Re: K10D and fill flash
Paul Stenquist wrote: On the AF 560FGZ you can dial in flash compensation. With a flash like the AF400T in auto mode, I set the flash for f11 and set the camera manually to f8, if I want minus one stop fill. That's backwards isn't it? Doesn't the AF400T put out more light if it believes its working at f/11 than it does if it believes it's working at f/8? Doesn't the lens allow more light to enter at f/8 than at f/11? If those assumptions are correct, then you should be dialing the flash in at f/8, and the camera at f/11 if you want -1EV for the flash. ...or am I the one who's thinking backwards? ;) Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Saturation/Sharpness/Contrast settings at Natural in K10D
Markus Maurer wrote: Hi Kenneth I was a gross misunderstanding on my side of the raw processing bypassing all of these settings. Have a little patience with somebody coming from old film cameras ;-) I will shoot raw only and on my second day in the all digital world I'm busy reading tutorials about the different raw converters at the moment :-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Kenneth Waller Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 5:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Saturation/Sharpness/Contrast settings at Natural in K10D What are your experiences with the settings for saturation, sharpness and contrast so far? I've left them all @ default. You have much better control in PS. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Markus Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Saturation/Sharpness/Contrast settings at Natural in K10D Hi K10D users What are your experiences with the settings for saturation, sharpness and contrast so far? Can I just leave them at the default natural setting or would I even get better results lowering for ex. in camera sharpening (and/or saturation/contrast) and doing that as the last step in Photoshop after all other adjustments? I prefer natural, not oversaturated and oversharpened photos, that's why I ask :-) Just got the camera yesterday and had not enough time for experiments beside flashing with the AF280T If this is your second day in the digital realm, shoot JPEG's for awhile until you have time to get used to the camera. ...at least that's my recommendation. There's plenty of time later to further refine and improve your results by shifting over to RAW, but at first, KISS. ;) Of course, since you're using the K10D, shoot in RAW+ mode (RAW JPEG). It'll gobble up you memory faster, but you will have the immediate satisfaction of the JPEG's, and the long-term highly editable RAW's to play with when you feel ready. Plus, if you shoot jpeg, all those settings (saturation, contrast, sharpness, white balance) will be meaningful, and you'll learn to use them better so that your RAW's also start coming out of the camera with the proper meta-data settings to minimize post-processing time. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: ist D, K10D and best flash
J wrote: Ok folks, I was playing with my friends istD with grip last week.First thing very small. Is the K10D as small with the grip.I still have all my Pentax glass and film bodies and want to get a digital Pentax SLR. My Nikon D1x's are large next to the Pentax. I think it will hard holding the Pentax with say a 300mm F2.8. I can hold the Nikon with a 300 F2.8 without any hassle. Next question what is the best flash for the Pentax ist D and K10 D. If my friend does not like his Pentax ist D, it will be mine... As far as the flashes is the Simga super better than the 500 ftg Pentax.Thanks for any info and helpJ The K10D should balance quite well with the grip. Even without the grip it's got a decent feel, but if you need a little more to hold onto the grip will help. Best flash: AF540FGZ. It features bounce, swivel, high speed sync, leading and trailing curtain sync, -3 to +1 EV compensation, 32 power stages in M mode, wireless master, wireless controller, wireless slave, and of course P-TTL which is needed for cameras such as the k10d which don't support TTL. And don't forget its generous guide number: 54m. A surprisingly close second: AF360FGZ. It features bounce. It LACKS swivel. It has high speed sync, leading and trailing curtain sync, -3 to +1 EV, 16 power stages in M mode, wireless master, wireless slave, wireless controller, and of course P-TTL. Its guide number is 36m. Not quite as generous, but still very workable, and more than three times stronger than the camera's built-in flash. The fact that the 360 lacks swivel may be a big deal for some people. For me, I don't mind just switching over to wireless mode and using it that way for those rare occasions that I need to point it at a wall. The 540 also comes with a little stand for off-camera use, and has plugins for sync cables, both of which the 360 lacks. I chose the 360 for its lower price tag, and slightly smaller size/weight. Someday I may buy a 540 too, and keep the 360 as a more compact alternative, and as a secondary slave. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Lens Roadmap
Mike Hamilton wrote: Updated! http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf That DA55/1.4 looks like it would be one nice lens. Presumably it's going to have focus shift, and Pentax's new high speed focus system. That could be the first lens ever to convince me to part with my FA50/1.4. Hopefully the DA35SDM is going to be at least f/2. Where's a DA28? Am I the only one who loves the 28mm focal length on a DSLR? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K-Mount Accidents?
David Mann wrote: On Mar 2, 2007, at 12:50 PM, Bong Manayon wrote: Just curious, has anyone accidentally detached their lens from the body? I once accidentally detached a 400mm f/4 lens from a Pentax 6x7. The shop's lens fell straight down into a box full of nice, soft camera bags while my heart leaped into my throat. The lens was the older version which mounts on the outer bayonet. No damage done, except for about 10 years off my lifespan. Ok, so I guess it's possible. ;) I find a far greater risk in trying to juggle two lenses and the body during a hasty lens change. In other words, I never worry about accidentally removing the lens from my camera, but do worry every time I've got two lenses in my hands and a DSLR dangling around my neck while I fumble with caps and the bag. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K-Mount Accidents?
Bruce Dayton wrote: I love the way the K mount is. Hate the Nikon way. With the K mount I can very quickly change lenses without any gyrations. Really helps in fast changes for even shooting. Never had a problem with accidentally releasing a lens. I agree. I can't imagine the level of ineptitude it would take for me to accidentally fully depress the lens release button, grip the lens, and firmly twist it a third of a turn. Do people actually believe themselves when they suggest the placement of the lens release button on a Pentax body could lead to accidentally dropping the lens off the front of the camera? Or are they just remembering something they saw a circus clown do once? ;) Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New Lens for ZX-5n ?
chuck wrote: The Pentax 28-105 on my ZX-5n got banged by an errant child. Seems to work OK, except the results have gotten darker, less bright, then they used to be. Could this be a damaged lens? In any case I am up for an upgrade. What are suggested lenses for this camera? Either Pentax brand or other? There is the SMC Pentax-FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 IF AL, which is well-rated for its weight and price. It is definitely an upgrade from the vast array of inferior 28-80 FA lenses out there. If you want higher end than that, there's the SMC Pentax-FA 24-90, which is supposed to be excellent. Beyond that, there's the 28-70 f/2.8, but it's a heavy sucker. I guess you have to ask yourself and answer the question of in what way is the 28-105 not meeting your needs? If it's a matter of low light use, and image quality, get a prime like the SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, or the 35, or 28, or splurge for a Limited lens. If it's not giving you the telephoto range you need, or it isn't wide enough, there are other alternatives to meet those more specific needs too.
Re: Something I Learned About the istDS
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Perhaps this is no big deal to some of you, and maybe you even know this, however, recently I discovered that the camera can be used in manual mode while using auto focus lenses, and, in so doing, the meter can be bypassed and the camera used just like any older, mechanical camera, where I can set whatever aperture and shutter speed I desire. It's kind of like having a digital MX or KX. Shel, Here's another nice feature: While in Manual mode, press the AE-L button. The camera will snap into a Program-like exposure automatically. So say you're in M mode, but suddenly find yourself in need of snapping a quickie, without taking the time to tinker with manual exposure settings. A quick press of AE-L will cause the camera to meter the shot for you.
Re: MZ-S J /DFA lenses
Jack Davis wrote: Will the MZ-S body allow f/stop control when using lenses without aperture rings? I sent this question to Pentax, CO. but the answer was unintelligible. The MZ-S will control the aperture of lenses that lack aperture ring. It will work fine in P, and Tv modes. I don't believe it will work in Av or M. It's such a nice camera, the MZ-S. It's a shame it wasn't released early enough in the historical timeline to avoid being overtaken by digital SLR's. I nearly bought one, and still kind of wish I had, though I know that I just wouldn't use it all that much now that I've gone digital.
Re: A Zoom for the istDS
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Fri, 5 May 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On May 5, 2006, at 7:08 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: What might be a good compliment to the FA 20~35 zoom for the istDS? I'm compiling a wish list, and would like a relatively fast, high-quality zoom that extends the range of the 20~35 to about 100mm or so. I'd prefer an FA rather than a DA, and am not looking for kit lenses or low quality consumer glass - something comparable to the 20~35 or better, preferably fixed aperture. Suggestions welcome - oh, not Sigma ... Thanks! My answer to this might be the DA50-135/2.8 when it is released. The FA24-90/3.5-4.5 AL is another option. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is another reputedly good lens in this general range. Interesting that you are not suggesting the 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL; I thought you had a high opinion of it. Kostas I'll recommend it for you. ;) The SMC Pentax-FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL is a compact, sharp, and relatively fast lens that provides an excellent range of focal length. It sits in my bag right next to my 16-45 (but 20-35 is great too), while my FA28 or FA50 sit on the camera. lol Seriously though, I get a lot of use out of the combination of 16-45 and 28-105. I think the 28-105 makes a good companion to your 20-35, and you'll find you're using it much of the time. Dave
Re: A Zoom for the istDS
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On May 6, 2006, at 8:32 AM, David Oswald wrote: Interesting that you are not suggesting the 28-105/3.2-4.5 AL; I thought you had a high opinion of it. I'll recommend it for you. ;) The SMC Pentax-FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 AL is a compact, sharp, and relatively fast lens that provides an excellent range of focal length. It sits in my bag right next to my 16-45 (but 20-35 is great too), while my FA28 or FA50 sit on the camera. lol Seriously though, I get a lot of use out of the combination of 16-45 and 28-105. I think the 28-105 makes a good companion to your 20-35, and you'll find you're using it much of the time. stream-of-consciousness train-of-thought: I got a lot of use out of the 28-105/3.2-4.5 last year. But where I want the longer focal length I also often use near wide open settings. The FA135/2.8 does me better and is faster, but it's often a bit too long. Comparisons of the 28-105 against the 24-90 show that the latter does better at its longer settings, where I want to use this kind of lens more of the time, so I sold the 28-105 and was planning to buy the 24-90. But then the roadmap showed the DA50-135/2.8 coming up and I've decided to wait for that one ... I also keep thinking of an FA77 limited or the upcoming DA70 as well. I'm no help, eh? Godfrey I agree with you that the 135 is just a little too long for moderate telephoto use. I've got one. It gets plenty of use, but that's because I like to sometimes isolate individual images from their surroundings, and the 135 is great for that; an interesting sign, a tight shot of someone's face, etc. But I know I would find an FA77 or DA70 much more useful, generally speaking. Either of those two would fit nicely between my FA50 and FA135. I just like primes!
Re: Need More Storage?
My notebook has a 100GB drive, which is more than adequate for now, but for peace of mind (backups) I went for a 250GB network storage drive. It's a hard drive that plugs into a hub or router, and provides storage to all computers on the same network (with account/password protection options). I really like the solution. It might be a little slower than a USB2.0 or Firewire drive, at 100 megabit ethernet rates, but I find it's fast enough for my needs. Nowadays you can get gigabit rate network drives too though. Anyway, what I like about the solution is that it allows my wife, on her notebook, and I on mine to both work with our photos without swapping cables. ...and I can take it with me to another network, plug it in, and use it there too. USB2.0 drives are convenient if you're in a single-user environment, where you don't mind being tied to your hardware by a cable. But with a network drive, you still have all the connection options that your network provides. In my case, that means I can access the network drive via my WiFi-enabled computers, without any wires, as long as the drive is plugged into a network with a wireless router or switch. Dave graywolf wrote: Why? I got along with 64K for years. And I remember how excited I was when I was able to get a 100MB (no that is not a typo) hard drive for only a little bit more than $200. And now I am wondering if 640MB/60GB is enough for a sub-notebook. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Cotty wrote: On 26/4/06, Joseph Tainter, discombobulated, unleashed: If you need more storage space for digital photos, TigerDirect currently has a Seagate 250 MB, 7200 rpm, ATA 100 drive That would tie in nicely with Bill Gates' prediction that all we would ever need was 640k of RAM :-)
Re: Pentax lens revelation for *istDL newbie
Keith McGuinness wrote: Mishka wrote: *istDL resolves ~53 lpmm -- quite undemanding wrt resolution. Between lenses I used I could see differences in contrast, color saturation, etc -- but not resolution. At least, not at the center at reasonable apertures. If Sigma cannot pull that out, it's gotta be made out of a coke bottle. Perhaps not a coke bottle...but, then, who knows? BTW, having done one quick and simple test, there are also rather marked differences in the features you mention: contrast and colour saturation. The Sigma has more of both. (Not that this is an issue because a small tweak in Rawshooter fixes things quickly.) Thanks for the response. A person can pixel-peek and lpmm-count to his heart's content. But you'll never convince me that I'm not getting better photos out of my FA50/1.4 than my FA28-105/3.2-4.5. Both good lenses in their classifications, but if I'll bet that if I took the same picture, at the same aperture and focal length with each lens, I could tell you which one was taken with the 50mm/1.4.
Re: When will we see a *consumer* DSLR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $249? $199? How soon do you think it will be? Collin KC8TKA Why have you asked essentially the same question twice, in two separate threads on the PDML list? Was great response to the first thread too much to follow? ;) And how could anyone accurately speculate on such a question? Next week, six months, a year, two... if you get enough varied responses one of them is sure to be correct, but you won't be any the wiser, for you'll still have to select which of the many responses you feel is the correct one. ...or just wait and see. lol
Re: Setting aperture -- film SLRs
Unca Mikey wrote: A quick question, something I am curious about -- I've read a lot here about the compatibility of older lenses on newer bodies, but what about the other way? Specifically, on film bodies without a thumbwheel (MZ-S, ZX-5n, etc), how do you change the aperture when the lens is set on A or the lens does not have an aperture ring? Is there a way to directly change the aperture on the body? I assume you can affect aperture indirectly by changing shutter speed, but can you operate in Av mode? Are such lenses even usable on older bodies like the MX? Thanks. *UncaMikey That *is* an issue. If the body you are using doesn't allow you to set aperture in body, and/or doesn't support an auto-aperture mode, you will only be able to shoot wide open.
Re: Windows 98 x *ist DS
luispaulodesa wrote: Hiya. My DS just arrived yesterday. Still reading the manual and playing with the cam. I had a 'surprise'. When I tried to install the software in my computer which runs on Windows 98, I simply couldn't do it. It didn't bothered me much. It got worse, though. I plugged the camera and, at first, the system does recognise the existence of the Pentax *ist DS, but cannot install the drivers. I tried Microsoft, tried Pentax, but all software I found was related to newer versions of Windows. Any suggestions? I thought of buying a card reader, sounded the most reasonable solution for I do not feel like updating my computer at the moment. About the camera so far, looks insteresting and promising. It's my first digital slr, feels a bit odd, but so far so good. Still learning all the functions and everything. One thing I miss is certainly all the dials available on the body, instead of through lcd menus, but looks like I'll have to deal with that. Maybe I am just an old fart, but hey, who the heck said that old dogs can't learn new tricks? ;) Cheers LP When I first acquired my *ist-DS, I had plain vanilla Windows 98 (not SE). Of course I was unable to plug the camera directly into my PC, and unable to use the Pentax software at the time. My PC was a notebook. I bought a PCMCIA/Cardbus SD card reader. That worked out fine. The bigger problem, however, was that my Win98 computer's (by today's standards) sluggish processor made it very frustrating to edit and view pictures taken at full resolution. For unrelated reasons, I ended up upgrading to a newer notebook, with WinXP, with 2GB of RAM, with a 1.8GHz processor, a built-in SD reader, and a 100GB hard drive. Suddenly the digital photography experience was much nicer.
