Re: PDML Digest, Vol 93, Issue 164
From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com Bruce wrote: I couldn't have said it better myself Tom. The entire concept of photography is to create an image from the mind/concept/perspective of the photographer. To think that any photograph represents the unaltered truth is ridiculous. That's where this discussion is going astray: No one expects a photograph to represent the unaltered truth, but they do expect it to represent an unaltered *photograph*. - Well I don't have that expectation. I expect that the image accurately conveys the message, not whether it has been altered in some minor fashion or not. That's me though. :) I do understand the principle, no alterations = no questions as to legitimacy for any given image, and of course as you pointed out later. he did not fulfill his contract. So I have no argument there. Some of us are viewing it through a different lens so to speak. First there's the different 'standards or expectations' of PJ compared to other photography. Then there's the whole idea of whether the news being reported to us is objective to begin with, which I'll contend it's not. Slanting stories, ignoring potential sources, and using sound bites, alters what is reported, not to mention the innate bias any human possesses. The mere act of editing the written word potentially discards valuable information. At that point to call in to question the integrity of a photograph that had a minor element removed is duplicitous. Holding photography to a different standard than the non-visual aspects of the story is duplicitous as well. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
(I hate when I forget to edit the subject. Sorry for the double post) From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com Bruce wrote: I couldn't have said it better myself Tom. The entire concept of photography is to create an image from the mind/concept/perspective of the photographer. To think that any photograph represents the unaltered truth is ridiculous. That's where this discussion is going astray: No one expects a photograph to represent the unaltered truth, but they do expect it to represent an unaltered *photograph*. - Well I don't have that expectation. I expect that the image accurately conveys the message, not whether it has been altered in some minor fashion or not. That's me though. :) I do understand the principle, no alterations = no questions as to legitimacy for any given image, and of course as you pointed out later. he did not fulfill his contract. So I have no argument there. Some of us are viewing it through a different lens so to speak. First there's the different 'standards or expectations' of PJ compared to other photography. Then there's the whole idea of whether the news being reported to us is objective to begin with, which I'll contend it's not. Slanting stories, ignoring potential sources, and using sound bites, alters what is reported, not to mention the innate bias any human possesses. The mere act of editing the written word potentially discards valuable information. At that point to call in to question the integrity of a photograph that had a minor element removed is duplicitous. Holding photography to a different standard than the non-visual aspects of the story is duplicitous as well. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
John wrote: Photojournalism is not about THE TRUTH, it's about accurately representing what is in front of the camera. The viewer can find their own truth. In that case I find the underlying principles to be deeply flawed. An unaltered photograph can do just as much misleading as an altered one can. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com That's where this discussion is going astray: No one expects a photograph to represent the unaltered truth, but they do expect it to represent an unaltered *photograph*. Well I don't have that expectation. I expect that the image accurately conveys the message, not whether it has been altered in some minor fashion or not. That's me though. :) Yes. That's you. This isn't about you. Or me. It's about the public's expectations, editors' expectations (and demands) and the Associated Press's expectations and the requirements stipulated in their contracts. I think the only expectation the public at large has is that the news be accurate. I don't believe that the public explicitly (or implicitly) has the expectation that each and every photo be unaltered, especially where it doesn't matter. The public apparently likes Instagram. In your response, you've clipped where I wrote: I do understand the principle, no alterations = no questions as to legitimacy for any given image, and of course as you pointed out later. he did not fulfill his contract. So I have no argument there.. This is an example that works to illustrate a point, one we're both probably trying to make Mark, just from slightly different views. By your omission, people could think that I wasn't agreeing with you on those points, when in reality I was. My point is that the objectivity of the whole journalistic process is questionable, not just the visual component. And while an agreed upon rule was violated, which was wrong for the photographer to do, it's hypocritical to take the photographer to task, and then pretend to have journalistic integrity. If one can't accept a photograph that was altered in a very trivial way irrelevant to the story, because it lacks integrity somehow, then they better damn well go back and make sure the FOV, shooting angle, DOF (don't want to blur out pertinent background details) and everything else tells the whole story. Then make sure the written word tells the whole truth fairly without omissions. Referencing the Bible, Jesus accused the Pharisees of 'straining out the gnat from their drink, while gulping down the camel'... 'Cleaning the outside of the cup while the inside is dirty'. - Matthew 23:24 That's what this looks like to me. Focusing on a nit while ignoring the whole bigger picture of whether 1) other unaltered photos present a biased or cropped view of reality and 2) whether the reporting behind the scene does the same. I don't want to belabor it anymore, I understand the principle that journalistically an unaltered photo may meet a higher standard (not that it necessarily conveys a point more accurately or honestly). I found these comments on dpreview of interest (and of course this is a subject open to huge debate): One tends to think of journalistic photographic manipulation as being something only present in the digital age. Its not true...for example...one of the famous images of students killed in a protest at Ohio State University in the late 60's had an inconvenient pole in the background behind a devastated student, which was removed in editing and that has become a famous and accepted image in the history of journalism. In Nachtwey's movie War Photographer, Nachtwey gives instructions to his printer to dodge, burn and highlight areas of an image to focus attention or create effect. That's also manipulation. I think it's really a no-no to alter the content of an image so as to lie - as in adding extra victims or body parts - but this edit has not taken away from the image or created a visual lie, the debate is precious and silly and should be dictated by common sense. The whole underlying intent was to clean up an otherwise good news image. - Peter Bendheim This is a funny topic I always enjoy when it 'crops' up. The assumption that what a photographer does with a camera is objective and absolute and deserving of instant trust, while what he/she does with a cloning/healing tool in Photoshop is immediately dishonest is so laughably last century. Cropping also removes elements from an image, choosing your moment so your photo tells a particular angle of the story is part of shooting, but that's all ok by these foolish rules. It's splitting hairs and it's arrogance of the highest order. - Peter Stuckings. I agree he broke his contract. I agree he altered an image. Under the terms of the contract was that wrong? Yes it was. In the big scheme of things though... ? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com I think the point is, we need to do the best we can. Without wanting to inject politics into the discussion, why do we call Palestinian bombers terrorists rather than freedom fighters? It's a pretty easy answer, it's because we aren't on their side. If we were, our language would be very different. We call landmines that the other guys use IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices) because it denigrates their efforts. At the same time, their efforts cost a lot in terms of lives and equipment, so I don't know just how improvised these explosive devises are. You are right, language has the power to sway opinion, which is why one must be careful when deciphering what one reads. OTOH, images have even more power to sway, and we don't have the option of looking at a picture and know immediately what politics, if any, is behind the picture. We can look at words and say, yeah, he's a left wing nutbar, based on what was written, and discard it or believe it based on whether or not it fits our own outlook. It's harder with a picture, especially one that comes from what is supposed to be a journalistic source that is supposed to have integrity and believability. However, let me ask you something: How long would a newspaper editor in the USAor Canada (and probably more so Canada given our PM's speech to the Knesset last week) keep his job if he started referring to Palestinians as Freedom Fighters rather than the more accepted term terrorist and Israel as a Zionist Apartheid State? Depending on your POV, either language is the truth. bill - I don't disagree with that Bill. I especially agree that Images have even more power to sway and it's harder with a picture to tell what is believable. The only thing I'd say (and have said) is that to believe that an unaltered image is any more truthful or objective than an unaltered image, in the context of reporting, and stopping there, thinking the rules of integrity are satisfied or broken based on that criteria alone, is IMO, incorrect. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
Bob W Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:35:45 -0800 This is a straw man argument, because nobody claims that the whole journalistic process is objective. It has never claimed to be objective. What honourable journalists (and there are plenty of them) strive for is to be an honest witness. B - It may be a straw man in the context of this list. But would the 'media' have us believe they're objective? Of course they would. Are people at AP sitting back and thinking or saying 'see we're objective because of this'? Of course they are. I shouldn't have painted with a such a wide brush. You're totally correct. I'll be back after I go fire myself. Tom -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
From: Igor Roshchin s...@komkon.org I am not seeing what was the problem in what he did. The modification he did did not change the purpose of the photo or whatever the photo presents. It brings back the question of what is and what is not manipulation of the photo. As burning and dodging is also image manipulation and modification. While I understand that one can defined the modification of an image when the actual pixels are replaced/moved. But what if he just darkened some portion of the photo with an object in it so that the object is deep in a shadow, and hence cannot be seen on the photo? That's not moving of the pixels, but just changing the levels on a part of the photograph. I understand the problem when a person is removed from a group photo, but that's totally different. I think in this particular case, they are making a mountain out of a molehill. Thu Jan 23 13:11:02 EST 2014 Mark Roberts wrote: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-23/pulitzer-photographer-narciso-conteras-fired-syria-ap/5215200 I agree. If the content removed from an image did not add to the meaningful information conveyed, then removing it did not subtract from the meaningful information either and it's still journalistically 'truthful'. It's ridiculous to moralize on something so trivial when news and journalistic organizations routinely use file photos to illustrate a story. Often those photos are far removed from the time and place the story is about and can be very misleading, yet that's OK and removing a distracting element is not? Seems like a double standard to me. If the image was a little wider and the video camera could have been cropped instead of cloned...that's as much a manipulation, as is cropping in the viewfinder. I agree with Misere, if words can be edited and changed, to craft the story, then the same standard should apply to images. Misleading with an image is obviously wrong. Photos are not truth and never were. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com A couple of things: 1) It's a matter of principal. It's a news photo, and thusly should be as unmanipulated as possible. 2) Where is the slippery slope? When does it become not OK to make manipulations? Are we OK with not knowing if an image we are being presented with is a representation of the real thing or not? Was that the case here? What was the subject of the photo? The soldier or the video camera? If I pick up a candy bar wrapper that's littering the foreground in a landscape shot is that wrong? No. If I clone it out afterwards when I notice it. Is that wrong? No. This wasn't a case of a photographer manipulating a photo with intent to mislead the viewer. It was case of cloning out an unimportant element. What viewer looked at it and thought, 'Wow there's supposed to be a video camera down in the corner'? We aren't talking about a family portrait where we expect Aunt Maude to look 10 years younger, and any manipulation that alters our perception of the image is wrong, plain and simple. This includes extreme contrast manipulation, extreme dodging and burning, removing or adding subject matter, in fact anything that is done with the intention of obscuring what was actually in front of the camera. For myself, even using really long or really short focal lengths to alter the image from a normal perspective can be an excessive manipulation. bill Come now, come now. You make me spit my wine out! Mr. Lens Inventory. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
Two other thoughts came to mind. 1. I think the guy was kind of a dumbass for going to a supervisor and saying he cloned it out. It's sort of like leaving work 15 minutes early one day and then telling your boss 'I left early yesterday'. In the big scheme of things it doesn't matter. 2. Maybe this is a publicity stunt on the part of the photographer. I wonder how many job offers he's been receiving since that. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
John wrote: If you draw the line at nothing added, nothing removed no one can argue about how much has been changed in the story the image tells. There's really nowhere else you can draw that line without it being challenged. I totally understand what you and others are saying, and I do get the point 100%. The problem I see is that there's a basic assumption that the photons entering the lens and recorded on the media somehow represent THE TRUTH. I believe that assumption is flawed. First, those photons pass through the lens and are bent in order to be recorded on the media or detected by the sensor. As Bill noted, that can drastically change the look of an image. So what focal length represents truth (not to mention DOF)? Exposure? Then those recordings pass through digital circuitry and are changed. Then they are manipulated internally by software to render a 2-dimensional *version* of what was there in 3 dimensions. Enough said. The other issue is that were I to pan the camera in any direction by any amount, I'd end up with a different image. The mere act of pressing the shutter release includes photons entering the lens and making it through the aperture and discards those not lucky enough to do so. So right there we could consider that elements of truth were included while others were discarded, all because of where the photographer was pointing the camera, be it somewhat arbitrarily or deliberately. Did the captured image represent what was really there or did the photographer deliberately include some elements while deliberately excluding others? Is that what it looked like to the naked human eye or was perspective and focus point changed? Was the intent nefarious in making those choices or benevolent? I contend photography of any kind is ALL ABOUT deciding what IS captured and what is NOT. That is the essence of photography and composition. To state that any captured image unequivocally represents THE TRUTH is simply incorrect. To say that changing image content at capture time or afterwards changes the TRUTHFULNESS of the image is false. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
Bill wrote: At the same time, there is that which we are willing to accept as a truthful representation, even though it cannot be unaltered and still be something we can hold in our hands and say this really sucks What you guys are saying is that if you have an insurance claim, you might as well Photoshop in some more damage since the evidence picture isn't the truth anyway. Have a spat with your boyfriend? Just Photoshop in a black eye and make it look like he split your lip and knocked out a couple of teeth. Get that f#cker sent to jail for bringing home Pepperoni and mushroom rather than ham and pineapple. He won't make that mistake twice. It doesn't matter, since whatever you use as evidence is a lie anyway. Now you know that's not what I'm saying. In that image of interest, if a bloody body was photo-shopped out or in, that would be crossing the line, especially if it was supposed to DOCUMENT the scene at that place at that point in time. If the image is not meant to document something, but instead be illustrative, then removing or cropping a distracting item does not alter the message any more than panning the camera alters the message. In the case of the image in question, the superfluous video camera was never part of the intended message to begin with. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Another PJ in trouble for Photoshopping
On 23/01/2014 9:49 PM, Tom C wrote: The problem I see is that there's a basic assumption that the photons entering the lens and recorded on the media somehow represent THE TRUTH. I believe that assumption is flawed. --- That's because your basic assumption is a flawed premise. The picture doesn't represent the truth, it represents a reflection of the truth. The Old Ones know the truth, but they have long since gone beyond the Rim. bill I understand your point, an image is a reflection/rendering of a narrow reality at that point in space-time in the direction the camera was pointing. :) For photo-journalism to say an image is untruthful or has no integrity because an object is removed, is fallacious at best and hypocritical at worst, because a like image taken from a slightly different vantage point would also eliminate that object and still be considered truthful. If the object removed was done so with the intent of altering the message, that's different. Subtraction is the basic process of composition. Other alterations or additions have more to do with changing the integrity of the image. I have a real problem with additions or moving of objects in an image. Alterations to achieve a desired effect, be it exposure, contrast, saturation, are in many respects the bread and butter of non-documentary photography. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Always wondered why they supplied a viewfinder cover...
