subject:"Re\: K5 RAW file size \- yow\!"

Bill wrote:

On 06/02/2013 11:07 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
 on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
 VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.
Whatever. I suppose by the same logic, an 80-200/2.8 is a specialized lens.

The 17-55/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 are probably standard kit for the
photojournalist target market for the D4.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread Darren Addy

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, plus their 50 f1.4  85 f1.4).

Earlier upthread I said:
Realistically, you probably need to commit to spending nearly 10K to
get a decent compliment of lenses for the D800 and the computer
upgrade you will have to have, as
well.

David's 5 lenses total about $7800 (BH prices) so it looks like my
ballpark estimate (including computer/storage upgrades) was pretty
close. With the D800/E body at $3K you are looking at $11K outlay.

Now assuming you are a Pentaxian with a complement of full frame
lenses already at your disposal, I would say that a Pentax full frame
body that comes in with a $2500-3000 price tag would be a relative
bargain, compared to dumping everything and going Nikon to get your
full frame fix. In fact, you'd have a relative savings of $7800+ to
rationalize buying a few of the FA Limiteds that you don't already
have.

All of this is assuming that the Pentax full frame will perform
comparably to the Nikons, which remains to be seen. But for that much
money, I can afford to be quite content for QUITE a while.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread David J Brooks

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:11 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Basically I've notice that the aperture sweet spot is even more
 critical at such a high MP count.

 When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
 14-24, 24-70, 780-200, ptus their 50 f1.4  85 f1.4).

 On the D700 I never really had any image quality issues with them.
 Those same lenses on the D800 are noticeably softer away from their
 respective sweet spots. f5.6 - soft, f8 - shaper, f11 sweet, f16 -
 softer...

Humm, wonder if that why iwas having soft issues with my D200 shooting
jpeg, sharpeness increased when shooting Raw.

Dave

 Also the high resolution shows up flaws in your hand holding
 technique. The old rule of thumb of shutter speed being the inverse of
 the focal length doesn't really work any more. Double it to be sure,
 or use a tripod.

Good to know

 The D800/D800E manual came with a series of instructions on how to
 maintain sharpness  detail.

 DS

 On 04/02/2013, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dave,
 How about giving us some more personal insights on 'diffraction issues
 with most lenses.'
 I'd like to know so I could get out in front of that issue.
 Regards,  Bob S.

 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 And loving it!

 ...except for the diffraction issues with most lenses...

 On 3 February 2013 12:30, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some
 :-).

 On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

 Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe
 I
 heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

   -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.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.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.



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
24MP full-frame for a couple of years.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread Kenneth Waller

So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?

-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
24MP full-frame for a couple of years.

-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Fw: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread Kenneth Waller

I meant to include fill-frame in that question.

-Forwarded Message-
From: Kenneth Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com

Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?

-Original Message-
From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
24MP full-frame for a couple of years.

-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread Stan Halpin

Does that mean you have a high IQ?

stan

On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:11 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

 All this measurbating is making me glad I've actually been *using* a
 24MP full-frame for a couple of years.
 
 -- 
 Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
 www.robertstech.com
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread Steve Cottrell

On 6/2/13, J.C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:

on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.

Come on JC - that needs all full caps - you wimped out on two words. I'm
gutted!!

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Producion
--www.seeingeye.tv
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 6/2/13, J.C. O'Connell, discombobulated, unleashed:

on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.

Come on JC - that needs all full caps - you wimped out on two words. I'm
gutted!!

NO YOU'RE NOT!
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

Kenneth Waller wrote:

So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?

Several things.

First of all, the 24MP has given me more options, like making a
panoramic shot by cropping from a single frame rather than stitching
multiple frames together (I usually don't shoot that way deliberately
but sometimes, like one shot from GFM last year, I see the pano
composition later when I get home -- I'm still pissed off that I
brought the K-5 on that hike rather than the A850). I can also shoot
stitched panos with three or even two shots, which makes stitching
much faster and easier.

The full-frame part lets me get better prints at a given size - often
even when using non-megadollar glass. That goes contrary to popular
wisdom, number crunching and pixel peeping: You'll read that
high-megapixel full-frame cameras are much more demanding of glass and
show the weaknesses of less-than-stellar lenses. Which is true. But
it's usually seen making measurements or peeping at 100% magnification
in Photoshop. But when making a print of any given size (let's say 12
x 18) the image from a full-frame camera requires significantly less
magnification. An APS-C image gets magnified about 19:1 to make that
size print. Full-frame gets magnified 12.7:1 so using the same lens on
both, even if it's not a top-dollar lens, I can get a better print
from full-frame. Sure, when your print size gets *really* big, and
what you see on the print gets closer to what you see on your monitor
at 1:1 you'll need megabuck glass on your full-frame. But apparently
that is much bigger than the 13 x 19 that's my usual max. (Never say
never, though: I have access to some big wide-format printers at
school...)

Making prints is a whole different game than pixel peeping.

I expect Pentax will use a variant of the Sony 24MP sensor that's in
the D600, which is fine by me. But a 36MP sensor intrigues me not for
the additional (potential) resolution; I've been reading about its
superior tonality in BW (which I'm leaning toward more these days). A
side effect of the Bayer pattern sensor, I expect - when you throw out
your color information you probably need a little extra spatial data
to make up for what you threw away in color data (similar to the way
large-scale contrast can make lenses appear sharper in color than they
really are in BW tests). 


 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread John Sessoms


From: Darren Addy


On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:

When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
14-24, 24-70, 70-200, plus their 50 f1.4  85 f1.4).


Earlier upthread I said:
Realistically, you probably need to commit to spending nearly 10K to
get a decent compliment of lenses for the D800 and the computer
upgrade you will have to have, as
well.

David's 5 lenses total about $7800 (BH prices) so it looks like my
ballpark estimate (including computer/storage upgrades) was pretty
close. With the D800/E body at $3K you are looking at $11K outlay.

Now assuming you are a Pentaxian with a complement of full frame
lenses already at your disposal, I would say that a Pentax full frame
body that comes in with a $2500-3000 price tag would be a relative
bargain, compared to dumping everything and going Nikon to get your
full frame fix. In fact, you'd have a relative savings of $7800+ to
rationalize buying a few of the FA Limiteds that you don't already
have.

All of this is assuming that the Pentax full frame will perform
comparably to the Nikons, which remains to be seen. But for that much
money, I can afford to be quite content for QUITE a while.


If it comes in with a price comparable to Nikon's offerings, the 
performance is going to have to be at least as good, if not better. 
Otherwise, I might as well give up and switch to Nikon.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread David Savage

I had, and still have, an impressive collection of FA, FA*  Limiteds.

I didn't jump ship to join the FF bandwagon. I jumped ship because
Pentax's cameras couldn't do what I needed (I had a K20D at the time).

Around the time of the D700's release I had been shooting a lot of
long exposure night sky scenes...and then spending several hours in
Photoshop cleaning up the sensor heat bloom that stained all my shots.

The D300/D300s had the same issue, the equivalent APS Canon at that
time had similar problems.

When the D700 came out I went to the official product launch here. I
was suitably impressed. The metering, AF,  flash  high ISO all just
worked in a way that Pentax never seemed to be able to match. Also the
sensor didn't turn magenta at exposures longer than 5 minutes.

My going full frame was a by-product of getting a camera that enabled
me to shoot what I wanted without having to clean up the mess the
camera made in post.

I see a lot of people buying FF cameras simply because the sensor is
bigger. They still shoot the same crap they always did  don't really
get the full benefits of what the larger sensor can offer.

DS

On 07/02/2013, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, plus their 50 f1.4  85 f1.4).

 Earlier upthread I said:
 Realistically, you probably need to commit to spending nearly 10K to
 get a decent compliment of lenses for the D800 and the computer
 upgrade you will have to have, as
 well.

 David's 5 lenses total about $7800 (BH prices) so it looks like my
 ballpark estimate (including computer/storage upgrades) was pretty
 close. With the D800/E body at $3K you are looking at $11K outlay.

 Now assuming you are a Pentaxian with a complement of full frame
 lenses already at your disposal, I would say that a Pentax full frame
 body that comes in with a $2500-3000 price tag would be a relative
 bargain, compared to dumping everything and going Nikon to get your
 full frame fix. In fact, you'd have a relative savings of $7800+ to
 rationalize buying a few of the FA Limiteds that you don't already
 have.