Re: FA J 18-35 vs FA 20-35 on 35mm
Unca Mikey wrote: I use the FA J 18-35 on my *ist 35mm SLR and like it a lot. I think it performs surprisingly well, but it does have significant vignetting at the largest apertures, distortion at the shortest focal lengths, and that slow f5.6 at 35mm. I know that Godfrey and others have praised the FA 20-35, which I am sure is a much better lens. My question is, how much better is it on 35mm? Is there noticeable vignetting at larger apertures? Is the image close to rectilinear? Test images at Dario's site and a few other places helped me pick the FA J initially. Are there any test shots around showing results from the FA 20-35 on 35mm? Is anyone using this on a 35mm body -- what do you think of it? Most of what I've found via Google is from using the lens on a digital SLR. Thanks in advance for comments and opinions. I owned the FA20-35 f/4 AL for four years, used mostly on my ZX-5n. I really enjoyed that lens. It's sharp as a tack, and exhibits virtually no vignetting, right out to 20mm, even wide opened. (ok, maybe a little, but barely perceptible). I only sold it because I craved something a little wider on my *ist-DS. But I don't believe my 16-45 (which I used to replace the 20-35) is as good at its widest as the 20-35 was.
Re: Comments on 28mm F2.8 FA AL
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi, Any comments on the quality of the subject lens? Shel Shel, I tried a few times to buy the FA35/2 a year ago, and kept missing them on eBay and BH. Finally I gave up. A few months later I got myself the SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8 AL. It has become my most often used lens thanks to its 'wide normal' (or sometimes described as 'perfect normal') focal length, its compact size, simplicity, and image quality. It's a lens that I can put on the camera and forget about for the rest of the day; a statement that previously was only true of my 28-105 mounted on a film camera. I know the 35/2 is a fantastic lens, but I almost feel glad that I got the FA28 instead. Dave
Re: F v FA Lenses
Shel Belinkoff wrote: How does that help make a better photograph? If the camera/lens will focus where the photographer wants the focus to be, what difference does it make if the camera knows the focusing distance? Shel In the 90's when I was a camera buyer, my Pentax rep explained it this way: The F lenses do communicate focus distance. The FA lenses communicate focus distance and MTF data. The combination of that data can be used to determine optimum aperture for a given program line, in a given set of light and metering conditions. On the smiley mode cameras, focus distance is one determinant of which program line is auto-selected, and MTF helps to determine how that program line is weighted.
Re: Wide Angle advice for *ist-DS
Thanks for your remarks Godfrey; always informative. I think I'll start working toward getting the DA14/2.8 and eventually a DA70/2.4Ltd (when available). The latter sounds absolutely ideal. Where does it fall on the roadmap? A couple people have mentioned that I ought to just get my use out of the 16-45. It has been a great lens for me, and I never feel that it's producing inadequate results. I just happen to actually *enjoy* shooting with non-zoom lenses more, for some reason. I've never been able to quite put my finger on the reason. I think that by picking a focal length and sticking with it for awhile helps me to see potential shots in terms of that focal length before I bring the camera up to my eye, and that helps me to achieve more meaningful composition. By the way, my *least* used lens, since acquiring the *ist-DS is the 80-320. I almost sold it a couple times, but stopped myself when I saw how cheap they go for on eBay; not even worth bothering to sell. So I hang onto it for the one or two times a year where it proves to be the right choice of equipment. Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Apr 2, 2006, at 8:02 PM, David Oswald wrote: But where I'm always feeling a need is in my non-zoom lenses. First, I don't have anything that I would consider to be in the range of wide angle, mounted on the *ist-DS. I've considered the following options, but have been hesitant to jump in with wallet and both feet: SMC Pentax-FA 20mm f/2.8 AL Pros: Compact. Wide-ish angle. Not prohibitively expensive. Cons: Used on a DSLR, it's not really all *that* wide. I tested this lens, comparing it to the Canon EF20/2.8 and the Sigma 20/1.8, all on digital bodies only. It's the best of the three wide open, the Canon catches up by f/4, and the Sigma almost catches up between f/4.5-5.6. I owned the Canon 20/2.8 with my 10D. However, I decided that a zoom was more applicable in this range for me. I'm always wanting between a 24mm and 28mm lens. I tried the DA16-45 but didn't like its bulk/weight. I replaced that with the FA20-35/4 AL and find it produces results competitive with the primes in this range that I've owned and is a wonderful lens to work with: light, compact, quick and contrasty. The one stop slower speed has not proven to be a problem at all. If you already have and like the DA16-45, I wouldn't bother with the FA20. I'd want wider. SMC Pentax-DA 14mm f/2.8 AL Pros: Ultra-wide angle. Cons: Priced a little beyond my comfort level for a wide angle lens. A little wider than I feel my only wide angle lens should be. This was the only new lens I bought when I ordered the DS body. I'm very glad I did: it's an excellent performer in every regard, a LOT cheaper than the Canon or Nikon offerings in this focal length range, and balances very well on the *ist DS. It produces the field of view of a 21mm focal length on a 35mm film SLR, which has always been about as wide as I need. Excellent rectilinear correction, very low chromatic aberration, best aperture between f/4.5 and f/5.6. Page of example shots at http://homepage.mac.com/godders/14mm-examples/. Frankly, I feel that the right choice for me just isn't made. If it were, it would be called: SMC Pentax-DA 16mm f/2.8. Could such a contraption be on the horizon? You already have the DA16-45/4, which is only one stop slower and very nearly prime quality. Nothing like a DA16/2.8 is on Pentax lens roadmap for 2006-2007. Now on to the other gap I'm feeling: the moderate telephoto. I've got the 50mm lens, which is a good lens for not-so-tight portraits. And I've got the 135mm lens, which gets me in there really tight. But I'm always wishing for something between those two. Here are the options that I see: SMC Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.9 Limited Pros: Image quality, build quality, convenient focal length. Cons: What amateur can honestly justify its price tag? IMO, that's the only one to go for in this range unless you really want a macro lens. Small, light, excellent imaging quality, etc. Right now I jump from 50 to 135 as well, sold my M85/2 as I found I really prefer having all AF series lenses, and have been debating getting the FA77/1.8 limited too. It's not *that* expensive given the quality. But it's also a focal length I find I don't use all that often. I might wait for the DA70/2.4 Limited. Godfrey
Wide Angle advice for *ist-DS
I currently have the following assortment of lenses: Zooms: SMC Pentax-DA 16-45 f/4 ED AL SMC Pentax-FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 IF AL SMC Pentax-FA 80-320 f/4.5-5.6 Single focal length: SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8 AL SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4 SMC Pentax-FA 135mm f/2.8 IF I find that my zooms get a workout when I'm on full-fledged vacations, with family, where I don't really have time to fiddle much, and where I probably won't have a second opportunity to visit in the near future. In other words, places where I want to grab a bunch of quick shots. I find that my non-zoom lenses are in use most of the rest of the time; around town, mini-trips to destinations where I'm already somewhat familiar with the surroundings, holidays, family photos, and so on. In other words, places where I have more time to pay attention to the art of photography. I feel fairly well covered with respect to zooms. My only regret is that the 80-320 is such a slow lens, and fairly bulky. On the *ist-DS, I would probably be better served by the 50-200, at least for a reduction in size. But where I'm always feeling a need is in my non-zoom lenses. First, I don't have anything that I would consider to be in the range of wide angle, mounted on the *ist-DS. I've considered the following options, but have been hesitant to jump in with wallet and both feet: SMC Pentax-FA 20mm f/2.8 AL Pros: Compact. Wide-ish angle. Not prohibitively expensive. Cons: Used on a DSLR, it's not really all *that* wide. SMC Pentax-DA 14mm f/2.8 AL Pros: Ultra-wide angle. Cons: Priced a little beyond my comfort level for a wide angle lens. A little wider than I feel my only wide angle lens should be. Frankly, I feel that the right choice for me just isn't made. If it were, it would be called: SMC Pentax-DA 16mm f/2.8. Could such a contraption be on the horizon? Now on to the other gap I'm feeling: the moderate telephoto. I've got the 50mm lens, which is a good lens for not-so-tight portraits. And I've got the 135mm lens, which gets me in there really tight. But I'm always wishing for something between those two. Here are the options that I see: SMC Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.9 Limited Pros: Image quality, build quality, convenient focal length. Cons: What amateur can honestly justify its price tag? SMC Pentax-FA* 85mm f/1.4 Pros: It's an FA*! It's super fast. Cons: Big, expensive, reportedly not ideally suited to digital. SMC Pentax-FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro Pros: Excellent reputation for image quality. Macro is a bonus. Cons: Tending toward being a little longer than I need; I already have a 135, after all. And it's a little heavy. Not all that fast, compared to the 77 and 85. SMC Pentax-DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro Pros: Reported to have excellent image quality. Macro also a bonus. Cons: A little spendy. Not real fast. And still, a little longer than I think I want, when I already have a 135. I feel like I already kind of know Pentax's lineup well enough to know that there's no good answer to my needs, but what say you? I'm interested in any suggestions or comments. Dave
Vegas, Pentax sighting
While on a quick getaway to Las Vegas I was snapping a few shots of the garden in Bellagio, when another photo-hobbiest like myself there noticed that we had the same camera (the *ist-DS). He pointed it out to me, but before I got a chance to say much more than Wow, same camera, we had already each gone our separate ways. I wonder if it might have been a list member. It appeared to be an *ist-DS with maybe an FA28-80 Silver mounted on it, or something along those lines. I don't think it was the 28-105 f/3.2-4.5; I own that lens and would have recognized it in an instant. I myself was enjoying my 135mm f/2.8 at the time. The date in question was 3/30/06, around 2:00pm.
Re: Enablement
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: If you remember my post from about two weeks ago I was asking some questions about FA* 200/4 macro. Unfortunately it happened that it wasn't FA* but rather A* version that Polish Pentax dealer had for sale. I decided not to buy it. But after my complains about dealer's mistake and that this old manual focus lens is not worth money they asked for FA* version, they lowered price to the point that I decided to buy it. And I must say that it wasn't bad decision at all, especially that A* 200/4 macro after removing tripod mount is not that much bigger and heavier than FA 100/2.8 macro :-) First results, even at open aperture are just stunning! Do you use it on a digital body? Do you find it difficult or easy to hand hold it steady?
Re: OT: Advice on Anaheim and San Diego, California
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I don't know San Diego very well, but one thing in the area that I'd visit is the Coronado Hotel. Very interesting place, gorgeous old wooden structure, lots of photo opportunities. Godfrey In San Diego, there's the Griffith Park area, home to many museums, beautiful gardens, and the world famous San Diego Zoo. Also near Downtown San Diego you'll find the historic Gas Lamp District; now mostly restaurants and clubs, but in a setting of really interesting 1920's architecture. North of San Diego about 10 minutes you'll find La Jolla Beach and village. That's a beautiful beach, with lots of shops, and a great place to observe sea lions basking in the sun. A little east of La Jolla is a peak (I can't remember the name, but ask a local) where you can look out over the entire surrounding valley, including San Diego. Definitely stop by Coronado Island (you can drive to it) and visit the old Hotel Del Coronado. And if you get bored with modern amenities, you can also hop across the border to Tijuana. It takes about 20 minutes to get to TJ from SD. You might consider parking on the US side, walking across the bridge, and catching a cab into downtown TJ rather than messing around with driving in Mexico and trying to find parking that's safe. In Anaheim you've got the usual: Disneyland, Knotsberry Farm, Anaheim Angles... but you're also not far from the really fun Laguna Beach community. That's probably worth the drive. Also, check out South Coast Plaza for one of the most upscale and largest shopping malls on the west coast. North from Anaheim about 40 minutes is Hollywood.
Re: New SD Card Arrived - Joy Disappointment
Mat Maessen wrote: The thing to remember is that, just like the camera, the card reader has a maximum speed that it will read/write to the card. So you're right, a better card reader will read and write faster than an older/crappier one. I just ordered a small SD card reader/jump drive for $6. We'll see how fast it is. Now I just need to get some faster 1GB cards and a DSLR... -Mat On 3/21/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The card works fine, but I was disappointed with the read/write speed on the computer. Investigating the situation, I discovered that different card readers, in addition to the different USB ports on my computer, can provide wide variance in read/write speeds. Further, TD Tune and HD Tach each provide different results. So, while the card isn't as fast as I'd like when used on the computer, it's a marked improvement over the slower 512mb cards I'd been using. Still, I'd like to find a way to speed things up on the machine end. I you have a notebook, a PCMCIA/CardBus to SD reader is often one of the faster readers out there. Or a USB2.0 compliant reader (older USB1.1 is an order of magnitude slower).
Re: istDS Questions
Shel Belinkoff wrote: As it's been a while since I've used the istDS, and the firmware on my current camera has been upgraded to v2.0, there are a few questions about settings that I may have. The first is Grids. This is something that wasn't available with the earlier firmware. I ticked the box for Grids when setting up the menus, but have yet to see grids of any sort appear anywhere. What exactly is grids and how are they activated, used, or seen? Does v2.0 of the firmware allow for a faster write speed, one that is comparable to the DS2? More questions later. As Godfrey mentioned, the guides are what display on the color LCD screen when you first turn the camera on (telling you what shooting mode you're in), and for a few moments when you first change shooting modes. I turned that feature off because I can see on the top of the camera what mode I'm in, without consuming battery power to display a pretty graphic. But the guides are useful if you're shooting at night, where the dial on top of the camera may be difficult to read. That's not so much of an issue for me, at least not as much as the issue of running the batteries down. I figure any time I can keep the LCD off, I'm conserving power.
Re: FA* 200/4 macro opinions
Powell Hargrave wrote: Yes, you're right :-) But they are often quite different beasts - compare for instance 100/3.5 and 200/4 ;-) But the 100/3.5 is not a real Pentax lens. Even for a rebadged lens, disguised as a Pentax, it was a pretty good lens for the money. I owned one for about two years, and honestly I'm sorry I sold it. Yes, it was only a 1:2 macro, and only f/3.5, but nevertheless, it was pretty sharp, offered nice bokeh, and was a pleasure to use. When I had it, I used it regularly, and almost always with nice results. Then I bought an FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5, and somehow couldn't quite justify keeping them both. But it's one of the only lenses that I've missed after having sold it. I guess I'll have to look at getting a real D-FA 100mm macro.