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com On 12/11/2013 6:10 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Did Nikon shooters get their panties in a bunch when Nikon was bought by Mitsubishi in the 1970's? No. When I pointed out on another forum that Nikon was just a Mitsubishi brand name, I was given a really long lecture about Mitsubishi's Keiretsu, and how Nikon isn't owned by anyone other than Nikon. I suspect it was a Nikon fan boy, or it may have just been a pompous piece of shit. They are hard to tell one from the other. The link that Darren gave was interesting up to the point where the guy crossed out Pentax and Hoya and at that point I wrote him off as another sniveling internet fuckhead with the brains of a small rutabaga. Pity, he may have had something smart to say and spoiled it by coming across like a retarded root vegetable. bill Unfortunately I think you're wrong on that Bill. I did the research, and if I can believe what I read, Nikon is not just another Mitsubishi brand name, as Pentax is for Ricoh. Nikon is part of the Mitsubishi Group Keiretsu and member companies own shares of each others stock and therefore have a mutual interest in one another's well-being. Nikon is an independent corporation in that it's shares continue to be publicly traded and it reports independent financial results separate from all other members of the group. If it were struggling member companies of the group could decide what to do. It has it's own executives and board of directors. History we all know: That 's far different from Asahi Optical (Pentax) ceasing to exist as a corporation in 2008. When Hoya wanted to unload the Pentax camera business in 2011, it created the subsidiary Pentax Imaging Corporation. Ricoh bought all shares of that temporary entity and the combined companies were called Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company. In 2013 it simply became Ricoh Imaging with Pentax as a brand. Hoya also continues to use the Pentax name for the parts of the business it did not sell to Ricoh, mainly the medical division. Does that mean anything? It depends what one wishes to extrapolate. What it says to me (and I believe you) is that Asahi Optical had a long history of making bad decisions. That made it it vulnerable and at risk. It led to it finally be acquired and becoming non-existent as a corporate business entity. That of course is different than saying you can't purchase a new Pentax camera. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Nikon Df
From: Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com I'm sure you saw the accidentally leaked price on Amazon for the DF ($2746). I saw the D800 on Overstock.com the other day for $2200. Are you sure about that? I can't find a single Nikon camera of any kind (DSLR, MILC, PS) on overstock.com at the moment. There's overstockdigital.com and they claim to have the D800 for $2109 but they appear to be one of the very disreputable resellers, the kind that operate out of graffiti covered garages. BH and Amazon have the D800 for $2,796.95. Always hard to believe when a site claims to have a price hundreds of dollars lower than the #1 specialty retailer, and #1 online retailer. At the US price the Df would be easy to justify for someone that wanted a D4, didn't care about video, and wasn't concerned about the D4's 11 fps. I suspect some people who were planning on a D4 will get the Df instead. It would be easy to do at less than 1/2 the price. On the other hand it's 83% of the price of a D800E, so giving up 20MP at that price is a bit hard to swallow. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: White-Faced Heron
From: Rob Studdert distudio.p...@gmail.com Hi Rob, Mark, Paul, et al, Stan nicely elaborated on what I was trying to say last night. There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking tons of shots to capture the exact moment(s). With a dynamic moving subject that's clearly desirable, if not a necessity. I hope that was clear to all by my responses on the subject, and that I was addressing the subject of getting good shots in a more generic sense. As Stan summed up, quality vs. quantity. And of course quantity if the subject dictates. Tom C. I shoot a lot of shows along side other photographers, sometimes I shoot more than them, sometimes less but generally the feedback I get from artists is complementary with relation to my ability to capture their most meaningful facial expressions. My images are sometimes technically better than others but all the technical stuff aside the absolute differentiator is timing, and sometimes you just need to shoot the hell out of a subject in order to capture the perfect expression. That said I rarely set my drive mode to continuous but the shutter still seems to become pretty rapid fire when the action demands. On 31 October 2013 10:50, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Paul Stenquist wrote: On Oct 30, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: BTW: In the case of fashion photographers the answer to why they take so many shots is often because that's what the editors demand. Some will totally decompensate if they don't have thousands of images, with the slightest variation between any two, to choose from. If you're a working pro you have to deliver what the client wants (unless you're one of a handful of elites who can dictate to editors what you're going to give them). To that add that trying to get a model to strike that perfect pose with the perfect expression is extremely difficult. So you have them try different things and you keep snapping away. You simply can't get it in a reasonable number of shots with most models. Yep. At the college where I teach we have a bi-annual student-produced fashion magazine. On Tuesday at our Graphic Design club meeting were going through possible cover photos. Probably a thousand of them. The difference a small change in pose can make is astonishing. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: White-Faced Heron
From: Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote: How stupid do you think I am? Well, you shoot Pentax, so I have a guess as to Tom's opinion. Matthew, That implication would be wrong as my catalog of images that I consider to be good contains about 99% images shot with Pentax gear over the last 24 years and 1% shot with Nikon and Sony so far. And guys, when in life AREN'T we all told or reminded of things we already know? Home, work, this list... It may be human nature to sometimes feel insulted and think 'I know that already'. I can see I possibly approached the subject starting off on the wrong foot. My intent was not to insult. I'm sorry if anyone felt that way. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: White-Faced Heron
From: Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net My understanding is that the secret to getting good shots is taking a lot of them. Really? Is that the way you think most people get 'good shots'? To get good shots, one must take shots, but the secret isn't taking a lot of them. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Getting 'Good' Shots... was Re: Re: White-Faced Heron
From: Alan C c...@lantic.net Why do fashion photographers take so many shots then? Alan Why don't you ask them or read up on the subject? See if they agree with such a simplistic approach to creating good imagery. Tom C. -Original Message- From: Tom C Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:39 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: PESO: White-Faced Heron From: Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net My understanding is that the secret to getting good shots is taking a lot of them. Really? Is that the way you think most people get 'good shots'? To get good shots, one must take shots, but the secret isn't taking a lot of them. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: White-Faced Heron
From: Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com Tom, In the film days, each shot was $.25 and only pros took lots of shots. Now the cost per shot is almost zero, and the tyros 'spray and pray'. I enjoy taking more shots now, trying to work things out and saving money on film. I hope it's improving my photography. A new K-3 costs less than 150 rolls of Kodachrome (...if only we could process it). Regards, Bob S. From: Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net I agree to a certain extent. In some situations, preparing and shooting at the right moment is most critical and taking numerous shots can be a detriment to getting the one you want. In other situations, multiple exposures can be helpful. For example, when shooting the great blue heron a couple of weeks ago I knew that he was likely to take off, so I had preselected the central focus point and made sure I had plenty of shutter speed, then I just waited. When he did take off, I got one shot as he lifted off the water and waited to take a second until he was directly adjacent to me. If I had kept firing after liftoff, I probably wouldn't have gotten a good in-flight shot. On the other hand, when shooting cars for publication, I'll record numerous exposures of the same shot, sometimes turning the polarizer a bit or reframing slightly. Too many choices are just enough. But I rarely bracket, since a good average exposure provides plenty of working room when the RAW is converted. Paul Bob, As a general statement, I don't believe in the spray and pray approach. It leaves too many things to chance. Yes, if you have a moving model, race car, airplane, children, wildlife, etc., being in continuous shooting mode may increase your chances of getting an image that excels above others. That's what it's for. I was responding to the notion that the *secret* to getting good shots is taking a lot of shots, which was the statement made. If that's true then photography is like the lottery. I see many examples of that approach, and the chances of getting a good shot are about the same. As I said, shooting in continuous mode may be required at times due to the subject matter, but then if one gets an exceptional image the difference between that one image and the two or three surrounding it that are unexceptional is likely just the random timing of the shutter syncing up with the subject at just the right moment. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. In my opinion taking a lot of shots does not improve one's photography any more than throwing a 1000 darts at a dartboard blind folded improves one's game. Will one get more bulls eye's the more darts one throws? No doubt. But possibly the ratio of bulls eye's to misses actually decreases with that approach. I'm probably stating the obvious, but getting good shots is usually a matter of having a good eye for composition, paying attention to technical details, shooting in the right light, using the right tool for the job, knowing one's gear. All those will contribute more to getting a good image than simply taking a lot of shots. I'm not stating something you don't already know. I realize that. :) Paul, Agreed. Even in landscape photography, which seldom requires shooting in continuous mode, I can get in a rush because of the excitement of the moment while at the same time believing I'm paying attention to details when I'm not. My brain can essentially turn off and it's Ooh! Ah! Ooh! moments. Then I look at what I captured. Very very often, I can see that I wasn't really thinking. When I slow down and carefully take the time to compose, frame, consider exposure, use a tripod if needed... those are most often the times I get excellent results. Then I was a real contributor to the image, as opposed to simply the person pressing the shutter release. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: White-Faced Heron
Yeah, you definitely are. You don’t need to size up the situation? You don’t need to look through the viewfinder? You don’t need to think about what you want to accomplish? You don’t need to check your settings? You don’t need to think about what settings are called for in the situation given what you want to accomplish? You don’t need to check the results you’re getting and adjust? How stupid do you think I am? Well Eric there's plenty of people who proscribe exactly to the rationale you just outlined. In answer to you're question, I believe you're the most qualified to answer. That's the smartest answer I can give. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: White-Faced Heron
Darren wrote: It is unfortunate that this thread has devolved into the crapfest that one can now (apparently) expect whenever Tom decides to post something to this list. ad hominem Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: You Know What Darren?
Darren you're a blowhard. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Which camera brand would you choose, if you started from scratch?