 All of this is assuming that the Pentax full frame will perform
 comparably to the Nikons, which remains to be seen. But for that much
 money, I can afford to be quite content for QUITE a while.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread kwaller


Thanks Mark.

I'm still shooting with a K20D and recently did a 24 X 36'' print (biggest 
I've ever done) from a slightly cropped file that just blew me and others 
away with it's detail. Its hard for me to justify a new body just for a ff 
sensor or 24MP.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller

- Original Message - 
From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com

Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!



Kenneth Waller wrote:


So from your experience Mark, what has 24MP done for your photography?


Several things.

First of all, the 24MP has given me more options, like making a
panoramic shot by cropping from a single frame rather than stitching
multiple frames together (I usually don't shoot that way deliberately
but sometimes, like one shot from GFM last year, I see the pano
composition later when I get home -- I'm still pissed off that I
brought the K-5 on that hike rather than the A850). I can also shoot
stitched panos with three or even two shots, which makes stitching
much faster and easier.

The full-frame part lets me get better prints at a given size - often
even when using non-megadollar glass. That goes contrary to popular
wisdom, number crunching and pixel peeping: You'll read that
high-megapixel full-frame cameras are much more demanding of glass and
show the weaknesses of less-than-stellar lenses. Which is true. But
it's usually seen making measurements or peeping at 100% magnification
in Photoshop. But when making a print of any given size (let's say 12
x 18) the image from a full-frame camera requires significantly less
magnification. An APS-C image gets magnified about 19:1 to make that
size print. Full-frame gets magnified 12.7:1 so using the same lens on
both, even if it's not a top-dollar lens, I can get a better print
from full-frame. Sure, when your print size gets *really* big, and
what you see on the print gets closer to what you see on your monitor
at 1:1 you'll need megabuck glass on your full-frame. But apparently
that is much bigger than the 13 x 19 that's my usual max. (Never say
never, though: I have access to some big wide-format printers at
school...)

Making prints is a whole different game than pixel peeping.

I expect Pentax will use a variant of the Sony 24MP sensor that's in
the D600, which is fine by me. But a 36MP sensor intrigues me not for
the additional (potential) resolution; I've been reading about its
superior tonality in BW (which I'm leaning toward more these days). A
side effect of the Bayer pattern sensor, I expect - when you throw out
your color information you probably need a little extra spatial data
to make up for what you threw away in color data (similar to the way
large-scale contrast can make lenses appear sharper in color than they
really are in BW tests).



--
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread Bill


On 06/02/2013 2:13 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

Bill wrote:


On 06/02/2013 11:07 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

on ff its an ULTRA wide angle to normal and at F2.8 for a zoom,
VERY fast. not your every day average usage lens at all.

Whatever. I suppose by the same logic, an 80-200/2.8 is a specialized lens.

The 17-55/2.8 and 80-200/2.8 are probably standard kit for the
photojournalist target market for the D4.
  

The owner of the camera is, by coincidence, a photojournalist.
He also has very big muscles, I suspect in part from hauling around that 
rig.


bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-06 Thread Rob Studdert

On 7 February 2013 16:16, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:

 I see a lot of people buying FF cameras simply because the sensor is
 bigger. They still shoot the same crap they always did  don't really
 get the full benefits of what the larger sensor can offer.

I saw this effect or worse last week shooting with a bunch of Nikon
toting amateurs, the assumption is that they need full frame. Most
were already wielding FF bodies and the ones that weren't were quick
to say that they soon would be going full frame. I didn't see a great
deal of photographic experience there.

-- 
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Bob Sullivan

Thanks Dave,
That will give me some real world experience based idea.
Regards,  Bob S.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Basically I've notice that the aperture sweet spot is even more
 critical at such a high MP count.

 When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
 14-24, 24-70, 780-200, ptus their 50 f1.4  85 f1.4).

 On the D700 I never really had any image quality issues with them.
 Those same lenses on the D800 are noticeably softer away from their
 respective sweet spots. f5.6 - soft, f8 - shaper, f11 sweet, f16 -
 softer...

 Also the high resolution shows up flaws in your hand holding
 technique. The old rule of thumb of shutter speed being the inverse of
 the focal length doesn't really work any more. Double it to be sure,
 or use a tripod.

 The D800/D800E manual came with a series of instructions on how to
 maintain sharpness  detail.

 DS

 On 04/02/2013, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dave,
 How about giving us some more personal insights on 'diffraction issues
 with most lenses.'
 I'd like to know so I could get out in front of that issue.
 Regards,  Bob S.

 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 And loving it!

 ...except for the diffraction issues with most lenses...

 On 3 February 2013 12:30, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some
 :-).

 On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

 Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe
 I
 heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

   -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.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.


 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread George Sinos

The diffraction effects are real, but depending your actual use of the
camera they may or may not make a lot of difference.

By the time you do a little sharpening and downsizing you won't see
anything unless you're looking for it, if at all.  Now if you're
making wall size prints it's a different story.

On the other hand, as Mark mentioned, what you will see is the
beautiful tonal gradation and wider dynamic range that is possible,
especially at the lower ISO settings.

I'm not sure if that's a result of the high pixel count or just the
natural developments of sensors and processor tech, but it's sure
nice.  I've been going over a lot of my early attempts and have
discovered less need for HDR post processing than I had expected.

On another topic, as much as everyone talks about FF cameras, I wonder
how many are thinking about the size of the lenses.  I'm not thinking
of the old manual focus lenses that the residents of this list love so
much.  I'm talking about lenses that will actually sell today and make
money for pentax.  There is a pretty big size and weight penalty.  I'm
not sure if Pentax has magic lens design skills unknown to N and C
designers, but I doubt it.

gs
George Sinos

gsi...@gmail.com
www.georgesphotos.net
plus.georgesinos.com


On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks Dave,
 That will give me some real world experience based idea.
 Regards,  Bob S.

 On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Basically I've notice that the aperture sweet spot is even more
 critical at such a high MP count.

 When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
 14-24, 24-70, 780-200, ptus their 50 f1.4  85 f1.4).

 On the D700 I never really had any image quality issues with them.
 Those same lenses on the D800 are noticeably softer away from their
 respective sweet spots. f5.6 - soft, f8 - shaper, f11 sweet, f16 -
 softer...

 Also the high resolution shows up flaws in your hand holding
 technique. The old rule of thumb of shutter speed being the inverse of
 the focal length doesn't really work any more. Double it to be sure,
 or use a tripod.

 The D800/D800E manual came with a series of instructions on how to
 maintain sharpness  detail.

 DS

 On 04/02/2013, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dave,
 How about giving us some more personal insights on 'diffraction issues
 with most lenses.'
 I'd like to know so I could get out in front of that issue.
 Regards,  Bob S.

 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 And loving it!

 ...except for the diffraction issues with most lenses...

 On 3 February 2013 12:30, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some
 :-).

 On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

 Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe
 I
 heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

   -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.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.


 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Bob Sullivan

George,
I hear you.
I just uncovered my FA*28-70/2.8 AL and FA*70-200/2.8 ED [IF].
They are great lenses but kind of heavy.  800 gm and 1510 gm respectively.
The DA*60-250/4 is 'only' 1040 gm, and mighty heavy...don't want to carry more!
We'll need lens 'bearers' on safari.  ;-)
Regards,  Bob S.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM, George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com wrote:
 The diffraction effects are real, but depending your actual use of the
 camera they may or may not make a lot of difference.

 By the time you do a little sharpening and downsizing you won't see
 anything unless you're looking for it, if at all.  Now if you're
 making wall size prints it's a different story.

 On the other hand, as Mark mentioned, what you will see is the
 beautiful tonal gradation and wider dynamic range that is possible,
 especially at the lower ISO settings.

 I'm not sure if that's a result of the high pixel count or just the
 natural developments of sensors and processor tech, but it's sure
 nice.  I've been going over a lot of my early attempts and have
 discovered less need for HDR post processing than I had expected.