Happy with a recent lens choice
For ages I resisted getting an FA28mm lens. I told myself that I would rather have the 35mm f/2 for use with my *ist-DS. But I kept missing getting that 35mm lens every time they came in stock at BH, and kept getting outbid on eBay auctions. Add to that the fact that I already had a DA16-45, I was just having a hard time settling on the FA28. I never doubted that it would be a good lens, but just wasn't sure it would get enough use. But then one day in a moment of diminished resistances, I bought one. This was about three months ago. Since then, it has become my most-used lens, with the 16-45 and 50mm f/1.4 falling to a tied second place. It's just such a convenient focal length on a Pentax DSLR; a natural normal lens, I guess you could call it. Its small size, versatile field of view, adequate maximum aperture, and outstanding sharpness are all features that have combined to gang up on my other lenses, pushing them out of the lead. I just thought I ought to mention how pleased I am with this often-ignored lens. It's not as fast as the FA35/2 and FA50/1.4. It's not as wide as the FA*24/2 and FA20/2.8. It's not as versatile as the DA16-45/4. But it is a little bit of all of the above, in just the right amount to make it a compelling choice for digital shooters. Your mileage may vary. ;) Dave
Re: The Sacrifices
Collin R Brendemuehl wrote: 1. Which lens are you willing to get beat in a harsh environment when you don't want to take the nice lenses out to play. Whichever lens is on the camera when I find myself immersed in the adverse conditions. ...that is to say, I'm much more concerned about the outcome of *changing* a lens under adverse conditions than *using* the lens. 2. Which lens will you only bring out in the nicest conditions? (and as a result this lens, though perhaps now having some age to it, still looks like new) None of my lenses are reserved or only perfect conditions. However, I also avoid bringing the equipment out at all if conditions are ugly enough. I'll probably never document a hurricane on a beach; the equipment would simply stay in the bag that day. ;)
Re: DA 16-45 lens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I love the DA 16-45. It's as sharp as a decent prime and has a high quality feel. It's among my most used lenses. I have no experience with either of the other two lenses you mention. Paul -- Original message -- From: dick graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] How good is the DA 16-45 lens? Is it worth the extra $ purchasing this over the 18-55 or would the FA 24-90 be a better choice? You can count me as another vote for the 16-45. I've owned mine for about 10 months now. I cannot say it's my most used lens... that description changes based on what type of photography I'm doing. It's by far my most used zoom though. On vacation, the 16-45 is practically the only lens I use -- a streak only occasionally interrupted by a few shots with the 28-105 f/3.2-4.5. My 80-320 usually stays home. It also happens that the 16-45 my only true wide-angle lens as well; a task for which it is well suited. You know how with some lenses you take a shot and think, I wish I had taken that with a better lens.? Well, I never feel that way with the 16-45. I never wish I had taken the shot with a prime, for example. I guess I can sum it up by saying that it's a lens I can feel confident about, knowing it's giving me great quality images, nothing less. Now when I'm just walking around taking pictures; kind of focusing more on photography as an art, I find that I prefer shooting with a prime. But that's not because my primes capture better images. No, it's because I feel that picking a single focal length and sticking with it all day (as much as possible) encourages me to pay more attention to composition, and I tend to get more interesting pictures when I stick with a single focal length for awhile. Personal preference, I suppose. As for the other lenses you mentioned, the FA24-90 is also a great lens. If you don't have another wider-angle lens, may not be as wide as you find yourself wanting. I would consider it a good companion to the 12-24 lens, or the 14mm prime. But in a kit like mine where I don't have another true wide, the 16-45 makes more sense. The 18-55 is ok for what it's supposed to be; an inexpensive introductory lens. Many people will buy an *ist-DS with the kit lens, and never acquire anything else. That's fine. It's better than the lenses found on point and shoot cameras, that's for sure. But if you're into this hobby, you'll outgrow it fast. Dave
Re: Which lens do you use most?
Powell Hargrave wrote: DA 18-55 Kit lens travels with me on the DS. It is compact, light and does many jobs quite well. Mine is certainly sharp enough and the slight distortion and CA can easily be fixed with PTLens if needed. It depends on the day. On tourist type days, I'll take the 16-45 f/4 with me. But on photography days, I'll mount my new 28mm f/2.8 and just leave it on all day. ...or my 50, or my 135... I like to select one lens and go with it all day. You won't get tourist type shots if the only lens you're carrying is a 135, but you'll definitely get some interesting shots. The same goes for just about any single-focal-length lens; pick one and go with it, and see what you can do with it. I'm not sure if I'm making sense. To me a tourist day is a day where I want to photograph all sorts of different things to record a memory of an event, trip, etc. And a photography day is a day when I set out with the camera either with the primary objective of taking pictures, or with some other primary purpose, but knowing I'll have some free time here and there to stop and smell the roses. So on touristy days, I want a lens that will do it all. But on photography days, I want to enjoy the purity of a nice prime. Dave
Re: Quality of Domke Bags/Satchels
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Juan ... I've been tod that it's OK to just drop it in the machine. However, I saw a black one that had been laundered and it looked pretty bad, frayed edges, really washed out color (as opposed to natural fading). I've never washed mine, and I'm not sure that I will unless something awful happens to it. I used to have a Tamrac convertible (fanny pack) camera bag that suffered a shoulder strap buckle failure as I was washing my hands in an airplane's restroom. The result of the buckle failure was that the darn thing fell into the toilet. That qualified as something awful happened to it. ...but I couldn't bring myself to use it again after that. With a broken buckle, frayed seam, and koodies from the toilet, I decided that bag had given all it needed to give, and I retired it to the trash bin at earliest opportunity.
Re: Continuous vs. Single focus
QSF = Quick-Shift Focus. You find that feature on the SMC Pentax-DA 16-45 f/4 ED AL, the SMC Pentax-DA 18-55, and I think on any of the other DA and DFA lenses too. The feature allows you to switch instantly and automatically from AF to MF mode simply by turning the focus ring on the lens while AF is locked. Some find it convenient. Others (myself included) don't mind flicking the AF/MF switch. I am not comfortable holding shutter release halfway down while also adjusting the focus. I guess I just haven't developed the habit, so I prefer switching explicitly into MF mode. Gautam Sarup wrote: Hi Alex, What are QSF lenses? Thanks, Gautam On 12/31/05, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's with QSF lenses. FFAs can't (or shouldn't) be manually focused if the camera switch is on the AF position. And that's exactly the reason I don't have the FA 35mm f/2: I'm waiting for the wide Limited (with QSF, of course).
Re: DVDs
J wrote: On the subject of DVDs, + or - R, once you close the disc it does not matter. I have used both types so far. The only thing is if your burner only supports + you will have to buy + to be able to burn them and the same is true for -.But now if your burner supports either it does not matter, as once the disc is closed you will be able to use it in any DVD reader..Jay in PA That's not necessarily true. If your DVD player was made before about 1999 or 2000, it probably doesn't understand the +R format. My Sony DVD player, which was a really nice player in 1998, doesn't play +R disks. This next tidbit I cannot either confirm or deny: According to one website the +R disks allow for random access of file retrieval, whereas -R allow only for sequential access from the start of a given track. I don't know if that's true or not.
Re: Skiing with cameras...
Bob W wrote: Thanks Jostein. The glove factor of the Contax RX is generally ok in my experience, but I have never used any gloves as bulky as ski gloves. Of course, I will be wearing liners, and should be able to take the bulky gloves off and use the camera with just the liners, as I've done before in sub-zero temperatures. Yes, that ought to work out fine. I am able to use my thin wind-stop fleece gloves with the camera. They're considered liners, and I have to pull off my goretex outter mitts to be able to manipulate the *ist-DS. One additional glove factor is that ski gloves have some sort of armour over the finger tips. I don't know why, though. Anybody? Because if you ski a lot, you wear through your fingers and palms too quickly unless they're reinforced. I may take my Leica Ms rather than the RXs because they don't need batteries. Although I think lithium batteries are ok at low temperatures. Surprisingly I found that my NiMH batteries weren't a problem while skiing with my *ist-DS. It was a warmish day though, and in fact I was even able to ski without gloves for awhile. Perhaps warmth from my hands on the grip kept the batteries warm enough. Dave
Re: Skiing with cameras...
Bob W wrote: ...wise or foolish? Discuss. I'm going skiing for the first time at the end of February. I expect the Alps to be alive with the sound of the James Bond theme within about 5 minutes of me strapping the planks to my feet. Anyway, I will take a couple of film cameras. I assume that it is unwise to ski with a camera round my neck, but presumably I could carry one in a small backpack, next to the parachute. I imagine also that it will be quite difficult to take pictures with ski gloves on. Does anybody have any experiences, hints and tips about Alpine-style photography that they'd like to share, please? I have to be perfectly honest here. If this is your first time skiing, you'll have enough on your mind learning how to wrestle with the skis and get down the mountain in one piece without also having to deal with a camera. One of the first things they teach you when you take ski lessons is how to fall, and how to get up on your feet again. Your first day you will spend a lot of time on your butt, and some time flat on your back, on your stomach, on your knees, on your side, rolling head over heels, and so on. I don't mean to discourage you from going. I love skiing. But the camera is going to prolong and augment your skiing learning curve, while adding frustration and unnecessary risk to your equipment. Get a few shots near the base of the ski lift. Get a few in the lodge. Then leave it in the car. On the other hand, if you're a good skier, don't hesitate to take it with you. A few weeks ago I took my wife skiing for her first time. I've been doing it for 23 years (since I was about 13 years old). In college, I would go once or twice a week after class. I decided it would be fun on our recent excursion to bring along my *ist-DS. I carried it in a hip-bag (a Tamrac convertible). It worked out fine. But this was because I knew we would be spending our time on the beginner runs, and that *she* would be doing all the falling, not me. At one point I was skiing along with both her poles and my poles in my left hand, and my *ist-DS in my right hand, snapping pictures as she worked on perfecting the snow plow technique. ;) If I had gone with my brother instead, who is a better skier than I, the camera would have stayed home because when I'm with him we tend to ski in terrain that's pushing the limits of my skill, and I am just about assured of taking one or two good spills throughout the course of the day. It's no biggie falling flat on your butt when all you're falling onto is your wallet. But if you're falling on a couple thousand dollars worth of camera equipment, that's an unhappy moment.
Re: Skiing with cameras...
Rick Womer wrote: Bob, I've done a fair amount of ski photography. snip For shooting races, I've most recently used my PZ-1p and 80-320 zoom. There is no way to ski with this gear, whether in a backpack, waist pack, or chest pack, without feeling off-balance. Falling is painful. I use my Lowepro Off-Road bag, which rides in front of me on the chair lift; once off the lift I heave it around to be a fanny pack. On my most recent ski excursion (my wife's first time skiing, but my 150th probably) I used a fanny bag (a Tamrac convertible). It worked out fine, but I knew we would be sticking to terrain where I wouldn't risk falling. I've used a small camera backpack a few times skiing too. That's a little safer for falling (usually you fall onto your butt, not your back). Either way, I haven't ever felt that the bag threw me out of balance. Most recently, I carried the *ist-DS, 16-45, 135, and a flash. But as I mentioned in an earlier email, I wouldn't recommend a beginner carry a camera. snip The third problem is exposure. Slides are tough. Spot-metering the trees in the background or some clear blue sky overhead, and locking the exposure, has worked well for me. I find the biggest problem to be exposing the shot correctly when the snow is eight stops brighter than the subject (that may be an exaggeration). It's difficult for me to avoid burning out the snow while still being able to see the expression on my wife's face as she whooshes by the camera out of control. ;) If you get the shot in close enough quarters you can use a fill flash, but even that's pretty hard to get right. Dave
Re: Skiing with cameras...
Paul Stenquist wrote: Not to put a damper on this, but I know a guy who went roller blading with a video camera. Now he has a steel plate in his head and slurs his words. It can be hard to do two things at once. Paul I once went bungee jumping with a video camera in hand. Of course that doesn't take any skill. Imagine if all those cell-phone drivers were snapping pictures with their camera phones as they speed down the highway. ;) Yikes!
Burned sky, underexposed subject
At http://users.adelphia.net/daoswald/ you can see a few shots I snapped today in Chinatown, Los Angeles. These were shot as RAW and coerced into jpegs after a little postprocessing. This was the first time I've taken exclusively RAW images. After initial RAW processing, I didn't re-touch them as jpegs, other than to size them down to web-friendly. Notice the overly-bright sky, and underexposed subjects. I could adjust the midtones with the Levels tool, but I left them as-is to demonstrate my point. The point here is that this seems to be an all too typical result with DSLR's, at least for me. I can pick and choose; either the subject is exposed properly (and the sky hopelessly burned out), or the sky is at least kept within gamut (though still a little bright) resulting in underexposed midtones. Aside from underexposing EVERYTHING, and then postprocessing to pull out shadow detail, is there anything I can do in-camera to improve my exposures? Please excuse the boring subjects; I was just snapping away to tinker with exposure, not really paying attention to finding the one great shot. Dave
Re: Burned sky, underexposed subject
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Getting a page not found ... Which camera are you using? Shel [Original Message] From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 12/29/2005 1:35:25 AM Subject: Burned sky, underexposed subject At http://users.adelphia.net/daoswald/ you can see a few shots I snapped today in Chinatown, Los Angeles. These were shot as RAW and coerced into jpegs after a little postprocessing. This was the first time I've taken exclusively RAW images. After initial RAW processing, I didn't re-touch them as jpegs, other than to size them down to web-friendly. Notice the overly-bright sky, and underexposed subjects. I could adjust the midtones with the Levels tool, but I left them as-is to demonstrate my point. The point here is that this seems to be an all too typical result with DSLR's, at least for me. I can pick and choose; either the subject is exposed properly (and the sky hopelessly burned out), or the sky is at least kept within gamut (though still a little bright) resulting in underexposed midtones. Aside from underexposing EVERYTHING, and then postprocessing to pull out shadow detail, is there anything I can do in-camera to improve my exposures? Please excuse the boring subjects; I was just snapping away to tinker with exposure, not really paying attention to finding the one great shot. Dave Woops, the correct URL is: http://users.adelphia.net/~daoswald/ *ist-DS
Re: Wide Angle and the Ds
John Graves wrote: I am enjoying (learning) what can be done with my Ds. But even though I own the FA20-35, I find myself missing something. My next lens up is the FA28-90, although I have taken some nice pictures with my screw mount 85 f/1.9 as well. I am looking both for a Wide angle as well as Longer lens for portraits. So, For those that have them, does the DA16-45 yield a wider enough view to supplant my 20-35. Certainly, it has a slightly longer image at the top end. Will I get fair results with the lens long and wide open?? I keep looking for the A 85 f1.9 but I think it is the Pentax equivalent to the Holy Grail. The 16-45 is a great lens. It is quite sharp wide open -- better than you would expect. It's actually designed to be used at fairly open apertures. Its field of view runs from 83 degrees (roughly the same FOV as a 24mm lens on a 35mm film SLR). That ain't bad, as they say. And at the long end its field of view is 35 degrees, which is about the same FOV as a 69mm lens mounted on a film SLR, which is approaching adequate for portraits. I find that when I have this lens mounted on my *ist-DS, I may go all day without feeling the need to switch to something else. For a dedicated portrait lens, it's really hard to beat a good old FA50 f/1.4 lens. Maybe you need something a little tighter, in which case you might be more interested in the 77, 85, or 135. I have found that when I carry a 50 and a 135 I don't really miss the in between. And for wide angle, well... you've become accustomed to that nice 20-35 on a film SLR, right? I feel for you. I was in the same boat; so hooked on the 20-35, and somewhat let down to discover that on the *ist-DS it wasn't a superwide anymore. Many people here use the 20-35 on an *ist-D/DS/DL/DS2 as their standard working zoom, filling a similar need as the 16-45 but in a more compact package. It's another great choice for that purpose, but as you've found, it isn't super-wide anymore. ...more like moderate wide to the high side of normal. This is where I've found the 16-45 to be a decent alternative. But as I mentioned earlier, it's wide but not superwide. If you are really hooked on super wide angle photography, save your pennies for the 12-24. It features an angle of view from 99 degrees to 61 degrees. That's a little wider than the 20-35 on film (the 20-35 mounted on a film camera gives you an AOV range from 94 degrees to 64 degrees). Or go the prime route with the 14mm f/2.8. ...if only it were smaller! My own camera bag is still a little lacking at the wide end: DA16-45 (my general purpose lens) FA28mm f/2.8 (my newest lens; fun for simple shooting) FA50mm f/1.4 (my wife's favorite lens, and a good choice for portraits) FA135mm f/2.8 (My telephoto. Another great lens) FA80-320 f/4.5-5.6 (Seldom used now)
Re: It arrived! (SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8 AL)
Fred wrote: The F and A versions seem to be the same, optically. The FA version is different and allegedly (from all users I've spoken with!) superior. Yes. I just took a look at Boz's site (thanks, Boz), and - sure enuf - the FA is a different critter. Hmmm... For one thing, the FA is an AL lens (ie, has an aspheric element), and the A and F are not. That in and of itself has to indicate a different optical formula, for better or worse. ;)
Re: Survey: How do you use the Histogram/Blinkies?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, are you taking full advantage of digital? 1. Do you feel you understand the histogram? Yes. I find it very helpful in determining the quality of my exposure. I wish, however, that there were a setting for mid-tones on DSLR's. I often find that an exposure lacking burned highlights and/or loss of shadow detail can lead to an exposure where the mid-tones are off (usually underexposed). It seems that the algorithm that interprets the data from the *ist-DS sensor is maybe a little too linear, when it should use a curve that boosts mid-tones a bit. ...just an opinion. Anyway, I find the histogram an important part of getting an exposure that can be workable. 2. Do you ever look at the histogram while you are shooting? When? Under what situations? I have my *ist-DS set to show the histogram after each shot. I glance at it after most shots, and tinker with EV settings and re-shoot if I'm dissatisfied with the histogram. 3. Do you ever look at the blinkies? When? Under what situations? Yes, I do. They enable me to decide whether the area of burned out highlights is in a significant cluster, or if it's scattered a little here and a little there. A cluster might really be noticeable. A little here and a little there might be annoying at worst, or unnoticeable at best. 4. Do you find one of them (histogram or blinkies) more useful than the other? Do you look at it more? Or do you tend to use both in concert? Definitely the histogram is more important to me. It tells me more at a glance; where the approximate mid-tone is going to fall, whether I've burned highlights or dropped shadow detail, and if my shot is too contrasty, or not constrasty enough. If you've got a peak at the left and the right, you might need a little fill flash, for example. Or maybe that's what you want/expect in a particular shot. If you have a big peak at the right, and then a little peak 3/4ths of the way to the left, you might have something in the frame that's throwing off the metering such as a bright sky. Those sorts of things all help.
