All Forum Comments
Comment by ChrisA posted on K5 Sensor Issues... at 13/04/2012 - 09:23
The last time I was walking around in a city, Edinburgh, as it happened, I had an 18-135 on the camera.
When I got the pictures on to the computer, I decided that next time, in a similar situation, it will be the 10-20.
10-35 would be even better, but 18 was far too long in most cases. For the tall buildings, I had to get so far back that it was impossible to exclude things like people and traffic.
When I got the pictures on to the computer, I decided that next time, in a similar situation, it will be the 10-20.
10-35 would be even better, but 18 was far too long in most cases. For the tall buildings, I had to get so far back that it was impossible to exclude things like people and traffic.
Comment by ChrisA posted on suggestions for walkaround lenses at 12/04/2012 - 22:08
JohnX wrote:
If, however, you want to make high quality conversions of old school negs and slides, then you'll be looking to invest some serious money and time into Nikon Coolscan or Minolta Dimage film copiers. I've explored this option, and whilst I'm not put off by the cost I am put off by the time that you will have to invest in pp.
I have a Coolscan, and its great advantage is that there's almost no post processing.If, however, you want to make high quality conversions of old school negs and slides, then you'll be looking to invest some serious money and time into Nikon Coolscan or Minolta Dimage film copiers. I've explored this option, and whilst I'm not put off by the cost I am put off by the time that you will have to invest in pp.
With auto-scratch-and-dust-removal, it's just a question of feeding a strip of negs in every few minutes.
Very occasionally, I do a multi-pass scan to reduce the noise, but it's rarely needed.
The worst part is the discipline needed when you have thousands of negs to scan .
Comment by ChrisA posted on Negative scanner at 12/04/2012 - 16:55
It's no good, I've bitten my tongue for too long. I can hold in my pain no longer!!!!!!
Snappy, can I beg you, please, please, please, pretty please...
Shots, eyes, guys.
I love a lot of your pictures, but please stop doing this, even if only for my stress levels.
Pleeeeeeeeeeease
It'll be less typing for you too, so you'll be an even snappier chappy
Snappy, can I beg you, please, please, please, pretty please...
snappychappy wrote:
... shot's ... eye's... guy's....
...stop putting apostrophes in plural nouns!!!!!!! It is always wrong, if the 's' at the end is only for the plural, and not also for the possessive.... shot's ... eye's... guy's....
Shots, eyes, guys.
I love a lot of your pictures, but please stop doing this, even if only for my stress levels.
Pleeeeeeeeeeease
It'll be less typing for you too, so you'll be an even snappier chappy
johnriley wrote:
Unfortunately there is often not a "definitive answer" and this is a forum for discussion....so people discuss what takes their fancy.
Not sure if this would be classed as a 'competing' site, and hence against the rules... it's so different from what we have here that I'd doubt it somehow...Unfortunately there is often not a "definitive answer" and this is a forum for discussion....so people discuss what takes their fancy.
... but there's a series of Q&A sites, collectively grouped under the stackexchange domain.
The photography one is photo.stackexchange.com, and it's for answers to questions, not discussion.
'Definitive' is measured by the amount of up-rep people receive.
'Moderation' can be done by anyone with enough rep - and off-topic comments and bad answers tend to get stomped on.
It's a very different model from 'discussion forum', but it works very well in the software/hardware world.
Comment by ChrisA posted on catch in focus at 12/04/2012 - 12:09
johnriley wrote:
If I want to use CIF I use a manual focus lens. The right tool for the job.
Pentax doesn't actually make any of those any more, and most of the lenses they do make don't have an A/M switch.If I want to use CIF I use a manual focus lens. The right tool for the job.
You have to rely on old lenses - and you may have plenty of those, but plenty of people may not.
It is not unreasonable to ask for a feature that would enable all the AF lenses to work perfectly well with CIF.
Comment by ChrisA posted on catch in focus at 12/04/2012 - 09:02
johnriley wrote:
The trouble is that simple questions tend to go off on wild tangents that don't help the simple, straightforward question. It can confuse.
I suppose it would be nice if we started a new thread once it gets more esoteric in its appeal, but I doubt that will happen.
Er, this thread is called 'Catch In Focus'.The trouble is that simple questions tend to go off on wild tangents that don't help the simple, straightforward question. It can confuse.
I suppose it would be nice if we started a new thread once it gets more esoteric in its appeal, but I doubt that will happen.
It's one of the most consistently on-topic discussions for a long time!
Comment by ChrisA posted on catch in focus at 12/04/2012 - 08:55
johnriley wrote:
Isn't it much easier to just follow the instructions? I know some love to make things work where they "shouldn't" work, but for the majority of users that isn't really relevant.
Thank god heavens there are people that aren't content to just put up with the status quo.Isn't it much easier to just follow the instructions? I know some love to make things work where they "shouldn't" work, but for the majority of users that isn't really relevant.
Quote:
It's a useful, but minor, feature that's available on all the Pentax DSLRs I've used, and it's a consequence of how things work, rather than the raison d'etre.
On the contrary. It's an extremely useful feature, that Pentax have explicitly recognised with a dedicated option in the K-5 menu. It's a useful, but minor, feature that's available on all the Pentax DSLRs I've used, and it's a consequence of how things work, rather than the raison d'etre.
It wouldn't surprise me in the least, if, eventually, they further recognise its limitations and add more options to remove them.
It would surprise me, however, if they did it soon, or without a lot of haranguing.
Comment by ChrisA posted on catch in focus at 12/04/2012 - 08:46
Smeggypants wrote:
It's only a matter of programming. Pentax have for some restrictive reason chosen otherwise.
Well of course that's true. You can always argue for an alternative design. It's only a matter of programming. Pentax have for some restrictive reason chosen otherwise.
It should be programmable, to allow CIF with the camera set to MF - if there was an option in MF to prevent shutter release when not focused, just as there's an option in AF to permit it, I imagine it would all just work.
But a lot of people seem genuinely confused about how it currently works, and seem therefore surprised when they get one behaviour or another.
johnriley wrote:
The camera only detects the point of focus when its AF system is switched on. Switch it off and you can only use MF, obviously.
Well, this is misleading.The camera only detects the point of focus when its AF system is switched on. Switch it off and you can only use MF, obviously.
You still get focus confirmation when the camera is set to MF, so the AF system is still on and working.
The point is whether it lets you release the shutter when it's not focused.
Things have become a little blurred with the K-5, with its additional options, but the point remains.
Comment by ChrisA posted on catch in focus at 12/04/2012 - 08:15
I had to regularly clean the sensors of my K10D and K20D. I've had my two K-5s over a year now and have NEVER had to clean the sensors.
If you have, and you've got no dust, I'd love to know what's special about your lens change technique.
I had to butterfly my K-5 for the first time a week or so ago.