 On another topic, as much as everyone talks about FF cameras, I wonder
 how many are thinking about the size of the lenses.  I'm not thinking
 of the old manual focus lenses that the residents of this list love so
 much.  I'm talking about lenses that will actually sell today and make
 money for pentax.  There is a pretty big size and weight penalty.  I'm
 not sure if Pentax has magic lens design skills unknown to N and C
 designers, but I doubt it.

 gs
 George Sinos
 
 gsi...@gmail.com
 www.georgesphotos.net
 plus.georgesinos.com


 On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks Dave,
 That will give me some real world experience based idea.
 Regards,  Bob S.

 On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Basically I've notice that the aperture sweet spot is even more
 critical at such a high MP count.

 When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
 14-24, 24-70, 780-200, ptus their 50 f1.4  85 f1.4).

 On the D700 I never really had any image quality issues with them.
 Those same lenses on the D800 are noticeably softer away from their
 respective sweet spots. f5.6 - soft, f8 - shaper, f11 sweet, f16 -
 softer...

 Also the high resolution shows up flaws in your hand holding
 technique. The old rule of thumb of shutter speed being the inverse of
 the focal length doesn't really work any more. Double it to be sure,
 or use a tripod.

 The D800/D800E manual came with a series of instructions on how to
 maintain sharpness  detail.

 DS

 On 04/02/2013, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dave,
 How about giving us some more personal insights on 'diffraction issues
 with most lenses.'
 I'd like to know so I could get out in front of that issue.
 Regards,  Bob S.

 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 And loving it!

 ...except for the diffraction issues with most lenses...

 On 3 February 2013 12:30, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some
 :-).

 On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

 Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe
 I
 heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

   -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.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.


 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Bill


On 05/02/2013 10:17 AM, George Sinos wrote:

On another topic, as much as everyone talks about FF cameras, I wonder
how many are thinking about the size of the lenses.  I'm not thinking
of the old manual focus lenses that the residents of this list love so
much.  I'm talking about lenses that will actually sell today and make
money for pentax.  There is a pretty big size and weight penalty.  I'm
not sure if Pentax has magic lens design skills unknown to N and C
designers, but I doubt it.


I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with 
the 17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or 
just over four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in 
size. Holding it felt more like a Pentax 6x7 with the 135mm macro lens 
mounted than a 35mm format camera for size and weight.

This is the future when Pentax goes the FF route.

bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Bob Sullivan

Gotta wonder what Jostein is seeing.
His images have looked fantastic and that sensor is mighty big.
Regards,  Bob S.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 05/02/2013 10:17 AM, George Sinos wrote:

 On another topic, as much as everyone talks about FF cameras, I wonder
 how many are thinking about the size of the lenses.  I'm not thinking
 of the old manual focus lenses that the residents of this list love so
 much.  I'm talking about lenses that will actually sell today and make
 money for pentax.  There is a pretty big size and weight penalty.  I'm
 not sure if Pentax has magic lens design skills unknown to N and C
 designers, but I doubt it.


 I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with the
 17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or just over
 four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in size. Holding
 it felt more like a Pentax 6x7 with the 135mm macro lens mounted than a 35mm
 format camera for size and weight.
 This is the future when Pentax goes the FF route.

 bill

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Matthew Hunt

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:

 I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with the
 17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or just over
 four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in size. Holding
 it felt more like a Pentax 6x7 with the 135mm macro lens mounted than a 35mm
 format camera for size and weight.
 This is the future when Pentax goes the FF route.

You think Pentax would produce something more like a D4 than a D600?

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Mark Roberts

Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:

I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with 
the 17-55/2.8G lens.

I'd invite them to try my A850 with a 70-200/4.0 :)

(BTW: I hope Pentax's full-frame camera is significantly *larger* than
the K-5. The K-5 is at the low end of my usability scale as it is.)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Bob W

 From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bill
 
 
 I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with
 the 17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or
 just over four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in
 size. Holding it felt more like a Pentax 6x7 with the 135mm macro lens
 mounted than a 35mm format camera for size and weight.
 This is the future when Pentax goes the FF route.
 
 bill

Nikon always made hulking great cameras that only gorillas could carry. I
couldn't carry a F3+winder for more than about 5 minutes. Pentax and Olympus
stood apart from that by making cameras that were equally good, for smaller
primates. They should do the same again.

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Steve Cottrell

On 5/2/13, Bill, discombobulated, unleashed:

I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with 
the 17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or 
just over four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in 
size. Holding it felt more like a Pentax 6x7 with the 135mm macro lens 
mounted than a 35mm format camera for size and weight.
This is the future when Pentax goes the FF route.

Good point. I'm a big guy so no problem for me but others might find it
tiresome. I had no trouble with a 1DmII and 70-200/2.8 but that combo is
certainly not a rig I would go out all day with.

I'd be interested in a Pentax FF and would slap my 85 on it right away.
Would otherwise be looking for a wide zoom, something like a 16-35 or
so. Pentax make anything in that range?

If I'm going out and about, my lil X10 (hopefully soon to be X20) will
accompany me. If the money is there, an X100s as well.

Sadly I have a huge shopping list to sort out before I get past the X20
which includes a new HD camera body (c £9k) and a self-pointing KA Sat
dish (another 7.5k) not to mention a decent mp4 encoder (6k). Too much!!!

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Producion
--www.seeingeye.tv
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread lrc

I think you would like the D600. Its bigger than the K5 but not huge. I thought 
it felt pretty nice. When they sort out the bugs it will be a sweet camera.

Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:

Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:

I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with

the 17-55/2.8G lens.

I'd invite them to try my A850 with a 70-200/4.0 :)

(BTW: I hope Pentax's full-frame camera is significantly *larger* than
the K-5. The K-5 is at the low end of my usability scale as it is.)

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Tom C

From: Bob W p...@web-options.com

 Nikon always made hulking great cameras that only gorillas could carry. I
 couldn't carry a F3+winder for more than about 5 minutes. Pentax and Olympus
 stood apart from that by making cameras that were equally good, for smaller
 primates. They should do the same again.

 B

Damn orangutan!

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
 Nikon always made hulking great cameras that only gorillas could carry. I
 couldn't carry a F3+winder for more than about 5 minutes. Pentax and Olympus
 stood apart from that by making cameras that were equally good, for smaller
 primates. They should do the same again.

Of course, the F3 + MD-4 winder was a setup that was designed for
professionals requiring up to 6fps performance and a solid grip to
hold onto, and battery power to sustain it. The F3 sans winder was
about the size/weight of a Pentax K10D. :-)

Equally good is a bit judgmental. Neither Pentax nor Olympus made a
professional grade camera comparable to the F2, F3, F4, F5 or F6.
These were serious photographic hammers designed to take a beating
under extreme conditions and deliver the goods — while Pentax and
Olympus lenses were excellent, none of their bodies (or lenses ... lot
of stress on an auto-diaphragm lens to keep up at 4-6 fps) were made
with that service level in mind.

The smaller pro Nikons, like the FM/FM2/FM2n/FE/FE2/F3a series, were
build nearly as tough as the pro-grade Fs but are a lot closer to
Pentax and Olympus size and weight.

Yes, Nikon SLRs were my main cameras, alongside Leica Ms, from 1969 to
2001. I also owned Olympus OM, Minolta XD, and Contax SLRs along the
way, but always went back to Nikon. They just worked, and worked, and
worked like no others.
-- 
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.

RE: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread J.C. O'Connell

why a FF 17-55mm F2.8 lens ?? That wouldnt be normal usage on FF.
maybe a 24-70 would.
-
J.C.O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-

-Original Message-
From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bill
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:33 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

On 05/02/2013 10:17 AM, George Sinos wrote:
 On another topic, as much as everyone talks about FF cameras, I wonder
 how many are thinking about the size of the lenses.  I'm not thinking
 of the old manual focus lenses that the residents of this list love so
 much.  I'm talking about lenses that will actually sell today and make
 money for pentax.  There is a pretty big size and weight penalty.  I'm
 not sure if Pentax has magic lens design skills unknown to N and C
 designers, but I doubt it.


I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with 
the 17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or 
just over four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in 
size. Holding it felt more like a Pentax 6x7 with the 135mm macro lens 
mounted than a 35mm format camera for size and weight.
This is the future when Pentax goes the FF route.

bill

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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.