From: Jens p...@planfoto.dk Hello list When I wanted somthing better than my first slr - the Yashica TL Electro-X, I went to a shop the buy an Olympus OM-1. But the guy in the shop convinced my to buy a Pentax MX (which I did), since I remembered, that I had earlier used a Pentax lens for my Yashica. The results from this lens (a 35mm for Spotmatic) came out so nice, that the guy in the shop really had no difficulties in convincing me to buy the MX (still got one). This happened in 1981. I have been using Pentax cameras ever since. But if this happended today, I don't know what would happen. The guy in the shop would probably tell me to get a Canon, Nikon or Sony, like almost everybody else... How would you convince a beginner to get a Pentax? What would you buy, if you were a beginner? Regards Jens Why would you start with a bias? Spock ears on... Define beginner. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The full frame Sony A7 A7R were officially announced last night
From: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Indeed. It took me several days to get used to the button instead of keyhole for ignition in our rented car in Europe. It took me then few ugly attempts to press a button that wasn't there when we got home. That happens to me every time. Last week I had a pushbutton ignition rental car. This week not. For the first several days I threw the key fob in the center console and went to push the button. In general, I think that to say that such and such camera has bad ergonomics either should assume that it is perspective of just one person, the one who writes, or it is intellectually dishonest. I agree. What kind of ergonomics did the entire range of Pentax and other manufacturers DSLR's in the 60's - 80's have? Somehow we figured out how to make our hands and fingers operate them. Amazing! It would be very difficult for Pentax to sell a FF camera for less than the A, considering economies of scale. Just putting a FF sensor in a K-3 and adding the additional cost would bring it close, not to mention additional likely changes to shutter, stabilization, and more. Well, I have to disagree with you here, Tom. Pentax is not forced to make their first FF camera be the cheapest out there. Pentax has some strong selling points such as serious weather resistance or shake reduction (and now this variable anti aliasing technology too) that may allow it to position themselves somewhere in the middle of the pack. I think you misunderstood me here Boris. I wasn't saying they have to make it the least expensive out there. I was saying it would be difficult for them to BE the least expensive out there, given the quantity they would likely produce. Claiming the K-3 is a better camera without evidence, and denying the advantages of FF as if they are irrelevant simply because one does not have them or may not be able to afford them at the moment goes to my first point . To make it even more general - neither camera has seen the light of day. We had some previews from DPReview and the likes and that's it. We honestly don't know anything about real use of these cameras, so how could we honestly produce blanket statements such as K-3 is better than A7 or A7 is better than K-3? Boris I couldn't agree more. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The full frame Sony A7 A7R were officially announced last night
From: Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com The new Sony cameras give you nothing other than the big sensor. You give up the shake reduction. One guy on dpreview put it this way: + Fullframe Sensor: K-5=no A7=yes - Autofocus: K-5=yes A7=no - Lens Correction: K-5=yes A7=no - Viewfinder: K-5=OVF A7=EVF ? GPS: K-5=optional A7=? - Image Stabilization: K-5=yes A7=no Other than getting a full frame sensor, everything else is a big downgrade. OK Darren. You've been perturbed when I've made negative remarks about Pentax as a brand or corporation, and have said that if only I'd used a K-5 I wouldn't feel that way about Pentax. I've explained that it would not have made a difference, as I was talking about the corporation and the Pentax 'ecosystem' not a specific product. Never did I denigrate the K-5 itself and neither have I the K-3, as I haven't used them Let's look at what you just wrote through the lens of intellectual honesty. The new Sony cameras give you nothing other than the big sensor. You give up the shake reduction. That's an interesting statement to make on many levels. The photography world is ablaze right now about these two cameras because of the expected image quality potential. They are loaded with features, and the FF sensors in such diminutive bodies is indeed the preeminent attraction. Your statement is such an obviously blanket statement it can't be taken seriously, The A7's like many other Sony's, Nikons, and Canon's do not have in body shake reduction. But implying the camera system is not capable of image stabilization is leaving an important point out. The virtues of both body-based and lens-based approaches to stabilization have been debated for years. Quite frankly, while I appreciate image stabilization, and would prefer body-based stabilization because of universality, it's not everything. Low light, it's helpful. Long telephotos or zooms, it's helpful. In many situations it does not make a difference and is still not as fool-proof as a tripod and mirror lockup (no mirrors of course on the A7's). + Fullframe Sensor: K-5=no A7=yes Correct - Autofocus: K-5=yes A7=no What? Both the A7 and A7R are autofocus bodies. The A7 has a hybrid phase/contrast detect AF whereas the A7R is contrast detect AF. To say the A7's don't have AF is, at face value, an incorrect statement. - Lens Correction: K-5=yes A7=no I'm not sure where this comes from and I searched for verification but couldn't find anything other than that Sony offers an app for lens corrections. However the NEX-6 and NEX-7 have built-in lens correction for native E-mount lenses. It would seem to me that Sony could or would continue this for native E-mount lenses. And of course ACR allows lens profile based corrections as well as manual adjustment. I'll admit I don't know the facts on A7 in-camera lens correction. - Viewfinder: K-5=OVF A7=EVF There's been much debate on OVF vs EVF as you know. Many have no problem with EVF's and there's circumstances where they're preferable. It's a matter of preference or even just getting used to what the camera comes with. Basically if you can look in a viewfinder and clearly see the scene you wish to capture, it's doing the job intended. This can't be empirically categorized as a + or -. ? GPS: K-5=optional A7=? Rather meaningless as it's an accessory. Who know's what accessories will be available in the future for the A7's? I'd say that for the vast majority of users, including myself a GPS on a camera is way way down on the list of must-haves. - Image Stabilization: K-5=yes A7=no Addressed above. The A7's do not have in body stabilization, but to leave it at that without making the additional statement that lens-based stabilization is available with certain lenses, doesn't tell the whole story. Other than getting a full frame sensor, everything else is a big downgrade. I'm not sure if that's your statement or of the fellow your quoting, but it's again a blanket statement - Made about specific products by someone (who I would guess) has not so much as seen them in person, much less picked one up and used it for any amount of time, has not experienced how the product handles, or examined the output image quality produced, since they won't be released to the public until December. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The full frame Sony A7 A7R were officially announced last night
From: Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com I'm kind of underwhelmed with the A7 to be honest. First of all, I hate sony as a company and would only buy a camera from them if they were the last company on earth. Zos, that statement basically casts a pale over the rest that you write. It's also characteristic of comments often seen here and on many other lists regardless of brand. That is the apparent lack of, or temporary lack of intellectual honesty. The definition is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty Secondly, its downright ugly, not that I would care in the end, but dammit I want to look *good* with my camera on my shoulder. We all like our gear to look good. I frankly like the lines of the A7's. To be honest I'd have preferred a NEX style without the prism-like hump, but I wasn't the designer. Actually it shares basic lines with every DSLR ever made. Thirdly its is a Nex which means nex-style ergonomics and awful, unbalanced handling. It's not a NEX, it's a Sony E-mount camera with the (a)lpha designation. I have two NEX's. They are not unbalanced nor do they have bad ergonomics IMO. Have you used a NEX for any period of time to back up the statement? Even the accidental video button press is grossly exaggerated. It's my opinion, others will disagree, that we adjust to ergonomics over time and it's what you've come use to. I still feel strange turning the lens in the opposite direction Pentax to mount/dismount with Nikon. It's not the Nikon at fault, it's my mental conditioning after using Pentax for 22 years. Eventually it'll become second nature with Nikons. Maybe after I read some reviews and see some good samples I might change my mind, but its way out of the ballpark price wise for me anyways. I'd much rather wait for a proper Pentax FF DSLR to be honest, which I likely won't be able to afford either. Damn. IMO the K-3 is a better camera. FF isn't everything. It would be very difficult for Pentax to sell a FF camera for less than the A, considering economies of scale. Just putting a FF sensor in a K-3 and adding the additional cost would bring it close, not to mention additional likely changes to shutter, stabilization, and more. Claiming the K-3 is a better camera without evidence, and denying the advantages of FF as if they are irrelevant simply because one does not have them or may not be able to afford them at the moment goes to my first point . Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: The full frame Sony A7 A7R were officially announced last night
From: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com I've played a bit with Nex-6. No immediate ergonomic problems that I can report. The difference between K-3 and A7 at release time is $400. I'm not going to buy either of these, but K-3's price may be just a tad too high for some new prospective buyers who would look at A7 and think: 1. Sony - familiar brand. 2. FF - I will look cool 3. Small and light - great - I wont' have to haul lots of gear And thus they will prefer Sony. Naturally, you're entitled to your reasoning and I present mine only as an alternative. Boris Hi Boris, I can understand your reasoning and generally agree. I got my son a NEX-6 to replace a broken Panasonic PS, and he's not particularly into photography.Drawing and graphics is more his cup of tea. However he took it and his iphone 5 to Seattle recently. His report back. 'Wow! I put my iPhone away and used the Sony.' He was really impressed... something that's hard to do with my 22 year old. :) Sony is on a roll. They've taken a number of missteps IMO, but the NEX line is a success and the A7's appear to be ground breaking. In the end it's about IQ and usability. Affordability as well. BTW have you got a chance to listen to Paul McCartney's new album entitled New? It was released in US on 10-15. As usual, I love most tracks. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-3 musings
On 10/8/2013 2:07 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Thom Hogan muses on the K-3 and calls it what Nikon should be offering as a replacement to the D300. http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/meanwhile-meet-the-pentax.html In it, he makes a cogent defense of the APS-C for serious photographers: So let me put it as plainly as I can: people want a top DX (or as in the case of the Pentax K-3, APS) system for a reason: everything scales. Size, weight, and price. Sure, the D800 is a great camera. Now stick the f/2.8 or f/4 zooms on it and add up the size, weight, and price. You've left a lot of folk out of the market for a top-end, serious camera. I know a lot of college sports shooters and other pros who are using DX for those reasons: size, weight, and price. They can't afford a full out FX system, nor do they want to travel with one given the airline carry-on hassle we get these days. Darren, I opine, based on my most recent experience of travel with my wife and our two girls that any DSLR camera (even the cheaper plasticky kind of lowly Canon models) is severe overkill for airlline carry-on unless you travel in style in business or first class. Boris I travel by air weekly and carry the D800E, 70-200/2.8, 150/2.8 macro, 50/1.4 plus filters, accessories, batteries on planes (in a Lowepro backpack) several times a month. I haven't weighed it. I'm guessing 25 lbs or more. It goes in the overhead or at my feet depending on the size of the plane and my luggage is checked. I'm frequently in 1st class, but not all the time. That does make it a little easier. It really all depends what one intends and how much effort one is willing to expend to be prepared for their intentions. Yes it does take extra effort to carry a heavier kit. If I don't plan on using the D800E, I take the NEX-7 kit which is 1/8 the weight and 1/5 the size. So basically I agree. Just thinking that back 10+ years ago, these options didn't exist. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com Pentax has been on it's way out since I was selling cameras 30 years ago. They went from being an industry leader to a wannabe in one generation of cameras. All of a sudden, they have something to market that, in many ways, leapfrogs the competition rather than being two steps behind with their best. There is no sarcasm in looking at what they have come up with here and saying they have more on the ball now than they have had for nearly three decades. It seems to have worked out for Pentax, finally. bill I agree with much of what you say, but leapfrogs??? It's still a 24MP camera that's a year and a half to two years late. It's amazing that 3 months ago the K-5/K-5II fulfilled everyone's needs and 'why would one want more resolution?', and now it's goo-goo ga-ga over the K-3. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
Darren Addy wrote: Wow. I thought that most of us had advanced beyond thinking that megapixels was the only metric to use when comparing DSLR capabilities. Dear Darren, 1. What are you comparing? You haven't touched it yet. 2. You beat the same old drum even when Pentax now has a higher resolution body. 3. MP is one of the few attributes that can be stated unequivocally as a number and is a known metric. 4. If you don't believe imaging sensor resolution is not among the most important metrics in determining the technical 'quality' of a recorded image (along with the resolving power of the lens at X aperture, and yes noise characteristics, etc.), then you're missing something. Your use of the word 'only' was presumptuous and mistaken. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
Darren Addy wrote: What are bashing? You haven't touched it yet. You. :) Certainly not the K-3. I was reacting to the word leapfrogs in Bill's post. Not sure what you are referring to when you say beat the same old drum, and maybe you haven't been following the earlier threads on the K-3 specs - but this camera is upgraded in wy more ways than just a higher resolution sensor. To me the biggest thing that unlocks most of its capabilities is the PRIME III image processor (Fujitsu Milbeaut version 7). Others are intrigued by the innovative, selectable AA. Others are happy that Pentax finally appears to be catching up in the AF arena. ALL of these upgrades in one camera? When the topic has come up regarding the lack of a higher resolution sensor you tend to downplay the desirability of one when Pentax doesn't have one and make statements like 'it's not the only thing that's important', which is true. Then when I mention just the 24MP sensor, without mentioning other specifications, you infer my 'thinking has not advanced' regarding the importance of MP, as if it was retarded. That's what I mean. Yes I understood all that. I heard that AF was upgraded on the K-7, the K-5, and the K-5II as well. I'm not saying it's not on the K-3. It is on paper. We'll know when someone is able to objectively test it. This is certainly true, but it is like judging a computer based only on the speed of the processor and not looking at the other components like bus speed, etc. etc. Cameras and computers are similar in that, just because a new processor comes out (or a new sensor) there may not be hardware and software that can take advantage of all of its capabilities for a year or two. That is why the age of the processor (even if it is 1-1/2 year old technology) doesn't matter. The PRIME III can handle the data that sensor puts out. The Nikon D7100 is an example of a camera with the same sensor, but crippled by using the previous generation of image processor in concert with it. (Nikon - and other manufacturers that use the Milbeaut v7 - will catch up, and probably very soon, but there is a reason why Nikon guru Thom Hogan was moaning about how the K-3 meets the needs of a certain demographic of serious photographer that Nikon seems to be neglecting). It's your assumption that it's the only thing I judge it on. The sensor MP was the only thing I mentioned because it's an easy number to reference and defines the camera in many ways. Manufacturers and writers don't say the The K-3 is a PRIME III camera, or the K-3 is a Milbeaut X camera, or 'the K-3 is an 8.3 FPS camera'. They say the K-3 is a 24MP camera because the sensor is the preeminent component. I wasn't planning on reiterating the entire list of specifications. I read Thom Hogan also. As you say he's a Nikon afficiando. Much of what he writes though is criticisms of Nikon in the hopes that it will possibly influence their decision making. I suspect the use of image processor is largely a case of 'what' was available 'when'. Where did you get the impression that I don't think it is among the most important components? Really now Darren. :) [Rereads the message that I was replying to.] Yep. The higher resolution sensor was the ONLY thing you mentioned. Not that being presumptuous and mistaken is entirely foreign to me, however. :) See above. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
welcome. That was Cheerios? I thought it was your beer. :) You seem to take my statements as a personal insult and they're not intended that way. I think it's great that Pentax has the K-3. There's nothing wrong with liking Pentax products. After 13 years in film and then 10 in digital I got tired of waiting for them to catch up in the APS-C arena. As for the K-5, as I've explained before, it was too late. If it had been the K-7 I might have felt differently, but as it was, I was tired of waiting, and I'd still be waiting for FF. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
Larry wrote: For whatever it's worth, the one time that I had a chance to compare a K-5 side by side with a D7000 in a low light situation (in the -2EV to 2EV range), the K-5 vastly outperformed the D7000 in every regard. I'm not here to argue the merits of a K-5 vs. D7000 Larry. Why would I? But was it a scientific comparison or was it swapping cameras and handling it for a few minutes? Too many variables involved to make meaningful judgement calls (including lens) especially if it was just one time. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: I seem to have stepped into an alternate universe...