It arrived! (SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8 AL)
I've resisted buying this lens for some time. My ability to fight off lens lust on the FA28 can be attributed to the following thoughts: * On 35mm Film: I prefer 24mm as a general purpose wide angle. * On digital: 28 isn't wide, but it's not quite standard either. What is it? * f/2.8 isn't fast for a nearly standard (for digital) prime. It should be f/2. But then opportunity conspired with funds and weak resistance, and the next thing I knew I bought one on eBay. It arrived yesterday, and I have to admit I'm really pleased with the new enablement. I've already put it through its paces. I find that on my *ist-DS, 28mm IS a useful focal length. The more I think about it, the more I realize that I always felt 50mm (on film) to be a little too 'tight' for a standard lens. The 28mm focal length on digital feels just a little less confined, and turns out to be quite a comfortable focal length to 'set and forget'. f/2.8 is fast enough under most conditions, especially on digital where ISO800 is usable. I once owned the 'F' version of this lens but didn't much care for it. That was back in my film days, and as I mentioned earlier, I didn't find the focal length all that useful to me, plus it didn't seem all that sharp. Now with the FA, in my limited use, I find the FA to be sharper and to offer smoother bokeh. I like that. For someone looking for a fairly inexpensive but good quality standard lens for their digital SLR, I think the FA28 should definitely be in the running. Yes, the FA35 is faster, and offers a field of view (on digital) closer to what people consider 'standard'. But the 28 offers a little broader field of view which can be quite nice too. And it's often available at just over half the cost of the 35 f/2.
Re: It arrived! (SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8 AL)
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Dec 24, 2005, at 9:30 AM, David Oswald wrote: ... * On digital: 28 isn't wide, but it's not quite standard either. What is it? ... It's a wide normal or 'perfect normal' (my own term: I define a 'perfect normal' as a lens with focal length at infinity that matches the diagonal of the format ... the diagonal of the DS format is 28.8mm). It is almost identical in field of view to my favorite 40mm lens on 24x36 format film. I've had the FA28/2.8 AL on my buy list for months. I just might push the button. As much as I'd *like* the FA77, I'd *use* a 28mm lens a lot more of the time, and it's 1/3 the price. (It's closer to 2/3 the price of the 35/2, though: about $230 vs $299 from BH). Godfrey I paid about 175 including shipping via ebay, including a polarizing filter.
Re: Next Possible Pentax DSLR Introduction
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: PMA in February, I think. PMA and Photokina are the two primary new product announcement poles of the year. PMA= PMA 2006 - Photo Marketing Association International Convention Trade Show Feb 26, 2006 - Mar 01, 2006 Orange County Convention Center Godfrey PMA isn't in Vegas this year? When did that happen? I used to have to go every year as a buyer, but haven't been in that loop since about 2000. Did it move just this year? If it's in OC, maybe I'll attend. That should only be an hour's drive.
Re: It arrived! (SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8 AL)
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Dec 24, 2005, at 10:32 AM, David Oswald wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Dec 24, 2005, at 9:30 AM, David Oswald wrote: ... * On digital: 28 isn't wide, but it's not quite standard either. What is it? ... It's a wide normal or 'perfect normal' (my own term: I define a 'perfect normal' as a lens with focal length at infinity that matches the diagonal of the format ... the diagonal of the DS format is 28.8mm). It is almost identical in field of view to my favorite 40mm lens on 24x36 format film. I've had the FA28/2.8 AL on my buy list for months. I just might push the button. As much as I'd *like* the FA77, I'd *use* a 28mm lens a lot more of the time, and it's 1/3 the price. (It's closer to 2/3 the price of the 35/2, though: about $230 vs $299 from BH). Godfrey I paid about 175 including shipping via ebay, including a polarizing filter. I presume that means you bought a used/second hand example? I was speaking of new pricing. Godfrey Yes, it's in like new condition (really). ...but no box, no FA manual, and the front lens cap looks like it came off an 'A' lens. But it did come with the hoya polarizing filter, which was a nice addition to my kit; I've been meaning to pick one up. Unless I HAVE to have it now, I usually buy lenses 2nd hand. Your description of perfect normal seems very accurate. I'm heading up the coast today. Maybe I'll take only one lens and see how it goes.
Re: 3 quick lens tests_Surprise.
Don Sanderson wrote: Here are three of my best lenses pitted against each other. FA28-70, DA50-200 and FA24-90. The 24-90 is from a wonderful list member who got it replaced after a brief dunk in water. 6 hours later I had it cleaned and on the D and _I Love It!_ Dear wonderful list member, (you know who you are) *** Thanks! *** All at ~70mm, wide open (4, 4.5, 4.5) at a bit over 1 meter from the USAF test target. 100%, cropped and white point set. Saved for web so give each one a few lpmm handicap. ;-) Repeated several times to be sure the results were correct. A bit of a surprise to me. http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/Compare.htm Don Very interesting. Now we need to see a head to head of the following: FA* 28-70 f/2.8 FA 24-90 FA 28-105 f/3.2-4.5
Re: Lens Hoods
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I'm with Paul and Shel. I *always* use a lens hood. The only exception is when it interferes with something (like the built in flash, possibly ... if I ever used it, that is). I agree that always using a hood is a good practice. However, I find it difficult to live by that mantra. They take up so much space in camera bags. That's probably the biggest problem for me when I'm using the camera on the go. And they make it hard to remove the lens cap unless you've got scrawny little children-size fingers. Part of the problem with the lens cap is Pentax's design. I like the pinch to remove idea, but the pinchers should be on the front of the cap (like Tamron caps) instead at the perimeter of the cap (Pentax FA cap style). It's awkward, and I've gotten finger prints on lenses many times trying to fumble with the cap while using a hood. ...so much for a hood protecting the lens. I guess I need to look for a whole set of lens caps that work well with hoods.
Re: WTB: Pentax D/DS/DS2/DL USB Cable
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:22 AM, Fred wrote: Just curious why you'd not want to use a card reader. Might you be using the cable for some other feature of the camera other than just uploading and downloading images from the SD card? Naw, nothing as sophisticated as that, Shel - g. No, I'm just an old dog fighting the learning of new tricks - it just seems easy enuf to keep using the USB cable to connect my DS with any of my PC's, without having to carry around another appliance (g - a card reader). You can get a USB 2.0 SD card reader that looks like a USB2 flash drive, is 1/10 the size of the cable, and can fit on your keyring for about $20 or so. It's less to carry and easier to use than plugging in the camera with the USB cable. Also faster... possibly more compatible too! Godfrey Or take this opportunity to enable yourself with a new notebook computer, and make sure it's one that has an SD card reader built in. You really WANT the new notebook. Ignore the fact that you can buy a USB reader for $20, and take that plunge into a new notebook WITH card reader built-in. ;)
New enablement: SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8
When it arrives in a few days I will have added an SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8AL lens to my kit, which already includes: SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL SMC Pentax-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 IF AL SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4 SMC Pentax-FA 135mm f/2.8 IF Pentax AF330FTZ Flash Pentax *ist-DS Here's the auction where I obtained it: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=7572869410 I owned a 28mm 'F' series lens a few years ago and sold it because I just wasn't using it all that much at the time, but that was when I was shooting film, and had a 20-35 to cover the wide end. I've still got the 28mm range covered with my 16-45, but the compactness and additional f/stop will come in handy. Until I can get my hands on a 35mm f/2, this will serve as my 'normal' lens on the *ist-DS. Dave
Re: New enablement: SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8
Don Sanderson wrote: Oh Phooey! I gritted my teeth a few days ago and passed on a Buy it Now for $125.00 on one. Lasted a whole 2 hours. After reading the mixed reviews I couldn't justify another 28. (I have 7!). Shoulda grabbed it huh? Don (Which is spelled a lot like Doh!) -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 5:54 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: New enablement: SMC Pentax-FA 28mm f/2.8 I think you'll really love the FA28/2.8, which has long been my pick for Pentax's most underrated lens. Thanks, I think I'll like it too. My 50mm f/1.4 gets a LOT of use, primarily for its size and low light performance. The 28 gives me the same size, and pretty good low light performance (f/2.8), though I wish they made an f/2. I still want the 35 f/2, but this will do for now. I forgot to mention one other lens component to my kit; the SMC Pentax-FA 80-320 f/4.5-5.6. I don't use it that much nowadays though; 135mm f/2.8 is long enough usually, on an *ist-DS.
Re: Curious about zoom lens length.
Don Sanderson wrote: Maybe someone can enlighten me. Some zoom lenses are physically longest at their longest focal length, such as the FA24-90. Others, like the FA28-70/4 AL are physically shortest at their longest FL. Does anyone know why this is, and what advantage or disadvantage each design has? I get along much better with short physical length lenses simply because a bit of movement at the camera isn't amplified so much at the end of the lens. Just curious. Don I used to own a 28-70 f/4, and it was not shortest at its longest focal length. It was shortest at approximately 45-50mm. At 28mm it was at its longest. And at 70mm, it was *almost* as long as at 28mm. I don't understand the math behind this sort of telephoto lens, but I know on the 28-70, the rear element moves as you zoom too. Clearly this is an important part of the optical formula. And truthfully the front element of the lens doesn't really move *that* much as you go from 28 to 50 to 70... 1/2 of an inch at the most. The SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm f/4 AL is another oddity. It is truly at its longest at 16mm. At 45mm, it's at its shortest. And the difference is probably greater than 1.5 inches (maybe 2 even, I don't have it handy to measure right now). I've heard that referred to as a reverse zoom. Whatever it is, it takes a little getting used to. Dave
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Pål Jensen wrote: I'm not using digital. I've just ordered an Nikon 9000ED scanner and plan to stick with film for a few more years. Besides, Pentax digital offerings are quite underwhelming in my opinion, and doesn't trigger a hint of gearlust in me at least... What would it take for Pentax's offerings to be whelming in your opinion?
Re: Lenses
Sunny Chung wrote: Hi I just recently bought a ist* DL and have been using it for a couple months... Although now I wish I had the DS2, but it wasn't out then. Anyway, I'm interested in buying a fast 50mm fixed lens, but I'm not sure which ones are compatible. I don't know what all the letters in front of the lens names mean and which ones will work with mine. I read something about apature rings being set to 'A' but could not fully comprehend it. Also I was wondering if other brands like sigma or even canon lenses were compatible with my ist* DL. Any information would help me a great deal, thanks. I hope this is the way this digest works, because I just signed up and have no clue how things run around here. -Sunny An SMC Pentax-FA is the newest class of Pentax 50mm lenses. They are completely compatible with DSLR's and 35mm SLR's. An SMC Pentax-F is the previous class of Pentax 50mm lenses. They too are completely compatible, and essentially identical in operation. They don't transmit MTF table data to the body, if you care (who does?) An SMC Pentax-A lens doesn't support autofocus. You can manually focus. Aside from that, compatibility is good. An SMC Pentax-M lens doesn't support AF nor does it have an auto-diaphragm. In other words, it doesn't support auto aperture. Mounted on one of Pentax's DSLR's, you have to jump through an extra hoop to get it to meter for you. Many people here don't see this as a big deal. YMMV. Previous to that, Pentax had SMC Pentax and Pentax K lenses. They'll work about the same as a Pentax-M lens. Be sure to not accidentally get your hands on a screwmount lens. They'll work, but require an adapter that can sometimes be a finicky device. If you want pretty much full functionality, get an SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.7. The SMC Pentax-F 50mm f/1.4 or 1.7 is essentially an equally acceptable alternative. Dave
Re: Lenses
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Dec 13, 2005, at 10:45 AM, David Oswald wrote: ... An SMC Pentax-M lens doesn't support AF nor does it have an auto-diaphragm. In other words, it doesn't support auto aperture. Mounted on one of Pentax's DSLR's, you have to jump through an extra hoop to get it to meter for you. Many people here don't see this as a big deal. YMMV. Previous to that, Pentax had SMC Pentax and Pentax K lenses. They'll work about the same as a Pentax-M lens. ... David, All Pentax K-mount lenses (including M series) have an automatic diaphragm mechanism. What the pre-A series lenses are missing is the A position on the aperture ring and the electronic contacts needed to communicate with the *ist DL for fully automatic exposure. With these lenses you use the aperture ring on the lens to set the desired lens opening, set the body into Manual exposure mode, and press the AE-Lock button (Green button on the D model) to meter a scene. If you want pretty much full functionality, get an SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.7. The SMC Pentax-F 50mm f/1.4 or 1.7 is essentially an equally acceptable alternative. I agree with that. And, if you are happy enough with Manual focus, an A series 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 works very well too. But I would strongly recommend the Pentax FA50/1.4 anyway ... I find this to be a superb lens for both manual and auto focus operation, with top notch image quality, resolution and contrast. Godfrey Thanks for the clarification, Godfrey. You are right. I was blurring the distinction between auto aperture, and auto diaphragm, and there certanly is a difference. I too have the SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, and love the lens. My wife calls it her lens. Not sure why, except that whenever I grab the camera after she has used it I find the 50mm mounted on it. :) Strictly speaking, I've had the lens at least twice as long as I've had her. lol While on the topic of lenses, I have a love hate relationship with my 16-45. I love it because it's so good that I don't get that feeling of I wish I had taken that shot with a prime. I hate it because it is so good that I can't seem to justify buying standard and wide primes within its zoom range. It is the only thing standing between me and a 35mm f/2, a 20mm f/2.8, or a 14mm f/2.8.
