All Forum Comments
Comment by andrewk posted on How good is windows 7 please? at 08/03/2013 - 14:09
Have a look at the Windows 7 Upgrader Advisor. It should help.
I use Windows 7 only because it came on a new desktop and a netbook that I bought. It seems fine to me.
If I had a machine with XP on it, I wouldn't upgrade unless I had or wanted some "must have" software that would not run on XP.
Andrew
I use Windows 7 only because it came on a new desktop and a netbook that I bought. It seems fine to me.
If I had a machine with XP on it, I wouldn't upgrade unless I had or wanted some "must have" software that would not run on XP.
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on How good is windows 7 please? at 05/03/2013 - 17:34
"Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now."
Andrew
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on K-5IIs - more discussion at 05/03/2013 - 12:43
gwing wrote:
That to me sounds pretty much identical to saying that whatever the evidence, whether jpegs or raws are used you aren't going to believe it?
I read the same sentence as you, but we seem to have wholly different interpretations of its meaning. That to me sounds pretty much identical to saying that whatever the evidence, whether jpegs or raws are used you aren't going to believe it?
I *think* McGregNi expressed the view that for the results to be valid and incontrovertible, the only difference between the two test photos should be the cameras used. Isn't that simply a statement of what scientific method demands as a minimum? Ideally also, if the images are published here, the EXIF should be stripped and the images not labelled with the camera version - at least then, the prejudices of the viewer would not play a part.
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on K-5IIs - more discussion at 04/03/2013 - 09:44
McGregNi wrote:
Interestingly, and I admit I don't know if its significant, but Davids K5 mk1 shot contains less image data than his K511s shot - just had a quick look at the image properties and both shots are the same dimensions but have different file sizes.
Checkout the images on page 2 of this thread. In the first pair, the K5 MK1 image contained more data. Interestingly, and I admit I don't know if its significant, but Davids K5 mk1 shot contains less image data than his K511s shot - just had a quick look at the image properties and both shots are the same dimensions but have different file sizes.
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on K-5IIs - more discussion at 04/03/2013 - 08:57
Thinking more about this ..... try searching Youtube for "Scott Kelby" too. He is a bit (lot?) long winded, but there is some good stuff too.
Andrew
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Useful websites for those beginning in photography at 03/03/2013 - 19:20
Aura,
You might find some of Bryan Peterson's videos on YouTube interesting. There are lots. Try searching for "Bryan Peterson" or "You keep shooting".
I find him very helpful.
Andrew
You might find some of Bryan Peterson's videos on YouTube interesting. There are lots. Try searching for "Bryan Peterson" or "You keep shooting".
I find him very helpful.
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Useful websites for those beginning in photography at 03/03/2013 - 19:18
davidstorm wrote:
if anyone says they cannot tell the difference here they either (a) need their eyes testing, (b) need a new monitor or (c) they are not being completely impartial and open about what they are seeing.
There are clear and obvious differences between the K5 and the K5IIs images in that post - but they look to me as though they result from differences in the point of focus. I can see nothing that suggests that one camera is producing images of significantly higher resolution than the other. If you can, can you please explain exactly where you see that?if anyone says they cannot tell the difference here they either (a) need their eyes testing, (b) need a new monitor or (c) they are not being completely impartial and open about what they are seeing.
To be honest, I'm not sure that the subject lends itself to this kind of critical analysis. To convince the doubters, I think you'll have to unequivocally nail focus. Maybe this is one situation in which a test chart might be helpful - or even photos taken of a steel rule at an angle of 45deg, so that close crops can be viewed at the points of critically accurate focus - even if those are in different places.
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on K-5IIs - more discussion at 02/03/2013 - 14:09
davidstorm wrote:
I hope this makes sense - believe me it works an absolute treat and turns your awkward M42 lenses into easy to use K-mount lenses with a perfectly fitting cheap M42 adaptor!
It makes perfect sense. Thanks very much.I hope this makes sense - believe me it works an absolute treat and turns your awkward M42 lenses into easy to use K-mount lenses with a perfectly fitting cheap M42 adaptor!
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Pentax K-30 and Legacy Glass at 28/02/2013 - 09:23
davidstorm wrote:
Contrary to some posts I've seen, it is not necessary to get the genuine Pentax M42 adaptors; mine cost £7 each and they fit perfectly, no wobble, no sticking or jamming. I've removed the spring clips and have them permanently mounted on all my M42 lenses.
Can you expand on that a little, David? Contrary to some posts I've seen, it is not necessary to get the genuine Pentax M42 adaptors; mine cost £7 each and they fit perfectly, no wobble, no sticking or jamming. I've removed the spring clips and have them permanently mounted on all my M42 lenses.
I have thought about buying M42 lenses but was worried about having to fit and remove the M42>K adapter every time I wanted to use a lens. Does removing a spring from the adapter permanently attach it to the M42 lens, so that it can be used as though it were K-mount?
Andrew
Comment by andrewk posted on Pentax K-30 and Legacy Glass at 27/02/2013 - 23:02
Andrew