I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be
24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the
K-5II in most other respects. I think if Pentax managed to put that into
either a K-5 sized body or a MZ-S style body, and managed to actually
market the damned thing for a change, it would be a winner. However I
don't expect anyone to actually listen to me.

On 2/4/2013 9:03 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

Darren Addy wrote:

Suggested reading:
http://www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm
Particularly the section entitled: Resolution, Diffraction, and To E
or Not to E

His entire article seems to be based on resolution, which is only one
possible reason for buying the camera. I'm much more interested in the
subtle tonal gradation Mike Johnston's been writing about, especially
as it seems to be particularly advantageous in BW work.

Quite frankly, I'm satisfied with 24 megapixels in full-frame. But if
the D800 did in-body image stabilization I'd probably have bought one
by now, regardless.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/11/nikon-d800-and-d800e-review.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/11/delighted-by-photo-ninja.html

--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in
the bank account).

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Steve Cottrell

On 5/2/13, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:

I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be 
24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the 
K-5II in most other respects. I think if Pentax managed to put that into 
either a K-5 sized body or a MZ-S style body, and managed to actually 
market the damned thing for a change, it would be a winner. However I 
don't expect anyone to actually listen to me.

Absolutely.

And it's got to look just like this:

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/bodies/prototypes/MZ-D.jpg

Oh Lordy!

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__Broadcast, Corporate,
||  (O)  |Web Video Producion
--www.seeingeye.tv
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Steve Cottrell co...@seeingeye.tv wrote:
 On 5/2/13, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:

I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be
24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the
K-5II in most other respects. I think if Pentax managed to put that into
either a K-5 sized body or a MZ-S style body, and managed to actually
market the damned thing for a change, it would be a winner. However I
don't expect anyone to actually listen to me.

 Absolutely.

 And it's got to look just like this:

 http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/bodies/prototypes/MZ-D.jpg

 Oh Lordy!

Am I going to have to buy you a new hat when I get there in March? ;-)

-- 
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.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread P. J. Alling

Pentax's lenses for 35mm in that range were the FAJ 18-35 f4~5.6 or the 
FA 20-35 F4. I have the latter it's a sweet lens on film or digital. I 
hear that the FAJ is good optically and mechanically made of mouse hair. 
According to BOZ the only zoom lens Pentax made with its shortest focal 
length being ~16 mm was the F 17-28 Fisheye.


On 2/5/2013 2:10 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

On 5/2/13, Bill, discombobulated, unleashed:


I would invite anyone who thinks FF is a good idea to handle a D4 with
the 17-55/2.8G lens. Combined weight is slightly under two kilos, or
just over four and a quarter pounds, and the combination is massive in
size. Holding it felt more like a Pentax 6x7 with the 135mm macro lens
mounted than a 35mm format camera for size and weight.
This is the future when Pentax goes the FF route.

Good point. I'm a big guy so no problem for me but others might find it
tiresome. I had no trouble with a 1DmII and 70-200/2.8 but that combo is
certainly not a rig I would go out all day with.

I'd be interested in a Pentax FF and would slap my 85 on it right away.
Would otherwise be looking for a wide zoom, something like a 16-35 or
so. Pentax make anything in that range?

If I'm going out and about, my lil X10 (hopefully soon to be X20) will
accompany me. If the money is there, an X100s as well.

Sadly I have a huge shopping list to sort out before I get past the X20
which includes a new HD camera body (c £9k) and a self-pointing KA Sat
dish (another 7.5k) not to mention a decent mp4 encoder (6k). Too much!!!




--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in 
the bank account).


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Zos Xavius

For me the k-5 is about the ideal size. I compared the other day. The k-5 is
quite a bit larger and heavier than my k1000. My zx-7 is a feather in
comparison. Its clear to me that dslrs are going to be larger and heavier than
film cameras for some time. Between my k-5 and the 5dmk2 at my job there isn't
a huge difference in resolution imo. Its there, but with sharp glass on my k-5,
I can get pretty darned close. I'm thinking that the differences are even more
marginal with the k-5 IIs. Personally I have adapted to aps-c and have grown to
appreciate it. A full frame would give me easier access to wa, but that's about
it. I'm quite happy with what I am turning out in terms of iq. A d800 would be
nice, but for the cost in body + glass, I would rather invest in medium format
if I had the disposable cash. There's not a huge difference in terms of size or
weight. Honestly, either camera is too big for me to carry constantly, but the
k-5 never leaves my shoulder.

P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:

I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be
24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the
K-5II in most other respects. I think if Pentax managed to put that
into
either a K-5 sized body or a MZ-S style body, and managed to actually
market the damned thing for a change, it would be a winner. However I
don't expect anyone to actually listen to me.

On 2/4/2013 9:03 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Darren Addy wrote:

Suggested reading:
http://www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm
Particularly the section entitled: Resolution, Diffraction, and To
E
or Not to E
His entire article seems to be based on resolution, which is only one
possible reason for buying the camera. I'm much more interested in
the
subtle tonal gradation Mike Johnston's been writing about, especially
as it seems to be particularly advantageous in BW work.

Quite frankly, I'm satisfied with 24 megapixels in full-frame. But if
the D800 did in-body image stabilization I'd probably have bought one
by now, regardless.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/11/nikon-d800-and-d800e-review.html

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/11/delighted-by-photo-ninja.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Stan Halpin


On Feb 5, 2013, at 3:27 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote:

 On 5/2/13, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
 
 I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be 
 24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the 
 K-5II in most other respects. I think if Pentax managed to put that into 
 either a K-5 sized body or a MZ-S style body, and managed to actually 
 market the damned thing for a change, it would be a winner. However I 
 don't expect anyone to actually listen to me.
 
 Absolutely.
 
 And it's got to look just like this:
 
 http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/bodies/prototypes/MZ-D.jpg
 
 Oh Lordy!
 
 -- 

The LCD and controls on the back would need to be re-worked to conform with 
current Pentax UI. Otherwise this would be a sweet place to start!
I have been thinking of something more alongs the lines of an LX; an LX-D1 
would tickle our Retro fancy, the FF sensor would scratch our itch for higher 
resolution and allow the use of legacy 35mm lenses. 
But whether it is an MZ-D or an LX-D, it also better have the capability for 
using Pentax DA* and DA lenses! Those of us who have invested in and committed 
to the APS-C system need a path to ease into the higher cost FF system.

stan



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread P. J. Alling

Well, the MZ-S which was Pentax's last K-Mount film flagship is quite a
bit larger than the other MZ/ZX series cameras. It was intended to be
the shared frame for the first Pentax DSLR which was going to be a FF
6MP camera. So it should be plenty big enough for a current DSLR. The
reason for full frame is really in many ways the same as for film. A
bigger sensor allows for less stringent lens design, and cleaner output
from lower magnification. To give a film analogy An 8x10 printed from
Tri-X (ISO 400) shot in a 6x9 camera looks like PAn-X (ISO 32) from a
35mm and it's a lot easier to get that quality all things being equal. I
haven't done the math, and I'm sure someone will immediately point out
if I'm wrong, but I think that the photoreceptor sites on a 24x36mm 24mp
would be at least 20% larger than those on a 16mp 16x24mm sensor. This
implies lower noise at all ISO settings, and given that the Pentax
K-5[xxx] has been DxOMark's top APS-C DSLR for at pretty much the last
three years, I expect that Pentax would be more than able to better than
with a reasonable resolution FF sensor.

I'm not going to be silly and ask who needs 36mp or bigger sensor, but I
will point out that for what most professional photographers do even
24mp is overkill.

On 2/5/2013 4:25 PM, Zos Xavius wrote:

P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:

I think the sweet spot for most photographers in a FF camera would be
24mp with 14bit color depth and at least the same capabilities of the
K-5II in most other respects. I think if Pentax managed to put that
into
either a K-5 sized body or a MZ-S style body, and managed to actually
market the damned thing for a change, it would be a winner. However I
don't expect anyone to actually listen to me.

On 2/4/2013 9:03 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:

Darren Addy wrote:

Suggested reading:
http://www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm
Particularly the section entitled: Resolution, Diffraction, and To

or Not to E

His entire article seems to be based on resolution, which is only one
possible reason for buying the camera. I'm much more interested in

the

subtle tonal gradation Mike Johnston's been writing about, especially
as it seems to be particularly advantageous in BW work.