I'm not here to argue the merits of a K-5 vs. D7000 Larry. Why would I? But then you do:-) That's BS Paul and you know it. :) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: New K-3 Image
Yes, of course, Darren. But you see, all we know at this time for sure is the label on the processor. It could be that they just optimized/improved the same old Prime II to be able to work with more pixels, more AF points, more FPS, higher video rate. As it is, we have to wait, and it seems it is not that much time to wait anyway. My thoughts as well Boris. At this point in time all we know is that the difference between Prime II and Prime III is I. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: You didn't hear it from me...
From: steve harley p...@paper-ape.com on 2013-09-22 22:23 Tom C wrote Here's where I coming from on this. To say one's images wouldn't or couldn't benefit from increased resolution is like saying they couldn't benefit by using a finer grained film (in the day) or a higher quality lens. to me the point is not that there's no increase in resolution, the point is not to interpret the resolution numbers recklessly I don't believe I was. I was pointing out that in film days one did whatever they could to eke out the highest quality image they could from the system. I routinely purchased $8/roll Velvia and Provia instead of department store consumer series film. There was far less testing and data available regarding benefits of resolution increase/grain decrease back then compared to now. Kodak threw a monkey-wrench in the mix by not publishing their film specifications using the same measurement techniques and scale as the other film producers. The only way to really achieve a big jump in resolution and dynamic range was to move to a larger size media. Many here have upgraded from 6MP (*ist series) to 10MP (K10D) to 14MP (K20D) to 14MP (K-7) to 16MP (K-5) to 16MP (K-5II). There were valid reasons to upgrade, besides the modest resolution increases, in most, if not all those cases. I had an *istD, K20D, and K-7. Since then I have a 20MP 1 sensor compact, a 24MP APS-C MILC, and a 36MP DSLR. If anything the resolution increase I've experienced by looking at other brands is significantly higher than if I had iterated through the Pentax offerings. I guess I don't know what you mean by reckless. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: You didn't hear it from me...
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@me.com IMO, we passed the point a long, long time ago (around 5-10 Mpixel resolution) where, assuming a quality sensor, it was anything like a limiting factor in the quality of a photograph. I am still perfectly happy and confident shooting with my lovely old 2003 Olympus E-1. 5 glorious Mpixels. Yeah, my other cameras are now all 8 to 18 Mpixel, but the E-1 still produces beautiful photographs competitive with the best of them. G What is the quality of a photograph? Competitive with the best of them, in what way? Preface: I know I'm not telling you things you don't already know. Millions of people loved the quality of their Brownie Hawkeyes and Instamatics, or Polaroids for that matter. I agree that a 'pleasing' image is possible with any camera. However, at face value this argument implies there was no benefit to medium format film over 24 x 36, or 4 x 5 over that, or 8 x 10 over that - and that there's no benefit to increased digital resolution. I see things the other way around. Given a competent photographer behind the viewfinder, a system with increased resolution serves to capture more detail and a physically larger sensor likely reduces noise and increases dynamic range. The higher resolution capture provides more data to the system. The more data, the more accurate and detailed the image can/will be. Compare images from a 6MP *istD and a higher resolution K whatever. There's a difference. Compare to a 36MP D800E. There's a difference. If one only views at web size it may not be quite as apparent, the same way in which a 24 x 36 and medium format image might not look too strikingly different printed at 4 x 6. Start viewing at closer to 100% capture resolution, however and the difference quickly shows up. I'd argue that it can be detectable even at small sizes, though not as readily apparent. The benefits of higher resolution are obvious to many. If one doesn't need it or want it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Can one capture pleasing images with just about any digital camera at any resolution? Yes. No argument whatsoever. That is not the same question as: Will one's images likely benefit from increased resolution? The answer to that is also yes. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: You didn't hear it from me...
From: Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: You didn't hear it from me... Message-ID: CAJUU0Ceb6sTGQaCat33vDRzUqub37aM1Q1LEkMy4CB=a6ba...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Paul, don't you ever print? I can often easily see the difference between my K100D 6MP shots and my K20D 15MP shots when printed at 10x15 inches, the smallest I ever go. Especially in auto detail type subjects where the stairsteps on diagonals are visible without a magnifying glass. The difference is barely apparent at web sizes (under 1kx1k), but readily apparent when retouching in Photoshop. The more detail you have to start with the easier and less obtrusive retouching will be. I am looking forward to a significant increase in useable resolution. My DA* glass is ready for it. I hope they deliver. Here's where I coming from on this. To say one's images wouldn't or couldn't benefit from increased resolution is like saying they couldn't benefit by using a finer grained film (in the day) or a higher quality lens. Maybe some figure they never print above size D x D, or display an image larger than P x P. That's fine maybe they don't *need* it. Image capture is the start of the process. To belittle the idea that increased resolution is not a desirable thing is akin to saying you're quite willing to throwaway image information that was there for the taking. The principle is start out with the best achievable first gen image and the end result will be better as well. There's tradeoffs of course in price, weight, flexibility, and each person is different. I have a lot of 6MP captures I like too, but if I wanted to display or print large I'd be far happier to have captured them at 20, 24, or 36MP. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: best pro lab for printing
Darren wrote: What you need to know begins and ends with MPIX. http://www.mpix.com The are the digital arm of Miller's Professional Imaging, who was (and continues to be) a superb film lab serving professionals. I'll second that. I've had very good results with them. The one time I had a QC issue was with a 20 x 30 mounted and framed print. The print was lifting from the backing and appeared rippled. They asked for a picture so they could see the problem. Next day I had a brand new one at my door, free, no shipping, and was told no need to return the defective one. That was a fairly high priced item especially with next day Fedex. I received a 25% off discount code just today. SALE2013 Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT - PK to Fuji X adaptor
While I agree with Bill, that all things equal, it's preferable to have a new first party lens to retain all the benefits of a modern camera body, I don't share his cynical view of lens adapters and use of third party lenses. :) I've PK to e-mount and NikonF to e-mount adapters for the NEX-7 and 5. In fact just within the hour I purchased a Super Takumar 300/4 for use with it and now will need an M42 to e-mount adapter. :))) It'll be very specialized use, always tripod mounted and generally pointing up. I've read there may be a red fringe issue that can be corrected in post, and sample images I've seen are quite good. There's a whole sub-culture of NEX, 4/3, and Fuji users that are producing wonderful images with legacy lenses. Not everyone eschews them. How was your trip to BC, Bill? Tom C -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: ... I'm not a big fan of composing on the LCD and have yet to actually try an electronic viewfinder. Well, silly Darren, one composes with an LCD or electronic viewfinder exactly the same way one does with an optical viewfinder. :))) I agree. I prefer a viewfinder. I think the EVF in the NEX-6/7 are great. In normal and bright light they almost provide a better view than an optical viewfinder. In low light they tend to get a little noisy, but I figure that's akin to not being able to see as much in an optical viewfinder as light levels drop. One of the benefits is that after image acquisition, it is instantly displayed in the EVF, meaning I needn't look away to preview the image on the LCD. If I need to adjust composition or retake for any other reason, the cycle is much quicker than with a normal optical viewfinder. As Boris suggests, you may be pleasantly surprised. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
Years ago somebody bought a digital PS with a digital viewfinder. I was instantly turned off by the lines on the screen. Tell me it's better now??? Regards, Bob S. Hi Bob, You answered part of it yourself. :) This is today, that was years ago. No lines. I was mildly blown away by the IQ of the NEX-7 EVF. Some will whine about noise in low light, but then they should also whine that they can't see a heck of a lot through an optical VF when light levels are low. If anything, at very low light levels an EVF at least gives you a representation of what's being imaged, where with optical, one is almost blind. Take a look through a NEX-6 or 7 EVF. It's a 2.3 million pixel image. That's more than twice the pixel count of the LCD monitor. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
Well not really looking through... looking at. Tom C. On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: Years ago somebody bought a digital PS with a digital viewfinder. I was instantly turned off by the lines on the screen. Tell me it's better now??? Regards, Bob S. Hi Bob, You answered part of it yourself. :) This is today, that was years ago. No lines. I was mildly blown away by the IQ of the NEX-7 EVF. Some will whine about noise in low light, but then they should also whine that they can't see a heck of a lot through an optical VF when light levels are low. If anything, at very low light levels an EVF at least gives you a representation of what's being imaged, where with optical, one is almost blind. Take a look through a NEX-6 or 7 EVF. It's a 2.3 million pixel image. That's more than twice the pixel count of the LCD monitor. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
On Sep 11, 2013, at 7:14 AM, Kenneth Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: I used a Nikon Coolpix 5700 with an EVF, for evidence photography, years ago and in my opinion it was a great camera for static image capture but wasn't one to use for any sort of dynamic capture - there was a noticeable time delay between pushing the shutter release and the actual image capture - giving you the image that occurred after the one you wanted. Does this delay still exist in modern EVFs? With NEX-6/7 there is no noticeable shutter lag and captured image display in the EVF is instantaneous. NEX-6/7 use the same EVF from what I read. My son has the 6 and I have 7. He took the NEX-6 to Bumbershoot in Seattle recently. Lots of indoor concert shots with stage lighting. He quickly ditched his iPhone 5 in favor of the NEX-6. :) For those of us with older eyes, the modern EVF's almost feel like a new pair of glasses. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
Bruce wrote: You guys are making me think I should go down to the store and take a look at these new EVF's. Another question I have is in regards to sports shooting - any lag as you pan the camera following the action? I don't shoot sports but I wouldn't think so. I pan with the NEX-7 just as one would do with an OVF to compose, and I see exactly what the camera sees. Possibly one would want to turn auto review off at those times so the EVF doesn't review the image, but a half-press of the shutter release clears the preview and goes back to EVF live view. I suspect in Continuous Shooting mode, where the shutter is depressed constantly, that it it automatically turns off image review and one simply sees the normal EVF view, unhindered. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Which second party camera system do you like? Mini-survey
From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com Mike Johnston just reported on rumors that next month will see the announcement of an interchangeable-lens sibling to the full-frame Sony RX-1. Food for thought. And not long to wait to see if it's true. My opinion only... As nice as that sounds, it creates a situation of a very small body with some large heavy lenses. Many people whined and balked about the idea of the NEX body/lens matchup, even when the lenses were commensurately smaller/lighter and were specifically designed for the NEX cameras. I'm not quite sure where Sony is going with the idea, other than to prove they can. One of the desirable attributes of the mirrorless ILC's so far, has been the ability to carry a compact and light kit. A FF ILC, sort of negates that in some ways. I would hope, if it exists, that it would have an integrated EVF, not an attachment as the RX-1 has. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Kodak film?
Your point is... ? What's the basic difference in meaning between disrupt, disrupting, and disruptive? They all mean the same thing to me, except for how they fit into a sentence grammatically. They may all mean the same thing to you, but they don't to the rest of the world. B From wikipedia: A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually goes on to disrupt an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology. The term is used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically first by designing for a different set of consumers in a new market and later by lowering prices in the existing market. In contrast to disruptive innovation, a sustaining innovation does not create new markets or value networks but rather only evolves existing ones with better value, allowing the firms within to compete against each other's sustaining improvements. Sustaining innovations may be either discontinuous[1] (i.e. transformational or revolutionary) or continuous (i.e. evolutionary). The term disruptive technology has been widely used as a synonym of disruptive innovation... That's basically what I believed they were conveying, but I'd argue it's not the first thought that comes to mind. I guess since they had a huge chance of disruptive innovation with the advent of digital imaging and blew it, they're going to try again. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Kodak film?
I guess since they had a huge chance of disruptive innovation with the advent of digital imaging and blew it, they're going to try again. I would argue that they indeed achieved disruptive innovation when they started the world of digital imaging. And it was so successful it disrupted them too. G I'd agree with that argument. Nothing like being a victim of one's success. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Kodak film?
I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you will see that two of their three main goals are disrupting product goods packaging and disrupting functional printing WTF? I guess the word disrupting means something different now than it did when I got sent to the principals office for doing it. Mark That's pretty hilarious. I can see them wanting to disrupt, like shaking things up in the market, but that's still an odd choice of words. As you allude to, it has negative connotations as opposed to positive. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Kodak film?
