Re: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
Thanks for the replies. The camera itself is in fine working order. It's just that I've recently seen more and more hot pixels (and they're really not that bad, just usually right where I don't need them). I normally shoot JPG and do minimum PP via an older version of Photoshop Elements. Maybe time to switch to RAW, go with Lightroom and upgrade Photoshop saving on camera hardware but increasing software costs. Either way, I need to start saving. Thanks! Ed http://picasaweb.google.com/ewkphoto http://www.flickr.com/photos/edkeeney/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
If you were using your K100D actively throughout all these 4 1/2 years, then it might be a good idea to replace it anyway... On 6/21/2011 17:07, Ed Keeney wrote: I have a K100D that is now 4 1/2 years old with about 14000 images taken. I've noticed more and more hot pixels being recorded on my shots, requiring more and more post processing detail work. At what point do you say it is time to suck it up and get a new camera? I should have started saving a long time ago for this. Thanks! Ed http://picasaweb.google.com/ewkphoto http://www.flickr.com/photos/edkeeney/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
I've got a 3.5 year old K100DSuper with 38,909 actuations and it's going strong. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles of newer models, but it's still rock solid. On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > As a footnote to all this, 14,000 images isn't excessive. You should be able > to go well beyond that. Most of my Pentax DSLRs went well beyond 20,000, and > all were still in excellent condition. > Paul > > On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > >> NO. Definitely buy a new camera. There is no hope in trying to save >> this one. A K5 would work much better. >> >> >> >> >> >> (You're welcome.) >> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Ed Keeney wrote: >>> I have a K100D that is now 4 1/2 years old with about 14000 images >>> taken. I've noticed more and more hot pixels being recorded on my >>> shots, requiring more and more post processing detail work. >>> >>> At what point do you say it is time to suck it up and get a new camera? >>> >>> I should have started saving a long time ago for this. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> Ed >>> http://picasaweb.google.com/ewkphoto >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edkeeney/ >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Steve Desjardins >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- David Parsons Photography http://www.davidparsonsphoto.com Aloha Photographer Photoblog http://alohaphotog.blogspot.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: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
On Jun 21, 2011, at 12:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > As a footnote to all this, 14,000 images isn't excessive. You should be able > to go well beyond that. Most of my Pentax DSLRs went well beyond 20,000, and > all were still in excellent condition. My K100Dsuper has something on the order of 50,000 frames on it, and as far as I can tell is still working fine. Then again, I shoot RAW and process in lightroom. > Paul > > On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > >> NO. Definitely buy a new camera. There is no hope in trying to save >> this one. A K5 would work much better. Even a K-r is a huge improvement in performance over a K100Dsuper, though there are certain features, like a jack for an external shutter that the K100 has and the K-r lacks. If, however, you have a katzeye screen it should work in the K-r (it does in the K-x). -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
On 2011-06-21 15:24, Paul Stenquist wrote: As a footnote to all this, 14,000 images isn't excessive. You should be able to go well beyond that. Most of my Pentax DSLRs went well beyond 20,000, and all were still in excellent condition. For sure. My K10 has about 22,000 on it right now, and still looks new but dusty and functions perfectly. Hmmm. I guess I ought to find some wood to knock on! There . :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
As a footnote to all this, 14,000 images isn't excessive. You should be able to go well beyond that. Most of my Pentax DSLRs went well beyond 20,000, and all were still in excellent condition. Paul On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:03 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > NO. Definitely buy a new camera. There is no hope in trying to save > this one. A K5 would work much better. > > > > > > (You're welcome.) > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Ed Keeney wrote: >> I have a K100D that is now 4 1/2 years old with about 14000 images >> taken. I've noticed more and more hot pixels being recorded on my >> shots, requiring more and more post processing detail work. >> >> At what point do you say it is time to suck it up and get a new camera? >> >> I should have started saving a long time ago for this. >> >> Thanks! >> Ed >> http://picasaweb.google.com/ewkphoto >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edkeeney/ >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> > > > > -- > Steve Desjardins > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
NO. Definitely buy a new camera. There is no hope in trying to save this one. A K5 would work much better. (You're welcome.) On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Ed Keeney wrote: > I have a K100D that is now 4 1/2 years old with about 14000 images > taken. I've noticed more and more hot pixels being recorded on my > shots, requiring more and more post processing detail work. > > At what point do you say it is time to suck it up and get a new camera? > > I should have started saving a long time ago for this. > > Thanks! > Ed > http://picasaweb.google.com/ewkphoto > http://www.flickr.com/photos/edkeeney/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Steve Desjardins -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
Ah! I didn't know this about Lightroom. Good to know. Thanks, Ed, for asking the question. Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: "Charles Robinson" To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:35 PM Subject: Re: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera? On Jun 21, 2011, at 9:52, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Ed Keeney wrote: I have a K100D that is now 4 1/2 years old with about 14000 images taken. I've noticed more and more hot pixels being recorded on my shots, requiring more and more post processing detail work. At what point do you say it is time to suck it up and get a new camera? I should have started saving a long time ago for this. If in the raw files, try using Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom ... they have hot pixel removal built in. Indeed, I was going to suggest the same thing. If you use Lightroom and shoot RAW, you'll never even see those hot pixels. LR takes them out automatically. (This is how I am able to take extended night-time exposures and not go crazy spending all my time cleaning up the bright spots when I'm done) -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
On Jun 21, 2011, at 9:52, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Ed Keeney wrote: >> I have a K100D that is now 4 1/2 years old with about 14000 images >> taken. I've noticed more and more hot pixels being recorded on my >> shots, requiring more and more post processing detail work. >> >> At what point do you say it is time to suck it up and get a new camera? >> >> I should have started saving a long time ago for this. > > > If in the raw files, try using Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom ... they > have hot pixel removal built in. Indeed, I was going to suggest the same thing. If you use Lightroom and shoot RAW, you'll never even see those hot pixels. LR takes them out automatically. (This is how I am able to take extended night-time exposures and not go crazy spending all my time cleaning up the bright spots when I'm done) -Charles -- Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:07 AM, Ed Keeney wrote: > I have a K100D that is now 4 1/2 years old with about 14000 images > taken. I've noticed more and more hot pixels being recorded on my > shots, requiring more and more post processing detail work. > > At what point do you say it is time to suck it up and get a new camera? > > I should have started saving a long time ago for this. 14000 exposures is rarely enough to have worn anything out. hot pixels ... In your JPEGs or raw files? Long exposures or normal exposures (1/20 second and shorter)? If in the raw files, try using Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom ... they have hot pixel removal built in. If in the normal exposure range JPEGs, send the camera to Pentax and they'll do a pixel remapping for you. (I don't recall whether Pentax supports pixel remapping as a user feature). Hot pixels can be an annoyance, but unless there are more than 5% hot pixels (and on a 10Mpixel camera that means a million or more photosites are dead) there's little need to replace the camera on that basis. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.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.
Hot Pixels - Time for new camera?
I have a K100D that is now 4 1/2 years old with about 14000 images taken. I've noticed more and more hot pixels being recorded on my shots, requiring more and more post processing detail work. At what point do you say it is time to suck it up and get a new camera? I should have started saving a long time ago for this. Thanks! Ed http://picasaweb.google.com/ewkphoto http://www.flickr.com/photos/edkeeney/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Didn't you know, Pentax makes marketing decisions using a dartboard? Adam Maas wrote: > That's true, but you can overdo it, and Pentax did with the K10D when > the price nosedived, it earned them K10D sales at the cost of > completely destroying K100D Super sales. The K10D was already priced > at a nice discount over the less-featured D80 (about $100) at launch, > and maintaining and/or slightly increasing the price advantage would > have made more sense. > > It's even less sensical that the K200D sells for a ridiculous premium > over the comparable cameras from Sony and Nikon. > > -Adam > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello Adam, >> >> When you are Nikon or Canon you can price reasonably because most >> users will buy your products over weaker brands if the price is >> similar. When you are the weaker brand, there has to be something >> more than a comparably featured body to entice. You either need a >> demonstrably better body at/near the same price or a noticeably >> cheaper body with about the same feature set. Pentax went the price >> route. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bruce >> >> >> Thursday, May 29, 2008, 7:40:34 AM, you wrote: >> >> AM> However when your flagship is priced $50 over your base model (K10D vs >> AM> K100D Super) your pricing is moronic. The K10D came out at a mild >> AM> discount over a D80, which is similar spec and released about the same >> AM> time. Maybe a $100 price difference. 8 months later the K10D was over >> AM> $300 cheaper than the D80, which had dropped about $100 or so. That's >> AM> just ridiculous pricing. >> >> >> AM> -- >> AM> M. Adam Maas >> AM> http://www.mawz.ca >> AM> Explorations of the City Around Us. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> >> > > > > -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
That's true, but you can overdo it, and Pentax did with the K10D when the price nosedived, it earned them K10D sales at the cost of completely destroying K100D Super sales. The K10D was already priced at a nice discount over the less-featured D80 (about $100) at launch, and maintaining and/or slightly increasing the price advantage would have made more sense. It's even less sensical that the K200D sells for a ridiculous premium over the comparable cameras from Sony and Nikon. -Adam On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Adam, > > When you are Nikon or Canon you can price reasonably because most > users will buy your products over weaker brands if the price is > similar. When you are the weaker brand, there has to be something > more than a comparably featured body to entice. You either need a > demonstrably better body at/near the same price or a noticeably > cheaper body with about the same feature set. Pentax went the price > route. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Thursday, May 29, 2008, 7:40:34 AM, you wrote: > > AM> However when your flagship is priced $50 over your base model (K10D vs > AM> K100D Super) your pricing is moronic. The K10D came out at a mild > AM> discount over a D80, which is similar spec and released about the same > AM> time. Maybe a $100 price difference. 8 months later the K10D was over > AM> $300 cheaper than the D80, which had dropped about $100 or so. That's > AM> just ridiculous pricing. > > > AM> -- > AM> M. Adam Maas > AM> http://www.mawz.ca > AM> Explorations of the City Around Us. > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Hello Adam, When you are Nikon or Canon you can price reasonably because most users will buy your products over weaker brands if the price is similar. When you are the weaker brand, there has to be something more than a comparably featured body to entice. You either need a demonstrably better body at/near the same price or a noticeably cheaper body with about the same feature set. Pentax went the price route. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, May 29, 2008, 7:40:34 AM, you wrote: AM> However when your flagship is priced $50 over your base model (K10D vs AM> K100D Super) your pricing is moronic. The K10D came out at a mild AM> discount over a D80, which is similar spec and released about the same AM> time. Maybe a $100 price difference. 8 months later the K10D was over AM> $300 cheaper than the D80, which had dropped about $100 or so. That's AM> just ridiculous pricing. AM> -- AM> M. Adam Maas AM> http://www.mawz.ca AM> Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Riceguy is the anti Kennyboy, (one hates Pentax beyond all reason, the other loves Nikon more than his wife), with the same witless result. I keep wondering if they would annihilate each other in a coruscating blaze of released bile if placed in close contact... Derby Chang wrote: > Jaume Lahuerta wrote: > BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking >> occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. >> News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. >> >> Today I was just thinking that this list has somehow shifted its focus since >> the digital era took over. >> Before there were few places to talk about Pentax equipment, so this was a >> main topic. But the digital brought also more 'competitors' and people here >> seems a bot bored of too technical (and lots of times closer to computers >> rather than photography) so this kind of threads are not as popular anymore. >> So we find much more PESOs, GMFs, OTs, so the list is more about people >> talking on photography and showing what they do, that normally own (or used >> to) Pentax equipment. >> >> No more bloody fights (except when the magic words arise: 'aperture >> simulator') but also no more guru's anticipating future >> developments...that's why people has to look elsewhere to find it and, >> eventually, report it here in case someone is still interested. >> >> Regards, >> Jaume >> >> > > > Hi Jaume, > > As much as I like to fondle gear myself, I find those to bleat on about > equipment shortcomings tend to be those who have the least to say > photographically. As Rod Serling would say, case in point... > > http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html > (his only non-test chart photos posted on the web, AFAICS) > > Equipment news is tomorrow's recycling. Photographic insight is timeless > > Derby > > -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Hi Dave On Fri, 30 May 2008 08:39:12 +0800, "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Whoever's quoting $2000 for the K20D kit is a crook. I paid > considerably less for my K20D body at release. I'm quoting the recommended retail price (as per review in the latest issue of 'Australian Camera"). I'm sure a lower price would be available by shopping around. > In any case, I'd say sink most of your camera budget into new glass. Yes, but I'd like SR. I hate using a tripod and a stop or two extra in hand-holding would be welcome. > Bodies come & go. I've heard that. Oh, you mean *camera* bodies... Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > Cheers, > > Dave > > 2008/5/30 Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > On Thu, 29 May 2008 08:47:00 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > >> > >> Given those costs (God, Aussie prices are bad), > > > > > > > > Tell me about it > > > > With the Aussie dollar now approaching parity with the US dollar, a > > straight conversion would make the K20D with kit lens about $A1380. > > Even allowing for the vagaries of economics, it's difficult to > > understand where the additional $A600 goes. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Brian > > > > ++ > > Brian Walters > > Western Sydney, Australia > > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > > > > > > > > > > >> > >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > OK, Thanks. > >> > > >> > I'll have to take another look at the specs although the buffer isn't a > >> > major limitation to me. > >> > > >> > I expect to be buying towards the end of the life cycle of the current > >> > models so (hopefully) the price factor might not be so significant by > >> > then. At the moment the Australian price for a K20D with kit lens > >> > (which I don't need) is around $A2000 compared with the 200D at $A1200 > >> > with the same lens. That's enough to make me want to consider the > >> > options carefully. > >> > > >> > I know the viewfinder is an issue as well although I've used by son's DL > >> > and didn't find it noticeably different to my DS. > >> > > >> > > >> > Cheers > >> > > >> > Brian > >> > > >> > ++ > >> > Brian Walters > >> > Western Sydney Australia > >> > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > > -- > > -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