Quite frankly, I'm satisfied with 24 megapixels in full-frame. But if
the D800 did in-body image stabilization I'd probably have bought one
by now, regardless.

--
Buy a Leica to get the full “Leica Experience”, (a quick reduction of funds in
the bank account).

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Matthew Hunt

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm not going to be silly and ask who needs 36mp or bigger sensor, but I
 will point out that for what most professional photographers do even 24mp is
 overkill.

The nice thing about 36 MP is that the APS-C area of it has the same
resolution as the K-5. So if you have some APS-C lenses, you can use
them on the 36 MP body and not give anything up compared to a K-5. I
think that provides a nice transition path for people who invested in
APS-C glass.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Bruce Walker

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:41 PM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote:
 On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:29 PM, P. J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com 
 wrote:

 I'm not going to be silly and ask who needs 36mp or bigger sensor, but I
 will point out that for what most professional photographers do even 24mp is
 overkill.

 The nice thing about 36 MP is that the APS-C area of it has the same
 resolution as the K-5. So if you have some APS-C lenses, you can use
 them on the 36 MP body and not give anything up compared to a K-5. I
 think that provides a nice transition path for people who invested in
 APS-C glass.

I think there should be a little lens that pops-up when APS-C glass is
mounted and spreads the light from it across the entire sensor.




Spoiler: joke.

--
-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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Matthew Hunt

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote:

 I think there should be a little lens that pops-up when APS-C glass is
 mounted and spreads the light from it across the entire sensor.

 Spoiler: joke.

That's not a joke, it's on the roadmap. And I wish they'd finally
build the damned thing.

Spoiler: Teleconverter

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Mark Roberts

Bruce Walker wrote:

I think there should be a little lens that pops-up when APS-C glass is
mounted and spreads the light from it across the entire sensor.

Spoiler: joke.

No joke. It would be a behind-the-lens wide-angle converter. And
someone's already built one:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2667195592/first-impressions-metabones-speed-booster
(Not Pentax mount, though)

 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Mark Roberts

Mark Roberts wrote:

Bruce Walker wrote:

I think there should be a little lens that pops-up when APS-C glass is
mounted and spreads the light from it across the entire sensor.

Spoiler: joke.

No joke. It would be a behind-the-lens wide-angle converter. And
someone's already built one:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2667195592/first-impressions-metabones-speed-booster
(Not Pentax mount, though)

Actually, I've got it backwards: That Sony-mount thing makes
full-frame lenses work on APS-C (at their native field of view).

A normal, run-of-the-mill 1.5x teleconverter would do what you
suggest.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-05 Thread Bill


On 05/02/2013 2:09 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:

why a FF 17-55mm F2.8 lens ?? That wouldnt be normal usage on FF.
Because that was what was on the D4 that was being passed around at the 
meet up I was at.


bill


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-04 Thread Darren Addy

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dave,
 How about giving us some more personal insights on 'diffraction issues
 with most lenses.'
 I'd like to know so I could get out in front of that issue.
 Regards,  Bob S.

 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 And loving it!

 ...except for the diffraction issues with most lenses...

Suggested reading:
http://www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm
Particularly the section entitled: Resolution, Diffraction, and To E
or Not to E

His summary: There, I said it: the D800 and D800E are demanding
cameras. If you're buying them for image quality (and I'm not sure why
you'd be buying them otherwise), the possible output can be
spectacular, but getting there takes work. I suspect the Big Croppers
will poo-poo that. They'll think that they can just treat the D800
like a point and shoot and then crop to get the picture they want.
They'll be disappointed, as diffraction and sloppy camera handling can
make those 12mp crops look worse than if you had just used a 12mp
camera with the right lens in the first place. As I noted earlier, if
you're an aggressive cropper, the D7000 is a perfectly fine choice for
you, as it's basically the same thing at 1.5x crop, much less
expensive and thus you're more likely to be able to afford the right
lens in the first place.

Buying a D800/E is a bit like buying an exotic import automobile that
requires you spend more money to add on to the garage and then pay a
fortune for parts, accessories, and premium fuel. You virtually have
to upgrade your computer/storage in order to handle the increase file
sizes. You'll virtually have to spend several times what the body
costs you for fast lenses that can take advantage of the resolution
and perform well corner-to-corner. You'll also need to spend more to
get the equivalent reach that you enjoyed on your APS-C. That 500mm
lens is only giving you a 500mm FOV, not the 750mm equiv. FOV you
enjoyed on you APS-C. (Same problem on the macro end of the spectrum
with far shallower DOF to pay also). Realistically, you probably
need to commit to spending nearly 10K to get a decent compliment of
lenses for the D800 and the computer upgrade you will have to have, as
well.

I can see why there has been such debate, even within Pentax
headquarters. The current APS-C cameras are (as I believe Mark Roberts
said, quite some time ago) inhabiting a sweet spot for the majority of
photographers today. That doesn't mean that the market doesn't think
they need full frame and will kick and scream until they get it.

  I like how Thom breaks down his D800 recommendations by the types of
photographers and where they are coming from. I think that same
breakdown could be applied to Pentax owners. They say the customer is
always right, but I don't think that is true. Some people buy before
they even understand the true price they will pay. They can spend
their money anyway they like, of course.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-04 Thread Mark Roberts

Darren Addy wrote:

Suggested reading:
http://www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm
Particularly the section entitled: Resolution, Diffraction, and To E
or Not to E

His entire article seems to be based on resolution, which is only one
possible reason for buying the camera. I'm much more interested in the
subtle tonal gradation Mike Johnston's been writing about, especially
as it seems to be particularly advantageous in BW work.

Quite frankly, I'm satisfied with 24 megapixels in full-frame. But if
the D800 did in-body image stabilization I'd probably have bought one
by now, regardless.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/11/nikon-d800-and-d800e-review.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/11/delighted-by-photo-ninja.html

 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-04 Thread David Savage

Basically I've notice that the aperture sweet spot is even more
critical at such a high MP count.

When I migrated to Nikon I bought their best lenses (the holy trinity
14-24, 24-70, 780-200, ptus their 50 f1.4  85 f1.4).

On the D700 I never really had any image quality issues with them.
Those same lenses on the D800 are noticeably softer away from their
respective sweet spots. f5.6 - soft, f8 - shaper, f11 sweet, f16 -
softer...

Also the high resolution shows up flaws in your hand holding
technique. The old rule of thumb of shutter speed being the inverse of
the focal length doesn't really work any more. Double it to be sure,
or use a tripod.

The D800/D800E manual came with a series of instructions on how to
maintain sharpness  detail.

DS

On 04/02/2013, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 Dave,
 How about giving us some more personal insights on 'diffraction issues
 with most lenses.'
 I'd like to know so I could get out in front of that issue.
 Regards,  Bob S.

 On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 And loving it!

 ...except for the diffraction issues with most lenses...

 On 3 February 2013 12:30, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some
 :-).

 On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

 Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe
 I
 heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

   -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.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-03 Thread George Sinos

Uncompressed raw files on the Nikon D800 can be up to 75 Mbytes.  I'm
not sure why anyone would select that option.  The lossless
compression option results in a file that's usually around 40 Mbytes.

I convert these to DNG on import to Lightroom and the files are most
often close to 35 Mbytes.

As much chatter as you hear about handling those huge files I
haven't found it to be a horrible problem.

gs
George Sinos

gsi...@gmail.com
www.georgesphotos.net
plus.georgesinos.com


On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some :-).

 On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

 Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe I
 heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

   -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-03 Thread Bruce Walker

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:15 AM, George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Uncompressed raw files on the Nikon D800 can be up to 75 Mbytes.  I'm
 not sure why anyone would select that option.

Bragging rights.

--
-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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-03 Thread Bob Sullivan

Dave,
How about giving us some more personal insights on 'diffraction issues
with most lenses.'
I'd like to know so I could get out in front of that issue.
Regards,  Bob S.

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 12:43 AM, David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com wrote:
 And loving it!

 ...except for the diffraction issues with most lenses...

 On 3 February 2013 12:30, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some :-).

 On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

 Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe I
 heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

   -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.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-03 Thread Boris Liberman

Well, of course it is not a horrible problem. After all, extra RAM, some 
extra juice to the CPU and few extra TB of storage will make this little 
issue hardly noticeable...