On 5 Sep 2013, at 18:22, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote: On 5 Sep 2013, at 16:17, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know... If you go to kodak.com and click into the site you will see that two of their three main goals are disrupting product goods packaging and disrupting functional printing WTF? I guess the word disrupting means something different now than it did when I got sent to the principals office for doing it. Mark That's pretty hilarious. I can see them wanting to disrupt, like shaking things up in the market, but that's still an odd choice of words. As you allude to, it has negative connotations as opposed to positive. Someone has mistranslated something. They probably mean disruptive. B In fact, i just looked and it (now) says disruptive. B Your point is... ? What's the basic difference in meaning between disrupt, disrupting, and disruptive? They all mean the same thing to me, except for how they fit into a sentence grammatically. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Updated roadmap!
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com Still no fast standard lens (which is why I bought the little Fuji camera), no primes other than the macro between 77 and 200mm. Meanwhile, 4 more zooms in focal ranges they already have (really, how many ~16 - ~ 70mm zooms do we need?) To say I am underwhelmed is an understatement. More and more, it looks like I will be pursuing rounding out my lenses for the Fuji and not putting my money into Pentax for the foreseeable future. bill Meanwhile in E-mount for the NEX-7, I have new choices of: Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Zoom Lens Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 and several others. In this case the 16-70 is a welcome addition, especially if quality is as good as anticipated. I find the 12/2.8 interesting. I have a 50/1.8 but the 32/1.8 is likewise of interest due to the 1.5X crop. These aren't cheap lenses, but a sign the E-mount is being taken seriously Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Updated roadmap!
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com Still no fast standard lens (which is why I bought the little Fuji camera), no primes other than the macro between 77 and 200mm. Meanwhile, 4 more zooms in focal ranges they already have (really, how many ~16 - ~ 70mm zooms do we need?) To say I am underwhelmed is an understatement. More and more, it looks like I will be pursuing rounding out my lenses for the Fuji and not putting my money into Pentax for the foreseeable future. bill Meanwhile in E-mount for the NEX-7, I have new choices of: Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS Zoom Lens Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 and several others. In this case the 16-70 is a welcome addition, especially if quality is as good as anticipated. I find the 12/2.8 interesting. I have a 50/1.8 but the 32/1.8 is likewise of interest due to the 1.5X crop. These aren't cheap lenses, but a sign the E-mount is being taken seriously Tom C. It's about time Sony took something seriously. bill What do you mean? The NEX-7 is one serious camera. Dpreviews conclusion was in 2011: It's no stretch to say that, at its best, the NEX-7 offers the finest still image quality of any APS-C camera, bar none. Sony's been delivering, albeit more slowly than some would like, lenses for the system, and 4 of them are Zeiss. Sigma makes two that are excellent for the money, according to reports. For all intents and purposes, it's a mirrorless APS-C DSLR replacement. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
Paul Stenquist wrote: I'm always mystified in regard to the urgency of FF. My camera works great. If I were a landscape photographer shooting wall-size murals I might think otherwise, but I don't plan on going there. Paul, this my cheeky, yet respectful response, and I know I don't need to explain the benefits of a FF sensor to you. If/when Pentax releases a FF body, and you purchase it, I'll pose the same question back to you. :) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Giving up on Pentax (probably)
Paul Stenquist wrote: I don't spend enough time here to be as well informed as you.. Too many other things to occupy my time. But I find it hard to resist responding to our resident Nikon shooter, who chimes in every time the importance of 24 x 36 is taken less than seriously. Hi Paul, I hope you view my chiming in as nothing more than the light-hearted jousts they were intended as. For me to say or imply that one cannot obtain excellent images with Pentax APS-C bodies would be akin to slitting my own throat, as I've been shooting exclusively Pentax for the past 22 years, until last year. I'm currently using three cameras. A D800E, a Sony NEX-7 (APS-C) and a Sony RX-100 compact with 1 sensor. I alternate between the three based on circumstances or what I feel like carrying at the time. I was kind of just pointing out that no one 'needs' something until it all of the sudden becomes available. You responded honestly that you would likely purchase a 24 x 36 Pentax body. You excel at, among other things, automotive photography and have had success. That says more about your skill as a photographer, post-processor, and knowledge of your client, than it does about the tools you used to capture the image, n'est ce pas? Without meaning to beat a dead horse for the umpty-umpth time, the reason Pentax needs to have a FF DSLR (and hopefully lenses to match) is because otherwise they'll continue to lose relevance compared to Nikon and Canon. I don't know the exact timing without researching it, but C, and more recently N, have had quasi-affordable (meaning potentially affordable by me) FF digital bodies out now for something close to 5 years, The vast majority of the DSLR market may not know or care about the difference in sensor sizes other than what's stated on the outside of the box. There's a huge segment of the market that will buy their first DSLR/kit lens and never buy another, It seems to be human nature to want or to purchase the best we can afford at a given point in time. For Pentax not to have a FF system, cedes all of that market to Canon and Nikon. That is where they stand at this very moment. Those that can afford to purchase products that are up-market (for lack of a better term), are not putting their money in the Ricoh/Pentax till. That, in the simplest of terms, is not benefiting Pentax. The lack of a 24 x 36 body will turn anyone away from Pentax that wants a visible upgrade path. I'm not dismissing APS-C. I'm saying Pentax needs a 24 x 36 body if they hope to maintain any relevancy in the marketplace, which after all is the raison d'etre (money making). Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
8. Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4 (Darren Addy) From: Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com I suppose your comment, John is that all of this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps you are also of the mindset that all wines taste the same. Great photographs are not totally dependent upon great equipment, but that doesn't mean that there aren't differences in that equipment and that some people will be able to notice that difference (and want to have the better tool in their toolbelt). Certainly those who wish to remain ignorant are free do do so. Those who can't discern the difference would be silly to care. It is also a waste of time to try to educate anyone who doesn't want to be educated. But I suggest that you don't have to have the greatest pair of eyes in the world to discern the difference and to decide for yourself which was the superior optical design (the 8 element or the cheaper to build 7 element): Yawn... scratch... scratch... scratch. You've awakened a slumbering bear Darren. Funny, because you summed up quite nicely my rationale for changing brands. :) John probably drinks jug wines (some of which are actually OK). :) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
From: Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com Yeah, well, that may be your rationale but it also comes with a heft price tag that has to be factored in for anybody wishing to make a similar evaluation involving chucking their PK m42 glass. What I particularly like about this particular bit of kit (the original 8 element Super Takumar) is that you can get the superior optical performance for a relative pittance (particularly since the interwebs are full of misinformation on this particular lens). You could even use it on your D800E, if you didn't mind losing infinity or introducing an adapter with an additional optical element. At least Canon owners don't have THAT problem. (Tee-Hee!) It's not a problem since I'll never be using that lens on the D800E. There are plenty of 50's for it, including the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW which is one of the best modern 50's out there. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Any new flagship camera rumors?
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com On 19/07/2013 2:01 PM, Tom C wrote: I also agree that the legacy lens advantage is pretty much non-existent. It's interesting that you should say that, and kind of ironic in a way. The reason why legacy lenses are not an advantage is because they are less convenient to use (manual focus, green button kludge, etc), and yet people happily go out and buy adapters to put legacy lenses onto their cameras from other brands. Look at the number of adapters you can get to put legacy glass onto 4/3 cameras. I suspect that every brand ever made can now be mounted to a 4/3 camera via an adapter. I bought an adapter to allow mounting K-mount glass onto my Q, and, being the not so bright person that I am, did exactly the same thing when I bought my Fuji. And you know what? It's a pain in the ass. Sure, the thing mounts, and you can take a picture with it if you want to go to the effort, but why bother? I could almost see it if you had a bunch of Canon FD lenses around, as it would be a way to put them to use again, since Canon decided their user base was a liability in the mid 1980s and abandoned them, but really, if you have an ability to mount the lens to a camera that it is compatible with, just mount it to that camera. Putting an A series lens onto my K5 means I lose a bit of functionality, mounting it onto my Fuji or my Q takes me from functionality loss to wanting to slash my wrists to make the misery go away. Even using an older non A series lens on the K5 is easier than on the Fuji or Q. I would say that as long as there is a market for adapters to mix and match brands of lenses onto other makers' cameras, the advantage of legacy lenses exists to a reasonable extent, though it won't be apparent to a new user who just bought his first DSLR and kit lens. bill Irony is one of the few things I'm good at Bill. My statement was made largely from the narrow perspective that Pentax legacy lens support on new Pentax bodies is not an advantage for Pentax in that basically all DSLR mfrs. can justifiably claim the same. I almost never used my MF Pentax lenses on my AF bodies. The same can be true of the Sony NEX-7 (except I use the FA 100/2.8 macro on it occasionally as I don't want to spend the money for a macro lens, and the Sony e-mount offering is ridiculously short... 30mm).. I suppose that's largely because of the convenience of AF, and the other reasons you mention. That said, I bought a Nikon 50mm AIS something or other, that will will work on both the D800E and the NEX-7 via adapter. If one shoots MF, the 'focus feel' of an MF lens is generally better and the aperture ring is nice. I suppose the advantage of using legacy glass is debatable but it's largely a matter of: 1. If you already have the lens 2. If you can acquire a lens far cheaper than otherwise 3. One can mix/match mfrs. As you allude to, the above are advantages only if one feels they don't outweigh the inherent disadvantages or possibly if one largely shoots in manual focus mode. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [meta] Reply-to list (was Re: FS: Low-mileage K-7 body, WR kit zoom, Tamron 24-135 lens)
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com So go fuck yourself. No one here needs you. bill Hey, it's like I asked him before... if he was stupid or just pretending to be. Setting up a list with the default not being 'reply to list' is self-defeating. You'll notice how he often appears to deliberately misunderstand things and then pontificates. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Any new flagship camera rumors?
Notice the trend of so many to say what they have is 'good enough'? Pentax loses. Notice the trend of so many to wait a year or more until there's massive price cuts on the newest model Pentax camera? Pentax loses. Notice the trend of so many to purchase used gear as opposed to new? Pentax loses. Then there's those that put there money elsewhere because they're not getting what they want from Pentax. Pentax loses. There's nothing wrong with any of those actions and all are justifiable. Still - Pentax loses. IMO - every other camera manufacturer has to deal with those exact same issues, and to be honest I don't think that they are limiting factors. I just checked on ebay - there are over twice as many used Nikon and Canon lenses there then Pentax. I didn't check bodies but I assume there are a lot more used DSLR's of those brands simply because there has been a more active upgrade path. The more people upgrade the more used bodies there are for the bargain hunters. And Pentax (sadly) does not have to deal with the problem of Sigma, Tamron, and TOkina making lenses that compete with them - though I wish Sigma would kick out a few of their macro lenses in the K Mount. A robust used market is the sign of a healthy brand, IMO. But a brand that tries to live off its used market is in trouble. Back in the 90's the buzzword with Pentax was that there was this huge vast reserve of used lenses and since there was great backwards compatibility with Pentax you could tap into those old lenses. It was a bargain hunter's brand. It was a great argument at the time given that Canon and Nikon had respectively scrapped or significantly modified their lens mount a few years earlier. And even though I supect that at this very moment some dim-witted blogger cum photo gear reviewer is repeating that line about Pentax, Pentax's legacy glass advantage has largely faded. Canon and Nikon have a couple decades of used gear compatible with their systems now, and their used market is better than Pentax's, and if you are a bargain hunter you would be better off trolling in their waters and not Pentax's. I don't know how the Pentax brand will be resurrected but I keep hoping that Ricoh has a plan... Mark I meant to respond earlier Mark. I agree that every camera mfr. has to cope with somewhat the same issues, in regard to a certain percentage of potential customers waiting for price drops... or potential customers buying used instead of new. Without checking my figures, I'm sure I'm not wrong in stating that N/C have 70% of the DSLR market. Pentax has at best 5%, and I suspect less. Unfortunately it's a tough uphill climb... and even I, when purchasing the PZ-1p, looked at upgrade paths. I went with Pentax because I simply was too cheap to spend an additional $800 for a Nikon 8008s with an add-on flash. I thought I'd use my manual focus lenses on it. That was next to never. I thought I'd follow an upgrade path to a 6x7. I did, at the same time as I bought the *ist D. That was foolish... :) I also agree that the legacy lens advantage is pretty much non-existent. Tom C -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Any new flagship camera rumors?