>From what I understand the hot pixel problem has to do with the amount of time >the sensor is energized. It's a firmware programming mistake that causes it to >build heat to rapidly. Paul -- Original message -- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > - Original Message - > From: "Joseph Tainter" > Subject: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > > > > Apparently a firmware problem. > > We'll see. > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=28085894 > > > - > > > > I hope it is indeed firmware. (Pentax corporate HQ is not always honest, > > and Pentax reps are not always knowledgeable.) > > > > What concerns me is why they need firmware to mask hot pixels in the first > place. Are there so > many of them that if they don't, the user base would find the imaging to be > unacceptable? > And why do they move from location to location? > Every DSLR has hot pixels, the K20 is the first one that has hot pixels that > act > like Boxcar > Willie. > At the risk of being a PF whiner, it seems to me that all firmware can do is > map > hot pixels on > the fly and mask what is, in reality, a hardware (sensor) problem. > OTOH, the camera takes lovely pictures. As long as it keeps doing that. > I'm happy. > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
- Original Message - From: "David Savage" Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > Bodies come & go. You will find as you get older that this concept takes on a whole new meaning... William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
- Original Message - From: "Joseph Tainter" Subject: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > Apparently a firmware problem. > We'll see. > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=28085894 > - > > I hope it is indeed firmware. (Pentax corporate HQ is not always honest, > and Pentax reps are not always knowledgeable.) > What concerns me is why they need firmware to mask hot pixels in the first place. Are there so many of them that if they don't, the user base would find the imaging to be unacceptable? And why do they move from location to location? Every DSLR has hot pixels, the K20 is the first one that has hot pixels that act like Boxcar Willie. At the risk of being a PF whiner, it seems to me that all firmware can do is map hot pixels on the fly and mask what is, in reality, a hardware (sensor) problem. OTOH, the camera takes lovely pictures. As long as it keeps doing that. I'm happy. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
2008/5/30 David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:29 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Jaume Lahuerta" >> Subject: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) >> >>>No more bloody fights >> >> >> They got my meds stabilized and someone kidnapped Norm and gave us the Scott >> and Dave show >> instead. > > No one in the house pays attention to me, might as well go www:-) Sorry Dave, did you say something...? 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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Whoever's quoting $2000 for the K20D kit is a crook. I paid considerably less for my K20D body at release. In any case, I'd say sink most of your camera budget into new glass. Bodies come & go. Cheers, Dave 2008/5/30 Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Thu, 29 May 2008 08:47:00 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> >> Given those costs (God, Aussie prices are bad), > > > > Tell me about it > > With the Aussie dollar now approaching parity with the US dollar, a > straight conversion would make the K20D with kit lens about $A1380. > Even allowing for the vagaries of economics, it's difficult to > understand where the additional $A600 goes. > > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney, Australia > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > > > > >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > OK, Thanks. >> > >> > I'll have to take another look at the specs although the buffer isn't a >> > major limitation to me. >> > >> > I expect to be buying towards the end of the life cycle of the current >> > models so (hopefully) the price factor might not be so significant by >> > then. At the moment the Australian price for a K20D with kit lens >> > (which I don't need) is around $A2000 compared with the 200D at $A1200 >> > with the same lens. That's enough to make me want to consider the >> > options carefully. >> > >> > I know the viewfinder is an issue as well although I've used by son's DL >> > and didn't find it noticeably different to my DS. >> > >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > Brian >> > >> > ++ >> > Brian Walters >> > Western Sydney Australia >> > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ >> > >> > >> > > -- > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software > or over the web > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
2008/5/29 William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > - Original Message - > From: "Derby Chang" > Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > > > >> As much as I like to fondle gear myself, I find those to bleat on about >> equipment shortcomings tend to be those who have the least to say >> photographically. > > There is a tendency on this list to jump on anyone who criticizes. It's not > so bad here as the > Forum of Lunacy, but it still exists. This puts a chill on certain topics of > discussion. And probably helps explain the absence of several long tme members. 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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
On Thu, 29 May 2008 08:47:00 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Given those costs (God, Aussie prices are bad), Tell me about it With the Aussie dollar now approaching parity with the US dollar, a straight conversion would make the K20D with kit lens about $A1380. Even allowing for the vagaries of economics, it's difficult to understand where the additional $A600 goes. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > OK, Thanks. > > > > I'll have to take another look at the specs although the buffer isn't a > > major limitation to me. > > > > I expect to be buying towards the end of the life cycle of the current > > models so (hopefully) the price factor might not be so significant by > > then. At the moment the Australian price for a K20D with kit lens > > (which I don't need) is around $A2000 compared with the 200D at $A1200 > > with the same lens. That's enough to make me want to consider the > > options carefully. > > > > I know the viewfinder is an issue as well although I've used by son's DL > > and didn't find it noticeably different to my DS. > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Brian > > > > ++ > > Brian Walters > > Western Sydney Australia > > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > > > > > -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software or over the web -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
No problem at all Christine, no need to worry... (You'd better concentrate in the drinking issue... ;-) ) - Mensaje original De: Christine Aguila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Enviado: jueves, 29 de mayo, 2008 20:42:41 Asunto: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) Jaume: Sorry for the misread on your post--I drink sometimes, you know ;-). Seriously though, please accept my apologies. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
> > Equipment news is tomorrow's recycling. Photographic insight > is timeless > Can someone point that out to Mark! please? Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
> > > > > > They got my meds stabilized and someone kidnapped Norm and gave us > > the Scott and Dave show instead. > > > Oh, man. You guys got the short end of the stick on that deal. > Scott, I think you're mixing your short straws with your shit-ended sticks. Health & Safety will be after you. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
- Original Message - From: "Scott Loveless" Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) >> They got my meds stabilized and someone kidnapped Norm and gave us >> the Scott and Dave show instead. >> > Oh, man. You guys got the short end of the stick on that deal. We know. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Christine Aguila wrote: > I drink sometimes, you know ;-). Well, you'll fit right in around here. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Jaume: Sorry for the misread on your post--I drink sometimes, you know ;-). Seriously though, please accept my apologies. Cheers, Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:29 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Jaume Lahuerta" > Subject: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > > > > >>No more bloody fights > > > They got my meds stabilized and someone kidnapped Norm and gave us the Scott > and Dave show > instead. No one in the house pays attention to me, might as well go www:-) Dave > > William Robb > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:58 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > > >> Pentax Forum is even worse, and the Pentax forum on photo.net is clueless. > > I've had a guy respnd to one of my postings telling me that monitor > calibration is unimportant > with B&W digital printing. > I'm not sure what to say.. Give it some time Bill, you'll think of something. Dave > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Hi! Jaume Lahuerta wrote: > Well, my sentence wasn't too fortunate now that I read it again. > After all, probably the easier way to be happy is to have little > needs, so people has learned to just use their tools and don't be > tortured by further features (that are not really key for what they > do). So the word resignation doesn't reflect this at all. As yet another non-native English speaker I learned many times over on mine and others mistakes that precise wording can literally make it or break it. The real problem is when I am having a conference call with multiple participants. Usually the voice quality is poor and the price of mistake is even higher than usual... > Well, there was a lens that had to come back home but I > don't consider it a problem since we managed to share the looses and > this lead to interesting OT conversations...oh, you see? private > messages again ;-) Indeed. In fact, if I ever get a chance to try another sample of the same lens, I will be very tempted. It is light and while I was working around that certain problem that the lens had - it produced very competent results... Cheers! Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Has Nikon released a direct successor to the D80? If not, that would explain the difference. For Pentax the K20 was hot on the heels of the K10, and it was obviously a replacement, not just an additional product for the market. Thus, it became important for Pentax to clear out the K10s. Paul -- Original message -- From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:11 AM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Adam Maas" > > Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > > > > > >> But the Pentax dropped significantly much earlier in its life. Look at > >> the D80, which was launched concurrently with the K10D and has seen > >> significant price drops, but still sells for about $200 more than the > >> K10D did last fall. > >> > >> I understand price drops, they make sense. But Pentax overdid it with the > K10D. > > > > The K10 came onto the market at a price drop, and they just continued the > process. > > It makes sense in a way, since if the price is percieved to be on the high > side, people will put > > off the purchase until after they drop the price. > > OTOH, it makes one wonder what is the point of supporting the company by > buying early, when all > > the thanks the early adaptor gets is a warm feeling, knowing that they are, > effectively, being > > ripped off by price gouging when the product first comes out. > > > > William Robb > > > > However when your flagship is priced $50 over your base model (K10D vs > K100D Super) your pricing is moronic. The K10D came out at a mild > discount over a D80, which is similar spec and released about the same > time. Maybe a $100 price difference. 8 months later the K10D was over > $300 cheaper than the D80, which had dropped about $100 or so. That's > just ridiculous pricing. > > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - From: "Jaume Lahuerta" Subject: List > focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > > > > >> No more bloody fights > > > They got my meds stabilized and someone kidnapped Norm and gave us > the Scott and Dave show instead. > Oh, man. You guys got the short end of the stick on that deal. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:11 AM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Adam Maas" > Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > > >> But the Pentax dropped significantly much earlier in its life. Look at >> the D80, which was launched concurrently with the K10D and has seen >> significant price drops, but still sells for about $200 more than the >> K10D did last fall. >> >> I understand price drops, they make sense. But Pentax overdid it with the >> K10D. > > The K10 came onto the market at a price drop, and they just continued the > process. > It makes sense in a way, since if the price is percieved to be on the high > side, people will put > off the purchase until after they drop the price. > OTOH, it makes one wonder what is the point of supporting the company by > buying early, when all > the thanks the early adaptor gets is a warm feeling, knowing that they are, > effectively, being > ripped off by price gouging when the product first comes out. > > William Robb > However when your flagship is priced $50 over your base model (K10D vs K100D Super) your pricing is moronic. The K10D came out at a mild discount over a D80, which is similar spec and released about the same time. Maybe a $100 price difference. 8 months later the K10D was over $300 cheaper than the D80, which had dropped about $100 or so. That's just ridiculous pricing. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:29 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They got my meds stabilized and someone kidnapped Norm and gave us the Scott > and Dave show > instead. (for when you get back from GFM): MARK!!! cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
- Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > But the Pentax dropped significantly much earlier in its life. Look at > the D80, which was launched concurrently with the K10D and has seen > significant price drops, but still sells for about $200 more than the > K10D did last fall. > > I understand price drops, they make sense. But Pentax overdid it with the > K10D. The K10 came onto the market at a price drop, and they just continued the process. It makes sense in a way, since if the price is percieved to be on the high side, people will put off the purchase until after they drop the price. OTOH, it makes one wonder what is the point of supporting the company by buying early, when all the thanks the early adaptor gets is a warm feeling, knowing that they are, effectively, being ripped off by price gouging when the product first comes out. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
- Original Message - From: "Derby Chang" Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > As much as I like to fondle gear myself, I find those to bleat on about > equipment shortcomings tend to be those who have the least to say > photographically. There is a tendency on this list to jump on anyone who criticizes. It's not so bad here as the Forum of Lunacy, but it still exists. This puts a chill on certain topics of discussion. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) >> >> Pentax is in deep doo doo now. > > There's no real evidence to support that. Time will tell, but it's certainly > not a given now. > They're in better shape than they were in the final ugly days of the last > film cameras. You must be younger than the Who in list years. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Note the buffer issue can be hit with a few closely spaced shots, not just in continuous. This is due to it only holding 4 shots (and the fairly slow write speeds by todays standards, an issue with all SD-based cameras, the new UDMA CF cards are much faster). Given those costs (God, Aussie prices are bad), I'd look for a lightly used K10D. K10D's were selling new for notably less than the K200D goes for now at the end of their run. You might even find a NOS K10D at a reasonable price. And the K10D's a nice step up from the K200D. -Adam On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, Thanks. > > I'll have to take another look at the specs although the buffer isn't a > major limitation to me. > > I expect to be buying towards the end of the life cycle of the current > models so (hopefully) the price factor might not be so significant by > then. At the moment the Australian price for a K20D with kit lens > (which I don't need) is around $A2000 compared with the 200D at $A1200 > with the same lens. That's enough to make me want to consider the > options carefully. > > I know the viewfinder is an issue as well although I've used by son's DL > and didn't find it noticeably different to my DS. > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > > > On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:56:25 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> The utterly crippled buffer is the most telling fault, there's no >> justifiable reason why a modern camera should have a buffer limited to >> 4 RAWs or 4 JPEG's, especially not at the K200D's rather significant >> price (it's easily the most expensive base model on the market, and >> not the most capable). It's also overpriced considering the rest of >> its spec. The similar spec Sony A200 is significantly cheaper, has at >> least 50% more buffer in RAW (6 shot)with a slow card and as much as >> 3x the RAW buffer with a UDMA card (Sony's write speeds on their >> current cameras are fastest in class and add significantly to RAW >> buffering, as much as doubling it on the A200 with a 300x card) and >> JPEG buffering is infinite at 3.0fps (to the K200D's 2.8fps) AND the >> Sony A200's AF is comparable in performance to the K20D. The Sony does >> lack the sealing, but that's no excuse for the K200D to have a buffer >> spec that was obsolete on the Digital Rebel 4 years ago. Not to >> mention that currently the Nikon D80 sells for only slightly more than >> the K200D with kit lens, and it completely destroys the K200D in most >> regards (Faster AF, far better viewfinder, comparable IQ, much better >> flash system, better AF, much deeper buffer) as it's generally >> comparable to the K10D and exceeds the K10D in some regards (AF, Flash >> system, high ISO) while the K10D offered weather sealing and SR in >> response. >> >> Pentax made the opposite mistake with the K200D (too much money, >> uncompetitive spec) as they did with the K10D (too little money, >> over-specced). >> >> -Adam >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > OK, well perhaps we could talk about technical things for a minute... >> > >> > I'm interested in your statement "cheap ones aren't as bad in >> > comparison as the K200D is to the K20D." >> > >> > What do you think is wrong with the K200D given that it's about >> > $600-$700 (Au) cheaper than the 20D? >> > >> > I'm considering my options at present with the thought of getting either >> > a 200D or a 20D later in the year. Much as I'd like a 20D, the 200D >> > seems to be able to do most of what I need (based on the reviews I've >> > read). About the only thing I'd like that the 200D doesn't have is the >> > extra resolution. I rarely need very high ISOs and I don't do a lot of >> > photography where a I need to fire off a lot of frames quickly - I'm >> > finding it hard to justify the extra money, particularly as there's a >> > lens or two I'd like as well. >> > >> > >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > Brian >> > >> > ++ >> > Brian Walters >> > Western Sydney Australia >> > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:09:05 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than >> >> three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly >> >> available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most >> >> of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 >> >> when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the >> >> good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the >> >> same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't >> >> as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. >> >> >> >> -Adam >> >> > -- > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your ema