In fact, I wasn't being serious at all when I wrote my original comment 
to this thread...


Presently I am just fine with 12 MP files of my Ricoh GXR which are 
probably uncompressed as they all have exactly the same size (up to 1 kb 
give or take) of 18 MB.


On 2/3/2013 4:15 PM, George Sinos wrote:

Uncompressed raw files on the Nikon D800 can be up to 75 Mbytes.  I'm
not sure why anyone would select that option.  The lossless
compression option results in a file that's usually around 40 Mbytes.

I convert these to DNG on import to Lightroom and the files are most
often close to 35 Mbytes.

As much chatter as you hear about handling those huge files I
haven't found it to be a horrible problem.

gs
George Sinos

gsi...@gmail.com
www.georgesphotos.net
plus.georgesinos.com


On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:

Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some :-).

On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:


Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe I
heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

   -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-03 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 .. Presently I am just fine with 12 MP files of my Ricoh GXR which are 
 probably
 uncompressed as they all have exactly the same size (up to 1 kb give or
 take) of 18 MB. ..

That's right: the Ricoh GXR outputs DNG v1.0 uncompressed files. If
you want to save some space on disk, move them from the card to the
computer using the latest version of Adobe's DNG Converter application
and turn on the compression. It can save as much as 40% on disk space.
For instance, a folder of 50 Ricoh GXR original DNG files, passed
through DNG Converter 7.1 with medium size previews embedded, goes
from 950 Mbytes to 565 Mbytes. Over time, this adds up quickly so I do
it as a matter of course when I'm working with the GXR and other
cameras that output uncompressed native DNG files.

-- 
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.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-02 Thread Paul Stenquist

Your dad's? I still have two of my 10 meg drives in the cabinet. Used them on 
my Apple II back in the day. I think I also used them on my first Mac. 

On Feb 1, 2013, at 11:14 PM, David Parsons parsons.da...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hah, my dad's first HDD was 10MB.  I remember thinking how great it
 was that I wouldn't have to constantly swap floppies to do anything.
 :)
 
 On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
 On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:59 , Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
 
 On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Charles Robinson wrote:
 
 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.
 
 How big is that?  (Can't seem to find file sizes anywhere obvious.)
 
 The first harddrive I had in my OWN computer (not my dad's) was 20Mb.
 
 Then we upgraded to TWO 20Mb harddrives.
 
 Then I connected them to an RLL controller (I think?) and some games were 
 played making them each 30Mb in size.
 
 Ugh, what a lot of work for such a small amount of storage.
 
 -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.
 
 
 
 -- 
 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.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-02 Thread David J Brooks

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
 On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:

 IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check  that outthough when you 
 import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you want them in that 
 format ultimately. I just shoot dng and live  with it.  Its not much larger  
 than the k-7 files were.


 I'm sticking with DNG as it is more of a standard than PEF, thanks!

I use DNG, i still have PSCS and at least it recognizes the DNG's.

Dave

  -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.



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-02 Thread Zos Xavius

DNGs are recognized by many programs. Its about as close as you can get to a 
standard. That my k-7 saved raw in dng was another plus in a long list of 
plusses for the system. 

David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com
wrote:
 On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:

 IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check  that outthough
when you import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you
want them in that format ultimately. I just shoot dng and live  with
it.  Its not much larger  than the k-7 files were.


 I'm sticking with DNG as it is more of a standard than PEF, thanks!

I use DNG, i still have PSCS and at least it recognizes the DNG's.

Dave

  -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.

https://www.facebook.com/zosxaviusphotography

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-02 Thread Paul Sorenson

We had to do that with punch cards, too. The tough part was sorting the holes 
and getting them back in the right place. 

-p

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 1, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:

 Ya, you young wipper-snappers have it easy.
 In my day, our mass storage device was paper tape or
 a cassette recorder from Radio Shack.
 Plus, we were so poor we had to save the holes from the tape and
 glue them back in so we could re-use the tape.
 Regards,  Bob S.
 
 On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Oh gawd. Another thread where everyone can rehash how much of a
 computer old-timer they are. Oh joy.
 
 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-02 Thread John Sessoms


From: Larry Colen

On Feb 1, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:


Ya, you young wipper-snappers have it easy.
In my day, our mass storage device was paper tape or
a cassette recorder from Radio Shack.


You had Radio Shack?  We had to go to Marconi's Wireless Cottage.


Plus, we were so poor we had to save the holes from the tape and
glue them back in so we could re-use the tape.


That was easy compared with putting the sparks back in the spark gap.


Damn! Y'all just triggered a flashback.

After Sputnik, the Ford Foundation gave our local schools a grant for an 
enrichment course in math  science. My daddy was on the school board, 
so I got the honor of spending the summer recess of my tenth year IN 
SUMMER SCHOOL!


Number systems, matrices, truth tables, logic circuits ... Napier's 
Bones, so we got to *make* our own slide rules.


And in honor of Blaise Pascal, we got to do the whole damn thing in 
French (which BTW, I still do not understand one word in ten - I 
remember less French than I do Latin).


The highlight of the whole summer was a visit to the University of 
North Carolina math department where we were allowed into the gallery 
room that let us look through a window down at UNC's brand new Univac 
computer.


And as an added treat, we were actually allowed to touch a roll of paper 
tape that had been used to run one of the programs.


Meanwhile, all of my friends wasted their summer vacations riding 
bicycles, playing games, going to the swimming pool  other frivolous 
stuff.



C'est pour rire ... pas!

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-02 Thread Boris Liberman


Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some :-).

On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe I 
heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

  -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-02 Thread David Savage

And loving it!

...except for the diffraction issues with most lenses...

On 3 February 2013 12:30, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 Poor Nikonians. Their flagship has twice as many pixels and then some :-).

 On 2/1/2013 10:08 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

 Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe I
 heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

   -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check  that outthough when you 
import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you want them in that 
format ultimately. I just shoot dng and live  with it.  Its not much larger  
than the k-7 files were.

Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:

Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I
believe I heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.

 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:

 IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check  that outthough when you 
 import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you want them in that 
 format ultimately. I just shoot dng and live  with it.  Its not much larger  
 than the k-7 files were.
 

I'm sticking with DNG as it is more of a standard than PEF, thanks!

 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use anyways!

Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:

On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:

 IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check  that outthough
when you import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you
want them in that format ultimately. I just shoot dng and live  with
it.  Its not much larger  than the k-7 files were.
 

I'm sticking with DNG as it is more of a standard than PEF, thanks!

 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:30 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use anyways!
 

Where's the darned like button on this list? 

 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Matthew Hunt

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use anyways!

Also, I think there's a 6 MP setting.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread steve harley


on 2013-02-01 13:08 Charles Robinson wrote

Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

Nothing to be done for that, is there?  I'm shooting DNG which I believe I 
heard is already stored in a semi-compressed state.


i use DNG too, but i don't mind the size; i do mind that rendering time is 
substantially longer (vs. 10MP K200d) for each image, feels substantially 
slower (in Aperture) even on a quad i7 with 16GB RAM and 1GB VRAM; but the 
improved exposures and dynamic range are worth it





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Aahz Maruch

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Charles Robinson wrote:

 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

How big is that?  (Can't seem to find file sizes anywhere obvious.)
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  *   *   *
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:59 , Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Charles Robinson wrote:
 
 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.
 
 How big is that?  (Can't seem to find file sizes anywhere obvious.)

The first harddrive I had in my OWN computer (not my dad's) was 20Mb.

Then we upgraded to TWO 20Mb harddrives.

Then I connected them to an RLL controller (I think?) and some games were 
played making them each 30Mb in size.

Ugh, what a lot of work for such a small amount of storage.

 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Bob Sullivan

I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad shots,
you'll stop using JPG's.
It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
Regards,  Bob S.

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use anyways!

 Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:

On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:

 IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check  that outthough
when you import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you
want them in that format ultimately. I just shoot dng and live  with
it.  Its not much larger  than the k-7 files were.


I'm sticking with DNG as it is more of a standard than PEF, thanks!

 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

I think the humor was  lost  with  you. I  always  use p and jpeg, just like 
ken rockwell!

Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad shots,
you'll stop using JPG's.
It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
Regards,  Bob S.

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use anyways!

 Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:

On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:

 IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check  that outthough
when you import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you
want them in that format ultimately. I just shoot dng and live  with
it.  Its not much larger  than the k-7 files were.


I'm sticking with DNG as it is more of a standard than PEF, thanks!

 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
 Once you can't recover some bad shots,
 you'll stop using JPG's.
 It costs almost nothing and gives better results!

Interesting.. mine are all 20-29Mb.

 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Joseph McAllister


On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:03 , Charles Robinson wrote:

 The first harddrive I had in my OWN computer (not my dad's) was 20Mb.
 
 Then we upgraded to TWO 20Mb harddrives.
 
 Then I connected them to an RLL controller (I think?) and some games were 
 played making them each 30Mb in size.
 
 Ugh, what a lot of work for such a small amount of storage.
 
 -Charles

I once had three of Apple's 5 Mb ProFile drives sold for the Apple /// and the 
Lisa.

Fortunately, I was an Apple Developer in those heady days. Only had to pay 
$1350 for my first one vs. the $3495 list.

The second and third I was given by a client who was upgrading to the 10 Mb 
Profiles.

That was plenty of storage. And it allowed you to partition it with a ProDos 
segment for your Apple IIgs!

As usual, a clean and lovely case design from Apple.

Wasn't long before the 20SC(SI) came out for use with my Mac 512. Later made 
myself portable with a hanging backpack style 20 Mb drive mated to my Mac Plus.


It sickens me to realize how much money I have spent over the years to try to 
keep abreast of Apple's hardware march. My 24 iMac (2008) is now getting 
pretty long in the tooth. I almost replaced it with a newer 27 last month (the 
time for personal christmas presents). Trying to keep up with it even as a 
developer (50% off) threw me out of the game by 1995.




Joseph McAllister
jo...@mac.com

It seems that I need to stop my mind running off at the fingertips.
— Mike Wilson


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Joseph McAllister


On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:32 , Charles Robinson wrote:

 On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
 Once you can't recover some bad shots,
 you'll stop using JPG's.
 It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
 
 Interesting.. mine are all 20-29Mb.

Put more sky into your compositions. That'll get rid of 8-10 Mb!


:)


Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
--
“ Nature is considerably more creative and inventive than humankind. Without 
Nature there isn't any humankind. Without humankind, Nature is fine.”


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

They climb in size with iso toojust shoot everything on a tripod at 80.

Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:


On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:32 , Charles Robinson wrote:

 On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com
wrote:
 
 I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
 Once you can't recover some bad shots,
 you'll stop using JPG's.
 It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
 
 Interesting.. mine are all 20-29Mb.

Put more sky into your compositions. That'll get rid of 8-10 Mb!


:)


Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
--
“ Nature is considerably more creative and inventive than humankind.
Without Nature there isn't any humankind. Without humankind, Nature is
fine.”

https://www.facebook.com/zosxaviusphotography

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:38 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:

 They climb in size with iso toojust shoot everything on a tripod at 80.
 

I'm sure that's so that it can reproduce every little speckle of noise.  Make 
sense, I guess!

 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Bruce Walker

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:

  My 24 iMac (2008) is now getting pretty long in the tooth.

My 20 2007 iMac is definitely long in the tooth. But I'm about to do
a low cost DIY speed upgrade by installing a 256G SSD into it. I've
got the suction cups and drive all ready.

So if I go off the air for a week, you'll know why. :-)

--
-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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Mark Roberts

Joseph McAllister wrote:


On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:32 , Charles Robinson wrote:

 On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
 Once you can't recover some bad shots,
 you'll stop using JPG's.
 It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
 
 Interesting.. mine are all 20-29Mb.

Put more sky into your compositions. That'll get rid of 8-10 Mb!

Yep, the K-5 writes *compressed* DNG format. Compression yields
smaller files with less detailed subjects. Higher ISO settings yield
more noise and thus larger files, too.
 
-- 
Mark Roberts - Photography  Multimedia
www.robertstech.com





-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Larry Colen


 Joseph McAllister wrote:


On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:32 , Charles Robinson wrote:

 On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
 Once you can't recover some bad shots,
 you'll stop using JPG's.
 It costs almost nothing and gives better results!

 Interesting.. mine are all 20-29Mb.

Put more sky into your compositions. That'll get rid of 8-10 Mb!

 Yep, the K-5 writes *compressed* DNG format. Compression yields
 smaller files with less detailed subjects. Higher ISO settings yield
 more noise and thus larger files, too.

I needed to shoot DNG for an event and found something annoying.

I normally add a digit to the file index using the fourth character of the
name, so 7043 becomes LRC37043.PEF, but if I shoot in DNG I lose the
fourth character, it becomes _LRC7043.DNG.



-- 
l...@red4est.com via squirrelmail


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Bob W

 From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Charles Robinson
 
 On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:30 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  Jpeg is a lot smaller. Its what all the pros use anyways!
 
 
 Where's the darned like button on this list?
 

right next to the exit

B


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Matthew Hunt

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:

 I needed to shoot DNG for an event and found something annoying.

 I normally add a digit to the file index using the fourth character of the
 name, so 7043 becomes LRC37043.PEF, but if I shoot in DNG I lose the
 fourth character, it becomes _LRC7043.DNG.

I leave the camera-generated filenames at their default, and do the
renaming at the time of import in Lightroom. I add a leading digit to
the sequence number like you do, and add the date (MMDD) and
camera to the filename.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread steve harley


on 2013-02-01 14:32 Charles Robinson wrote

On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:


I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
Once you can't recover some bad shots,
you'll stop using JPG's.
It costs almost nothing and gives better results!


Interesting.. mine are all 20-29Mb.


mine are mostly 24 MB and up; hi-ISO shots are usually in the mid-30s

sharper, noisier, and more complex images come out larger because of how 
lossless JPEG (the compression DNG uses) works


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread John Francis

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:23:12PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote:
 
  Joseph McAllister wrote:
 
 
 On Feb 1, 2013, at 13:32 , Charles Robinson wrote:
 
  On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
  Once you can't recover some bad shots,
  you'll stop using JPG's.
  It costs almost nothing and gives better results!
 
  Interesting.. mine are all 20-29Mb.
 
 Put more sky into your compositions. That'll get rid of 8-10 Mb!
 
  Yep, the K-5 writes *compressed* DNG format. Compression yields
  smaller files with less detailed subjects. Higher ISO settings yield
  more noise and thus larger files, too.
 
 I needed to shoot DNG for an event and found something annoying.
 
 I normally add a digit to the file index using the fourth character of the
 name, so 7043 becomes LRC37043.PEF, but if I shoot in DNG I lose the
 fourth character, it becomes _LRC7043.DNG.

It's your own fault for having three initials!

Are you sure this is the K5 you're talking about?  That's how my K10D behaves,
but on the K5 I don't get that leading underscore on the name.

I set the prefix on my K5 to K5_0 (at least for the first 1 exposures),
and when I look in a random image directory I see K5_01396.JPG  K5_01396.DNG


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Larry Colen


 On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:23:12PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote:

 I normally add a digit to the file index using the fourth character of
 the
 name, so 7043 becomes LRC37043.PEF, but if I shoot in DNG I lose the
 fourth character, it becomes _LRC7043.DNG.

 It's your own fault for having three initials!

Actually, it's my parents' fault.  I could go with just two, but I don't
want people to get in the habit of calling me Elsie.  I am many things,
but a cow isn't one of them.


 Are you sure this is the K5 you're talking about?  That's how my K10D
 behaves,
 but on the K5 I don't get that leading underscore on the name.

Yup, can't change the filename on the K-x and the K-5 was my only other
camera last summer.  It's possible that it was triggered by sRGB rather
than DNG, but I thought either one did it.



 I set the prefix on my K5 to K5_0 (at least for the first 1
 exposures),
 and when I look in a random image directory I see K5_01396.JPG 
 K5_01396.DNG

I'll have to double check on that.  In any case, my theory is that I'll
shoot in PEF and keep those files as backups someplace.  Eventually, I'll
use lightroom to convert them to DNGs for portability.

One of my first big purchases when I start getting paychecks will probably
be a drobo of some kind, and I may just do the conversion by having
lightroom write my everything catalog to the new disk farm as DNGs.