From: Rick Womer rwomer1...@yahoo.com Well, no, Tom, the situations aren't at all parallel. ? I'm very, very happy to be using MRIs and PET/CTs. ?I'm also very happy to be using a K-5 instead of an istD or Super Program. The technology has its place, though. ?I don't get an MRI on every patient with a tummyache, just because it's available. ?I don't need a 24MP FF camera to do the kind of photography I do. Rick ? http://photo.net/photos/RickW Hi Rick, You may not get an MRI on every patient with a tummyache, and that's a good thing. However having the MRI machine available is good, n'est-ce pas? Having more advanced technology in the future than whatever is current state of the art no doubt will have it's benefits also. A market must exist for something better or companies will not be incentivized to produce something better. Needs vs. desires vs. what becomes the accepted norm or state of the art, are three different things. It's no one's responsibility to purchase a company's products. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else fork over your hard earned income to any company for products you don't want. Pentax is in an unenviable spot, being widely perceived as a bargain brand. That's of course good for those that either can't or don't wish to spend more money. It's not so good for Pentax (Ricoh). When a brands customer base consists largely of people who want a lot for a little, it's like tying the corporate hands behind the corporate back. Having capital to invest in developing new products is achieved largely by selling current products at a decent margin. Notice the trend of so many to say what they have is 'good enough'? Pentax loses. Notice the trend of so many to wait a year or more until there's massive price cuts on the newest model Pentax camera? Pentax loses. Notice the trend of so many to purchase used gear as opposed to new? Pentax loses. Then there's those that put there money elsewhere because they're not getting what they want from Pentax. Pentax loses. There's nothing wrong with any of those actions and all are justifiable. Still - Pentax loses. So collectively, many of those people that love their Pentax gear because of the perceived value are the same people who, in essence, are limiting the profits and therefore the ability to produce meaningful new and better products. It's a gradual slow downwards spiral. End. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
[meta] Reply-to list (was Re: FS: Low-mileage K-7 body, WR kit zoom, Tamron 24-135 lens)
From: Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com More seriously, does anyone remember why this list is set for reply-to list? Very few other lists I'm on these days are set that way, precisely because the failure mode is worse with reply-to list (screw up with reply-to sender and you only send something private you meant public). (I'm not at all pushing to change, just figured it might be worth revisiting, haven't seen any mention in the ~6 months I've been here.) Maybe for the simple and obvious fact that it's a list? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Any new flagship camera rumors?
From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com I don't think the problem is quite as bad you you think. Yes, people who know that Pentax exists, or even still exists, and who pay attention, recognize it as a bargain brand. However, I think that half of the 87 people that even know that Pentax cameras are still being made are on this list. If and when Ricoh puts some effort into actually making the Pentax brand known, it will pretty much be the first time most people under 40 are even aware of the brand. Also, I don't think that being known for giving good value for the money is that bad in this position. It's kind of tough if everyone knows about you, and all of your customers are tightwads, but having a reputation for good value among people looking to buy their first DSLR is generally a good thing. You aren't going to get a lot of people with thousands of dollars invested in a system switching brands. Most new customers will come from people getting their first DSLR, or who only have an entry level DSLR and a kit lens. And those people will see Pentax in Costco, Sam's, Best Buy, or Wal-Mart, and hit themselves in the middle of of the forehead with the heel of their hand and say I think I'll go with Pentax? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [meta] Reply-to list (was Re: FS: Low-mileage K-7 body, WR kit zoom, Tamron 24-135 lens)
I've found that the combitation of having met a number of the members of this list combined with the fact that anything I send will be read by them tends to keep some of my less savoury posting habits in check. bill You have savoury posting habits also then, I take it? :) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: [meta] Reply-to list (was Re: FS: Low-mileage K-7 body, WR kit zoom, Tamron 24-135 lens)
How long has it been since I called you a fcuking idiot? bill Thank you. Who's the idiot that can't spell fcuking correctly? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Any new flagship camera rumors?
From: Rick Womer rwomer1...@yahoo.com I'm very, very happy with the K-5. I don't want more resolution, because I'm getting lovely large prints, and I don't want to replace my 2 year old computer or wait longer for images to be processed. I don't want full frame because I value the compact size and light weight of the APS-C K-5 and lenses (Shall I carry the 50-200 or the 80-320? Hmmm...). I am also growing weary of the whole discussion. ?To me, photography is about the photographs. Rick (becoming more curmudgeonly every day...) You know, you're absolutely right. The older cancer treatments work for a lot of people, so there's no real reason to look for anything better. They're relatively cost effective and good enough in most cases. The same is true of diagnostic technology, it works now, so why try to do it better? To me it's about the patient, not the technology. ;-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PESO: 'Seney Sunrise'
On 7/11/2013 15:53, kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Taken in Seney National Wildlife Refuge in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan several summers ago. Your thoughts appreciated. http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=17459149 Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller That's a wonderful image Ken and deserves recognition. Nice, color, light, composition. I was in the UP over Memorial Day and went to Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. I found the UP quite intriguing. I think the last time I was there was when I was 15. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
From: Bipin Gupta bip...@gmail.com Tom you missed some facts and misquoted some. I read your article with great relish and did find it enlightening though. Hi Bipin, I wasn't trying to write a corporate biography. I know that PENTAX released the K-5 while being under HOYA's banner. II believe (with little other than corporate sales figures and common sense to make the statement) that the majority of buyers of a K-5 were already PENTAX owners. It may have taken the PENTAX world by storm and surprised some. Even then it was neck and neck IQ-wise with the Nikon D7000 that essentially used the same sensor. Check the dpreview review 'Conclusions' page. I'd have personally bought a K-5 but the timing was wrong. I acquired a K20D not realizing it was less than a year before the K-7 was released. Then I bought a K-7, and it was only a year before the K-5 was released. During that time I also purchased several $1000 of Pentax and SIgma lenses in K-mount. Not knowing if I was staying with PENTAX I couldn't rationalize a K-5, regardless of how good it was, because it would be another step down a path I wasn't sure I wanted to go down. Tom -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
From: Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com Ain't that the truth... Where in California Is Hotel Pentax. Regards, Bob S. Larry's house. On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 2:00 AM, David Mann dmann...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Walt ldott...@gmail.com wrote: Just keep in mind that switching away from Pentax and moving on from it are two entirely separate matters. ;) Welcome to Hotel Pentax. You can check out any time you like... Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
On 7/2/2013 11:52 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:42 AM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: :( So ricoh absorbs pentax and reduces the name to a marque. That's certain death. Look how Mercedes-Benz has failed as a marque of Daimler, or Chevrolet as a marque of GM. Paul And then there was Pontiac, DeSoto, Oldsmobile, etc., etc. etc. Otis The announcement of the name change is double speak in my opinion. Does removing PENTAX from the company name indicate a commitment to the brand in your minds? Maybe a commitment to the business means Ricoh's business as a whole - which would be a natural thing for any company. As you know I exited PENTAX a year ago. Yes it was pricey, especially for what is considered pro-quality lenses vs. consumer quality. However the angst is over. No more waiting, waiting, waiting. Lens choices galore, not to mention AF speed and accuracy with N*. It doesn't mean you can't get excellent pictures with a Pentax body. You can. For me it got to the point that I didn't want to keep 'investing' in an unsure future when other brands had what I want now as well as a future that seems more secure. A lot has been mentioned in the past about bang for the buck. Granted the K-5's offer that, However there's two parts there. 1, BANG 2. BUCK If one's more concerned about the BUCK, then by all means get the most BANG you can for it. If one's more concerned about the BANG, then get the most BANG and realize it'll take more BUCK. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com I look at these changes, and things like the lack of a full frame option, and I feel certain that Pentax is doomed. Then I look at the pictures I get with my camera compared with what other people get in the same situations, or the size of the K-5 sitting next to a 5D, and I'm not so sure. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc You're assuming the person operating those cameras understands what they're doing or is using the camera in the same mode/manner as yourself. Lot's and lot's of variables there that having nothing to do with the model camera or the brand. Size and ergonomics is quickly adapted to. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
Aahz Maruch Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:26:12 -0700 On Tue, Jul 02, 2013, Tom C wrote: Size and ergonomics is quickly adapted to. Nope, and I speak from lots of experience. Maybe for YOU that is true. However, if you truly want to argue the point, I suggest that you see how productive you are on each of Mac, Windows, and Linux. I'll bet significant differences will show up. Similarly, try using a cell phone completely one-handed when you cannot circle the phone with your hand (any phone with a 4.5 or larger screen will probably do, unless you've got a gigantic hand). I don't want to argue the point and wasn't. However the user interface of a digital camera is significantly less robust than that of a given operating system. My son went from a PC to a Mac with little issue. He also went from an Android phone to an iPhone with little issue. I went from a K-7 to a D800E with little issue. Maybe your just less adaptable. :) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
Aahz Maruch Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:28:07 -0700 What do you do when BOTH are important? How do you balance different kinds of BANGs? (One thing I really like about Pentax is having image stabilization in camera, just can't get that with Canikon.) It's that way for everyone except the extremely wealthy. Both are important to me. Switching brands, lens acquisition is gradual, but then the same was true when purchasing Pentax. I care about IS on long lenses more than wide angles. If I can afford an IS lens I'd buy it. If I couldn't, I'd plan on using a tripod. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
Pentax is history. Pentax is dead. ?We're all doomed! ?If I had a dollar for every thread along these lines I've seen here, I could be retired rather than working about 70 hours this week. Rick ? http://photo.net/photos/RickW Well facts are: (you of course know already) 1. Pentax wasn't doing too good several years back. Evidence: Pentax was acquired by Hoya. 2. Hoya bought them, stripped them of the medical instruments division which was profitable, and then didn't infuse much cash into the camera division. Hoya either didn't want to do what it would take, or thought it was too much much effort with no guarantee of success, or not enough pay-off. Evidence: Hoya sold them. 3. Ricoh bought them, and since then we have two more K-5 models, not too much different than the original, no FF (or promise of one), no large sensor mirror-less even though one had been developed, marketed, sold, abandoned. I'm not stating there won't be new DSLR models, just the facts as they currently exist. 4. Ricoh removed the PENTAX moniker from the company name, but would like everyone to understand they remain committed. 5. There is now no imaging/photographic company having PENTAX in the name. At this point I see 4 potential possibilities. 1. Ricoh sells the PENTAX marque and associated technology rights. 2. Ricoh continues making K-mount bodies with the PENTAX name. (status quo) 3. Ricoh continues making K-mount bodies with the Ricoh name and not PENTAX. If so, then can it be said PENTAX is dead? 4. Ricoh stops making K-mount equipment period. One can argue against the facts all they wish. If they're not dead, then all signs are it's a slowly progressing disease that may end up in the same place. Strange how the life-cycle of companies is often an analogue to the human life-cycle. Competition in the marketplace is intense. Some win, some lose, some limp along for along time. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
Paul Stenquist wrote: OMG! They changed the name of the parent company. They didn't slaughter innocents. Hi Paul, My crystal ball is broken.:) However, I have to feel the question is WHY? You've worked in very large corporations. CEO's, Boards, strategists generally just don't sit around and make these decisions willy-nilly (well OK, sometimes yes). When Ricoh acquired PENTAX and the name changed to include PENTAX, it was generally viewed as a good thing. It could be interpreted, that if nothing else, Ricoh viewed PENTAX as a partner of sorts, and everyone thought 'Hurrah for PENTAX! So when the name changes to remove PENTAX, it raises, at the least, questions as to why. If one thinks conversely to the above it means 1) maybe the opposite, 2) maybe Ricoh feels the PENTAX part of the name does not enhance the Ricoh image, 3) maybe the folks at Ricoh are arrogant bastards and want their old name back, 4) maybe nothing at all, or 5) something completely different (a Monthy Python camera perhaps)... couldn't resist. Since cause and effect is a universal rule, option 4 is unlikely. Only time will tell. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
Jack Davis wrote: Hi, Tom! Have you made any editing program changes since using the D800E? How about computer or operating system? Do you find the large files at all unwieldy? Have you found moire a nuisance? Do you use continuous shutter once in awhile? Is the frame rate satisfactory? Are you truly blown away by the resolution? Do you, still covet the K-5 and secretly take along as a back-up. (shh) Funny Jack. :) No No No No No Don't know Yes No HTH. :) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
Paul wrote: The photo editors at The New York Times, Harris Publications and a number of other concerns I shoot for tell me I get at least as much BANG as any of their shooters. In fact one recently asked me how I achieve so much definition. i blamed it on the DA* 60- 250. A few (not many) of the shooters I compete with have kits like?well, like yours. And they frequently complain that their profit margin is too small. But more and more I see the expensive gear mainly in the hands of the really big buck ad agency shooters and the doctors and lawyers, who like to have expensive stuff hanging around their neck. (Although Leicas are still the number one choice with the prestige set.) Serious photography doesn't require mega expensive equipment. It doesn't even require a 24 x 36 sensor. (All sensors are full frame. I get a full frame with every shot.) So you started out with good gear, know how to make the most of your equipment, and/or are a very good post-processor, and/or are ahead of your competition when it comes to the game. Many times depending on the scene/circumstances a larger sensor is not REQUIRED or holds little benefit given the end output. However you know this as much as myself, and that is rarely does anything beat a larger media size when recording images. The same could be said of all the film generation Hasselblads, 6x7's, and sheet film cameras. Only those with the means to purchase them did so. That doesn't mean they necessarily purchased them simply as a status symbol, though it certainly occurs then as well as now. I've yet to attach a neck strap to the D800E. I always hold it one-handed by it's manly grip. :) Regarding FF, as you say, every camera from the first made, to the Minox, to the 110, to the Kodak Disc cameras can make that claim. I'd argue that people don't purchase a high-end camera because of the results it delivers on a frame by frame basis anymore than I was willing to pay upwards of $10/roll for Velvia, thinking every shot would be better. They purchase them because of the potential they have. That potential is hard to, and rarely recognized by the casual observer, at small output sizes, or quantifiable when not comparing subject to subject, shot to shot. Nevertheless the potential to deliver higher quality (whatever the criteria is) images exists. And while not having my Pentax gear (don't have it) alongside my Nikon gear, I can easily see differences between a 36MP image and a 14MP image, and I can see qualities to some images that amaze me... also using some top lenses like the 70-200/2.8...Internal focusing (zoom does not extend), whisper quiet, instantaneous, almost imperceptible time to focus. Tom C -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Now Mozilla is getting on my nerves.