Re: istDS v istDS2
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Paul ... Have you noticed any differences between the DS and the DS2 in terms of speed or function? Is the larger screen on the back a substantial improvement? Shel One question I would have regarding the difference between the two is whether the larger screen has an impact on battery life, or if any negative impact created by the larger screen has been offset by newer-generation electronic components in the DS2.
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have several digital bodies, but still use film. Over weekend I did some portraits of dancers at a ballet school, all film. I have not gone digital, it is just another tool for use where appropriate. Exactly. Same here. Digital has its advantages, mainly through convenience. But half of my work (industrial night scenes) is almost impossible with 35 mm, let alone digital. Ralf, I'm curious about your industrial night scenes. What about them makes them nearly impossible with digital? This is an honest question. I've found digital's low-light capability to be better than the film I've used. Though I've found metering to be more difficult (especially flash metering). On the other hand, white balancing is easier with digital; no need for tungsten filters, for example. Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Dave
Re: Now that's a lens!!
Bob Shell wrote: Offered for your amusement without comment: http://cgi.ebay.com/This-480mm-Ronar-is-Opening-up-a-Can-of-Whoopass-0_W0QQitemZ7569629447 f/9 to f/260 huh? According to the sunny-16 rule (if my calculations are anywhere near accurate), that means at ISO-100, f/260, you would need to use a shutter speed of two seconds. At ISO-400 you might get away with 1/2 second. ...at 3200, 1/16th. ...all in bright sunlight. Of course your depth of field would probably be from two feet behind the camera, extending all the way to the moon. ;) (that calculation is in jest, of course)
Re: 360 dpi
Bob Shell wrote: On Dec 4, 2005, at 6:00 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Any of the image quality advocates up for doing a comparison test? I've already done it. Same image at 200, 300, and 360 ppi. Showed the prints to some photographer friends. None could see any difference. I standardized on 300, because I had to pick something and it worked well for my other requirements. As for printing speed comparisons, Epson printers are all so effing slow that I start the printing and go off somewhere and do something else for a few hours, so it doesn't matter to me. Bob If people can't tell the difference between a print at 200, 300, or 360ppi, that says something about the printer, doesn't it? It sounds like the printer in question has failed to produce discernibly better results at resolutions over 200ppi. But I'm certain that there are affordable printers out there that will produce better results if fed documents at greater than 200ppi.
Re: Who makes what? (was: Thanks! firmware update for -DS)
Toralf Lund wrote: Dario Bonazza wrote: Most Pentax lenses are made by the Pentax plant in Vietnam (aka Nguyen :-) My MZ-5n has a label saying Assembled in Philippines. Do Pentax still produce equipment there? Dario - Original Message - From: Ralf R. Radermacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 7:47 PM Subject: Re: Who makes what? (was: Thanks! firmware update for -DS) Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been told that Pentax flash units are made by Sunpak. The DA 18-55 mm is labelled Assembled in Vietnam. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses Yes, they do have a factory there, in the Philippines. I don't know what city it's in though. My wife knows of it; I'll have to ask her when she gets home from work (she was born in the Philippines). I was in the Philippines recently. While in Manila I visited a large camera and electronics super-mall. I found some Pentax product there, including the *ist-DS and a few lenses. I was hoping to find that there would be some good pricing, but wasn't so lucky; everything seemed to translate to roughly equal value in US Dollars as compared to simply buying in the USA. I found approximately the same to be true in Hong Kong. It seems that Pentax doesn't really dump product in one market while gouging another market; the pricing is fairly uniform, at least from what I saw in HK and the Philippines. Maybe others who travel more frequently than I know differently, and if they do, I'm sure I'll here it here first. *grin* Dave
Thanks! (firmware update for -DS)
I don't know if anyone FROM Pentax reads this list, but if so, I wanted to publicly say thanks for the firmware update for the *ist-DS. I installed Version 2.0 tonight. It was just as easy as the previous upgrade, but with seemingly much more benefit. The greyed-out Fn menu options is a helpful addition indeed. No more wondering why auto-flash doesn't work in 'P' mode (hint, in v2.0 that option is grayed out to reflect the fact that it's not really an option). The AF-C and AF-S mode selection is probably the most important and meaningful addition. This actually adds real-shooting functionality that was essentially missing (or severely crippled) in the earlier firmware versions. And putting Auto-ISO on the Fn menu is where it belongs. The changes to the custom menu are helpful as well. The new artwork for the various pic modes is fluff, but why not I guess. ;) Anyway, thanks for continuing to support us -DS users.
Re: Digital file numbering?
keith_w wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/1/2005 9:16:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Google offers Picasa at www.picasa.com. This is free software and is a good inexpensive way to see what this type of software can do to help you out. === I just downloaded that one (before you mentioned it :-)) and am checking it out. Looks interesting. Marnie aka Doe Look before you download! This product is available for Windows and IE only... Windows and IE? Who uses IE nowadays? Yes, IE is sort of built into Windows. But my default browser has been Firefox for at least a year now, and Picasa integrates well. Picasa is a useful package. It's interesting how it lets you do minor touch ups in a way that doesn't alter the original, yet doesn't seem to result in a copy either. It must maintain a list of alterations to apply to each image, and applies them on the fly upon viewing an image. It is mostly useful as a thumbnail and slideshow program, though I also use it for organizing and burning gift slideshow CD's in smaller-than-original image dimension formats. It's good for emailing images too, as it will automatically reduce to some predetermined size as it sends the images, again without altering the originals. Pretty convenient. When you use it to burn slideshow CD's, it puts a copy of its slideshow viewer on the CD too (if desired). The slideshow CD's aren't good for archiving images, but they're great for what they're meant to be; a slideshow on a disk.
Re: Agfa - a sad day indeed
Glen wrote: At 02:15 PM 11/26/2005, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Today, the lights have been switched on for good at Agfa's film coating plant in Leverkusen, Germany. In five weeks from now, Agfa will be no more. Ralf Is Agfa totally going out of business, or are they just getting out of film? Oh, I just noticed something in your post. Shouldn't that have read: Today, the lights have been switched OFF for good...? If they had been switched ON for good, that would be a good thing. Manufacturing film continuously, 24-7, would be reason for many folks to celebrate. ;) take care, Glen I think it's intentionally stated that way. What good would film be if it were exposed to light throughout the production process?
Re: SMCP FA J 18-35mm opinions
FA-J lenses lack the aperture ring found on M, A, F and FA lenses. That means if you put an FA-J on a ZX-5n or similar camera, you're forced to use Program mode or Shutter priority. The ZX-5n doesn't have a user-settable aperture control in camera, so Aperture priority and Metered Manual is impossible if the lens doesn't have an aperture ring. The J lenses, in general, were introduced to be cost effective lenses. The removal of the aperture ring is indicative of the design philosophy; eliminate the things that most people won't miss in order to keep costs down. Pentax's DA lenses also lack the aperture ring, but most people don't care because they're designed for Pentax's digital SLR's, which have in-camera user aperture controls anyway (and in fact work better that way than by rotating a lens's aperture ring). By the way, the SMC Pentax-DA 16-45 f/4 ED AL is listed on Pentax's USA website as a SMC Pentax-DA J 16-45 f/4 ED AL. In this case the 'J' designation is simply a mistake on the website. I've emailed Pentax about this but they don't seem to care. It's not a J lens. Peter McIntosh wrote: Guys, 2 questions regarding this lens: 1. What does the J designation indicate? Does it relate to the lack of an aperture ring? 2. Are there any current/past owners of this lens who would be prepared to offer an opinion of same? Many thanks, Peter in Sydney
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Sorry that after starting this thread I didn't chime in again until now. Here is what's happening: After a day of shooting I start reviewing some of the images I've taken in the camera's viewer. One shot (out of hundreds) will show as not readable, or something like that. When I plug the SD card directly into my computer, I find that there has been a filename created (imgp4432.jpg, for example), but it has a zero-byte length; no data stored. This has happened at least once on all three of my cards. Two of my cards are SanDisk. One is Dane-Electric. Two are 1gb, one is 512mb. So there seems to be no common thread among the cards. As I mentioned before, I do sometimes turn the camera off immediately after snapping a shot. Others have mentioned that the card access light does continue flickering after turning the camera off, while saving images. I confirm this. I have no doubt that when I turn the camera off it continues saving images... at least most of the time. But somehow I am getting one out of about 300 images stored as a zero-byte file. I don't know the particular set of circumstances that have led to this event. My question is, have others experienced this behavior with their *ist-DS, and if so, have you figured out what's causing it? Dave
Re: PESO: The scene of an accident.
The one I was in was the third in the first four days of operation of the Orange Line. It was by far the worst though; certanly the only one with injuries. They're now looking at a lot of options; more meaningful warning lights at the intersections, crossing arms, etc. Currently they've implemented the 10mph through intersections policy, and have posted traffic cops at key intersections until they can get the whole situation sorted out. Maybe they should paint the orange line buses bright orange instead of ghost gray. Derek wrote: Dave, Apparently your accident was not a fluke. I heard there was another accident with the Orange Line buses, the second in its first week of operation. I guess now they are going to slow the buses down to 10 mph when crossing intersections. Derek
*ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Over the last couple of months, on three occasions I've experienced the following: I review a few of the day's shots on the camera's viewscreen. One shot will come up as Image cannot be displayed (or something like that). When I look at it on my computer, I find that particular image is just a filename, but the file itself is zero bytes long. This only seems to happen once in a great while. Out of a thousand shots in the last two months, it only affected three. And it doesn't seem tied to any particular memory card; I've seen it on both my 512mb Sandisk card, my 1gb generic brand, and my 1gb sandisk. I think what I'm doing is shutting the camera off by flicking its on-off switch to the off position too quickly after snapping a shot. I don't know how I developed that wierd habbit, but I think it is somehow related. Has anyone else experienced this behavior on their *ist-DS?
Re: PESO: The scene of an accident.
We were not allowed out of the bus until after that took place. Paul Stenquist wrote: Another shot that would surely sell would be one of the emergency workers extricating the woman from the car. Paul On Nov 3, 2005, at 2:23 AM, Cotty wrote: On 2/11/05, David Oswald, discombobulated, unleashed: than two minutes, when suddenly it was struck by a fast moving car that ran its red light. The car broadsided the bus. The car was seriously damaged, and driver taken to the hospital in critical condition (she was later upgraded to stable). We were then put through a triage routine by the first responders to determine who (if anyone) was injured. Mostly any injuries were just people pretending to be injured, thinking their gravy train had come in. Despicable really. Anyway, it held us all up by about 90 minutes. Fortunately I had my camera. Taken with the *ist-DS, and the DA16-45 lens http://users.adelphia.net/~daoswald/pictures/index.html Well done David. FYI - next time (!) try and get the casualty in the same frame as the bus - that would have been the pic the paper would have wanted. I know it's easy to say that, but shuffle right to the front, go vertical, casualty and team at the bottom of frame, the front of the bus at the top. A couple of shots rattled off before you're asked to step back and bingo. Under the circumstances, you did well. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: PESO: The scene of an accident.
There was no damage to the bus. She hit its wheel, and you would never know it looking at the bus. Kenneth Waller wrote: I still don't see any image of damage to the bus. Seems that would be a shot sure to be taken. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PESO: The scene of an accident. OOPs, I commented thinking there was only one image posted! Duh Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PESO: The scene of an accident. Los Angeles introduced a new bus line on the 29th of October. It is a rapid line that runs on a road all its own called Busway, thorough the middle of the San Fernando Valley, connecting Woodland Hills / Warner Center with the Metrolink subway system starting in North Hollywood. The busyway has synchronized traffic lights that keep the bus moving all the time. This means that as the busline road crosses major streets, traffic stops on those surface roads. I rode the Orange Line today as a novelty, to see how the experience was going to be. My wife came with me. We had been on the bus for less than two minutes, when suddenly it was struck by a fast moving car that ran its red light. The car broadsided the bus. The car was seriously damaged, and driver taken to the hospital in critical condition (she was later upgraded to stable). We were then put through a triage routine by the first responders to determine who (if anyone) was injured. Mostly any injuries were just people pretending to be injured, thinking their gravy train had come in. Despicable really. Anyway, it held us all up by about 90 minutes. Fortunately I had my camera. Taken with the *ist-DS, and the DA16-45 lens http://users.adelphia.net/~daoswald/pictures/index.html Warning: It's about 4.5 megabytes of photos that will load. I posted the pictures quickly because a woman riding on the bus with us is married to a reporter. Quickly he was on the cell with me requesting any of the pictures I took. ...I had to remove the ones where my wife was posing, smiling next to the firefighters. It seemed a little inappropriate after the fact. ;) Dave PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
PESO: The scene of an accident.
Los Angeles introduced a new bus line on the 29th of October. It is a rapid line that runs on a road all its own called Busway, thorough the middle of the San Fernando Valley, connecting Woodland Hills / Warner Center with the Metrolink subway system starting in North Hollywood. The busyway has synchronized traffic lights that keep the bus moving all the time. This means that as the busline road crosses major streets, traffic stops on those surface roads. I rode the Orange Line today as a novelty, to see how the experience was going to be. My wife came with me. We had been on the bus for less than two minutes, when suddenly it was struck by a fast moving car that ran its red light. The car broadsided the bus. The car was seriously damaged, and driver taken to the hospital in critical condition (she was later upgraded to stable). We were then put through a triage routine by the first responders to determine who (if anyone) was injured. Mostly any injuries were just people pretending to be injured, thinking their gravy train had come in. Despicable really. Anyway, it held us all up by about 90 minutes. Fortunately I had my camera. Taken with the *ist-DS, and the DA16-45 lens http://users.adelphia.net/~daoswald/pictures/index.html Warning: It's about 4.5 megabytes of photos that will load. I posted the pictures quickly because a woman riding on the bus with us is married to a reporter. Quickly he was on the cell with me requesting any of the pictures I took. ...I had to remove the ones where my wife was posing, smiling next to the firefighters. It seemed a little inappropriate after the fact. ;) Dave
Re: PESO: The scene of an accident.
The last shot in the sequence is of a kid that was interviewed by a local reporter via his wife's cell phone. His wife then put me on the phone and he asked me to snap a shot of the kid. No problem. Tom C wrote: Still waiting for the photos to come in. Great job! Gigantic kudos for having your camera with you. My camera is always with me, if not just outside in the car. Looking forward to seeing them as they download. Work Pentax in there somehow. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO: The scene of an accident. Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:30:36 -0800 Los Angeles introduced a new bus line on the 29th of October. It is a rapid line that runs on a road all its own called Busway, thorough the middle of the San Fernando Valley, connecting Woodland Hills / Warner Center with the Metrolink subway system starting in North Hollywood. The busyway has synchronized traffic lights that keep the bus moving all the time. This means that as the busline road crosses major streets, traffic stops on those surface roads. I rode the Orange Line today as a novelty, to see how the experience was going to be. My wife came with me. We had been on the bus for less than two minutes, when suddenly it was struck by a fast moving car that ran its red light. The car broadsided the bus. The car was seriously damaged, and driver taken to the hospital in critical condition (she was later upgraded to stable). We were then put through a triage routine by the first responders to determine who (if anyone) was injured. Mostly any injuries were just people pretending to be injured, thinking their gravy train had come in. Despicable really. Anyway, it held us all up by about 90 minutes. Fortunately I had my camera. Taken with the *ist-DS, and the DA16-45 lens http://users.adelphia.net/~daoswald/pictures/index.html Warning: It's about 4.5 megabytes of photos that will load. I posted the pictures quickly because a woman riding on the bus with us is married to a reporter. Quickly he was on the cell with me requesting any of the pictures I took. ...I had to remove the ones where my wife was posing, smiling next to the firefighters. It seemed a little inappropriate after the fact. ;) Dave
Re: PESO: The scene of an accident.