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Oh, sure, Derby, People who goes really in deep on equipment technology rarely is able to maintain the same level when it comes to actual pictures. Actually, what I think is that there are 2 different 'hobbies': - Photography: taking, showing, looking at pictures, talk and comment them. - Photo equipment: collect and test equipment, follow the industry news, discuss about it, complain... Everyone has a certain amount of both hobbies, but the ones you mention are really biased towards the second one. In my case I would say that I am quite balanced, so maybe that's why I kind of regret loosing content of one of them here. >As much as I like to fondle gear myself, I find those to bleat on about equipment shortcomings tend to be those who have the least to say photographically. As Rod Serling would say, case in point... http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html (his only non-test chart photos posted on the web, AFAICS) Equipment news is tomorrow's recycling. Photographic insight is timeless Derby -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
But the Pentax dropped significantly much earlier in its life. Look at the D80, which was launched concurrently with the K10D and has seen significant price drops, but still sells for about $200 more than the K10D did last fall. I understand price drops, they make sense. But Pentax overdid it with the K10D. -Adam On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:16 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that's the industry standard for end of life. the Nikon D200 dropped > a level at the end of its tenure as well. > Paul > -- Original message -- > From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> That it did, but I can't help but think Pentax would have done better >> with it if it had remained near its initial pricepoint rather than >> descending into K100D territory. By the end of its run it was only >> about $50 off a K100D kit in price, which is a bit non-sensical. >> >> -Adam >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I agree in regard to the K200D, but I wouldn't call the K10D a mistake. It >> represented great value for the money, and that helped put Pentax on the >> consideration list for many buyers. >> > Paul >> > -- Original message -- >> > From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> The utterly crippled buffer is the most telling fault, there's no >> >> justifiable reason why a modern camera should have a buffer limited to >> >> 4 RAWs or 4 JPEG's, especially not at the K200D's rather significant >> >> price (it's easily the most expensive base model on the market, and >> >> not the most capable). It's also overpriced considering the rest of >> >> its spec. The similar spec Sony A200 is significantly cheaper, has at >> >> least 50% more buffer in RAW (6 shot)with a slow card and as much as >> >> 3x the RAW buffer with a UDMA card (Sony's write speeds on their >> >> current cameras are fastest in class and add significantly to RAW >> >> buffering, as much as doubling it on the A200 with a 300x card) and >> >> JPEG buffering is infinite at 3.0fps (to the K200D's 2.8fps) AND the >> >> Sony A200's AF is comparable in performance to the K20D. The Sony does >> >> lack the sealing, but that's no excuse for the K200D to have a buffer >> >> spec that was obsolete on the Digital Rebel 4 years ago. Not to >> >> mention that currently the Nikon D80 sells for only slightly more than >> >> the K200D with kit lens, and it completely destroys the K200D in most >> >> regards (Faster AF, far better viewfinder, comparable IQ, much better >> >> flash system, better AF, much deeper buffer) as it's generally >> >> comparable to the K10D and exceeds the K10D in some regards (AF, Flash >> >> system, high ISO) while the K10D offered weather sealing and SR in >> >> response. >> >> >> >> Pentax made the opposite mistake with the K200D (too much money, >> >> uncompetitive spec) as they did with the K10D (too little money, >> >> over-specced). >> >> >> >> -Adam >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> > OK, well perhaps we could talk about technical things for a minute... >> >> > >> >> > I'm interested in your statement "cheap ones aren't as bad in >> >> > comparison as the K200D is to the K20D." >> >> > >> >> > What do you think is wrong with the K200D given that it's about >> >> > $600-$700 (Au) cheaper than the 20D? >> >> > >> >> > I'm considering my options at present with the thought of getting either >> >> > a 200D or a 20D later in the year. Much as I'd like a 20D, the 200D >> >> > seems to be able to do most of what I need (based on the reviews I've >> >> > read). About the only thing I'd like that the 200D doesn't have is the >> >> > extra resolution. I rarely need very high ISOs and I don't do a lot of >> >> > photography where a I need to fire off a lot of frames quickly - I'm >> >> > finding it hard to justify the extra money, particularly as there's a >> >> > lens or two I'd like as well. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Cheers >> >> > >> >> > Brian >> >> > >> >> > ++ >> >> > Brian Walters >> >> > Western Sydney Australia >> >> > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:09:05 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > said: >> >> >> Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than >> >> >> three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly >> >> >> available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most >> >> >> of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 >> >> >> when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the >> >> >> good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the >> >> >> same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't >> >> >> as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. >> >> >> >> >> >> -Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Jaume Lahuerta wrote: >>> BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking >>> > occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. > News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. > > Today I was just thinking that this list has somehow shifted its focus since > the digital era took over. > Before there were few places to talk about Pentax equipment, so this was a > main topic. But the digital brought also more 'competitors' and people here > seems a bot bored of too technical (and lots of times closer to computers > rather than photography) so this kind of threads are not as popular anymore. > So we find much more PESOs, GMFs, OTs, so the list is more about people > talking on photography and showing what they do, that normally own (or used > to) Pentax equipment. > > No more bloody fights (except when the magic words arise: 'aperture > simulator') but also no more guru's anticipating future developments...that's > why people has to look elsewhere to find it and, eventually, report it here > in case someone is still interested. > > Regards, > Jaume > Hi Jaume, As much as I like to fondle gear myself, I find those to bleat on about equipment shortcomings tend to be those who have the least to say photographically. As Rod Serling would say, case in point... http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html (his only non-test chart photos posted on the web, AFAICS) Equipment news is tomorrow's recycling. Photographic insight is timeless Derby -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Hi Cristine, I didn't want to sound negative with my message and I indeed didn't use the word 'happy' adequately. Please, see my reply to Boris for further explanation. Regarding the 'bloody fights', I mentioned its current absence as a positive consequence of the 'list foucus shift', as opposite to 'no more guru's anticipating future features...' that for me is a negative consequence of the shift. So, like you, I don't find it entertaining at all. Ah, and I really celebrate your quickly adaptation to the list. Believe it or not, for me it has been one of the major reasons to stay with Pentax !! Regards, Jaume - Mensaje original De: Christine Aguila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Enviado: jueves, 29 de mayo, 2008 6:54:51 Asunto: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) From: "Jaume Lahuerta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >People already happy with their equipment? Sounds good but I don't fully >agree...I would say resigned instead of happy. Jaume: No doubt you know it's a little dangerous to speak for other people. For the record, I'm extremely happy (not resigned) with my Pentax equipment. >The consequence is that thread about future features and/or complaints >about present ones are no longer popular, and newcomers that still have >faith in that their brand will be able to fight in the premier league look >for othe places to keep dreaming. Yes, it's lots of fun to spend time dreaming about future camera features, and I even do this from time to time, but time spent dreaming about the perfect camera needs to be tempered with reality--the reality of the features that are included in the camera one currently owns (can aford to own) and what one can do with those features to make the best pictures possible. For me, the camera is a wonderous tool merging art and science--and I think Pentax equipment has produced some beautiful photography. Check out the Pentax Photo Gallery. I know there have been complaints about the voting et al, but a good portion of the stuff that has been accepted into the gallery is beautiful--and a good many of the folks on this list have made beautiful pictures that have been accepted into the gallery--despite the camera feature complaints. I'm not suggesting that photography is only about the final image: in my view, it's not. Photography is, in equal measure, about the camera/equipment and the photographer's technique to produce a beautiful final image--thus, I'm glad this list talks, complains, dreams about old and future Pentax equipment as well as post PESOs & GESOs (and WRT the OTs: do you really expect all humans to stay on-topic all the time. I've never met a human being like that.) If it was only about the equipment, I probably wouldn't have subscribed last December--I am a newcomer to the list. As to faith about Pentax being "able to fight in the premier league", well, the good common sense I find on this list helps to sustain my faith in Pentax. >The 'negative' side is that the list may be seen as a 'closed' group of >friends, with lots of private jokes and not very prone to orientate and >convince new pentaxians that they have made the right choice (I would say >that there are far less introductions and 'novice' questions that we used >to have). And it is a pitty since I don't think that this is true at all >but that people here is really helpful. I don't view this list as a "closed group." Instead, I recognize that the folks on this list have been friends for many years, and any newbie is going to be the new kid on the block when they first subscribe. And I've found everyone welcoming and helpful. I do, however, don't ask as many novice questions as I'd like because if I asked every single question I wanted to ask I would present myself as such a pest ;-). I do recognize people have limits to their degrees of helpfulness and politeness. > No more bloody fights I'm sure those fights had some kind of entertainment value for you, but for myself, I don't find them necessary. Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Hi Boris ! >Jaume, I most respectfully disagree with you. Sure...but I don't think that we disagree that much. Jaume Lahuerta wrote: > People already happy with their equipment? Sounds good but I don't > fully agree...I would say resigned instead of happy. >I am happy. I am still wishing for more, but I am pretty happy. I cannot talk for others though. Well, my sentence wasn't too fortunate now that I read it again. After all, probably the easier way to be happy is to have little needs, so people has learned to just use their tools and don't be tortured by further features (that are not really key for what they do). So the word resignation doesn't reflect this at all. >However, I think you couldn't possibly disagree that if a question is posted to the list - it gets very thorough and extremely useful set of answers. Thus, the only thing the prospective newcomer has to do is to overcome their shyness. The rest will really be extremely easy. Sure that's what I said. that I know that this is a great place but that it may not seem so sometimes. >Yes, there're other places. This one is still my favorite by a huge margin. For me it has important asset. Even after having being a quite silent member, I know many people, I have bought and sold lots of equipment without problems(*), I have had extremely interesting private emails about diverse themes, even I met a member personally when he visited my town... It is just that, when some kind of questions, themes, other forum threads...are posted, the number of replies compared to others leads to an underlying message such as 'this is no longer the place to discuss this'. And this is what I don't like, because I know and trust the people here, I would like to keep talking about those things here. Hey, but not a big deal...as I said, it was my eloquent day so I decide to take advantage and practice my English writing instead of only reading... ;-) Jaume (*) Well, there was a lens that had to come back home but I don't consider it a problem since we managed to share the looses and this lead to interesting OT conversations...oh, you see? private messages again ;-) __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Hi! On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think a big part of it is a change in the mindset of the > "photographically aware", if you'll allow me a neologism. Doug, I think that the age of film and the post-film era are separated by rather large and definitely not to be neglected hybrid period where people would scan their films (at home) and invoke PhotoShop. > ... You can't switch from a roll > of Provia to a roll of Kodacolor, but you can use different filters in > post (processing). Well, actually even with my MZ-6 it is doable, though laborious and mildly unpleasant. Of course arrival of very affordable high quality DSLRs changed the world. But I still think that impact of this change on the community such as PDML is greatly overestimated. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Boris Liberman wrote: > Jaume, I most respectfully disagree with you. I think a big part of it is a change in the mindset of the "photographically aware", if you'll allow me a neologism. In the "age of film", the primary differences in captured quality occurred due to the film and glass chosen, given equal exposures, and ignoring all of the fancy stuff you could do /after/ you captured the original image, a la Saint Ansel, if you were an acolyte or a masochist or a perfectionist. It the /post-film/ world, we've added the variable(s) of the camera body and sensor, since that aggregation roughly approximates the film+body situation /pre digitalis/. In the "digital world", you can't just change film, but you can invoke Photoshop. You can't switch from a roll of Provia to a roll of Kodacolor, but you can use different filters in post (processing). But, I think the defining part of the equation is economic as much as it is technologic ... people view digital cameras through the same "price-performance-Moore's Law" "lens" that they use for computers. I don't think that same psycho-dymamic is at play with film cameras, in large part due to the explicit and irreconcilable separation of the capture medium (film) and the capture "vehicle" (camera) that no longer exists with digital capture. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