John, This is in jest. Sorry about your troubles. For God's sake man, step into the second decade of the 21st century and use Chrome. Who cares if it's a Google product? If you've been semi-conscious you'd know that it doesn't matter what ISP, email provider, or telecommunications company you partner with. The government believes they have the right to monitor it, they believe you don't have the right to know they're doing it, and they're mad as hell that someone told their dirty little secret. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
It's important to note that you were shooting with a Pentax K-7, by my estimation the absolute worst of all the Pentax DSLRs I used, which would include all the top models. Even the istD was better in some ways. The K-5 was a huge upgrade. Worst how? 2X+ the resolution of the *istD, better dynamic range, DNG, larger buffer,... I can't think of a thing that was better on the *istD, In any case I fly through DTW weekly. Care to meet near the airport for lunch on a Friday? :) T -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
I agree on the noise. Tried to use it for star trails in Bryce Canyon about 2 years ago. Nothing doing. Skies were fairly dark but even 5 minute exposures produced orange noisy skies. Can't remember ISO I was using but relatively low. I'll correspond off-list regarding lunch sometime. I'm typically near DTW around 2 PM on Friday, though this is a work from home week. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is history
Mark C. wrote: I wonder WHY Ricoh purchased Pentax. The cachet of the Pentax brand? It was already pretty tarnished in the overall marketplace in 2011 when the deal took place... The huge market share of loyal Pentax users... like us? If so, they did little hold onto that base... To provide a brand and platform for kick ass new cameras... All we've gotten so far are incremental improvements in the 2010 Pentax line up, while the competition kicks out innovative products Maybe Pentax has some patents that Ricoh wanted, or perhaps they sought secret journals of Takuma Kajiware... From the outside it looked like Ricoh bought Pentax and neither invested in it or scrapped it. It's like buying a house and neither moving in nor flipping it, but just letting it sit empty. I think that the name change must signify something simply because Corporations don't overcome inertia and do something, though it could be a petty or trial reason. If the name change means that Ricoh gave the old Pentax management two years to get their act together and time's up and Ricoh is coming in and starting to move things... that would be good news. Somehow I am not getting my hopes up. -- Hi Mark, I can't disagree with your analysis because it parallels mine. I can't envision Ricoh making a major acquisition and then not exercising control for two years. Maybe Ricoh didn't have a clear vision of where they were going -or- Maybe market conditions, etc., have changed and Ricoh is adjusting their stance, While I feel it hard for Pentax to be considered seriously w/o a FF 24x36 system (for Paul... smile), I also feel it hard for them to turn that into a large profit, given where they've positioned themselves as a bargain brand. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: istDS
You're being way too alarmist -- even if Pentax went blooie tomorrow, there'll be enough used equipment to keep you going for years. I've got more reason for concern because I haven't actually bought anything yet, but AFAICT EVERY SINGLE camera company (including Canon and Nikon) is currently a bad long-term bet; the only question is whether I'd get enough use over 5-10 years to warrant a heavy investment in a DSLR-like system. The fact that Ricoh just came out with the K-50 and K-500 is IMO proof that Pentax will be around for at least another year, you don't try to stoke entry-level demand for something you're getting ready to kill. Pardon my bluntness. Are you stupid or just pretending to be? Who wants to invest in loads of yesterday's gear when tomorrow's is better? Who (personally) would seriously invest in a brand that was 'blooie' (for years), especially if their primary goal was creating great images? Yes, companies deceive and manipulate all the time. I've seen it time and again. I'm NOT saying this is the case here, I have no way of knowing, and have no grounds to suspect. However, the last thing I would expect to see is a company announce that they're 'blooie' BEFORE they had a chance to unload their inventory at the highest possible price. Yes they WOULD stoke demand on something they plan on killing. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: So this was the big Pentax/Ricoh announcement for 17 April....
From: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com On 4/18/2013 7:31 PM, Tom C wrote: I wouldn't really want to limit myself to a single focal length lens on any camera. It's very limiting and the flexibility offered by a zoom or interchangeable lenses is too great to be ignored. Too many missed shots and opportunities. This is no doubt aimed at street shooting. Unlike you (said in 100% respectful manner), I've been shooting with most exclusively primes and almost always 50-60 EFL for about a year. It is after I've been shooting a long time with DA* 16-50/2.8. I find small size and fixed focal length of my gear to be refreshing and not limiting my photography in any way... If this camera is indeed a follow up from 28 mm lensor for GXR system, it ought to be outstanding... Then I politely suggest that YOU are likely limiting yourself to compositions that would work well with that narrow range of EFL. That's fine. It doesn't mean that others wouldn't appreciate a greater degree of flexibility. After all, that's the primary reason for interchangeable lens and zooms. If I read you correctly, the camera you're using has interchangeable lenses. It therefore affords you the ability to change focal length if you desired. That's far different than being stuck with just one focal length. Again, for some that may be fine, but I prefer to not be constrained by a fixed focal length camera. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: So this was the big Pentax/Ricoh announcement for 17 April....
I saw the camera. Noticed it wasn't a Pentax camera. Noticed it wasn't even another PENTAX hold it out at arms length and compose images by looking at the little TV screen on the back fixed focal length lens point and shoot camera. Although it does have a hot-shoe that you can use to mount an extra cost accessory viewfinder instead of a flash. Which accessory viewfinder is described as Reverse Galilean, aka ass-backwards telescope. Ain't what I was looking for. Nice that it has a large sensor. I wouldn't really want to limit myself to a single focal length lens on any camera. It's very limiting and the flexibility offered by a zoom or interchangeable lenses is too great to be ignored. Too many missed shots and opportunities. This is no doubt aimed at street shooting. A built-in viewfinder would be far better. I love my Sony RX-100, but the one thing I really really wish it had is a viewfinder. I wouldn't consider an accessory viewfinder. One more thing to carry, attach, detach, and it would interfere too much with utility of the camera. I suspect the RX-100 is the last camera I'll ever buy that does not have some kind of viewfinder. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Subject: Re: Multiple Brands or Switching - a Trend?
From: Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com I should add, following the line of thought, that any/every camera is capable in the hands of one who knows how to best use it. That's half-true, at best. My Nikon P7100 just isn't good for low-light photography (although it's considerably better than my previous Canon A710). Similarly, no camera is good if you hate to use it (you can argue that it's capable, I suppose, but that smells of wrong question). Really? You show me one camera that cannot produce a pleasing image and I'll show you a million that are. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Subject: Re: Multiple Brands or Switching - a Trend?
That's half-true, at best. My Nikon P7100 just isn't good for low-light photography (although it's considerably better than my previous Canon A710). Similarly, no camera is good if you hate to use it (you can argue that it's capable, I suppose, but that smells of wrong question). Really? You show me one camera that cannot produce a pleasing image and I'll show you a million that are. I wasn't referring to a specific use for a specific camera. I was speaking in general terms, that being, any camera is capable of producing a pleasing and decent image, unless it's downright defective. Tom C. On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com I should add, following the line of thought, that any/every camera is capable in the hands of one who knows how to best use it. That's half-true, at best. My Nikon P7100 just isn't good for low-light photography (although it's considerably better than my previous Canon A710). Similarly, no camera is good if you hate to use it (you can argue that it's capable, I suppose, but that smells of wrong question). Really? You show me one camera that cannot produce a pleasing image and I'll show you a million that are. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: PDML Digest, Vol 84, Issue 91
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com On 14/04/2013 12:14 AM, Tom C wrote: That's half-true, at best. My Nikon P7100 just isn't good for low-light photography (although it's considerably better than my previous Canon A710). Similarly, no camera is good if you hate to use it (you can argue that it's capable, I suppose, but that smells of wrong question). Really? You show me one camera that cannot produce a pleasing image and I'll show you a million that are. I wasn't referring to a specific use for a specific camera. I was speaking in general terms, that being, any camera is capable of producing a pleasing and decent image, unless it's downright defective. Tom C. I fully understand Aahz's no camera is good if you hate to use it comment. The camera my be fine, but if it's ergonomics are getting in the way of the user, or even if it's just butt ugly and is missing key components (the Pentax K-01 for example), it's not going to be something the photographer wants to use. bill All that's well and good but it has *nothing* to to with making my assertion *half-true at best.* I wrote: I should add, following the line of thought, that any/every camera is capable in the hands of one who knows how to best use it. It's quite obvious that any/every camera that is unused is photographically-speaking, a doorstop. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Subject: Re: Multiple Brands or Switching - a Trend? (Bill)
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com On 14/04/2013 12:14 AM, Tom C wrote: That's half-true, at best. My Nikon P7100 just isn't good for low-light photography (although it's considerably better than my previous Canon A710). Similarly, no camera is good if you hate to use it (you can argue that it's capable, I suppose, but that smells of wrong question). Really? You show me one camera that cannot produce a pleasing image and I'll show you a million that are. I wasn't referring to a specific use for a specific camera. I was speaking in general terms, that being, any camera is capable of producing a pleasing and decent image, unless it's downright defective. Tom C. I fully understand Aahz's no camera is good if you hate to use it comment. The camera my be fine, but if it's ergonomics are getting in the way of the user, or even if it's just butt ugly and is missing key components (the Pentax K-01 for example), it's not going to be something the photographer wants to use. bill Getting it back in thread... All that's well and good but it has *nothing* to to with making my assertion *half-true at best.* I wrote: I should add, following the line of thought, that any/every camera is capable in the hands of one who knows how to best use it. It's quite obvious that any/every camera that is unused is photographically-speaking, a doorstop. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Multiple Brands or Switching - a Trend?
For me, yes it was the lack of a FF body, combined with the vast gulf between the D800's and the Pentax line last year. I've been yearning for a FF body at least since the Canon 5D, if not from the day I unboxed the *ist D. That, combined with the general recognition that Pentax has been historically slow to market for the past 20 years at least, made me pull the trigger. As some point one gets tired of waiting, and I reached that point last autumn. Prices on FF fell to the point where upgrading was expensive yet not out of reach. I agree with what Thom Hogan says also. However I don't think most people that switch brands think the new camera will *make* them a better photographer anymore than upgrading within a brand. The reason for switching or having multiple brands is varied. Foremost though for me is, the potential of what I might accomplish with new camera 'X', Y', or 'Z'. Having switched to Nikon I find the lens selection to be amazing. While some are pricey their performance is stellar, and there are a number of excellent performers that are not all that expensive.. I fall into both of your categories, as I also purchased a NEX-7 and a number of lenses. Easily DSLR quality and the camera bag with 3 lenses is 1/3 the size and weight of what a normal DSLR kit would weigh. Great for travel when I don't desire the extra bulk and weight. (RX-100 when I really want to go light). It's not that much different from film days is it? For me, at least, there was always the pent up desire to upgrade. After 7 years I went from an MX to a PZ-1p. Big difference there, with AF, matrix-metering, motor-drive topping the list. Then there was the desire to go larger with medium format. I don't do my own printing and usually desire larger than 13 x 19, so a higher MP body helps in that regard as well. I think he's mixing apples and oranges on the printing thing. I simply don't have the time or desire to fiddle-fuddle with the workflow necessary to achieve proper results when printing. Sometimes I wish I did, but I find it easier to send a file to a printer. I don't know about it being a trend. I think prices have dropped to where it becomes within the realm of affordability for more people, especially if there current brand is not giving them what they need. Tom C. From: George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com I think I subscribed to PDML in 2000 or 2001. It seems like the last couple of years, and especially the last few months the topic of other brands supplementing Pentax gear or just plain switching to other brands has significantly increased. Thom Hogan started a series called How to Choose a Camera (Intro with Homework) on www.bythom.com He starts with this: ...at this point in the digital era, almost all cameras are highly competent. At the DSLR level, image quality even with the entry models surpasses what most people could have gotten from film SLRs (assuming you understand the camera, what it can actually do, and how to make it perform optimally). As I've written for a number of years now about all DSLRs: if you can't get a good-looking image at the largest size a desktop inkjet printer can create (13x19), it isn't the camera that's the problem. Assuming your DSLR is not broken, it will be your decisions and your handling of the camera that are the gatekeepers on image quality these days. I don't disagree with him. If this is the case why so much talk of switching and other brands? Is it really all due to the lack of a full frame body? Is the increased talk of other brands really a trend or my imagination? GS George Sinos -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Multiple Brands or Switching - a Trend?
