Search results for 'sensor cleaning' - page 728
Definitely a senior moment
I keep forgetting to turn SR back on after using the 50-500mm OS Sigma ... although a lot of the time I also forget to turn it off and end up using both stabilisation systems together. Yes so do I - I'm very puzzled why the results aren't bad. In theory, the sensor SR should put back in what the ...
Posted by ChrisA on 11/02/2014 - 17:26
Bridge Cameras
I've come from an early Panasonic Bridge camera for birding and wildlife. It was a great introduction and they are miles better now. The one you mention is right up there but there are others that are pretty good with even more reach but you would need a tripod which straightaway negates one advanta...
Posted by dcweather on 12/02/2014 - 19:04
Bridge Cameras
Yeah I think the opinion of EVF's will change over time, as the concept and technology improves. By all accounts some of the newer cameras are doing it right, but obviously the cost a lot. The model mentioned by the OP is notable for extreme reach all at F2.8 which is impressive. I haven't read...
Posted by richandfleur on 13/02/2014 - 00:43
Bridge Cameras
I upgraded to DLSR from a Panasonic bridge-camera and this was done because when out with the family trying to get the shots of the bairns running about ended up with alot of feet or hands just at the edge of frame down to the shutter lag and evf lag, very frustrating. At the long of the lens I d...
Posted by InFESTation on 13/02/2014 - 18:01
Photographing the moon
What is the slowest speed you can use, ignoring camera shake? Assuming you don't have a fancy motorized tripod, the moon is effectively moving across the sky, so how slow can you go before you get motion blur? I worked it all out once - don't have the details to hand, but I seem to recall that th...
Posted by ChrisA on 17/02/2014 - 17:31
Photographing the moon
Surely the motion blur is dependant on the focal length Yes of course. I'd have to repeat the calculation, but IIRC I worked on the basis of the angle of view of a K10D sensor and a 500mm lens (or maybe 400mm, since I don't think I had the Bigma at the time - I used a SMC-A 400mm F5.6 for my earlie...
Posted by ChrisA on 17/02/2014 - 18:40
Photographing the moon
So it would be a bit shorter for a 1px blur with the more recent higher-res sensors. Could you explain this to me a bit more please. Does this mean I need a faster shutter speed to eliminate movement blur in a bird shot with my K3 than I did with my K30? It depends how you measure movement blur. S...
Posted by ChrisA on 18/02/2014 - 00:03
Q7 with K Mount Adapter?
The Q7 has a slightly larger sensor, so the magnification factor will be slightly less. That is, the field of view is wider with any given lens. There's not much in it.
Posted by johnriley on 05/03/2014 - 15:47
Q7 with K Mount Adapter?
Still leaves the question re future editions of Q. No one seems to want to speculate There have been two new releases of Q lenses within the past weeks, the Q and Q10 have been superceded by a larger sensor version, the Q7. Why the doubts? It all seems to be moving along very nicely.
Posted by johnriley on 06/03/2014 - 18:38
Q7 with K Mount Adapter?
No doubts John!!!, but why buy a - Q7 when a Q5 might be round the corner - and yes as far as I can see there is no body development on the Road Map, but still worth asking for some speculation. So far from what I have heard here, I will probably get one next year and maybe even go for a Pen Adapto...
Posted by Offertonhatter on 06/03/2014 - 20:49
Q7 with K Mount Adapter?
I am seriously looking at a Q7 (for the wife) as an "upgrade". She has been very pleased with the Q but I'm thinking towards improved IQ of the larger sensor. As for the adapter it is what it is and none of the third party alternatives get close to its performance. I agree that it's not the...
Posted by K10D on 06/03/2014 - 22:53
Q7 with K Mount Adapter?
The larger sensor of the Q7 is the same size as the MX-1, so that bodes well for image quality.
Posted by johnriley on 06/03/2014 - 23:38
Used equipment prices
How can Pentax still sell new lenses with falling secondhand prices and seemingly less new (DSLR) customers in general? They make hi tech red line around new lenses and it sells for hundred bucks more! Em, just because majority of customers are not forum lurkers and they assume - I`ll buy used l...
Posted by Vaards on 19/03/2014 - 23:32
Used equipment prices
And Pentax helps them - makes new red line around lens and sales people will tell - ou, it`s super brand new model. just half year ago released. It has super nano robots on its coataing, these robots are running there and cleaning off all dirt, ghosting and foggy unsharpness. The 'HD' thing really a...
Posted by johnha on 19/03/2014 - 23:43
Stablisation
Typically the in lens stabilisation approach is better for the larger focal lengths, where the corrections required exceed the travel limits of the in camera sensor movement mechanism. So, for example, if you had a stabilised larger focal length lens, say 250mm and up, then you might get better resu...
Posted by richandfleur on 10/03/2014 - 21:06
tried RAW -- it's rubbish !
Ah !! I have been using 'Transparency Film' since FERRANIACOLOR and AGFA CT 18 in the late 1950's -- maybe the over-exposure occurred because the sitter was a long way off the background and the flash sensor picked up the dark background.
Posted by Peter Elgar on 10/03/2014 - 16:15
tried RAW -- it's rubbish !
Regarding editing of RAW files, I use Photoshop CS6, but whatever version of PS you use, you must get the latest Camera Raw plugin to be able to access the latest camera's files. I also set the camera to RAW+ & the raw to DNG. DNG files are more versatile than PEF. When shooting with RAW files, you ...
Posted by Blackbeard1 on 16/03/2014 - 13:35
tried RAW -- it's rubbish !
Smeggy, your semantics are completely unhelpful here and meaningless in almost all branches of discussion. I disagree. If people are going to continue to parrot erroneous information they read from someone else on the Internet then it needs setting straight IMO. Claiming RAWs aren't a picture/...
Posted by gwing on 18/03/2014 - 22:34
tried RAW -- it's rubbish !
[quote:3496ace15f="Darkmunk"] Smeggy, your semantics are completely unhelpful here and meaningless in almost all branches of discussion. I disagree. If people are going to continue to parrot erroneous information they read from someone else on the Internet then it needs setting straight IMO. ...
Posted by Smeggypants on 19/03/2014 - 00:01
tried RAW -- it's rubbish !
Proof positive that RAW files can be viewed without conversion to Jpeg or Tiff. It's clearly one of my best photographs, don't you agree? (100% clip) The photograph I took this from contains approx 1,000 screen pages of this, so I guess we're just having a semantic discussion. :wink: ...
Posted by dougf8 on 19/03/2014 - 10:11