From: "Jaume Lahuerta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >People already happy with their equipment? Sounds good but I don't fully >agree...I would say resigned instead of happy. Jaume: No doubt you know it's a little dangerous to speak for other people. For the record, I'm extremely happy (not resigned) with my Pentax equipment. >The consequence is that thread about future features and/or complaints >about present ones are no longer popular, and newcomers that still have >faith in that their brand will be able to fight in the premier league look >for othe places to keep dreaming. Yes, it's lots of fun to spend time dreaming about future camera features, and I even do this from time to time, but time spent dreaming about the perfect camera needs to be tempered with reality--the reality of the features that are included in the camera one currently owns (can aford to own) and what one can do with those features to make the best pictures possible. For me, the camera is a wonderous tool merging art and science--and I think Pentax equipment has produced some beautiful photography. Check out the Pentax Photo Gallery. I know there have been complaints about the voting et al, but a good portion of the stuff that has been accepted into the gallery is beautiful--and a good many of the folks on this list have made beautiful pictures that have been accepted into the gallery--despite the camera feature complaints. I'm not suggesting that photography is only about the final image: in my view, it's not. Photography is, in equal measure, about the camera/equipment and the photographer's technique to produce a beautiful final image--thus, I'm glad this list talks, complains, dreams about old and future Pentax equipment as well as post PESOs & GESOs (and WRT the OTs: do you really expect all humans to stay on-topic all the time. I've never met a human being like that.) If it was only about the equipment, I probably wouldn't have subscribed last December--I am a newcomer to the list. As to faith about Pentax being "able to fight in the premier league", well, the good common sense I find on this list helps to sustain my faith in Pentax. >The 'negative' side is that the list may be seen as a 'closed' group of >friends, with lots of private jokes and not very prone to orientate and >convince new pentaxians that they have made the right choice (I would say >that there are far less introductions and 'novice' questions that we used >to have). And it is a pitty since I don't think that this is true at all >but that people here is really helpful. I don't view this list as a "closed group." Instead, I recognize that the folks on this list have been friends for many years, and any newbie is going to be the new kid on the block when they first subscribe. And I've found everyone welcoming and helpful. I do, however, don't ask as many novice questions as I'd like because if I asked every single question I wanted to ask I would present myself as such a pest ;-). I do recognize people have limits to their degrees of helpfulness and politeness. > No more bloody fights I'm sure those fights had some kind of entertainment value for you, but for myself, I don't find them necessary. Christine -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Jaume, I most respectfully disagree with you. Jaume Lahuerta wrote: > People already happy with their equipment? Sounds good but I don't > fully agree...I would say resigned instead of happy. I am happy. I am still wishing for more, but I am pretty happy. I cannot talk for others though. > The consequence is that thread about future features and/or > complaints about present ones are no longer popular, and newcomers > that still have faith in that their brand will be able to fight in > the premier league look for other places to keep dreaming. I think that future features complaint thread is no longer popular because in fact, the things that we're wishing are limited in numbers (no pun here) and they've been discussed many times over. Further, in general, Pentax seems to be listening. I am really content with my K10D. I am so content that I will buy a new body either if (knock on wood of my head) mine breaks down or if a FF body that I can afford comes out. I don't suppose that we're on the brink of great revolution regarding the sensor design. As a photographic tool K10D is just about perfect. > So this is a more paceful place where people who knew each other > thanks to their (current or past) relation with Pentax now share > their pictures and have a good time talking about things related (or > not) to photography. Yes, sometimes there is some equipment chat, but > it is not the majority anymore. I for one, admit that one of my favorite past times is to look through PESOs and read/write comments about them. I must admit that unfortunately I don't get enough opportunity to enjoy my favorite past time *sigh*. > The 'negative' side is that the list may be seen as a 'closed' group > of friends, with lots of private jokes and not very prone to > orientate and convince new pentaxians that they have made the right > choice (I would say that there are far less introductions and > 'novice' questions that we used to have). And it is a pitty since I > don't think that this is true at all but that people here is really > helpful. It is only natural that if one is a list member for many years, one gets to know their fellow list-mates. And of course it would appear for an outsider that this is a closed group, etc. However, I think you couldn't possibly disagree that if a question is posted to the list - it gets very thorough and extremely useful set of answers. Thus, the only thing the prospective newcomer has to do is to overcome their shyness. The rest will really be extremely easy. In fact, if an outside will have a look in the list archives, they will immediately see how amazingly friendly the atmosphere here is. Which I would imagine could be an attractive factor. > Anyway, as I said before, there are other places to look for > advice/information about Pentax nowadays...it is just that I have > been reading the list for so many years that it is hard to admit that > is is getting less interesting for me lately...(but I keep > reading...;-) ) Yes, there're other places. This one is still my favorite by a huge margin. > Jaume in their yearly eloquent day ;-) Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
OK, Thanks. I'll have to take another look at the specs although the buffer isn't a major limitation to me. I expect to be buying towards the end of the life cycle of the current models so (hopefully) the price factor might not be so significant by then. At the moment the Australian price for a K20D with kit lens (which I don't need) is around $A2000 compared with the 200D at $A1200 with the same lens. That's enough to make me want to consider the options carefully. I know the viewfinder is an issue as well although I've used by son's DL and didn't find it noticeably different to my DS. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ On Wed, 28 May 2008 21:56:25 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > The utterly crippled buffer is the most telling fault, there's no > justifiable reason why a modern camera should have a buffer limited to > 4 RAWs or 4 JPEG's, especially not at the K200D's rather significant > price (it's easily the most expensive base model on the market, and > not the most capable). It's also overpriced considering the rest of > its spec. The similar spec Sony A200 is significantly cheaper, has at > least 50% more buffer in RAW (6 shot)with a slow card and as much as > 3x the RAW buffer with a UDMA card (Sony's write speeds on their > current cameras are fastest in class and add significantly to RAW > buffering, as much as doubling it on the A200 with a 300x card) and > JPEG buffering is infinite at 3.0fps (to the K200D's 2.8fps) AND the > Sony A200's AF is comparable in performance to the K20D. The Sony does > lack the sealing, but that's no excuse for the K200D to have a buffer > spec that was obsolete on the Digital Rebel 4 years ago. Not to > mention that currently the Nikon D80 sells for only slightly more than > the K200D with kit lens, and it completely destroys the K200D in most > regards (Faster AF, far better viewfinder, comparable IQ, much better > flash system, better AF, much deeper buffer) as it's generally > comparable to the K10D and exceeds the K10D in some regards (AF, Flash > system, high ISO) while the K10D offered weather sealing and SR in > response. > > Pentax made the opposite mistake with the K200D (too much money, > uncompetitive spec) as they did with the K10D (too little money, > over-specced). > > -Adam > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > OK, well perhaps we could talk about technical things for a minute... > > > > I'm interested in your statement "cheap ones aren't as bad in > > comparison as the K200D is to the K20D." > > > > What do you think is wrong with the K200D given that it's about > > $600-$700 (Au) cheaper than the 20D? > > > > I'm considering my options at present with the thought of getting either > > a 200D or a 20D later in the year. Much as I'd like a 20D, the 200D > > seems to be able to do most of what I need (based on the reviews I've > > read). About the only thing I'd like that the 200D doesn't have is the > > extra resolution. I rarely need very high ISOs and I don't do a lot of > > photography where a I need to fire off a lot of frames quickly - I'm > > finding it hard to justify the extra money, particularly as there's a > > lens or two I'd like as well. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Brian > > > > ++ > > Brian Walters > > Western Sydney Australia > > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:09:05 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than > >> three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly > >> available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most > >> of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 > >> when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the > >> good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the > >> same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't > >> as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. > >> > >> -Adam > >> -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Access your email from home and the web -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
-- Original message -- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I remember those days. > > Pentax is in deep doo doo now. There's no real evidence to support that. Time will tell, but it's certainly not a given now. They're in better shape than they were in the final ugly days of the last film cameras. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
I think that's the industry standard for end of life. the Nikon D200 dropped a level at the end of its tenure as well. Paul -- Original message -- From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That it did, but I can't help but think Pentax would have done better > with it if it had remained near its initial pricepoint rather than > descending into K100D territory. By the end of its run it was only > about $50 off a K100D kit in price, which is a bit non-sensical. > > -Adam > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree in regard to the K200D, but I wouldn't call the K10D a mistake. It > represented great value for the money, and that helped put Pentax on the > consideration list for many buyers. > > Paul > > -- Original message -- > > From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> The utterly crippled buffer is the most telling fault, there's no > >> justifiable reason why a modern camera should have a buffer limited to > >> 4 RAWs or 4 JPEG's, especially not at the K200D's rather significant > >> price (it's easily the most expensive base model on the market, and > >> not the most capable). It's also overpriced considering the rest of > >> its spec. The similar spec Sony A200 is significantly cheaper, has at > >> least 50% more buffer in RAW (6 shot)with a slow card and as much as > >> 3x the RAW buffer with a UDMA card (Sony's write speeds on their > >> current cameras are fastest in class and add significantly to RAW > >> buffering, as much as doubling it on the A200 with a 300x card) and > >> JPEG buffering is infinite at 3.0fps (to the K200D's 2.8fps) AND the > >> Sony A200's AF is comparable in performance to the K20D. The Sony does > >> lack the sealing, but that's no excuse for the K200D to have a buffer > >> spec that was obsolete on the Digital Rebel 4 years ago. Not to > >> mention that currently the Nikon D80 sells for only slightly more than > >> the K200D with kit lens, and it completely destroys the K200D in most > >> regards (Faster AF, far better viewfinder, comparable IQ, much better > >> flash system, better AF, much deeper buffer) as it's generally > >> comparable to the K10D and exceeds the K10D in some regards (AF, Flash > >> system, high ISO) while the K10D offered weather sealing and SR in > >> response. > >> > >> Pentax made the opposite mistake with the K200D (too much money, > >> uncompetitive spec) as they did with the K10D (too little money, > >> over-specced). > >> > >> -Adam > >> > >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > OK, well perhaps we could talk about technical things for a minute... > >> > > >> > I'm interested in your statement "cheap ones aren't as bad in > >> > comparison as the K200D is to the K20D." > >> > > >> > What do you think is wrong with the K200D given that it's about > >> > $600-$700 (Au) cheaper than the 20D? > >> > > >> > I'm considering my options at present with the thought of getting either > >> > a 200D or a 20D later in the year. Much as I'd like a 20D, the 200D > >> > seems to be able to do most of what I need (based on the reviews I've > >> > read). About the only thing I'd like that the 200D doesn't have is the > >> > extra resolution. I rarely need very high ISOs and I don't do a lot of > >> > photography where a I need to fire off a lot of frames quickly - I'm > >> > finding it hard to justify the extra money, particularly as there's a > >> > lens or two I'd like as well. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Cheers > >> > > >> > Brian > >> > > >> > ++ > >> > Brian Walters > >> > Western Sydney Australia > >> > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:09:05 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> >> Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than > >> >> three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly > >> >> available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most > >> >> of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 > >> >> when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the > >> >> good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the > >> >> same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't > >> >> as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. > >> >> > >> >> -Adam > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Jaume, > >> >> > > >> >> > I agree with you that the list has changed with digital. > >> >> > Some of the old focus on cameras and lenses is diminished. > >> >> > We are not shooting film any more...digital is too easy. > >> >> > So we aren't debating lens vs lens or camera vs camera. > >> >> > And some are posting lots of pictures because they can. > >> >> > > >> >> > I hope we are still fri
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
That it did, but I can't help but think Pentax would have done better with it if it had remained near its initial pricepoint rather than descending into K100D territory. By the end of its run it was only about $50 off a K100D kit in price, which is a bit non-sensical. -Adam On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree in regard to the K200D, but I wouldn't call the K10D a mistake. It > represented great value for the money, and that helped put Pentax on the > consideration list for many buyers. > Paul > -- Original message -- > From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> The utterly crippled buffer is the most telling fault, there's no >> justifiable reason why a modern camera should have a buffer limited to >> 4 RAWs or 4 JPEG's, especially not at the K200D's rather significant >> price (it's easily the most expensive base model on the market, and >> not the most capable). It's also overpriced considering the rest of >> its spec. The similar spec Sony A200 is significantly cheaper, has at >> least 50% more buffer in RAW (6 shot)with a slow card and as much as >> 3x the RAW buffer with a UDMA card (Sony's write speeds on their >> current cameras are fastest in class and add significantly to RAW >> buffering, as much as doubling it on the A200 with a 300x card) and >> JPEG buffering is infinite at 3.0fps (to the K200D's 2.8fps) AND the >> Sony A200's AF is comparable in performance to the K20D. The Sony does >> lack the sealing, but that's no excuse for the K200D to have a buffer >> spec that was obsolete on the Digital Rebel 4 years ago. Not to >> mention that currently the Nikon D80 sells for only slightly more than >> the K200D with kit lens, and it completely destroys the K200D in most >> regards (Faster AF, far better viewfinder, comparable IQ, much better >> flash system, better AF, much deeper buffer) as it's generally >> comparable to the K10D and exceeds the K10D in some regards (AF, Flash >> system, high ISO) while the K10D offered weather sealing and SR in >> response. >> >> Pentax made the opposite mistake with the K200D (too much money, >> uncompetitive spec) as they did with the K10D (too little money, >> over-specced). >> >> -Adam >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > OK, well perhaps we could talk about technical things for a minute... >> > >> > I'm interested in your statement "cheap ones aren't as bad in >> > comparison as the K200D is to the K20D." >> > >> > What do you think is wrong with the K200D given that it's about >> > $600-$700 (Au) cheaper than the 20D? >> > >> > I'm considering my options at present with the thought of getting either >> > a 200D or a 20D later in the year. Much as I'd like a 20D, the 200D >> > seems to be able to do most of what I need (based on the reviews I've >> > read). About the only thing I'd like that the 200D doesn't have is the >> > extra resolution. I rarely need very high ISOs and I don't do a lot of >> > photography where a I need to fire off a lot of frames quickly - I'm >> > finding it hard to justify the extra money, particularly as there's a >> > lens or two I'd like as well. >> > >> > >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > Brian >> > >> > ++ >> > Brian Walters >> > Western Sydney Australia >> > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:09:05 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> >> Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than >> >> three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly >> >> available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most >> >> of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 >> >> when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the >> >> good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the >> >> same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't >> >> as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. >> >> >> >> -Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Jaume, >> >> > >> >> > I agree with you that the list has changed with digital. >> >> > Some of the old focus on cameras and lenses is diminished. >> >> > We are not shooting film any more...digital is too easy. >> >> > So we aren't debating lens vs lens or camera vs camera. >> >> > And some are posting lots of pictures because they can. >> >> > >> >> > I hope we are still friendly and welcoming to new people starting with >> Pentax. >> >> > In fact, I think there is a real need for help with the early >> >> > expertise for digital. >> >> > It is easy to snap pictures, but getting high quality results is harder. >> >> > The issues include jpeg vs raw, sharpening, computer storage, and >> >> > printing. >> >> > >> >> > Regards, Bob S. >> >> > >> >> > >> > -- >> > >> > >> > -- >> > ht
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