Thanks. I was just kind of snapping away, but too timid to really stick my nose in it. I was afraid that eventually they would ask me to stop if I got too aggressive. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have worried. They were all too busy with their big scene to bother me. As I look the shots over I quickly see they're nowhere near my best work. I guess I myself was a little flustered, plus, as I mentioned, I didnt' want to be too obvious. The thought did cross my mind that if I got too obvious they would assume I was just a passer-by with a camera rather than one of the accident victims, and escort me out from within the police taped boundry. Tom C wrote: Just viewed them all. Excellent job. I love the irony :-( of the Fresh Cut Flowers and Easy to Get Across the Valley shots. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: The scene of an accident. Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:21:33 -0800 The last shot in the sequence is of a kid that was interviewed by a local reporter via his wife's cell phone. His wife then put me on the phone and he asked me to snap a shot of the kid. No problem. Tom C wrote: Still waiting for the photos to come in. Great job! Gigantic kudos for having your camera with you. My camera is always with me, if not just outside in the car. Looking forward to seeing them as they download. Work Pentax in there somehow. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO: The scene of an accident. Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:30:36 -0800 Los Angeles introduced a new bus line on the 29th of October. It is a rapid line that runs on a road all its own called Busway, thorough the middle of the San Fernando Valley, connecting Woodland Hills / Warner Center with the Metrolink subway system starting in North Hollywood. The busyway has synchronized traffic lights that keep the bus moving all the time. This means that as the busline road crosses major streets, traffic stops on those surface roads. I rode the Orange Line today as a novelty, to see how the experience was going to be. My wife came with me. We had been on the bus for less than two minutes, when suddenly it was struck by a fast moving car that ran its red light. The car broadsided the bus. The car was seriously damaged, and driver taken to the hospital in critical condition (she was later upgraded to stable). We were then put through a triage routine by the first responders to determine who (if anyone) was injured. Mostly any injuries were just people pretending to be injured, thinking their gravy train had come in. Despicable really. Anyway, it held us all up by about 90 minutes. Fortunately I had my camera. Taken with the *ist-DS, and the DA16-45 lens http://users.adelphia.net/~daoswald/pictures/index.html Warning: It's about 4.5 megabytes of photos that will load. I posted the pictures quickly because a woman riding on the bus with us is married to a reporter. Quickly he was on the cell with me requesting any of the pictures I took. ...I had to remove the ones where my wife was posing, smiling next to the firefighters. It seemed a little inappropriate after the fact. ;) Dave
Re: PESO: The scene of an accident.
I haven't posted those. I'll post them later. At the moment, a news agency or two has been given the URL to these photos to use if they need shots of the incident. I didn't want shots of her posing with a big grin showing up in the LA Times. Derek wrote: Oustanding job! I'm a Westsider who doesn't get to the valley much, so this is the first I've seen of the Orange Line. Where are the pictures of your wife smiling with the firemen? (My wife wants to know). Derek P.S. You had a 90 min delay? Sounds like LA mass transit at work! Thanks. I was just kind of snapping away, but too timid to really stick my nose in it. I was afraid that eventually they would ask me to stop if I got too aggressive. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have worried. They were all too busy with their big scene to bother me. As I look the shots over I quickly see they're nowhere near my best work. I guess I myself was a little flustered, plus, as I mentioned, I didnt' want to be too obvious. The thought did cross my mind that if I got too obvious they would assume I was just a passer-by with a camera rather than one of the accident victims, and escort me out from within the police taped boundry. Tom C wrote: Just viewed them all. Excellent job. I love the irony :-( of the Fresh Cut Flowers and Easy to Get Across the Valley shots. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: The scene of an accident. Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:21:33 -0800 The last shot in the sequence is of a kid that was interviewed by a local reporter via his wife's cell phone. His wife then put me on the phone and he asked me to snap a shot of the kid. No problem. Tom C wrote: Still waiting for the photos to come in. Great job! Gigantic kudos for having your camera with you. My camera is always with me, if not just outside in the car. Looking forward to seeing them as they download. Work Pentax in there somehow. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO: The scene of an accident. Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:30:36 -0800 Los Angeles introduced a new bus line on the 29th of October. It is a rapid line that runs on a road all its own called Busway, thorough the middle of the San Fernando Valley, connecting Woodland Hills / Warner Center with the Metrolink subway system starting in North Hollywood. The busyway has synchronized traffic lights that keep the bus moving all the time. This means that as the busline road crosses major streets, traffic stops on those surface roads. I rode the Orange Line today as a novelty, to see how the experience was going to be. My wife came with me. We had been on the bus for less than two minutes, when suddenly it was struck by a fast moving car that ran its red light. The car broadsided the bus. The car was seriously damaged, and driver taken to the hospital in critical condition (she was later upgraded to stable). We were then put through a triage routine by the first responders to determine who (if anyone) was injured. Mostly any injuries were just people pretending to be injured, thinking their gravy train had come in. Despicable really. Anyway, it held us all up by about 90 minutes. Fortunately I had my camera. Taken with the *ist-DS, and the DA16-45 lens http://users.adelphia.net/~daoswald/pictures/index.html Warning: It's about 4.5 megabytes of photos that will load. I posted the pictures quickly because a woman riding on the bus with us is married to a reporter. Quickly he was on the cell with me requesting any of the pictures I took. ...I had to remove the ones where my wife was posing, smiling next to the firefighters. It seemed a little inappropriate after the fact. ;) Dave
Re: PESO: The scene of an accident.
Yes, there was a 90 minute delay. Here's why. An officer eventually escorted us to the Woodman stop. But he forgot to inform the metrolink authorities of where we were. So OrangeLine buses were being re-routed past us. We even went and asked a metrolink security officer and he impatiently just said, You're gonna have to work with us on this. 20 minutes later we found an apparent supervisor. She said she didn't even know we were waiting. I said, There were 40 people travelling on the bus. You took 12 away to medical attention. It doesn't take much of a mental leap to realize that you've got 28 people stranded here. A few minutes later they sent a bus by. It's funny because I'm not a normal rider. But sometimes on our day off we jump on the subway to go to the civic center or to hollywood, rather than driving through traffic. Today I was telling my wife that the new Orange Line sounded really convenient, and that we ought to give it a try to see where it goes. We rode less than one stop from the park-and-ride lot before we were struck and delayed 90 minutes. ...very convenient. Dave Derek wrote: Oustanding job! I'm a Westsider who doesn't get to the valley much, so this is the first I've seen of the Orange Line. Where are the pictures of your wife smiling with the firemen? (My wife wants to know). Derek P.S. You had a 90 min delay? Sounds like LA mass transit at work! Thanks. I was just kind of snapping away, but too timid to really stick my nose in it. I was afraid that eventually they would ask me to stop if I got too aggressive. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have worried. They were all too busy with their big scene to bother me. As I look the shots over I quickly see they're nowhere near my best work. I guess I myself was a little flustered, plus, as I mentioned, I didnt' want to be too obvious. The thought did cross my mind that if I got too obvious they would assume I was just a passer-by with a camera rather than one of the accident victims, and escort me out from within the police taped boundry. Tom C wrote: Just viewed them all. Excellent job. I love the irony :-( of the Fresh Cut Flowers and Easy to Get Across the Valley shots. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: PESO: The scene of an accident. Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:21:33 -0800 The last shot in the sequence is of a kid that was interviewed by a local reporter via his wife's cell phone. His wife then put me on the phone and he asked me to snap a shot of the kid. No problem. Tom C wrote: Still waiting for the photos to come in. Great job! Gigantic kudos for having your camera with you. My camera is always with me, if not just outside in the car. Looking forward to seeing them as they download. Work Pentax in there somehow. Tom C. From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: PESO: The scene of an accident. Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:30:36 -0800 Los Angeles introduced a new bus line on the 29th of October. It is a rapid line that runs on a road all its own called Busway, thorough the middle of the San Fernando Valley, connecting Woodland Hills / Warner Center with the Metrolink subway system starting in North Hollywood. The busyway has synchronized traffic lights that keep the bus moving all the time. This means that as the busline road crosses major streets, traffic stops on those surface roads. I rode the Orange Line today as a novelty, to see how the experience was going to be. My wife came with me. We had been on the bus for less than two minutes, when suddenly it was struck by a fast moving car that ran its red light. The car broadsided the bus. The car was seriously damaged, and driver taken to the hospital in critical condition (she was later upgraded to stable). We were then put through a triage routine by the first responders to determine who (if anyone) was injured. Mostly any injuries were just people pretending to be injured, thinking their gravy train had come in. Despicable really. Anyway, it held us all up by about 90 minutes. Fortunately I had my camera. Taken with the *ist-DS, and the DA16-45 lens http://users.adelphia.net/~daoswald/pictures/index.html Warning: It's about 4.5 megabytes of photos that will load. I posted the pictures quickly because a woman riding on the bus with us is married to a reporter. Quickly he was on the cell with me requesting any of the pictures I took. ...I had to remove the ones where my wife was posing, smiling next to the firefighters. It seemed a little inappropriate after the fact. ;) Dave
Re: PESO: The scene of an accident.
That's good advice, and I actually noticed the absence of such a shot afterward when I was reviewing the pictures. I should have gotten in closer and shot wider from that perspective. Most of those shots were taken at the long end of my 16-45.. Cotty wrote: On 2/11/05, David Oswald, discombobulated, unleashed: than two minutes, when suddenly it was struck by a fast moving car that ran its red light. The car broadsided the bus. The car was seriously damaged, and driver taken to the hospital in critical condition (she was later upgraded to stable). We were then put through a triage routine by the first responders to determine who (if anyone) was injured. Mostly any injuries were just people pretending to be injured, thinking their gravy train had come in. Despicable really. Anyway, it held us all up by about 90 minutes. Fortunately I had my camera. Taken with the *ist-DS, and the DA16-45 lens http://users.adelphia.net/~daoswald/pictures/index.html Well done David. FYI - next time (!) try and get the casualty in the same frame as the bus - that would have been the pic the paper would have wanted. I know it's easy to say that, but shuffle right to the front, go vertical, casualty and team at the bottom of frame, the front of the bus at the top. A couple of shots rattled off before you're asked to step back and bingo. Under the circumstances, you did well. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: A Small Dilemma
How about a little more relaxed attitude toward sharing the picture. I'll take a shot of my wife, and she'll say, Oh, I hate that one, don't show anyone. I happen to like it. I'll email it to other family members. They all tell her how much they like it, and suddenly she's glad I sent it to them. graywolf wrote: Legally, you probably have no worry because of implied consent. She most likely could not prove she told you not to show that one, and even if she could it would only be binging on that particular photo, if the situation was as you described it. Morally, if you subscribe to any moral system, you probably already know you should not show the photos. Ethically, I would be quite inhibited, I don't know how you feel about it. Isn't it interesting that we often have a legal right to do something that we know we can not do in good conscious. While things that there is no moral or ethical reason we should not do are often illegal. One of our local storekeepers had a couple ticketed today because they were sitting in the park across from his store smoking cigarettes and drinking beer. He did not do that because they were causing anyone any trouble, but because he was jealous that he had to be in his store working and they did not. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Not long ago an acquaintance came to visit. We were talking about photography and cameras, and ended up using one of my cameras to photograph one another. I got a few nice shots of her, and showed her one, which she didn't like. She specifically asked - in fact told me on no uncertain terms - that the pic not be shown to anyone, be posted on the internet, etc. Am I obligated not to show anyone the other pics? What about the one she saw and didn't want me to show? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: A Small Dilemma
Tom C wrote: From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] How about a little more relaxed attitude toward sharing the picture. I'll take a shot of my wife, and she'll say, Oh, I hate that one, don't show anyone. I happen to like it. I'll email it to other family members. They all tell her how much they like it, and suddenly she's glad I sent it to them. My wife would say 'they were just saying that to be nice', and I'd still be in trouble. If it's my wife though I know she'll get over it, whereas I don't know that about other people. My wife loves being in front of the camera, but sometimes is unsure of the results. ...complaints like, You can see my pores. Don't show people that one., or I look tired, don't show anyone. and stuff like that. But if I still like the look of the pic I'll still show it off, and when she sees that people genuinely react positively she realizes that she was being too hard on herself. But every wife is different (and even the same wife can be different on different days)... ;) Dave
Storage enablement
I just picked up a Buffalo Systems LinkStation 160. It is a network storage device. About the size of a Bible, it is a self-contained 160 gig hard drive (larger capacities also available) with a 100BaseT network adapter built-in, and some convenient utilities to enable it to function as a network file server. It offers multiple shared folders with or without user or group access control. It also will function as an FTP server, and USB printer server. And it allows one additional USB 2.0 hard drive to be attached in case the 160GB (or larger) capacity starts feeling too small. I bought it primarily to serve my home network for all those digital pictures I've been taking. I've set up a shared folder called photos, and created subdirectories under it to organize the digital pics. This makes the pictures available to both my notebook and my wife's. Yes, we could have used one of our two notebooks as a fileserver, but we began chewing up hard drive space too quickly that way, and it was a PITA because we had to make sure both notebooks were turned on whenever I wanted to edit photos stored on her computer. The network fileserver is an economical tool of convenience. Plugged into a 100megabit router, the drive is reasonably quick. Unfortunately our notebooks use 56kbps WiFi cards. And as those of you who have 56Mb WiFi cards know, their actual thoroughput with WEP enabled, with a strong signal, seems to be limited to about 12Megabits/sec. I'll probably upgrade to a faster WiFi standard soon. Anyway, just wanted to mention that the device seems to be very convenient, and useful to people who are starting to feel confined by their existing storage capacity.