-- 
l...@red4est.com via squirrelmail


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Paul Sorenson

If you shoot pef and convert to dng using LR, the files seem to be 
slightly smaller than dng's straight out of the camera.


-p

On 2/1/2013 2:27 PM, Charles Robinson wrote:

On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:15 , Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:


IIRC...pef is smaller. You might want to check  that outthough when you 
import to lightroom you will have to convert to dng if you want them in that 
format ultimately. I just shoot dng and live  with it.  Its not much larger  
than the k-7 files were.



I'm sticking with DNG as it is more of a standard than PEF, thanks!

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson




--
Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Bob Sullivan

Here is where I got my numbers from
Regards,  Bob S.

18.3 mb DNG @ iso800
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16852613

18.2 mb DNG @ iso200
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=16852614



On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:57 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote:
 on 2013-02-01 14:32 Charles Robinson wrote

 On Feb 1, 2013, at 15:07 , Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote:

 I'm getting 18 or 19 mb files in DNG's.
 Once you can't recover some bad shots,
 you'll stop using JPG's.
 It costs almost nothing and gives better results!


 Interesting.. mine are all 20-29Mb.


 mine are mostly 24 MB and up; hi-ISO shots are usually in the mid-30s

 sharper, noisier, and more complex images come out larger because of how
 lossless JPEG (the compression DNG uses) works


 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Darren Addy

Oh gawd. Another thread where everyone can rehash how much of a
computer old-timer they are. Oh joy.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Stan Halpin

You can buy search-and-replace plug-ins for LR. But even better, you can rename 
within LR.
For the new name use [LRC0]+[OriginalFilenumber] or[ 
DDMM]+[LRC0]+[OriginalFilenumber] 

Which doesn't solve your original gripe/puzzlement, but simple renaming would 
let you move on and obsess about something else (;-

stan


On Feb 1, 2013, at 6:29 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

 
 On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 02:23:12PM -0800, Larry Colen wrote:
 
 I normally add a digit to the file index using the fourth character of
 the
 name, so 7043 becomes LRC37043.PEF, but if I shoot in DNG I lose the
 fourth character, it becomes _LRC7043.DNG.
 
 It's your own fault for having three initials!
 
 Actually, it's my parents' fault.  I could go with just two, but I don't
 want people to get in the habit of calling me Elsie.  I am many things,
 but a cow isn't one of them.
 
 
 Are you sure this is the K5 you're talking about?  That's how my K10D
 behaves,
 but on the K5 I don't get that leading underscore on the name.
 
 Yup, can't change the filename on the K-x and the K-5 was my only other
 camera last summer.  It's possible that it was triggered by sRGB rather
 than DNG, but I thought either one did it.
 
 
 
 I set the prefix on my K5 to K5_0 (at least for the first 1
 exposures),
 and when I look in a random image directory I see K5_01396.JPG 
 K5_01396.DNG
 
 I'll have to double check on that.  In any case, my theory is that I'll
 shoot in PEF and keep those files as backups someplace.  Eventually, I'll
 use lightroom to convert them to DNGs for portability.
 
 One of my first big purchases when I start getting paychecks will probably
 be a drobo of some kind, and I may just do the conversion by having
 lightroom write my everything catalog to the new disk farm as DNGs.
 
 -- 
 l...@red4est.com via squirrelmail
 
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Aahz Maruch

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:

 Oh gawd. Another thread where everyone can rehash how much of a
 computer old-timer they are. Oh joy.

Ask and ye shall receive:

Once upon a time (mid-1990s), I was doing tech support for a small
company that sold a search engine for text databases.  Because our
product was a memory hog, one of our first questions was to ask
customers how much RAM they had, which led to this conversation with a
certain two-letter computer company:

Me: How much RAM do you have?
XX: Two gigabytes
Me: ... ... That's bigger than my hard disk!
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
  *   *   *
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread George Sinos

Larry, I don't know if it makes a difference with dng files, but
doesn't the camera add the _ when you switch to adobeRGB?  gs
George Sinos

gsi...@gmail.com
www.georgesphotos.net
plus.georgesinos.com


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
 On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:

 Oh gawd. Another thread where everyone can rehash how much of a
 computer old-timer they are. Oh joy.

 Ask and ye shall receive:

 Once upon a time (mid-1990s), I was doing tech support for a small
 company that sold a search engine for text databases.  Because our
 product was a memory hog, one of our first questions was to ask
 customers how much RAM they had, which led to this conversation with a
 certain two-letter computer company:

 Me: How much RAM do you have?
 XX: Two gigabytes
 Me: ... ... That's bigger than my hard disk!
 --
 Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
   *   *   *
 Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Bruce Walker

That's right George. I got that leading underscore for a while when I
changed the colour space mistakenly thinking it would be a good idea.
But the colour space setting only affects JPEGs, not RAWs, and if I
ever make in-camera JPEGs I don't edit them, so sRGB makes way more
sense. I switched it back.


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 8:26 PM, George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com wrote:
 Larry, I don't know if it makes a difference with dng files, but
 doesn't the camera add the _ when you switch to adobeRGB?  gs
 George Sinos
 
 gsi...@gmail.com
 www.georgesphotos.net
 plus.georgesinos.com


 On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:
 On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Darren Addy wrote:

 Oh gawd. Another thread where everyone can rehash how much of a
 computer old-timer they are. Oh joy.

 Ask and ye shall receive:

 Once upon a time (mid-1990s), I was doing tech support for a small
 company that sold a search engine for text databases.  Because our
 product was a memory hog, one of our first questions was to ask
 customers how much RAM they had, which led to this conversation with a
 certain two-letter computer company:

 Me: How much RAM do you have?
 XX: Two gigabytes
 Me: ... ... That's bigger than my hard disk!
 --
 Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6http://rule6.info/
   *   *   *
 Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.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.



-- 
-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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

On Feb 1, 2013, at 16:23 , Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
 
 I needed to shoot DNG for an event and found something annoying.
 
 I normally add a digit to the file index using the fourth character of the
 name, so 7043 becomes LRC37043.PEF, but if I shoot in DNG I lose the
 fourth character, it becomes _LRC7043.DNG.
 

The only file format which places the _ in front of the name is when you're 
using Adobe RGB colorspace.

If you choose regular sRGB colorspace for your DNG files you won't get the 
underscore in front of the name.

 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Paul Stenquist

DNG files are RAW. They don't conform to a color space.

Paul via phone

On Feb 1, 2013, at 9:19 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:

 On Feb 1, 2013, at 16:23 , Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
 
 I needed to shoot DNG for an event and found something annoying.
 
 I normally add a digit to the file index using the fourth character of the
 name, so 7043 becomes LRC37043.PEF, but if I shoot in DNG I lose the
 fourth character, it becomes _LRC7043.DNG.
 
 The only file format which places the _ in front of the name is when you're 
 using Adobe RGB colorspace.
 
 If you choose regular sRGB colorspace for your DNG files you won't get the 
 underscore in front of the name.
 
 -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: K5 RAW file size - yow!

2013-02-01 Thread Godfrey DiGiorgi

On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Charles Robinson charl...@visi.com wrote:
 On Feb 1, 2013, at 14:59 , Aahz Maruch a...@pobox.com wrote:

 On Fri, Feb 01, 2013, Charles Robinson wrote:
 Each RAW file is now larger than the first harddrive I ever owned.

 How big is that?  (Can't seem to find file sizes anywhere obvious.)

 The first harddrive I had in my OWN computer (not my dad's) was 20Mb.
 Then we upgraded to TWO 20Mb harddrives.
 Then I connected them to an RLL controller (I think?) and some games were 
 played making them each 30Mb in size.
 Ugh, what a lot of work for such a small amount of storage.

Sounds familiar. The first external hard drive I bought was 20M and
connected via a serial adapter. Small and slow. Cost me $1500 or
something like that.

For my current system, I've got a row of five 2T external drives
(system clone, Time Machine backup, working photo drive, two archive
clones drives). All five of them, 10T total capacity, cost me less
than $800. Times have changed.

Data sizes have changed too. I scanned ten 6x6 negs the other day ...
150M apiece.


-- 
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.

Re: K5 RAW file size - yow!