- Original Message - From: "George Sinos" Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) >Many years ago, when I first joined the list, it was the Pentax >Discussion Mailing List that sometimes strayed into a discussion of >photography. I'm much happier that it now seems like the Photograph >Discussion Mailing list that often times strays into a discussion of >using Pentax equipment to make better photos. >I'm fine with that. I remember those days. Pentax is in deep doo doo now. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Many years ago, when I first joined the list, it was the Pentax Discussion Mailing List that sometimes strayed into a discussion of photography. I'm much happier that it now seems like the Photograph Discussion Mailing list that often times strays into a discussion of using Pentax equipment to make better photos. I'm fine with that. GS <http://georgesphotos.net> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People already happy with their equipment? Sounds good but I don't fully > agree...I would say resigned instead of happy. > > The film SLR was an even more mature product, and here people keep wishing > the advent of the MZ-1, the flagship, the perfect mach for the > limiteds...that never showed up. > So people here finally realized the limits of their favourite brand and that, > if they want/need certain features (high fps count, fast AF, full frame), > they have to move elsewhere (as many have already done). > > The consequence is that thread about future features and/or complaints about > present ones are no longer popular, and newcomers that still have faith in > that their brand will be able to fight in the premier league look for othe > places to keep dreaming. > > So this is a more paceful place where people who knew each other thanks to > their (current or past) relation with Pentax now share their pictures and > have a good time talking about things related (or not) to photography. Yes, > sometimes there is some equipment chat, but it is not the majority anymore. > > The 'negative' side is that the list may be seen as a 'closed' group of > friends, with lots of private jokes and not very prone to orientate and > convince new pentaxians that they have made the right choice (I would say > that there are far less introductions and 'novice' questions that we used to > have). And it is a pitty since I don't think that this is true at all but > that people here is really helpful. > > Anyway, as I said before, there are other places to look for > advice/information about Pentax nowadays...it is just that I have been > reading the list for so many years that it is hard to admit that is is > getting less interesting for me lately...(but I keep reading...;-) ) > > Regards, > > Jaume in their yearly eloquent day > > - Mensaje original ---- > De: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Enviado: miércoles, 28 de mayo, 2008 20:12:13 > Asunto: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:46:24AM -0700, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: >> >>BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking >> occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. >> News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. >> >> Today I was just thinking that this list has somehow shifted its focus since >> the digital era took over. >> Before there were few places to talk about Pentax equipment, so this was a >> main topic. But the digital brought also more 'competitors' and people here >> seems a bot bored of too technical (and lots of times closer to computers >> rather than photography) so this kind of threads are not as popular anymore. >> So we find much more PESOs, GMFs, OTs, so the list is more about people >> talking on photography and showing what they do, that normally own (or used >> to) Pentax equipment. >> >> No more bloody fights (except when the magic words arise: 'aperture >> simulator') but also no more guru's anticipating future >> developments...that's why people has to look elsewhere to find it and, >> eventually, report it here in case someone is still interested. > > That's because digital SLRs are, by now, a mature technology. > Pentax addressed most of the complaints about the *ist-D in > the K10D, and polished off a few more with the K20D. Apart > from the "full-frame" sensor (non-)issue, there's not a lot > wrong with the K20D for almost everybody almost all the time. > The advent of the SDM lenses removed another potential source > of complaints, too. > > So while the K20D isn't perfect, it will do for now. Pentax > have intimated they are working on a model beyond the K20D, > so there's room for speculating on future developments (will > it have better build quality, a faster frame rate, faster AF, > etc., etc.). But most people don't care, because what they > can get now is more than good enough to be useful. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
I agree in regard to the K200D, but I wouldn't call the K10D a mistake. It represented great value for the money, and that helped put Pentax on the consideration list for many buyers. Paul -- Original message -- From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The utterly crippled buffer is the most telling fault, there's no > justifiable reason why a modern camera should have a buffer limited to > 4 RAWs or 4 JPEG's, especially not at the K200D's rather significant > price (it's easily the most expensive base model on the market, and > not the most capable). It's also overpriced considering the rest of > its spec. The similar spec Sony A200 is significantly cheaper, has at > least 50% more buffer in RAW (6 shot)with a slow card and as much as > 3x the RAW buffer with a UDMA card (Sony's write speeds on their > current cameras are fastest in class and add significantly to RAW > buffering, as much as doubling it on the A200 with a 300x card) and > JPEG buffering is infinite at 3.0fps (to the K200D's 2.8fps) AND the > Sony A200's AF is comparable in performance to the K20D. The Sony does > lack the sealing, but that's no excuse for the K200D to have a buffer > spec that was obsolete on the Digital Rebel 4 years ago. Not to > mention that currently the Nikon D80 sells for only slightly more than > the K200D with kit lens, and it completely destroys the K200D in most > regards (Faster AF, far better viewfinder, comparable IQ, much better > flash system, better AF, much deeper buffer) as it's generally > comparable to the K10D and exceeds the K10D in some regards (AF, Flash > system, high ISO) while the K10D offered weather sealing and SR in > response. > > Pentax made the opposite mistake with the K200D (too much money, > uncompetitive spec) as they did with the K10D (too little money, > over-specced). > > -Adam > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > OK, well perhaps we could talk about technical things for a minute... > > > > I'm interested in your statement "cheap ones aren't as bad in > > comparison as the K200D is to the K20D." > > > > What do you think is wrong with the K200D given that it's about > > $600-$700 (Au) cheaper than the 20D? > > > > I'm considering my options at present with the thought of getting either > > a 200D or a 20D later in the year. Much as I'd like a 20D, the 200D > > seems to be able to do most of what I need (based on the reviews I've > > read). About the only thing I'd like that the 200D doesn't have is the > > extra resolution. I rarely need very high ISOs and I don't do a lot of > > photography where a I need to fire off a lot of frames quickly - I'm > > finding it hard to justify the extra money, particularly as there's a > > lens or two I'd like as well. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > Brian > > > > ++ > > Brian Walters > > Western Sydney Australia > > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:09:05 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than > >> three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly > >> available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most > >> of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 > >> when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the > >> good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the > >> same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't > >> as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. > >> > >> -Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > Jaume, > >> > > >> > I agree with you that the list has changed with digital. > >> > Some of the old focus on cameras and lenses is diminished. > >> > We are not shooting film any more...digital is too easy. > >> > So we aren't debating lens vs lens or camera vs camera. > >> > And some are posting lots of pictures because they can. > >> > > >> > I hope we are still friendly and welcoming to new people starting with > Pentax. > >> > In fact, I think there is a real need for help with the early > >> > expertise for digital. > >> > It is easy to snap pictures, but getting high quality results is harder. > >> > The issues include jpeg vs raw, sharpening, computer storage, and > >> > printing. > >> > > >> > Regards, Bob S. > >> > > >> > > > -- > > > > > > -- > > http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: > > http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow > the directions. > > > > > > -- > M. Adam Maas > http://www.mawz.ca > Explorations of the City Around Us. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail L
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
The utterly crippled buffer is the most telling fault, there's no justifiable reason why a modern camera should have a buffer limited to 4 RAWs or 4 JPEG's, especially not at the K200D's rather significant price (it's easily the most expensive base model on the market, and not the most capable). It's also overpriced considering the rest of its spec. The similar spec Sony A200 is significantly cheaper, has at least 50% more buffer in RAW (6 shot)with a slow card and as much as 3x the RAW buffer with a UDMA card (Sony's write speeds on their current cameras are fastest in class and add significantly to RAW buffering, as much as doubling it on the A200 with a 300x card) and JPEG buffering is infinite at 3.0fps (to the K200D's 2.8fps) AND the Sony A200's AF is comparable in performance to the K20D. The Sony does lack the sealing, but that's no excuse for the K200D to have a buffer spec that was obsolete on the Digital Rebel 4 years ago. Not to mention that currently the Nikon D80 sells for only slightly more than the K200D with kit lens, and it completely destroys the K200D in most regards (Faster AF, far better viewfinder, comparable IQ, much better flash system, better AF, much deeper buffer) as it's generally comparable to the K10D and exceeds the K10D in some regards (AF, Flash system, high ISO) while the K10D offered weather sealing and SR in response. Pentax made the opposite mistake with the K200D (too much money, uncompetitive spec) as they did with the K10D (too little money, over-specced). -Adam On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK, well perhaps we could talk about technical things for a minute... > > I'm interested in your statement "cheap ones aren't as bad in > comparison as the K200D is to the K20D." > > What do you think is wrong with the K200D given that it's about > $600-$700 (Au) cheaper than the 20D? > > I'm considering my options at present with the thought of getting either > a 200D or a 20D later in the year. Much as I'd like a 20D, the 200D > seems to be able to do most of what I need (based on the reviews I've > read). About the only thing I'd like that the 200D doesn't have is the > extra resolution. I rarely need very high ISOs and I don't do a lot of > photography where a I need to fire off a lot of frames quickly - I'm > finding it hard to justify the extra money, particularly as there's a > lens or two I'd like as well. > > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > > > > On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:09:05 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than >> three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly >> available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most >> of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 >> when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the >> good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the >> same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't >> as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > Jaume, >> > >> > I agree with you that the list has changed with digital. >> > Some of the old focus on cameras and lenses is diminished. >> > We are not shooting film any more...digital is too easy. >> > So we aren't debating lens vs lens or camera vs camera. >> > And some are posting lots of pictures because they can. >> > >> > I hope we are still friendly and welcoming to new people starting with >> > Pentax. >> > In fact, I think there is a real need for help with the early >> > expertise for digital. >> > It is easy to snap pictures, but getting high quality results is harder. >> > The issues include jpeg vs raw, sharpening, computer storage, and printing. >> > >> > Regards, Bob S. >> > >> > > -- > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: > http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Build quality and viewfinder. That's a lot. Paul -- Original message -- From: "Brian Walters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > OK, well perhaps we could talk about technical things for a minute... > > I'm interested in your statement "cheap ones aren't as bad in > comparison as the K200D is to the K20D." > > What do you think is wrong with the K200D given that it's about > $600-$700 (Au) cheaper than the 20D? > > I'm considering my options at present with the thought of getting either > a 200D or a 20D later in the year. Much as I'd like a 20D, the 200D > seems to be able to do most of what I need (based on the reviews I've > read). About the only thing I'd like that the 200D doesn't have is the > extra resolution. I rarely need very high ISOs and I don't do a lot of > photography where a I need to fire off a lot of frames quickly - I'm > finding it hard to justify the extra money, particularly as there's a > lens or two I'd like as well. > > > > Cheers > > Brian > > ++ > Brian Walters > Western Sydney Australia > http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ > > > > > On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:09:05 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than > > three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly > > available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most > > of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 > > when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the > > good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the > > same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't > > as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > Jaume, > > > > > > I agree with you that the list has changed with digital. > > > Some of the old focus on cameras and lenses is diminished. > > > We are not shooting film any more...digital is too easy. > > > So we aren't debating lens vs lens or camera vs camera. > > > And some are posting lots of pictures because they can. > > > > > > I hope we are still friendly and welcoming to new people starting with > Pentax. > > > In fact, I think there is a real need for help with the early > > > expertise for digital. > > > It is easy to snap pictures, but getting high quality results is harder. > > > The issues include jpeg vs raw, sharpening, computer storage, and > > > printing. > > > > > > Regards, Bob S. > > > > > > > -- > > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: > http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
OK, well perhaps we could talk about technical things for a minute... I'm interested in your statement "cheap ones aren't as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D." What do you think is wrong with the K200D given that it's about $600-$700 (Au) cheaper than the 20D? I'm considering my options at present with the thought of getting either a 200D or a 20D later in the year. Much as I'd like a 20D, the 200D seems to be able to do most of what I need (based on the reviews I've read). About the only thing I'd like that the 200D doesn't have is the extra resolution. I rarely need very high ISOs and I don't do a lot of photography where a I need to fire off a lot of frames quickly - I'm finding it hard to justify the extra money, particularly as there's a lens or two I'd like as well. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ On Wed, 28 May 2008 19:09:05 -0400, "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than > three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly > available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most > of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 > when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the > good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the > same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't > as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. > > -Adam > > > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Jaume, > > > > I agree with you that the list has changed with digital. > > Some of the old focus on cameras and lenses is diminished. > > We are not shooting film any more...digital is too easy. > > So we aren't debating lens vs lens or camera vs camera. > > And some are posting lots of pictures because they can. > > > > I hope we are still friendly and welcoming to new people starting with > > Pentax. > > In fact, I think there is a real need for help with the early > > expertise for digital. > > It is easy to snap pictures, but getting high quality results is harder. > > The issues include jpeg vs raw, sharpening, computer storage, and printing. > > > > Regards, Bob S. > > > > -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - One of many happy users: http://www.fastmail.fm/docs/quotes.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