Bag enablement
On a recent trip, one of my Tamrac bags gave out. I have several, but this one was the only one that could be carried comfortably, yet with enough room for body, four lenses (included mounted lens), flash, batteries, etc. But unlike most Tamrac bags, this one was a cheapie and I've been waiting for a good reason to upgrade. With a split out seam, broken buckle, and broken zipper pull all within a few days of each other, it's time. I replaced it with a Tamrac Adventure 3 photo-pack. I just wanted to offer my assessment. It snugly accommodates (almost exactly) the following gear: Inside: *ist-DS body AF-330FTZ flash SMCP-DA 16-45 f/4 ED AL SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 IF AL SMCP-FA 135mm f/2.8 IF Spare batteries Spare SD media Cell phone Other assorted small things like lens cloth, pen, etc. Three hard hoods (nested) and a flash diffuser. Strapped to back: Ten inch (when extended) tripod Strapped to sides via Tamrac's Modular system: Pouch with SMCP-FA 80-320mm f/4.5-5.6 Pouch with water bottle It's very configurable such that I can use it to go light with just a body and a spare lens, or heavy with all the equipment listed above. IMHO, the detachable modular pouches (purchased separately) are a beneficial feature since they allow me more flexibility in scaling back or extending what I carry. Comfort is also pretty good. The main shoulder straps are padded, tapered to fit humans, and have neoprene on the underside to prevent slipping. The body-side of the bag has some extra foam placed in a way that adds to the wearer's comfort too. Durability seems on par with Tamrac's Pro series of bags. The shoulder straps seem to have webbing inside for extra reinforcement. Seams are double-reinforced. The perimeter of the bag is wrapped in webbing for reinforcement. The top handle is stitched into webbing. Inside the velcro for partition adjustment is wide and well secured. The bag is rigid enough to hold its shape well with or without equipment and from any carry position. (my old mid-sized bag was a lot more flimsy feeling) Gear protection seems quite good too. Zippers are protected by wide rainflaps that stay in position like they should. Exterior nylon is as strong as my large pro bag, and inside the partitions are well placed, secure, and adequate to keep every piece of gear from touching any other piece of gear. The partitions can be adjusted easily. Padding is excellent all around. Space inside is tight. Tamrac says this bag will hold a body and three additional lenses plus a flash. They aren't kidding. When I fill it with the above equipment, there isn't a spare millimeter between any of the partitions. The lenses and equipment all fit very snugly. With the DA16-45 mounted on the body, the body and lens fit snugly enough that I'm certain no lens of larger diameter could fit into the center position in its place. If you plan to carry a FA80-200 f/2.8, you'll need a bigger bag. The DA16-45 does also fit fine standing up in one of the other partition areas for when a different lens is mounted. So in the ready to use position, the thickest lens you could fit in this bag is approximately the 16-45. In unmounted position, the longest lens you could fit into the bag standing up is the 16-45. If you have a longer lens, you will have to remove one partition and lay it on its side instead. My 80-320 is the same size as my 16-45, and thus can also fit into either the ready-to-use (mounted) or unmounted partition areas of the bag. On the outside, the modular accessory mounts are secure, and as I mentioned before, pretty convenient. I since I do a lot of hiking I like the water bottle option. There are also mounts on the shoulder straps for Tamrac's shoulder accessory line of attachments. But currently I can't find a good reason to carry extra batteries, filters, memory, or my cell phone on the strap; there is plenty of room in the pocket areas of the main bag. The pocket areas are easily accessible and have spaces for memory cards, batteries, and other essentials. My cell phone fits nicely, as well as sunglasses. I see now on Tamrac's website that the Adventure 3 is no longer shown. It's been replaced by an updated looking Adventure 4. I suspect it's at least as good as the 3. I was personally a little skeptical about photo backpacks. They always either looked too big/heavy, or too dinky to be of much use. And I wasn't convinced of their convenience either, coming from the standpoint of someone who has become accustomed to hip-mount bags. But after putting this bag through the paces for a few days the configuration has begun growing on me. Though I used to buy photo equipment for a chain of stores, it's been a few years since I last had a vested interest in seeing any particular product sell. Those stores have changed hands several times and gave up selling
Re: Bag enablement
I'll snap a shot and post it later on tonight. Its internal configuration is most like the Expedition 4 (Model 5574) shown here: http://www.tamrac.com/5574_lrg.htm In fact, it's almost identical, though mine has one more partition near the bottom in the middle section. The Expedition-4 might be an inch or so wider, which is probably a good thing. Don Sanderson wrote: David, can you show us a pic of the bag? All I see are the Adventure 2, 8, 74 and 75. Which is it most like? Thanks Don -Original Message- From: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:46 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Bag enablement On a recent trip, one of my Tamrac bags gave out. I have several, but this one was the only one that could be carried comfortably, yet with enough room for body, four lenses (included mounted lens), flash, batteries, etc. But unlike most Tamrac bags, this one was a cheapie and I've been waiting for a good reason to upgrade. With a split out seam, broken buckle, and broken zipper pull all within a few days of each other, it's time. I replaced it with a Tamrac Adventure 3 photo-pack. I just wanted to offer my assessment. It snugly accommodates (almost exactly) the following gear: Inside: *ist-DS body AF-330FTZ flash SMCP-DA 16-45 f/4 ED AL SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 IF AL SMCP-FA 135mm f/2.8 IF Spare batteries Spare SD media Cell phone Other assorted small things like lens cloth, pen, etc. Three hard hoods (nested) and a flash diffuser. Strapped to back: Ten inch (when extended) tripod Strapped to sides via Tamrac's Modular system: Pouch with SMCP-FA 80-320mm f/4.5-5.6 Pouch with water bottle
Re: Bag enablement (correction)
Actually, a correction and apology: It's not Adventure 3, it's Expedition-3 (the one I have) and here is its picture: http://www.tamrac.com/5273_lrg.htm Sorry for the confusion. Yes, it does look that the Expetion 4 is a couple inches wider. Given that the Expedition-3 holds snugly exactly what I need it to hold, the -4 would just be extra bulk that I don't need. Don Sanderson wrote: David, can you show us a pic of the bag? All I see are the Adventure 2, 8, 74 and 75. Which is it most like? Thanks Don -Original Message- From: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:46 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Bag enablement On a recent trip, one of my Tamrac bags gave out. I have several, but this one was the only one that could be carried comfortably, yet with enough room for body, four lenses (included mounted lens), flash, batteries, etc. But unlike most Tamrac bags, this one was a cheapie and I've been waiting for a good reason to upgrade. With a split out seam, broken buckle, and broken zipper pull all within a few days of each other, it's time. I replaced it with a Tamrac Adventure 3 photo-pack. I just wanted to offer my assessment. It snugly accommodates (almost exactly) the following gear: Inside: *ist-DS body AF-330FTZ flash SMCP-DA 16-45 f/4 ED AL SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.4 SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 IF AL SMCP-FA 135mm f/2.8 IF Spare batteries Spare SD media Cell phone Other assorted small things like lens cloth, pen, etc. Three hard hoods (nested) and a flash diffuser. Strapped to back: Ten inch (when extended) tripod Strapped to sides via Tamrac's Modular system: Pouch with SMCP-FA 80-320mm f/4.5-5.6 Pouch with water bottle
Re: istDS @ 1600 ISO
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Just a quick comment. While looking at the original PEF file for the Pile of Leaves pic that was recently posted, I noticed that it was shot @ 1600 ISO. I'm quite surprised (and pleased) at how little noise there is, and noise reduction was turned off in the camera. Maybe I'm too ignorant to know what to expect, but the pic and the original PEF sure look better than I'd imagined an 1600 ISO pic would look. Maybe it's the light? ISO1600 is one of the strong points of the *ist-DS. While 1600 is a little grainy, most people agree it's less so than film of similar sensitivity. I do notice more noise when such shots are mostly low-key, such as night shots of city-scapes. mid-key shots at 1600 are pretty good actually. ISO-3200 is a little more annoying; you really have to be careful not to lean too far to the low-key side or things really do get noisy, imho.
Re: help - mailbox full
Scott Loveless wrote: I signed up in February. 158MB as of now. It's still on the gmail server. Francois, if you want a Gmail account, there are quite a few of us on the list. I'd be happy to send an invite your way, as I'm sure most others would, too. On 10/22/05, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I agree, Gmail is great for this sort of thing. I subscribed in January and I am currently using 171MB (6%) of my 2656MB limit. Once a month I download the messages onto my PC. Interesting address you have there Glen :-) Back when we cared about bandwidth (we still do, don't we?) it was considered bad form to post pictures to email lists and newsgroups. The reason is that one picture, times hundreds or thousands of recipients or newsservers quickly consumed gigabytes of total resources, distributed across the net. Gmail is a similar issue. It's a decentralized archive, in a way. Instead of one central archive existing for this mailing list, folks are each archiving every post in their own gmail accounts. Fine, gmail is free. But what an inefficient solution to the archival question. just a rant. ;) Dave
Re: about my lens question
I'm not sure what the context is for this question. You may have me confused with someone else on the Pentax list. However, I do know that there are some Minolta K-mount lenses that, when mounted on a Pentax, cannot be removed without disassembling the lens. dave g wrote: sorry if it's not appropriate to write to you directly but it's my first time using a group like this. the problem is the adapter is on the camera and can't be removed (because of the springy thing you have to push with your fingernails to get it off) without unscrewing the lens first. we tried using a feeler gauge to touch the release pin just outside the threads (to release auto to manual) but it seems to be stuck, perhaps in one of the screw holes on the adapter. anyway, any tips are appreciated.
Re: Pentax/Samsung: update?
Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Oct 2005 at 23:38, Dario Bonazza wrote: I believe it's been added some more info since I read this page first: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0510/05101201samsung_pentaxdslrs.asp Nothing detailed, though. I've always wanted a pentaprism on a mobile phone. On a separate note, Samsung was just convicted of price fixing of memory chips, and ordered to pay a US$300,000,000 (300 million) fine. They're the third major memory manufacurer to either plead guilty or be handed a conviction. Micron was also involved apparently, but won't face charges since they've cooperated with authorities (maybe they were the whistle blowers). I remember a few years back hearing accusations by Olympus and other Japanese camera manufacturers that the Korean companies like Samsung were dumping digital cameras on the market below cost to try to grab market share. I'm not sure how much truth there was to that accusation, but it could be one more black mark on Samsung. This post doesn't have any particular point other than to call out a few interesting tidbits regarding Pentax's new partner.
Re: Pentax/Samsung: update?
I believe my post said, US$300,000,000 which is US Dollars. But maybe I was reading too much between the lines. You can read the article on CNN yourself to decide. The article is here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/10/13/samsung.price.fixing.ap/index.html Enjoy! Dave John Forbes wrote: $300 million? In what jurisdiction? And do you mean dollars or Korean Won? John On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:57:09 +0100, David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Oct 2005 at 23:38, Dario Bonazza wrote: I believe it's been added some more info since I read this page first: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0510/05101201samsung_pentaxdslrs.asp Nothing detailed, though. I've always wanted a pentaprism on a mobile phone. On a separate note, Samsung was just convicted of price fixing of memory chips, and ordered to pay a US$300,000,000 (300 million) fine. They're the third major memory manufacurer to either plead guilty or be handed a conviction. Micron was also involved apparently, but won't face charges since they've cooperated with authorities (maybe they were the whistle blowers). I remember a few years back hearing accusations by Olympus and other Japanese camera manufacturers that the Korean companies like Samsung were dumping digital cameras on the market below cost to try to grab market share. I'm not sure how much truth there was to that accusation, but it could be one more black mark on Samsung. This post doesn't have any particular point other than to call out a few interesting tidbits regarding Pentax's new partner.
Re: Enabled
I have the FA135 f/2.8(IF), and love it. It's hard to imagine getting such a telephoto reach and f/2.8 speed (as experienced with the 135 on a DSLR) in such a small package. The FA version of the 135 and the F are very similar. The FA is said to have slightly looser feel in manual focusing. The F is said to have slightly flimsier internals (more prone to breakdown). Frankly, I think they're pretty much equals. Compared to the A 135, the focussing on the 'A' will feel a lot better dampened, but that's to be expected of a MF lens. I think image quality is fairly equal again. There has been some discussion of purple fringing with the 135mm lenses on DSLR's. In my experience, if you shoot enough shots in tough enough conditions, you're going to see one or two shots with purple fringing regardless of what lens you use. The only time I actually noticed such an issue with my 135 was when I shot into the sky toward the top of a telephone poll, to capture an image of a squirrel perched on the telephone wires. The sky was very bright, the telephone wires very dark. And some of the wires had that purple-fringe look to them. But that was a pretty impossible set of conditions anyway. Good luck, I think you'll enjoy the 135. I also own the 16-45. I think you've made a good choice there. It was the lens that got the most use on my recent trip to Hong Kong and the Philippines. Quality is very good, both in build and in image. Doug Franklin wrote: Hi William and Paul, On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:30:51 -0600, William Robb wrote: And figure out something to cover the focal distance range I've been using the FA* 200/2.8 for. A nice 135/2.8 should do well. Sad we can't get a 135/2. Geez, I should've been able to think of that! I've even got both the K135/2.5 and the Bow Wow Takumar 135/2.5 in the drawer right now. So how is the F or FA incarnation of the 135/2.8? TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
OT: Silvering-out of old photos
While on vacation in the Philippines visiting my wife's family, I was shown the family photo album. This wasn't the current events album, but rather a photo album that started with my wife's great grandfather around the turn of the century and continued into the 1960's. The album was pretty interesting; it had a lot of hand written and typewritten letters between relatives, also dating back to turn of the century. Particularly interesting were the letters and newspaper clippings that found their way into the album around the time of WW-I and WW-II; stories of relatives being beheaded by invasion forces, and so on. Something else caught my attention though. Some of the prints in the album, mostly ones from the 1910's through 1930's were exhibiting what I've determined through google research to be silvering out. Though these prints were still very 'legible', their exposed areas (in a photographic sense) were shiny like chrome. They were printed on white paper, and had no color cast. Pictures taken at earlier dates were not affected, and mostly those taken after the mid-30's were also not affected, although I think I recall seeing a few from the '40's that were. In some cases, even prints that have sat side by side on the same page in this album for the past 70 years, one might be silvered out and one might not. I suspect that they came from different developing facilities, or were a different brand of paper. Anyway, I'm curious if anyone else here has seen this, and if my description and diagnosis are reasonably accurate. I did see some examples of silvering out online. The prints in my wife's father's album seem cleaner looking though. Maybe because they're entirely silvered out. There is very little highlight detail, but the midrange and shadow detail is prominantly shiny. Can these sorts of things be restored? The album seems like a bit of a family treasure, though I don't think her family realizes what they've got. The album has other problems too; the backing paper probably isn't acid-free, glues and adhesives probably haven't been too photo friendly, newspaper clippings and letters are beginning to tatter, etc. But for the most part it's in better shape than one would expect of an album whos contents are between 40 and 110 years old.
Re: Help: Internet Photo Gallery Generator
IrfanView along with IrfanView Thumbs will do it. You can batch convert your photos to the proper dimensions and create thumbnailed web galleries all in one step. Then just FTP it to your website. See http://www.irfanview.com John Celio wrote: Hey y'all, after putting together the Spin Doctors gallery I posted earlier, I decided I'm never going to post many photos if I don't make it faster and easier to do. So, I have a question: Are there any programs out there that will help you set up a complete gallery on your own website? I do not want to use Flickr or Photobucket or any other site, I want to keep the photos and the pages and whatnot on my own site. I'd prefer this program feature complete page template customization, so I can make the resulting pages look like any other page on my site. Thanks! John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement.
Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Are these with pre-flash, Dave? Well, here's the problem I'm having with the AF330FTZ. If I shoot at night with the AF330FTZ, with no intervention via the flash EV menu, any shot in flash range will be highly overexposed. This is particularly a problem if the background is out of flash range; in other words, the subject is close but the background is distant. But regardless, there is an overexposure issue when shooting with the flash at night. If I shoot with the flash in twilight conditions (ie, dusk) the problem remains, but isn't as significant. If I shoot in daylight conditions using the flash as a fill flash, the problem is pretty much gone, which is to be expected, I suppose. Though sometimes I think the flash punches the foreground up just a little too much even in daylight conditions. I can back the flash off a bit using the flash EV menu in the *ist-DS. Usually I need to back off at least -1ev, but sometimes even -2ev isn't enough. Particularly at night, -2ev in the flash EV menu isn't enough to balance things out. In this case, I have to switch the camera over to manual mode and manipulate the flash's effectiveness via f-stop settings for the lens. What is a real challenge with the AF330FTZ is shooting a night shot of a cityscape while using the flash to illuminate the subject in the foreground. I attempted such a shot in Hong Kong (for those of you familiar with Hong Kong, we were at the mountain peak via the cable-car tram). There, I wanted to take a shot of my wife with the city lights in the background and her properly exposed in the foreground. I've taken this sort of shot with my ZX-5n and the AF330FTZ. But I just absoutely couldn't get it right with the *ist-DS and AF330FTZ. It shouldn't have been that difficult of a shot; use a tripod, meter for the city lights in the background, and allow the flash's TTL to cut the flash short when the foreground reached proper exposure. Heck, the camera's night shot mode is pretty much MADE to do this. But even without night-shot mode, I should be able to switch to Tv mode and set the shutter speed relatively slow. The rest should be handled by the camera and flash. The fact is that I never got what I thought was a decent result until I switched the flash to ML mode (low power manual mode) and the camera to Manual mode so that I could take care of the shutter and aperture myself. By then my wife was pretty much tired of the whole situation and the shot was ruined by her boredom. ;) The AF330FTZ doesn't have a prefire mode, only TTL (not P-TTL). By the way, someone earlier mentioned that it was curious that I would like the combination of the 16-45 and the 28-105 rather than 16-45 and 50-200. In my opinion there are a couple of ways to look at zooms. The first way (the way I used to look at them when I first got into photography) is that zooms allow you to cover a lot of focal lengths with few lenses. From that perspective, it makes sense to have no overlap in your lens's focal lengths. A 16-45 and 50-200 would give the maximum possible breadth of zoom range with only two lenses. But as I've spent more time with photography I've found that I prefer to look at zooms as lenses of convenience; a means of reducing how often I change lenses. With that in mind, overlap of zoom ranges is good if it means that each lens is a comfortable range of focal lengths to use. What I mean is I can put the 16-45 on my camera and just keep shooting until I have a shot that really requires something longer. I can put the 28-105 on my camera and also keep shooting until I come across a shot that really requires something wider. Each of those lenses is a good working lens; just that one is more convenient when I have more shots that need longer focal lengths, and one is more convenient when more of my shots need shorter focal lengths. If I were carrying the 16-45 and 50-200, on the other hand, I would not be able to keep the 50-200 on the camera and just keep on shooting as if it were a normal lens. It's a telephoto lens, that's all. So while I'm losing the 105-200 range by carrying the 28-105, I feel I more than make up for in convenience. And with a DSLR, I frankly don't often have much need for anything longer than the 135mm lens that I also mentioned is in my camera bag. I do own an 80-320, but left it home for this vacation because I knew it would be only used for one or two shots. Dave
Re: Dust on Your Sensor
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Over in the LeiCanon list, this product was mentioned as a goo choice for dust removal and sensor cleaning. http://www.visibledust.com/ What do you use ... I may need to add some sensor cleaning stuff to my kit. I've read that some canned air can actually blow small amounts of oil onto the sensor. No thanks! I have a blower brush. When I need to clean the sensor, I take the brush portion off the blower, and just give a few strong squirts of air in the direction of the sensor. So far I've never needed more thorough cleaning than that. I'm afraid to use those sensor cleaning kits. If I can remove it with air, that seems the safest technique.
Re: Difference between F and FA lens?
There is an additional difference between F and FA lenses in general. FA lenses can communicate MTF data to the camera body which is used by the PZ-1p, MZ-S, and *ist-DS (and maybe others). The *ist-DS uses this info in AutoPic mode and any of the pictograph modes. It doesn't use this data in P mode. F lenses don't communicate this information. Since not all bodies use the information, and the modes that I use the most on the *ist-DS also don't use the info, it really probably doesn't matter to most people whether you've got an FA or an F lens, except for other possible differences not related to this particular feature. By the way; it's very hard to find any official information on this subject from Pentax. I'm basically paraphrasing what one of Pentax's reps told me a few years back, and with regards to how the feature works on the *ist-DS, adding my own conjecture seasoned with comments I've read here and in other forums. DAve Glen wrote: I noticed that there are Pentax 70-200 f4-5.6 zoom lenses with both F and FA suffixes. What is the difference? The F version is a LOT cheaper on the used market. I think they are both autofocus, so I suppose the difference might involve how the camera metering works with the lens? Does anyone have any comments on the quality of these two particular Pentax 70-200 zoom lenses? If I were to get one, it would be for use on an *istDS. I hear that some of the non-DA lenses don't do so well on the DS camera, so I would want to avoid lenses that didn't get along well with the DS. Also, I'd love to find an on-line chart that described what all these lens suffixes represented. thanks, Glen
Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned
I keep the camera in the standard multi-segmented mode. I just double-checked, and verified that it's still in that (correct) mode. The camera does have a problem with its internal flash; it always fires at full throttle. I keep meaning to send it in to Pentax for service, and will definately do so before the warranty is up. But I needed it for the trip first. But my AF330FTZ problem isn't as severe as the camera's internal flash problem. The AF330FTZ overexposes shots. The camera's internal flash completely burns out the shot from such strong overexposure. I'm sure that's a different issue. John Coyle wrote: Dave, do you think the problem might be your metering mode? I would expect the use of averaged metering to cause this type of problem, and have been successful with the same sort of set-up (*ist-D and AF330FTZ) using spot metering. John Coyle Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 12:47 PM Subject: Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Are these with pre-flash, Dave? Well, here's the problem I'm having with the AF330FTZ. If I shoot at night with the AF330FTZ, with no intervention via the flash EV menu, any shot in flash range will be highly overexposed. This is particularly a problem if the background is out of flash range; in other words, the subject is close but the background is distant. But regardless, there is an overexposure issue when shooting with the flash at night. If I shoot with the flash in twilight conditions (ie, dusk) the problem remains, but isn't as significant. If I shoot in daylight conditions using the flash as a fill flash, the problem is pretty much gone, which is to be expected, I suppose. Though sometimes I think the flash punches the foreground up just a little too much even in daylight conditions. I can back the flash off a bit using the flash EV menu in the *ist-DS. Usually I need to back off at least -1ev, but sometimes even -2ev isn't enough. Particularly at night, -2ev in the flash EV menu isn't enough to balance things out. In this case, I have to switch the camera over to manual mode and manipulate the flash's effectiveness via f-stop settings for the lens. What is a real challenge with the AF330FTZ is shooting a night shot of a cityscape while using the flash to illuminate the subject in the foreground. I attempted such a shot in Hong Kong (for those of you familiar with Hong Kong, we were at the mountain peak via the cable-car tram). There, I wanted to take a shot of my wife with the city lights in the background and her properly exposed in the foreground. I've taken this sort of shot with my ZX-5n and the AF330FTZ. But I just absoutely couldn't get it right with the *ist-DS and AF330FTZ. It shouldn't have been that difficult of a shot; use a tripod, meter for the city lights in the background, and allow the flash's TTL to cut the flash short when the foreground reached proper exposure. Heck, the camera's night shot mode is pretty much MADE to do this. But even without night-shot mode, I should be able to switch to Tv mode and set the shutter speed relatively slow. The rest should be handled by the camera and flash. The fact is that I never got what I thought was a decent result until I switched the flash to ML mode (low power manual mode) and the camera to Manual mode so that I could take care of the shutter and aperture myself. By then my wife was pretty much tired of the whole situation and the shot was ruined by her boredom. ;) The AF330FTZ doesn't have a prefire mode, only TTL (not P-TTL). SNIP
Re: Back from vacation: Lessons learned
I wasn't shooting RAW. I know, I know... but these are vacation snaps, not contest submissions. ;) I fit 340 on each 1G card, and used about half of the 512meg card. I figured that if I really started to run out I would just pick up another SD card on the road. For the price of a portable hard drive and reader I could buy another lens. ;) Jens Bladt wrote: I would have used up the 2.5 GB in a single day or two. How did you manage without a portable harddrive/cardreader? Regards Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: David Oswald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 2. oktober 2005 06:57 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Back from vacation: Lessons learned I just got back from two weeks of vacation in Hong Kong and Philippines. I brought with me the following camera equipment: Pentax *ist-DS SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm f/4 AL SMC Pentax-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 (IF)AL SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4 SMC Pentax-FA 135mm f/2.8 (IF) AF330FTZ 2.5 gigs of SD cards. 110V quick charger Two sets of NiMH batteries (one in the flash, one in the camera). Waist / shoulder bag large enough for all of the above, yet small enough to carry everywhere. Things I discovered: Lenses: I've renewed my appreciation for the 16-45 lens. Around my home town it doesn't get as much use for some reason, but on vacation, especially travelling with my wife's family, it's just so convenient, and a great working focal length range. Image quality leaves nothing to be desired. And its build quality is solid. Since I don't have a lot of time to devote to each shot when I'm on vacation with a group, the convenience of this zoom lens really shines. Its wide angle capability is also really useful. I liked the lens before this trip; I love it now. The primes, while good for low light use and extremely sharp, are just a little too much hastle to use on an on-the-go type of vacation. At the beach I was reluctant to change lenses a lot, and when with the rest of my wife's family I just didn't want to slow down enough to mess around with these lenses. This is a complete 180 from how I am around my home town. Near home, I take the time to get the most out of these nice lenses. It really surprised me to find how little I used them on vacation though. The 28-105 continues to be a great companion to the 16-45. What can I say... I loved this lens on my ZX-5n, and still like using it on the *ist-DS. Again, the convenience of a zoom on vacation outweighed the performance gains of the primes. Maybe I just got lazy huh? Flash: The AF330FTZ has got to go. It's obnoxious to have to dive into the camera's menu again and again until I get the right level of flash for the picture. In general, it overexposes my shots, but individual results are so varied that I can't just set it and forget it. I'm going to have to get an AF360FGZ and step into the 21st century. It was a complete disappointment when I tried to use it to punch up the foreground in a near-dusk shot. I had to fiddle several times to get it right. On my ZX-5n, it just worked, every time. The *ist-DS is too sensitiveto overexposure, I suppose. Whatever the reason, I think I need a flash more dedicated to the *ist-DS's needs. Batteries: I should have carried one additional set of NiMH's, or at least a multi-voltage charger so that I could charge in my hotel room in the Philippines. I never missed a shot due to depleated batteries, but at one point I did find myself running my charger across the street to an Internet cafe where the attendant allowed me to plug it into one of his 110V power supplies. I tipped him. I should have carried a multinational charger. At my rate of shooting, I was able to get about three to four days out of a charge. To accomplish this I had to keep the LCD viewing to a minimum. Bag: The Tamrac bag finally gave out. It came unstitched along one seam, and one of its die-cast buckles shattered. ...strange, the same thing happened to me on another Tamrac bag a couple months ago. Anyway, I'll have to start looking for a replacement. Dave
Re: Challenge my zoom!
Think lightweight: SMC Pentax-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 (IF)AL. Some of us here have that lens and really enjoy the results we get from it. The 24-90 is a hair better, but the 28-105 is a LOT more affordable, and still very good. Don Sanderson wrote: I'd really like to replace my A35-105/3.5 with something smaller and lighter, maybe even AF. So I go take a couple of sample pics with the D to show on eekBay. Then I can make the big bucks! Problem is that the sample pics are so good I change my mind again. Does anyone have a suggestion for a replacement for this very large, heavy, positively _gorgeous_ lens? Here's a sampe full frame and 100% crop: http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/7757.htm ist-D at 1/125th and 105mm at f:5.6, ISO 400. From .JPG's. Don
Back from vacation: Lessons learned
I just got back from two weeks of vacation in Hong Kong and Philippines. I brought with me the following camera equipment: Pentax *ist-DS SMC Pentax-DA 16-45mm f/4 AL SMC Pentax-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 (IF)AL SMC Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4 SMC Pentax-FA 135mm f/2.8 (IF) AF330FTZ 2.5 gigs of SD cards. 110V quick charger Two sets of NiMH batteries (one in the flash, one in the camera). Waist / shoulder bag large enough for all of the above, yet small enough to carry everywhere. Things I discovered: Lenses: I've renewed my appreciation for the 16-45 lens. Around my home town it doesn't get as much use for some reason, but on vacation, especially travelling with my wife's family, it's just so convenient, and a great working focal length range. Image quality leaves nothing to be desired. And its build quality is solid. Since I don't have a lot of time to devote to each shot when I'm on vacation with a group, the convenience of this zoom lens really shines. Its wide angle capability is also really useful. I liked the lens before this trip; I love it now. The primes, while good for low light use and extremely sharp, are just a little too much hastle to use on an on-the-go type of vacation. At the beach I was reluctant to change lenses a lot, and when with the rest of my wife's family I just didn't want to slow down enough to mess around with these lenses. This is a complete 180 from how I am around my home town. Near home, I take the time to get the most out of these nice lenses. It really surprised me to find how little I used them on vacation though. The 28-105 continues to be a great companion to the 16-45. What can I say... I loved this lens on my ZX-5n, and still like using it on the *ist-DS. Again, the convenience of a zoom on vacation outweighed the performance gains of the primes. Maybe I just got lazy huh? Flash: The AF330FTZ has got to go. It's obnoxious to have to dive into the camera's menu again and again until I get the right level of flash for the picture. In general, it overexposes my shots, but individual results are so varied that I can't just set it and forget it. I'm going to have to get an AF360FGZ and step into the 21st century. It was a complete disappointment when I tried to use it to punch up the foreground in a near-dusk shot. I had to fiddle several times to get it right. On my ZX-5n, it just worked, every time. The *ist-DS is too sensitiveto overexposure, I suppose. Whatever the reason, I think I need a flash more dedicated to the *ist-DS's needs. Batteries: I should have carried one additional set of NiMH's, or at least a multi-voltage charger so that I could charge in my hotel room in the Philippines. I never missed a shot due to depleated batteries, but at one point I did find myself running my charger across the street to an Internet cafe where the attendant allowed me to plug it into one of his 110V power supplies. I tipped him. I should have carried a multinational charger. At my rate of shooting, I was able to get about three to four days out of a charge. To accomplish this I had to keep the LCD viewing to a minimum. Bag: The Tamrac bag finally gave out. It came unstitched along one seam, and one of its die-cast buckles shattered. ...strange, the same thing happened to me on another Tamrac bag a couple months ago. Anyway, I'll have to start looking for a replacement. Dave
Re: DS - The Saga Continues
I'm glad to hear it's going to work out. That's a good endorsement for BuyDig.com. It will be worth the wait. Click a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.7 lens onto the camera and have some fun. Shel Belinkoff wrote: For those who have been following this soap opera, here's today's installment and a little recap to bring things up to date: The defective DS was shipped back to BuyDig on Tuesday, and they received it yesterday. However, during that time the BuyDig web site showed that there were no more DS bodies in stock. Oh, my, thought I I'm SOL. This morning I called BuyDig customer service and was told that I should call back on Sunday for an update on the situation. They were very willing to refund my money, but I told 'em I wanted the camera. I figured I was in for a weekend of nail biting and digital angst, and began making plans to look elsewhere for a replacement. Just a few minutes ago I received an email from BuyDig. The replacement camera has been shipped! So now all I have to do is contend with FedEx one more time, and hope that the replacement camera works as it should. So far, in all of this, dealing with BuyDig has been the only bright spot. They have consistently done what they said they'd do, and generally faster than they said they'd do it. I may be able to attend the Pentax Pixel Party yet LOL Is that black tie? Shel Am I paranoid or perceptive?
Re: The DS - It's Here!
Juan Buhler wrote: On 9/6/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 9/3/05, Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's the idea. It makes the cute girls ask :) But not the ugly ones? LOL You see, I'm in Poland now. There *are* no ugly girls in this country, that I have noticed so far. :) Can you say Beer Goggles? ;)
Sensor reflection
Godfrey alluded in another post to the fact that there is a possibility of sensor reflection affecting an image. This hadn't previously occurred to me, but makes perfect sense. So that begs the question; is it possible that some of what we often think we see as CA is actually a reflection off of the CCD back to the rear element, and from the rear element back to the CCD? The CCD is a pretty reflective surface. I suppose that's a necessary evil. This is asking a question of speculation... Is there any point for camera manufacturers to investigate the possibility of non-reflective CCD's? Or is that simply an impossibility?