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com I want a camera with a fast standard lens, it's something I have long complained about with Pentax digital. I don't want to carry around a massive camera, so for me the full frame DSLR offerings aren't so good. I'm also somewhat of a lens junkie, and I look for certain qualities in an image such as soft bokeh, but also high apparent sharpness and what I can only describe as smoothness and a sense of depth. None of these are really quantifiable things. It's like porn, you can't identify it, but you know it when you see it. It's the lens qualities that brought me to Pentax in the first place. So, I want a camera with a fast standard lens, I want something that is fairly compact, and I want certain lens qualities that I have to see to know. I feel quite fortunate that the Fuji X-Pro1 and the 35/1.4 standard lens fits that description. I've been intrigued by Fuji as well. I was on the verge of getting my son an X10 and held off because of the numerous issues. Most recently I was interested in the X-E1 for him. Many things to like including the JPEG engine, It just didn't seem that it was a finished product though (none are totally), and when dpreview reported that it had AF issues in low light and would lock up, requiring cycling the camera power, that sort of put me off. I ended up getting him the NEX-6 (which he still hasn't received for our anniversary gift-giving). It's not a perfect camera either, but I felt more confident, having both a NEX-5 and NEX-7 myself. I also thought the NEX-6 had a better feature set and better ergonomics than the XE-1. I hope you love the X-Pro1 and would like to hear what you think and see images after purchase. I'd love to see Fuji succeed and continue their retro mirrorless line. Competition is good. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Multiple Brands or Switching - a Trend?
I should add, following the line of thought, that any/every camera is capable in the hands of one who knows how to best use it. The NEX line was a better choice for my son because he most likely will use it in a PS mode, but it has capabilities beyond, and I already have a number of lenses and adapters. He's going to school for graphic arts, and is into drawing mainly, but is being forced into the world of technology even there... which he didn't expect. :) On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com I want a camera with a fast standard lens, it's something I have long complained about with Pentax digital. I don't want to carry around a massive camera, so for me the full frame DSLR offerings aren't so good. I'm also somewhat of a lens junkie, and I look for certain qualities in an image such as soft bokeh, but also high apparent sharpness and what I can only describe as smoothness and a sense of depth. None of these are really quantifiable things. It's like porn, you can't identify it, but you know it when you see it. It's the lens qualities that brought me to Pentax in the first place. So, I want a camera with a fast standard lens, I want something that is fairly compact, and I want certain lens qualities that I have to see to know. I feel quite fortunate that the Fuji X-Pro1 and the 35/1.4 standard lens fits that description. I've been intrigued by Fuji as well. I was on the verge of getting my son an X10 and held off because of the numerous issues. Most recently I was interested in the X-E1 for him. Many things to like including the JPEG engine, It just didn't seem that it was a finished product though (none are totally), and when dpreview reported that it had AF issues in low light and would lock up, requiring cycling the camera power, that sort of put me off. I ended up getting him the NEX-6 (which he still hasn't received for our anniversary gift-giving). It's not a perfect camera either, but I felt more confident, having both a NEX-5 and NEX-7 myself. I also thought the NEX-6 had a better feature set and better ergonomics than the XE-1. I hope you love the X-Pro1 and would like to hear what you think and see images after purchase. I'd love to see Fuji succeed and continue their retro mirrorless line. Competition is good. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT Video about image image capture on the ISS
From: Rob Studdert distudio.p...@gmail.com http://vimeo.com/61083440 Thanks for sharing that Rob. It was wonderful. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Kodak Instamatic, 50th anniversary
While I appreciate the nostalgia around Kodak and the Instamatic, I think it was a travesty. It short changed the general public, millions of people, including my father and myself for a good 20 years (not knowing any better being born in 1960) into accepting crap quality images in exchange for convenience. I wish the idea had never been invented, unless it was going to be provided in a larger format, which of course would have negated the profitability. I tend to think Kodak's demise is little recompense for the damage they did to photography after practically inventing it for the common man. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Time Warp
From: Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com So the good old days weren't so good after all... In general I would agree with that, Bob. In near totality actually. Prior to the advent of affordable film scanners, which I believe largely came about as a result of the WWW, and the desire to share images digitally, most photographers were stuck with using a lab - or they had to invest in the time and cost of their own wet darkroom. For me it was a lab or cheap photo processor at that time (early 90's). All of us can do so much more and with an ease unimaginable 20 years ago. I do miss the idea of buying a camera and lenses and sticking with it. For me, it was largely caring about the film specs and making sure I had a tripod and the right film, with the right lens. I loved my film scanner(s) and the ability to scan and adjust images was a milestone in developing as a photographer (pun intended). Now though, would I invest the time in scanning if I didn't need to? Likely not. However, as some have been doing, I suspect I have a wealth of unseen good or great images sitting in slide boxes, that I now may have the vision and expertise to extract. I do miss the cracking open of a canister and inhaling the smell of a fresh new roll of film. Tom C. On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: A few weeks ago I threw some Outdoor Photographer magazines that were in the garage onto the backseat of the car, planning on taking them with me on the plane. I thought they were all pretty recent. I had a quiet afternoon today, so I got them out and figured I'd peruse them. The first was from November 2012. I opened the second and saw an ad for a Nikon F100. Hmm, that's an odd camera, I thought. Turned a few more pages and saw the subtitle Dominant Digital SLR. Underneath it was: The future of practical and affordable digital photography has arrived. The Nikon D1 is the first ultra-high-quality film-less SLR (2.7 megapixels with a reasonable price tag about half of its nearest competitor) It also signals where this ultra-competitive market will soon be. Price: $5,850 Turn to front cover to look at the date of the magazine. November 1999. Also an ad for the Pentax ZX-5N. A low-maintenance companion... Aren't your pictures worth a PENTAX? Some wonderful images and articles in that issue, including Galen Rowell's column regarding the eyes response to light and the golden hour. Many images in the issue looked modern, but I also could sense quite a number lacked the clarity of today's shots. Often too saturated reds, pinks, and yellows losing detail, with a lack of sharpness I'd not stand for today. Whether that was do to with film, no digital sharpening, or low resolution digital imaging I don't know. Even some 4x5 prints taken with a Mamiya 7 and Mamiya 645 on Fuji NPH 400 left much to be desired. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Subject: Digest Footer ___ PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- End of PDML Digest, Vol 83, Issue 52 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: d7100 samples...
From: Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com Oh, absolutely. I couldn't possibly have dreamed that I would be driving a 125 BHP car every day like 10 years ago... And indeed, I have K-5 and every now and then its high ISO capabilities come in handy. No argument here. My point is different. It is that to say that Nikon D7100 is worse than Pentax K-5 because one does ISO 6400 or ISO 25600 and another does ISO 51200 is splitting hairs IMHO. It is because unless you have very specific special type of shooting that requires such a capability, this difference is rather theoretical. The difference in dynamic range and color fidelity between K-7 and K-5 is real, even under relatively bright light. And such a difference can have visible impact on the pictures. Shooting very close to highest ISO (and having just 1 EV of difference between cameras) is, well, how to put it (as I most certainly don't mean to offend Darren or anybody else for that matter) - mostly marketing hype. I expect a lot of argument going to happen (unlikely here, but very likely on other forums that I happen to visit or participate in) as to whether Pentax really needs this 24 MP sensor and whether the increase of pixel count is necessary. Further, some would advocate as if their life would depend on that, that then extra 8 MP is a life saving circumstance... IMHO - this sensor has 12 MP too many. In fact, I much rather Pentax improved their imaging engine (e.g. the processing and rendering of rightmost part of the histogram or color fidelity) rather than invest in MP race... So, indeed, one would have uses for things such as extra high ISOs or extra high pixel count. But would these extra high parameters be a deal breaker? Possibly but very improbably... You know how it is here for the most part. If Pentax has it, and another manufacturer does not, then Pentax is the best in the world. If another manufacturer has it, and Pentax does not, then why does one need it? As you say Boris, it's all about the end use. One doesn't need the higher ISO capability until one is in a position where their images lack because of not having it. One doesn't need the higher resolution sensor until one wishes to present their images at a larger size, and then finds out it would have been nice to have. Or they could have used the extra resolution when cropping. For the most part, the user of any given system, doesn't truly realize the potential of a new system (be it same brand or otherwise) until they actually use it. When we had 6MP we shot with those, then it was 10, 14, 16... given the ability to obtain one, who would deliberately choose a 6 over 16. I agree, that claiming a camera is better or worse than another based on the highest ISO spec (or merely MP) is pushing it a bit. Those numbers are the extreme limit, and shooting at those ISO's while possibly yielding a 'usable' image, may not yield a 'great' image noise-wise. As regards the 'MP race', Pentax must at least give the appearance of keeping up or become irrelevant. Customer: What about this camera? Camera salesman: That one only has 16MP. That's 8 MP less than a 24MP camera. The more MP the more detail you can capture. Several years ago the top of the line digital cameras a normal person could afford only had 8MP, 16MP is twice that. 24MP is 3 times that. All the other manufacturers are producing cameras with more than 16MP. What will the customer do? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax is known for small cameras, but this is ridiculous
From: John Celio neo.venator.com+p...@gmail.com http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Capsule-Mini-Camera-Keychains/dp/B006YY3YRM/ I'm actually thinking about buying this set just for the silver MX and 40mm, which I used to own (the life-size version, of course). I love that the lenses are interchangeable, too. John Those jackasses don't have a K-3 FF digital body in the lineup yet? They're just as bad as another company I know! Tom -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Happy with the K-5IIs
Darren wrote: True enough. But *not* all of us enjoy hanging around in a forums whose purpose is to discussing the brand that we have (all but) abandoned, for (apparently) the sole purpose of casting aspersions. Surely you're not referring to me. What aspersion did I cast? Abandon? Your phrasing has negative connotations Daren. 'All but abandon' a brand implies somehow loyalty to a brand was an expectation. You however see fit to sit high and mighty and act as if you know and understand people's motives for switching camera brands and arrogantly assume that if they do move away from Pentax it must be because they fell prey to a whim, and not for valid reasons. Why? Because you've chosen Pentax and therefore your choice must be the best choice for all? I call bullshit on that, Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Happy with the K-5IIs
Why can't people learn that what works best for them doesn't work best for everyone and that someone saying that A works better than B for me doesn't mean You are a subsentient loser of questionable morals for liking B better than A. I understand that Larry. That's precisely why when someone comes around saying/implying that if one changes from brand A to brand B, that one was a non-thinker and therefore one must rationalize their choice after the fact, pisses me off. It not only assumes brand A is better than B, it assumes Brand A is better than Brand B for me, and it assumes the person knows what's in MY head. It's arrogant and condescending and the unwritten subtext is 'I'm more intelligent because of my choice and your less intelligent because of yours'. I find that offensive. Especially so because I know what's in my head and it's a lot of snot! Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Happy with the K-5IIs
Whereas if one does *not* change from brand A to brand B, it's because one is a non-thinker who is mentally confined to a (dead) brand. Got it. Your words not mine. That wasn't what I wrote or meant. You don't get it Matthew. I was encouraging people to think beyond Pentax, I wasn't implying they were non-thinkers. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Happy with the K-5IIs
From: Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com That's precisely why when someone comes around saying/implying that if one changes from brand A to brand B, that one was a non-thinker and therefore one must rationalize their choice after the fact, pisses me off. Speaking of words that were not mine, I said nothing regarding (or even implying) non-thinking and I never said anything about rationalizing after the fact. Those things were apparently all between someone's ears. We all rationalize our purchases (gotta have this, gotta have that). If we didn't nothing would ever be purchased. That rationalizing generally takes place *before* we make our buying decision. Depending upon the quality of our rationale/buying decision, other rationalizations may follow. : ) Some people are apparently very insecure about their rationales! Apologies to them. Then please parse your words for me: Funny, when you find people on this forum feeling they need to move to one of those two very cameras. I think that sometimes we just fall prey to the need for something new and then rationalize the why after the fact. But as long as you have the money and are happy with the decision afterwards, more power to you. Rationalizing after the fact can somewhat imply that a rational thought (thinking) process did not occur earlier. As long as you're not painting me with your wide brush of generalization I'm fine. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Why would you buy a Pentax FF camera?
Why? The steering wheel's on the wrong side. What good would it do you? :) Tom C From: Steve Cottrell co...@seeingeye.tv On 7/2/13, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed: Buying the newest Corvette Stingray wouldn't make Paul Stenquist any more desirable to women, but if he had the money and that's what he desired, I wouldn't begrudge him the pleasure. I would!!! -- Cheers, Cotty -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