When I need some technical/photo related advice this list is the first place I think of, could be that I know the names and respect the opinions I get here better; I have a different theory about why you find more of these discussions outside of PDML, I think most of the equipment questions are from newcomers, and probably might be easier to join and follow dpreview than an email based list; I know there are PDML archives, and that joining is not hard at all (unless some secret handshake was added that I'm not aware of), but the forum style might be more familiar to other folks than an email list. Pentaxforums is just a dpreview forum plan B (and place for refugee expatriates of dpreview) and in photo.net there is no useful advice (I believe thanks to the animosity of Philip Greenspun against anything Pentax). On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People already happy with their equipment? Sounds good but I don't fully > agree...I would say resigned instead of happy. > > The film SLR was an even more mature product, and here people keep wishing > the advent of the MZ-1, the flagship, the perfect mach for the > limiteds...that never showed up. > So people here finally realized the limits of their favourite brand and that, > if they want/need certain features (high fps count, fast AF, full frame), > they have to move elsewhere (as many have already done). > > The consequence is that thread about future features and/or complaints about > present ones are no longer popular, and newcomers that still have faith in > that their brand will be able to fight in the premier league look for othe > places to keep dreaming. > > So this is a more paceful place where people who knew each other thanks to > their (current or past) relation with Pentax now share their pictures and > have a good time talking about things related (or not) to photography. Yes, > sometimes there is some equipment chat, but it is not the majority anymore. > > The 'negative' side is that the list may be seen as a 'closed' group of > friends, with lots of private jokes and not very prone to orientate and > convince new pentaxians that they have made the right choice (I would say > that there are far less introductions and 'novice' questions that we used to > have). And it is a pitty since I don't think that this is true at all but > that people here is really helpful. > > Anyway, as I said before, there are other places to look for > advice/information about Pentax nowadays...it is just that I have been > reading the list for so many years that it is hard to admit that is is > getting less interesting for me lately...(but I keep reading...;-) ) > > Regards, > > Jaume in their yearly eloquent day > > - Mensaje original > De: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Enviado: miércoles, 28 de mayo, 2008 20:12:13 > Asunto: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:46:24AM -0700, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: >> >>BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking >> occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. >> News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. >> >> Today I was just thinking that this list has somehow shifted its focus since >> the digital era took over. >> Before there were few places to talk about Pentax equipment, so this was a >> main topic. But the digital brought also more 'competitors' and people here >> seems a bot bored of too technical (and lots of times closer to computers >> rather than photography) so this kind of threads are not as popular anymore. >> So we find much more PESOs, GMFs, OTs, so the list is more about people >> talking on photography and showing what they do, that normally own (or used >> to) Pentax equipment. >> >> No more bloody fights (except when the magic words arise: 'aperture >> simulator') but also no more guru's anticipating future >> developments...that's why people has to look elsewhere to find it and, >> eventually, report it here in case someone is still interested. > > That's because digital SLRs are, by now, a mature technology. > Pentax addressed most of the complaints about the *ist-D in > the K10D, and polished off a few more with the K20D. Apart > from the "full-frame" sensor (non-)issue, there's not a lot > wrong with the K20D for almost everybody almost all the time. > The advent of the SDM lenses removed another potential source > of complaints, too. > > So while the K20D isn't perfect, it will do for now. Pentax &
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > Pentax Forum is even worse, and the Pentax forum on photo.net is clueless. I've had a guy respnd to one of my postings telling me that monitor calibration is unimportant with B&W digital printing. I'm not sure what to say.. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
- Original Message - From: "Jaume Lahuerta" Subject: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) >No more bloody fights They got my meds stabilized and someone kidnapped Norm and gave us the Scott and Dave show instead. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
I'm happy with my K20D, but that's because it meets my needs for the kind of photography I do. It hasn't failed me yet. Like you, I'm interested in the technical discussions, and I do stop in at dpreview from time to time to see what's up. But the discussions usually aren't very intelligent or factual. More often than not, I'd rather read the "digested" versions here. Pentax Forum is even worse, and the Pentax forum on photo.net is clueless. Yes, there are other cameras that could serve me somewhat better than my K10D and K20D, but they cost a heck of a lot more, and I need at least two bodies. And the Pentax lenses are still as good as anything out there. Better than most. There were some quality control problems with the DA*16-50, but the good samples are great. It's just a matter of analyzing your equipment when it's purchased. I'm on a new job now, three days a week. Photography is part of it. My boss shoots a Canon 1DS M3 and some medium format digital, which I can't describe accurately. I've turned some RAW files over to him that I shot at 1600 with the DA* 50-135. He was very impressed. " I can match that performance with the Canon," he said. "But I'm not sure I can better it. At least not for practical purposes." Enough said. Paul -- Original message -- From: Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > People already happy with their equipment? Sounds good but I don't fully > agree...I would say resigned instead of happy. > > The film SLR was an even more mature product, and here people keep wishing > the > advent of the MZ-1, the flagship, the perfect mach for the limiteds...that > never > showed up. > So people here finally realized the limits of their favourite brand and that, > if > they want/need certain features (high fps count, fast AF, full frame), they > have > to move elsewhere (as many have already done). > > The consequence is that thread about future features and/or complaints about > present ones are no longer popular, and newcomers that still have faith in > that > their brand will be able to fight in the premier league look for othe places > to > keep dreaming. > > So this is a more paceful place where people who knew each other thanks to > their > (current or past) relation with Pentax now share their pictures and have a > good > time talking about things related (or not) to photography. Yes, sometimes > there > is some equipment chat, but it is not the majority anymore. > > The 'negative' side is that the list may be seen as a 'closed' group of > friends, > with lots of private jokes and not very prone to orientate and convince new > pentaxians that they have made the right choice (I would say that there are > far > less introductions and 'novice' questions that we used to have). And it is a > pitty since I don't think that this is true at all but that people here is > really helpful. > > Anyway, as I said before, there are other places to look for > advice/information > about Pentax nowadays...it is just that I have been reading the list for so > many > years that it is hard to admit that is is getting less interesting for me > lately...(but I keep reading...;-) ) > > Regards, > > Jaume in their yearly eloquent day > > - Mensaje original > De: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Enviado: miércoles, 28 de mayo, 2008 20:12:13 > Asunto: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:46:24AM -0700, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: > > >>BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking > > occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. > > News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. > > > > Today I was just thinking that this list has somehow shifted its focus > > since > the digital era took over. > > Before there were few places to talk about Pentax equipment, so this was a > main topic. But the digital brought also more 'competitors' and people here > seems a bot bored of too technical (and lots of times closer to computers > rather > than photography) so this kind of threads are not as popular anymore. > > So we find much more PESOs, GMFs, OTs, so the list is more about people > talking on photography and showing what they do, that normally own (or used > to) > Pentax equipment. > > > > No more bloody fights (except when the magic words arise: 'aperture > simulator') but also no more guru's anticipating future developments...that&#
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Some of it is also the lack of options. Pentax has never had more than three digital bodies in the line, and no more than two commonly available ones, while they had many more current film bodies for most of the post-spotmatic era. We're back to the days of the SP and SP500 when it comes to body choice. Really its' 'get the cheap one or the good one, and the cheap one has a few too many comprimises'. Much the same goes for the restricted lens line, although the cheap ones aren't as bad in comparison as the K200D is to the K20D. -Adam On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Bob Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jaume, > > I agree with you that the list has changed with digital. > Some of the old focus on cameras and lenses is diminished. > We are not shooting film any more...digital is too easy. > So we aren't debating lens vs lens or camera vs camera. > And some are posting lots of pictures because they can. > > I hope we are still friendly and welcoming to new people starting with Pentax. > In fact, I think there is a real need for help with the early > expertise for digital. > It is easy to snap pictures, but getting high quality results is harder. > The issues include jpeg vs raw, sharpening, computer storage, and printing. > > Regards, Bob S. > > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> People already happy with their equipment? Sounds good but I don't fully >> agree...I would say resigned instead of happy. >> >> The film SLR was an even more mature product, and here people keep wishing >> the advent of the MZ-1, the flagship, the perfect mach for the >> limiteds...that never showed up. >> So people here finally realized the limits of their favourite brand and >> that, if they want/need certain features (high fps count, fast AF, full >> frame), they have to move elsewhere (as many have already done). >> >> The consequence is that thread about future features and/or complaints about >> present ones are no longer popular, and newcomers that still have faith in >> that their brand will be able to fight in the premier league look for othe >> places to keep dreaming. >> >> So this is a more paceful place where people who knew each other thanks to >> their (current or past) relation with Pentax now share their pictures and >> have a good time talking about things related (or not) to photography. Yes, >> sometimes there is some equipment chat, but it is not the majority anymore. >> >> The 'negative' side is that the list may be seen as a 'closed' group of >> friends, with lots of private jokes and not very prone to orientate and >> convince new pentaxians that they have made the right choice (I would say >> that there are far less introductions and 'novice' questions that we used to >> have). And it is a pitty since I don't think that this is true at all but >> that people here is really helpful. >> >> Anyway, as I said before, there are other places to look for >> advice/information about Pentax nowadays...it is just that I have been >> reading the list for so many years that it is hard to admit that is is >> getting less interesting for me lately...(but I keep reading...;-) ) >> >> Regards, >> >> Jaume in their yearly eloquent day >> >> - Mensaje original >> De: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Enviado: miércoles, 28 de mayo, 2008 20:12:13 >> Asunto: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) >> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:46:24AM -0700, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: >>> >>BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking >>> occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. >>> News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. >>> >>> Today I was just thinking that this list has somehow shifted its focus >>> since the digital era took over. >>> Before there were few places to talk about Pentax equipment, so this was a >>> main topic. But the digital brought also more 'competitors' and people here >>> seems a bot bored of too technical (and lots of times closer to computers >>> rather than photography) so this kind of threads are not as popular >>> anymore. >>> So we find much more PESOs, GMFs, OTs, so the list is more about people >>> talking on photography and showing what they do, that normally own (or used >>> to) Pentax equipment. >>> >>> No more bloody fights (except when the magic words a
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
Jaume, I agree with you that the list has changed with digital. Some of the old focus on cameras and lenses is diminished. We are not shooting film any more...digital is too easy. So we aren't debating lens vs lens or camera vs camera. And some are posting lots of pictures because they can. I hope we are still friendly and welcoming to new people starting with Pentax. In fact, I think there is a real need for help with the early expertise for digital. It is easy to snap pictures, but getting high quality results is harder. The issues include jpeg vs raw, sharpening, computer storage, and printing. Regards, Bob S. On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > People already happy with their equipment? Sounds good but I don't fully > agree...I would say resigned instead of happy. > > The film SLR was an even more mature product, and here people keep wishing > the advent of the MZ-1, the flagship, the perfect mach for the > limiteds...that never showed up. > So people here finally realized the limits of their favourite brand and that, > if they want/need certain features (high fps count, fast AF, full frame), > they have to move elsewhere (as many have already done). > > The consequence is that thread about future features and/or complaints about > present ones are no longer popular, and newcomers that still have faith in > that their brand will be able to fight in the premier league look for othe > places to keep dreaming. > > So this is a more paceful place where people who knew each other thanks to > their (current or past) relation with Pentax now share their pictures and > have a good time talking about things related (or not) to photography. Yes, > sometimes there is some equipment chat, but it is not the majority anymore. > > The 'negative' side is that the list may be seen as a 'closed' group of > friends, with lots of private jokes and not very prone to orientate and > convince new pentaxians that they have made the right choice (I would say > that there are far less introductions and 'novice' questions that we used to > have). And it is a pitty since I don't think that this is true at all but > that people here is really helpful. > > Anyway, as I said before, there are other places to look for > advice/information about Pentax nowadays...it is just that I have been > reading the list for so many years that it is hard to admit that is is > getting less interesting for me lately...(but I keep reading...;-) ) > > Regards, > > Jaume in their yearly eloquent day > > - Mensaje original > De: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Enviado: miércoles, 28 de mayo, 2008 20:12:13 > Asunto: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:46:24AM -0700, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: >> >>BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking >> occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. >> News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. >> >> Today I was just thinking that this list has somehow shifted its focus since >> the digital era took over. >> Before there were few places to talk about Pentax equipment, so this was a >> main topic. But the digital brought also more 'competitors' and people here >> seems a bot bored of too technical (and lots of times closer to computers >> rather than photography) so this kind of threads are not as popular anymore. >> So we find much more PESOs, GMFs, OTs, so the list is more about people >> talking on photography and showing what they do, that normally own (or used >> to) Pentax equipment. >> >> No more bloody fights (except when the magic words arise: 'aperture >> simulator') but also no more guru's anticipating future >> developments...that's why people has to look elsewhere to find it and, >> eventually, report it here in case someone is still interested. > > That's because digital SLRs are, by now, a mature technology. > Pentax addressed most of the complaints about the *ist-D in > the K10D, and polished off a few more with the K20D. Apart > from the "full-frame" sensor (non-)issue, there's not a lot > wrong with the K20D for almost everybody almost all the time. > The advent of the SDM lenses removed another potential source > of complaints, too. > > So while the K20D isn't perfect, it will do for now. Pentax > have intimated they are working on a model beyond the K20D, > so there's room for speculating on future developments (will > it have better build quality, a faster frame rate, faster
Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
