether the DNGs in the K20D are
compressed or not.
Rick
--- Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Ste
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: more K20D autofocus adjustment results
> K20D high ISO a problem? LOL. You apparently haven't seen any of the
> recently posted pics. And there are thousands of very satisfied K10D
> users, including mys
ould rather
> buy a good old used and proven model rather than new goods that
> keep the
> company and paychecks for Pentax going :)
>
> later
> Owen
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Pentax-D
Okay, granted. If the camera is way off then overall focus correction
is an advantage. But I consider that a quality control problem that
users shouldn't have to deal with. Being able to set lens specific
focus, on the other hand, is a valuable end-user feature.
Paul
On Mar 5, 2008, at 10:09
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a K10D file is 16 megabytes, and a K20D file is 23 megabytes, that
> corresponds roughly to the difference between 10 megapixels and 14.6
> megapixels. Right?
> Paul
But consider the difference n .pef file sizes. A
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 10:09 PM, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree, Paul. I was having a significant
> backfocusing problem on my K10D with all my lenses,
> which I corrected using the "hacked" firmware
> available on the web. Now things focus =much= better,
> though there is
On 5/3/08, Owen LaPrath, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I am kicking myself for ever having wanted a K10.
>Autofocus was a dissapoinmtent to say the least - no faster than the K100,
>and actually less reliable!
>After seeing a few K20d shots from Dubai, my K100d even compares favorably
>for high I
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> If a K10D file is 16 megabytes, and a K20D file is 23 megabytes, that
> corresponds roughly to the difference between 10 megapixels and 14.6
> megapixels. Right?
Yeah, but the K10D file had a small JPG in it, too, which made those
file sizes variable as well. If they
- Original Message -
From: "Rick Womer"
Subject: Re: more K20D autofocus adjustment results
>I disagree, Paul. I was having a significant
> backfocusing problem on my K10D with all my lenses,
> which I corrected using the "hacked" firmware
> availab
- Original Message -
From: "Owen LaPrath"
Subject: Re: more K20D autofocus adjustment results
>
> Frankly, with the K20d being the 9th Pentax dSLR model, autofocus,
> underexposure issues (the Dubai shots are UGLY), high ISO noise, and high
> ISO banding ought no
My understanding is that when Pentax added remote
flash support to the K10D firmware (version 1.2), they
had to take out the focus adjustment utility because
of limited camera memory.
They substituted software running on a PC to do the
job; it would be nice if that were generally
available.
List"
Sent: Wednesday, 05 March, 2008 18:11
Subject: Re: more K20D autofocus adjustment results
If you're noticing it, it's off by a bunch. I don't know why Pentax
didn't adjust it properly. The adjustments I'm talking about here are
really fine tuning. I did notice
I disagree, Paul. I was having a significant
backfocusing problem on my K10D with all my lenses,
which I corrected using the "hacked" firmware
available on the web. Now things focus =much= better,
though there is still a tiny variation between lenses.
I could not have done my recent macro shooti
I think focus adjustment is somewhat useless if it's not lens
specific like that of the K20D.
Paul
On Mar 5, 2008, at 9:15 PM, Rick Womer wrote:
> My understanding is that when Pentax added remote
> flash support to the K10D firmware (version 1.2), they
> had to take out the focus adjustment uti
My understanding is that when Pentax added remote
flash support to the K10D firmware (version 1.2), they
had to take out the focus adjustment utility because
of limited camera memory.
They substituted software running on a PC to do the
job; it would be nice if that were generally
available.
Rick
If a K10D file is 16 megabytes, and a K20D file is 23 megabytes, that
corresponds roughly to the difference between 10 megapixels and 14.6
megapixels. Right?
Paul
On Mar 5, 2008, at 8:31 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
> William Robb wrote:
>
>> The DNG files are massive, varying from just under to j
The only fly in the ointment is that you really can't tell if a
camera/lens combination is spot-on until you compare the results to
other levels of adjustment. I suspect that it's more than a firmware
thing, but I could be wrong.
Paul
On Mar 5, 2008, at 8:04 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:
> On
If you're noticing it, it's off by a bunch. I don't know why Pentax
didn't adjust it properly. The adjustments I'm talking about here are
really fine tuning. I did notice the front focus on the FA 50/1.4,
which was off by -4 on the K20 scale. The other lenses seemed fine
before checking.
Pa
William Robb wrote:
> The DNG files are massive, varying from just under to just over 23mb each,
> which is 7 mb larger
> than the K10 DNG files. I have no idea why there is a size variance though my
> K10 DNG files vary
> somewhat as well.
Probably due to the embedded JPG version of the imag
On Mar 5, 2008, at 18:30, George Sinos wrote:
> Paul -
>
> Thanks for passing along the info. I know at least one other camera
> manufacturer is doing the same thing. It won't be long before it's a
> must have feature.
>
One wonders if there is an ice-cube's chance in hell of the K10D ever
ga
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: more K20D autofocus adjustment results
> So far I've adjusted the FA 50/1.4, the FA 35/2 and now the DA
> 16-45/4. The 50/1.4 came in at -4. I retested to make sure. Same
> result: -4. The FA 35/2 came in at
Hum.
My K10D still does what i sent it in for, my Nikons are fine, what gives.
Dave
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So far I've adjusted the FA 50/1.4, the FA 35/2 and now the DA
> 16-45/4. The 50/1.4 came in at -4. I retested to make sure. Same
> re
Paul -
Thanks for passing along the info. I know at least one other camera
manufacturer is doing the same thing. It won't be long before it's a
must have feature.
I find it interesting that just a few years ago it would be unlikely
that we would have found these differences and even less likely
So far I've adjusted the FA 50/1.4, the FA 35/2 and now the DA
16-45/4. The 50/1.4 came in at -4. I retested to make sure. Same
result: -4. The FA 35/2 came in at +2. Tonight I did the DA 16-45/4,
and as I suspected, it was closer to dead on at just +1 adjustment.
I simply do a series of sho
30 matches
Mail list logo