People already happy with their equipment? Sounds good but I don't fully agree...I would say resigned instead of happy. The film SLR was an even more mature product, and here people keep wishing the advent of the MZ-1, the flagship, the perfect mach for the limiteds...that never showed up. So people here finally realized the limits of their favourite brand and that, if they want/need certain features (high fps count, fast AF, full frame), they have to move elsewhere (as many have already done). The consequence is that thread about future features and/or complaints about present ones are no longer popular, and newcomers that still have faith in that their brand will be able to fight in the premier league look for othe places to keep dreaming. So this is a more paceful place where people who knew each other thanks to their (current or past) relation with Pentax now share their pictures and have a good time talking about things related (or not) to photography. Yes, sometimes there is some equipment chat, but it is not the majority anymore. The 'negative' side is that the list may be seen as a 'closed' group of friends, with lots of private jokes and not very prone to orientate and convince new pentaxians that they have made the right choice (I would say that there are far less introductions and 'novice' questions that we used to have). And it is a pitty since I don't think that this is true at all but that people here is really helpful. Anyway, as I said before, there are other places to look for advice/information about Pentax nowadays...it is just that I have been reading the list for so many years that it is hard to admit that is is getting less interesting for me lately...(but I keep reading...;-) ) Regards, Jaume in their yearly eloquent day - Mensaje original De: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Enviado: miércoles, 28 de mayo, 2008 20:12:13 Asunto: Re: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels) On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:46:24AM -0700, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: > >>BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking > occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. > News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. > > Today I was just thinking that this list has somehow shifted its focus since > the digital era took over. > Before there were few places to talk about Pentax equipment, so this was a > main topic. But the digital brought also more 'competitors' and people here > seems a bot bored of too technical (and lots of times closer to computers > rather than photography) so this kind of threads are not as popular anymore. > So we find much more PESOs, GMFs, OTs, so the list is more about people > talking on photography and showing what they do, that normally own (or used > to) Pentax equipment. > > No more bloody fights (except when the magic words arise: 'aperture > simulator') but also no more guru's anticipating future developments...that's > why people has to look elsewhere to find it and, eventually, report it here > in case someone is still interested. That's because digital SLRs are, by now, a mature technology. Pentax addressed most of the complaints about the *ist-D in the K10D, and polished off a few more with the K20D. Apart from the "full-frame" sensor (non-)issue, there's not a lot wrong with the K20D for almost everybody almost all the time. The advent of the SDM lenses removed another potential source of complaints, too. So while the K20D isn't perfect, it will do for now. Pentax have intimated they are working on a model beyond the K20D, so there's room for speculating on future developments (will it have better build quality, a faster frame rate, faster AF, etc., etc.). But most people don't care, because what they can get now is more than good enough to be useful. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:46:24AM -0700, Jaume Lahuerta wrote: > >>BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking > occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. > News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. > > Today I was just thinking that this list has somehow shifted its focus since > the digital era took over. > Before there were few places to talk about Pentax equipment, so this was a > main topic. But the digital brought also more 'competitors' and people here > seems a bot bored of too technical (and lots of times closer to computers > rather than photography) so this kind of threads are not as popular anymore. > So we find much more PESOs, GMFs, OTs, so the list is more about people > talking on photography and showing what they do, that normally own (or used > to) Pentax equipment. > > No more bloody fights (except when the magic words arise: 'aperture > simulator') but also no more guru's anticipating future developments...that's > why people has to look elsewhere to find it and, eventually, report it here > in case someone is still interested. That's because digital SLRs are, by now, a mature technology. Pentax addressed most of the complaints about the *ist-D in the K10D, and polished off a few more with the K20D. Apart from the "full-frame" sensor (non-)issue, there's not a lot wrong with the K20D for almost everybody almost all the time. The advent of the SDM lenses removed another potential source of complaints, too. So while the K20D isn't perfect, it will do for now. Pentax have intimated they are working on a model beyond the K20D, so there's room for speculating on future developments (will it have better build quality, a faster frame rate, faster AF, etc., etc.). But most people don't care, because what they can get now is more than good enough to be useful. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
List focus shift (WAS: Re: K20D Hot Pixels)
>>BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. Today I was just thinking that this list has somehow shifted its focus since the digital era took over. Before there were few places to talk about Pentax equipment, so this was a main topic. But the digital brought also more 'competitors' and people here seems a bot bored of too technical (and lots of times closer to computers rather than photography) so this kind of threads are not as popular anymore. So we find much more PESOs, GMFs, OTs, so the list is more about people talking on photography and showing what they do, that normally own (or used to) Pentax equipment. No more bloody fights (except when the magic words arise: 'aperture simulator') but also no more guru's anticipating future developments...that's why people has to look elsewhere to find it and, eventually, report it here in case someone is still interested. Regards, Jaume __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
I agree. I go to dpreview myself from time to time. I realize it has some value. But so many things get blown out of proportion that the annoyance factor is huge. The initial posts about the hot pixel/mirror lockup link seem to suggest that the hot pixel/mirror lockup problem only happens when shooting jpegs. Or perhaps it's only visible then due to conversion fixes? In any case, I've used mirror lockup a few times with no visible problems. However, I only shoot RAW. Paul -- Original message -- From: Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Apparently a firmware problem. > We'll see. > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=28085894 > > William Robb > > - > > I hope it is indeed firmware. (Pentax corporate HQ is not always honest, > and Pentax reps are not always knowledgeable.) > > I shot some RAW photos the other day with my K20D using two-second > delay. Looking at the images in Pentax's browser (no RAW conversion), I > don't see the hot pixel problem that others have seen. > > BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking > occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. > News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. > > Joe > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D Hot Pixels
Apparently a firmware problem. We'll see. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=28085894 William Robb - I hope it is indeed firmware. (Pentax corporate HQ is not always honest, and Pentax reps are not always knowledgeable.) I shot some RAW photos the other day with my K20D using two-second delay. Looking at the images in Pentax's browser (no RAW conversion), I don't see the hot pixel problem that others have seen. BTW, Paul, this link is an example of why it is worth looking occasionally at dpreview, despite the admitted annoyances of that site. News such as this shows up much earlier there than it does here. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
K20D Hot Pixels
Apparently a firmware problem. We'll see. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=28085894 William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D hot pixels issue is due to 2sec MLU
Well, actually, if you shoot RAW the converters eliminate these pixels for you (and it seems that even some tool eliminates them automatically from jpgs). Jaume - Mensaje original De: David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Para: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Enviado: miércoles, 28 de mayo, 2008 0:46:40 Asunto: Re: K20D hot pixels issue is due to 2sec MLU Funny, i used my istD for 2 1/2 years and never noticed, or looked for stuck or dead pixels. I lent it to Brother Aaron one day for a Blue Jay baseball game, and he noticed 6 of them. He had to point them out to me, i could not see them. One click of the clone tool fixed all of that.:-) Dave On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems that there is people with lots of free time and that has been able > to isolate the K20D hot pixel issue that has been worrying some reviewers. > According to this thread, the phenomena is UNIVERSAL (it happens in all > K20Ds) and it appears when the mirror locks up for 2 seconds before making > the picture. > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=28079977 > > >From a comment in a blog entry comment: > CONCLUSION: Apparently there is something buggy w/ 2 sec delay and the > sensor/processing > CURRENT SOLUTIONS as proposed by others: > 1)To > avoid this problem with 2s mirror lockup when shooting JPG on a tripod, > one may want to switch long-exposure NR to ON (as opposed to AUTO). > This should avoid the problem in this particular situation. > 2)They > could certainly work around it by activating the dark frame NR whenever > the 2-sec delay is used, and even take the dark frame during the 2-sec. > delay rather than after the exposure. > > Since I don't own this model (although I may be interested in getting one > this year), I can't test it myself, and it doesn't seems a big issue unless > you need jpg+ 2 sec MLU...does it? > > Regards, > Jaume > > > __ > Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D hot pixels issue is due to 2sec MLU
David J Brooks wrote: > Funny, i used my istD for 2 1/2 years and never noticed, or looked for > stuck or dead pixels. I lent it to Brother Aaron one day for a Blue > Jay baseball game, and he noticed 6 of them. He should have been looking for dead or stuck ball-players. <*ducks*> ;-) -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D hot pixels issue is due to 2sec MLU
Funny, i used my istD for 2 1/2 years and never noticed, or looked for stuck or dead pixels. I lent it to Brother Aaron one day for a Blue Jay baseball game, and he noticed 6 of them. He had to point them out to me, i could not see them. One click of the clone tool fixed all of that.:-) Dave On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 6:06 PM, Jaume Lahuerta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems that there is people with lots of free time and that has been able > to isolate the K20D hot pixel issue that has been worrying some reviewers. > According to this thread, the phenomena is UNIVERSAL (it happens in all > K20Ds) and it appears when the mirror locks up for 2 seconds before making > the picture. > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=28079977 > > >From a comment in a blog entry comment: > CONCLUSION: Apparently there is something buggy w/ 2 sec delay and the > sensor/processing > CURRENT SOLUTIONS as proposed by others: > 1)To > avoid this problem with 2s mirror lockup when shooting JPG on a tripod, > one may want to switch long-exposure NR to ON (as opposed to AUTO). > This should avoid the problem in this particular situation. > 2)They > could certainly work around it by activating the dark frame NR whenever > the 2-sec delay is used, and even take the dark frame during the 2-sec. > delay rather than after the exposure. > > Since I don't own this model (although I may be interested in getting one > this year), I can't test it myself, and it doesn't seems a big issue unless > you need jpg+ 2 sec MLU...does it? > > Regards, > Jaume > > > __ > Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
K20D hot pixels issue is due to 2sec MLU
It seems that there is people with lots of free time and that has been able to isolate the K20D hot pixel issue that has been worrying some reviewers. According to this thread, the phenomena is UNIVERSAL (it happens in all K20Ds) and it appears when the mirror locks up for 2 seconds before making the picture. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=28079977 >From a comment in a blog entry comment: CONCLUSION: Apparently there is something buggy w/ 2 sec delay and the sensor/processing CURRENT SOLUTIONS as proposed by others: 1)To avoid this problem with 2s mirror lockup when shooting JPG on a tripod, one may want to switch long-exposure NR to ON (as opposed to AUTO). This should avoid the problem in this particular situation. 2)They could certainly work around it by activating the dark frame NR whenever the 2-sec delay is used, and even take the dark frame during the 2-sec. delay rather than after the exposure. Since I don't own this model (although I may be interested in getting one this year), I can't test it myself, and it doesn't seems a big issue unless you need jpg+ 2 sec MLU...does it? Regards, Jaume __ Enviado desde Correo Yahoo! La bandeja de entrada más inteligente. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
IIRC, Pentax has been accused of the same. It has been maintained somewhere that Pentax actually writes the chosen WB into the raw file data in addition to giving info on the temperature/tint values applied. However I cannot recall the source of this information, so take it as hearsay unless someone can confirm it. Jostein 2008/5/13 P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Funny, > > Here's what bugs me about this entire discussion. It's been suspected > that Nikon, Canon, Sony and Olympus all so some kind of pre-processing > to their RAW files. So in other words RAW for them isn't really raw. > It's just possible that all CMOS chips exhibit this kind of behavior, in > fact most implementations of CCD chips may as well, especially if most > manufacturers are applying some sort preprocessing before presenting the > "RAW" data. The fact is only two testing sites observed this, one who's > results are highly suspect as they fly in the face of everyone else's > impressions, and another who IMHO doesn't really know how to do an > unbiased test. Most other testers didn't and even gave the K20D kudos > for it's fine resolution, and high ISO performance. The only people who > should be inconvenienced by this would seem to me to be amateur > astro-photographers, and they should probably be using glass plates > anyway if they care about not getting spurious data. > > Gonz wrote: >> Zombie pixels >> >> On 5/11/08, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> > >>> > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> The problem that DPReview is having is that they have recieved a couple of cameras which have >>> > mobile dead pixels. >>> >>> >>> Interesting. So they are, in fact, not dead. There is some other reason >>> for the misbehaviour. I do wonder what it could be. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email >>> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... > -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.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: K20D Hot Pixels
Personally, I put it to the particle vs wave nature of light. Sometimes an extra photon or two falls into a sensor's bucket... sometimes none. It's all just the quantum mechanics effects. Regards, Bob S. On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:50 AM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Funny, > > Here's what bugs me about this entire discussion. It's been suspected > that Nikon, Canon, Sony and Olympus all so some kind of pre-processing > to their RAW files. So in other words RAW for them isn't really raw. > It's just possible that all CMOS chips exhibit this kind of behavior, in > fact most implementations of CCD chips may as well, especially if most > manufacturers are applying some sort preprocessing before presenting the > "RAW" data. The fact is only two testing sites observed this, one who's > results are highly suspect as they fly in the face of everyone else's > impressions, and another who IMHO doesn't really know how to do an > unbiased test. Most other testers didn't and even gave the K20D kudos > for it's fine resolution, and high ISO performance. The only people who > should be inconvenienced by this would seem to me to be amateur > astro-photographers, and they should probably be using glass plates > anyway if they care about not getting spurious data. > > Gonz wrote: > > Zombie pixels > > > > On 5/11/08, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > >> > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> > >>> The problem that DPReview is having is that they have recieved a couple > >>> of cameras which have > >>> > >> > mobile dead pixels. > >> > >> > >> Interesting. So they are, in fact, not dead. There is some other reason > >> for the misbehaviour. I do wonder what it could be. > >> > >> > >> - > >> Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email > >> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > >> follow the directions. > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... > -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D Hot Pixels
Funny, Here's what bugs me about this entire discussion. It's been suspected that Nikon, Canon, Sony and Olympus all so some kind of pre-processing to their RAW files. So in other words RAW for them isn't really raw. It's just possible that all CMOS chips exhibit this kind of behavior, in fact most implementations of CCD chips may as well, especially if most manufacturers are applying some sort preprocessing before presenting the "RAW" data. The fact is only two testing sites observed this, one who's results are highly suspect as they fly in the face of everyone else's impressions, and another who IMHO doesn't really know how to do an unbiased test. Most other testers didn't and even gave the K20D kudos for it's fine resolution, and high ISO performance. The only people who should be inconvenienced by this would seem to me to be amateur astro-photographers, and they should probably be using glass plates anyway if they care about not getting spurious data. Gonz wrote: > Zombie pixels > > On 5/11/08, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >>> The problem that DPReview is having is that they have recieved a couple of >>> cameras which have >>> >> > mobile dead pixels. >> >> >> Interesting. So they are, in fact, not dead. There is some other reason >> for the misbehaviour. I do wonder what it could be. >> >> >> - >> Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email >> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. >> >> > > -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
> > From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2008/05/12 Mon PM 07:21:36 GMT > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Subject: Re: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > > Zombie pixels So they are only brain dead? Do they attack live pixels? > > On 5/11/08, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > The problem that DPReview is having is that they have recieved a couple > > > of cameras which have > > > mobile dead pixels. > > > > > > Interesting. So they are, in fact, not dead. There is some other reason > > for the misbehaviour. I do wonder what it could be. > > > > > > - > > Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email > > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > > follow the directions. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: Re: K20D Hot Pixels
- Original Message - From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Re: K20D Hot Pixels >> > >> > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > The problem that DPReview is having is that they have >> recieved a couple of cameras which have >> > mobile dead pixels. >> >> Interesting. So they are, in fact, not dead. There is some >> other reason for the misbehaviour. I do wonder what it could be. >> > > They're pining for the fjords. > > Their metabolic processes are a matter of interest only to historians! They're probably migrating Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f > > Bob > (you knew it had to happen...) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: Re: K20D Hot Pixels
Zombie pixels On 5/11/08, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > The problem that DPReview is having is that they have recieved a couple of > > cameras which have > > mobile dead pixels. > > > Interesting. So they are, in fact, not dead. There is some other reason for > the misbehaviour. I do wonder what it could be. > > > - > Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Re: K20D Hot Pixels
Drunk? Jack --- On Sun, 5/11/08, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Sunday, May 11, 2008, 2:30 PM > - Original Message - > From: "mike wilson" > Subject: Re: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > > > > > >> > >> > >> The problem that DPReview is having is that they > have recieved a couple of cameras which have > >> mobile dead pixels. > > > > Interesting. So they are, in fact, not dead. There > is some other reason for the > > misbehaviour. I do wonder what it could be. > > > > > > Perhaps they are just resting. > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: Re: K20D Hot Pixels
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson" Subject: Re: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > >> >> >> The problem that DPReview is having is that they have recieved a couple of >> cameras which have >> mobile dead pixels. > > Interesting. So they are, in fact, not dead. There is some other reason for > the > misbehaviour. I do wonder what it could be. > > Perhaps they are just resting. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: Re: K20D Hot Pixels
> > > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The problem that DPReview is having is that they have > recieved a couple of cameras which have > > mobile dead pixels. > > Interesting. So they are, in fact, not dead. There is some > other reason for the misbehaviour. I do wonder what it could be. > They're pining for the fjords. Their metabolic processes are a matter of interest only to historians! Bob (you knew it had to happen...) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: Re: K20D Hot Pixels
> > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The problem that DPReview is having is that they have recieved a couple of > cameras which have > mobile dead pixels. Interesting. So they are, in fact, not dead. There is some other reason for the misbehaviour. I do wonder what it could be. - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
I'm the one who will shamelessly admit to being anxious to read dp's eventual D20 review and with pecial interest re their hot pixel comments. Jack - Oh, I suspect that this virtually guarantees that Phil Askey will give the K20D a qualified rating, as he did with the K10D over another (non) issue. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
I'm the one who will shamelessly admit to being anxious to read dp's eventual D20 review and with pecial interest re their hot pixel comments. Jack --- On Sun, 5/11/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Sunday, May 11, 2008, 12:19 PM > Hot pixels, cold pixels, I dunno. My K20 takes great > pictures, and I'm too busy shooting to test. > Paul > -- Original message -- > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I ran the Starzen test on my K20. > > I used 1/4 second so as to not invoke the you > can't turn it off noise reduction, > > and saved the > > file as a best quality JPEG rather than as a RAW file > to avoid ACR. > > I had to drop the threshold for finding hot pixels to > 6 before finding any. > > This is, on the surface, very good performance, > although it is hard to say what > > was hidden in > > the jpeg conversion, and it doesn't address any > firmware routines that may be > > hiding dead pixels > > as well. > > > > The problem that DPReview is having is that they have > recieved a couple of > > cameras which have > > mobile dead pixels. > > Dead pixels are a fact of life, having them move > around the sensor from capture > > to capture is > > unique to the K20, apparently no other DSLR manages > this feat, and it is > > considered to be a very > > bad thing, either a hardware problem that is badly > covered up in the firmware, > > or else some sort > > of bug in the firmware. > > > > I just thought I'd pass this on to the team. > > For myself, hopefully it won't affect my ability > to use the camera, but we > > should, perhaps, go a > > bit easier on the boys at DPReview. They have > discovered quite a serious problem > > with the K20. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow > > the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
Hot pixels, cold pixels, I dunno. My K20 takes great pictures, and I'm too busy shooting to test. Paul -- Original message -- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I ran the Starzen test on my K20. > I used 1/4 second so as to not invoke the you can't turn it off noise > reduction, > and saved the > file as a best quality JPEG rather than as a RAW file to avoid ACR. > I had to drop the threshold for finding hot pixels to 6 before finding any. > This is, on the surface, very good performance, although it is hard to say > what > was hidden in > the jpeg conversion, and it doesn't address any firmware routines that may be > hiding dead pixels > as well. > > The problem that DPReview is having is that they have recieved a couple of > cameras which have > mobile dead pixels. > Dead pixels are a fact of life, having them move around the sensor from > capture > to capture is > unique to the K20, apparently no other DSLR manages this feat, and it is > considered to be a very > bad thing, either a hardware problem that is badly covered up in the > firmware, > or else some sort > of bug in the firmware. > > I just thought I'd pass this on to the team. > For myself, hopefully it won't affect my ability to use the camera, but we > should, perhaps, go a > bit easier on the boys at DPReview. They have discovered quite a serious > problem > with the K20. > > William Robb > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D Hot Pixels
- Original Message - From: "George Sinos" Subject: Re: K20D Hot Pixels >I think we're in agreement. > > In the past I've mainly heard of Dead and Stuck pixels. Dead referred > to black and Stuck referred to always bright. The pixel mapping will > work just fine for the dead and the stuck, but it won't help the > mobile. (seems like there should be a joke in there someplace) Can you hear me now? WW -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
I think we're in agreement. In the past I've mainly heard of Dead and Stuck pixels. Dead referred to black and Stuck referred to always bright. The pixel mapping will work just fine for the dead and the stuck, but it won't help the mobile. (seems like there should be a joke in there someplace) See you later, gs On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 12:54 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "George Sinos" > Subject: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > > > >> I agree with Bills comment on problem with mobile hot pixels, but I >> always thought that was common in long exposures. If not, why would >> you need to do a dark exposure subtraction after every long exposure. >> If the noise patter was always the same, couldn't you just run a >> standard NR routine? > > Hot pixels are a fact of life, but they shouldn't be moving from one location > on the sensor to > another one. What DPReview found was that the hot pixels moved around the > sensor from one > capture to the next, and they think this is a fairly big deal, as do others > who I correspond > with from time to time. > For example, it kinda makes the pixel mapping feature that they put into the > K20 well nigh > useless. What's the good of mapping hot pixels today if tomorrow they aren't > dead, but another > set is? > > Having said that, the threshhold for hot pixels is low enough in my > observations that as long as > it doesn't get worse as the camera ages, it probably won't be much of a > problem in real life. > > William Robb > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D Hot Pixels
- Original Message - From: "George Sinos" Subject: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > I agree with Bills comment on problem with mobile hot pixels, but I > always thought that was common in long exposures. If not, why would > you need to do a dark exposure subtraction after every long exposure. > If the noise patter was always the same, couldn't you just run a > standard NR routine? Hot pixels are a fact of life, but they shouldn't be moving from one location on the sensor to another one. What DPReview found was that the hot pixels moved around the sensor from one capture to the next, and they think this is a fairly big deal, as do others who I correspond with from time to time. For example, it kinda makes the pixel mapping feature that they put into the K20 well nigh useless. What's the good of mapping hot pixels today if tomorrow they aren't dead, but another set is? Having said that, the threshhold for hot pixels is low enough in my observations that as long as it doesn't get worse as the camera ages, it probably won't be much of a problem in real life. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
I'm interested, actually more curious than interested, in how this turns out. I haven't experienced any problems in my photos. Given the way I use the camera, I'm guessing it's unlikely that I will. >From my interpretation of the little actual information available, you need to use live view to get the sensor hot. It makes me wonder if they are testing with noise reduction on or off. Probably both, they do seem to be thorough. I agree with Bills comment on problem with mobile hot pixels, but I always thought that was common in long exposures. If not, why would you need to do a dark exposure subtraction after every long exposure. If the noise patter was always the same, couldn't you just run a standard NR routine? Just random thoughts. It's too bad. This is the kind of stuff that gets blown way out of proportion. GS <http://georgesphotos.net> On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 12:21 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I ran the Starzen test on my K20. > I used 1/4 second so as to not invoke the you can't turn it off noise > reduction, and saved the > file as a best quality JPEG rather than as a RAW file to avoid ACR. > I had to drop the threshold for finding hot pixels to 6 before finding any. > This is, on the surface, very good performance, although it is hard to say > what was hidden in > the jpeg conversion, and it doesn't address any firmware routines that may be > hiding dead pixels > as well. > > The problem that DPReview is having is that they have recieved a couple of > cameras which have > mobile dead pixels. > Dead pixels are a fact of life, having them move around the sensor from > capture to capture is > unique to the K20, apparently no other DSLR manages this feat, and it is > considered to be a very > bad thing, either a hardware problem that is badly covered up in the > firmware, or else some sort > of bug in the firmware. > > I just thought I'd pass this on to the team. > For myself, hopefully it won't affect my ability to use the camera, but we > should, perhaps, go a > bit easier on the boys at DPReview. They have discovered quite a serious > problem with the K20. > > William Robb > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D Hot Pixels
"William Robb" wrote: > mobile dead pixels. sounds like horror movie -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
I ran the Starzen test on my K20. I used 1/4 second so as to not invoke the you can't turn it off noise reduction, and saved the file as a best quality JPEG rather than as a RAW file to avoid ACR. I had to drop the threshold for finding hot pixels to 6 before finding any. This is, on the surface, very good performance, although it is hard to say what was hidden in the jpeg conversion, and it doesn't address any firmware routines that may be hiding dead pixels as well. The problem that DPReview is having is that they have recieved a couple of cameras which have mobile dead pixels. Dead pixels are a fact of life, having them move around the sensor from capture to capture is unique to the K20, apparently no other DSLR manages this feat, and it is considered to be a very bad thing, either a hardware problem that is badly covered up in the firmware, or else some sort of bug in the firmware. I just thought I'd pass this on to the team. For myself, hopefully it won't affect my ability to use the camera, but we should, perhaps, go a bit easier on the boys at DPReview. They have discovered quite a serious problem with the K20. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
On Sat, 10 May 2008 20:53:23 -0400, "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Tim Øsleby wrote: > > 2008/5/11 William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Nope. > > They don't have heads > > > > MaritimTim > > > > > Damn, I wish I'd said that. Go ahead anyway. A bit of repetition can't hurt in this case. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://members.westnet.com.au/brianwal/SL/ -- -- http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
Tim Øsleby wrote: > 2008/5/11 William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> - Original Message - >> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" >> Subject: Re: K20D Hot Pixels >> >> >> >>> On May 10, 2008, at 3:05 PM, William Robb wrote: >>> >>> >>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp? >>>> forums=1036&message=27852469 >>>> >>>> Zero dead, Zero hot using ACR to convert the RAW files, then saved >>>> as tiffs and tested using the >>>> dead/hot pixel test that Starzen technologies wrote. >>>> Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like DPReview has their >>>> heads in dark smelly places >>>> again. >>>> >>> Camera Raw does hot/dead pixel removal automatically so you can't use >>> it as a test for dead pixels. >>> >>> I used VueScan, which doesn't do dead pixel removal, when I tested >>> the *ist DS but I don't see VueScan listing either the K10D or K20D >>> as supported so far. >>> >> So the DPReview guys don't have their heads up their asses? >> > > Nope. > They don't have heads > > MaritimTim > > Damn, I wish I'd said that. -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
Joseph Tainter wrote: > P. J. Alling wrote: > > Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> > >>> More hand wringing from Dpreview! I checked my camera for hot pixels. > >>> Nary a one that I can see. > >>> > >> What does the "DP" in DP Review stand for? > >> > >> Disaster Predictions? > >> Dire Premonitions? > >> Doom Proponents? > >> Dysthymic Prognosticators? > >> > > Dead Pixels > > Mark Roberts wrote: > > Come to think of it, "Dead Pixels" might be an appropriate term for the > people who hang out there... Nope. Just the full-timers. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
They may well have their heads jammed... All I'm saying I'd that ACR isn't the right tool to use. Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com On May 10, 2008, at 3:25 PM, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" > Subject: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > > >> >> On May 10, 2008, at 3:05 PM, William Robb wrote: >> >>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp? >>> forums=1036&message=27852469 >>> >>> Zero dead, Zero hot using ACR to convert the RAW files, then saved >>> as tiffs and tested using the >>> dead/hot pixel test that Starzen technologies wrote. >>> Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like DPReview has their >>> heads in dark smelly places >>> again. >> >> Camera Raw does hot/dead pixel removal automatically so you can't use >> it as a test for dead pixels. >> >> I used VueScan, which doesn't do dead pixel removal, when I tested >> the *ist DS but I don't see VueScan listing either the K10D or K20D >> as supported so far. > > So the DPReview guys don't have their heads up their asses? > This is something I'd have to pay money to see? > I'll take blissful ignorance on this one. > > Thanks > > William Robb > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D Hot Pixels
Guess it's just become a way of life over there. They must be a bunch of very hot pixies. Jack Jack --- On Sat, 5/10/08, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Saturday, May 10, 2008, 3:05 PM > - Original Message ----- > From: "Jack Davis" > Subject: K20D Hot Pixels > > > > Just noticed this on dpreview. Speaks to a delay in > testing the K20D due to a "hot pixel" > > problem. A problem I don't recall reading about on > PDML. > > > > > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forums=1036&message=27852469 > > Zero dead, Zero hot using ACR to convert the RAW files, > then saved as tiffs and tested using the > dead/hot pixel test that Starzen technologies wrote. > Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like > DPReview has their heads in dark smelly places > again. > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link > directly above and follow the directions. Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.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: K20D Hot Pixels
2008/5/11 William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > - Original Message - > From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" > Subject: Re: K20D Hot Pixels > > >> >> On May 10, 2008, at 3:05 PM, William Robb wrote: >> >>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp? >>> forums=1036&message=27852469 >>> >>> Zero dead, Zero hot using ACR to convert the RAW files, then saved >>> as tiffs and tested using the >>> dead/hot pixel test that Starzen technologies wrote. >>> Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like DPReview has their >>> heads in dark smelly places >>> again. >> >> Camera Raw does hot/dead pixel removal automatically so you can't use >> it as a test for dead pixels. >> >> I used VueScan, which doesn't do dead pixel removal, when I tested >> the *ist DS but I don't see VueScan listing either the K10D or K20D >> as supported so far. > > So the DPReview guys don't have their heads up their asses? Nope. They don't have heads MaritimTim -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
