Found on another forum, posted by 'PeteE' from Brentwood, who signed off 'Got COMPUTERISED but thankfully NOT DIGITISED!:

"Does that mean that Jessops have sold out of all their DL2's? I was considering one."

What is the World coming to?

If you're reading this Peter, I was in Jessops in Chelmsford earlier this week, and they don't have the DL2 on show any more, they have a K110 with lens for £399. Basically the same as the DL2 I think. Cameraworld have absolutely no Pentax gear at all, so I won't be bothering them again.

Dan

Nothing else in the box? I reckon you've got at least two packs of cheesy Wotsits in there!

Thanks Tim - unfortunately the D doesn't have that, obviously someone had the same thought as I did, but long before me.

Glad to see from the poll results, I'm not the only one with an absent mind. Actually, I think writing about it here has helped, because I check much more often now. I must get into habits.

Oh, and regarding my original post - I should have spelt 'ignoramus' correctly.

Dan

Hi All,

One of the benefits of digital photography is being able to vary the 'film' speed between shots, so the most appropriate speed can be selected for the situation you're currently in - great.

However, after several occassions when I've changed the speed to 400 or 800, from my usual and prefered 200, and then forgotten I've done this, and taken several (or more) shots at a higher ISO than required, I've got 2 questions.

1. Can Pentax update my firmware so that something alerts me in my viewfinder when the speed is other than the one I would have chosen as my 'prefered speed' in the menu somewhere.

2. Has anyone got any helpful tips, assuming Pentax aren't going to do the above, that could help stop me doing this in future.

And I know any decent photographer should tell just by the shutter speed/aperture value that something's not right, but let's just pretend we're dealing with an ignoramous here.

Any ideas gratefully received.

Dan

And just to see if it's just me, I've added a poll, so you can hopefully back me up on this one.

Don, that's why I said "I think I was lucky"! I was also lazy, because although the composition was poor, I didn't try too hard to get a better one, thinking it would be easy enough to digitally move the fly if need be:



Original



Moved

Arthur, Brian mentioned this a little further back in the post, and I might have tried it, if it weren't for two considerations:

1. I was using an AF lens, which is by far the best one I have for macro work, and you can't disable the AF on the lens, so this method wouldn't have worked with this lens. (You of course meant to say 'set the body to auto-focus...' ).

2. I'm not sure that the shutter would fire quick enough to get the insect in focus, as it, and my arm, were moving. I think the focus would have drifted out by the time the shutter actually opened. But then I didn't try it, so it might have been fine.

I have used this method for getting birds in flight using my Tamron 300mm lens, with some success.

I've also read of someone who made a metal wire frame, which attached to the camera somehow, which you set to the distance you were focused on, and the when the insect is within the frame, it's in focus so you trip the shutter. Does that make sense? Here's a picture




The rectangular frame around the insect would obviously need to be bigger than the image area.

It seems like a sound idea, and it worked for this guy with photos of Bees, but I don't know whether hoverflies would be happy with the frame around them.

Anyway, enough of my rambling.

Dan

Quite right Peter, wouldn't have even tried. That was one of the reasons I convinced myself to 'go' digital - I kept seeing potential images, that may or may not have worked, and thinking "if I had a digital camera...".

And I justified the initial expense of the camera, lenses, memory cards and storage device by saying "I've taken 3500 images so far, if I'd been using film that would have cost me £750", and so on, until I got to about 5000 shots, when I reckon I was back in the black, so to speak. It's paid for itself a few times over now, using this method.

Cheers,
Dan

P.S. Loved your moth, by the way.

I think I was lucky - only about 40. There was one more than was nearly as sharp. But it was a pleasant afternoon spent in a Welsh cottage garden when we were on holiday back in June, so I didn't mind one bit, I could happily have taken 100.

I wouldn't call it a perfect one either, by any means - the crop I've done is the bottom right hand corner of the frame, so compositionally speaking, it was quite poor.

Dan

Hi Brian,

That shot was taken by focusing the lens to about 12 inches, holding the camera at arms length, looking out for a hovering hoverfly and approaching as quickly as possible, then guessing when the hoverfly was in focus and taking the shot.

Just so you can see the results you can get with this method, here are a few more...














'twas a lot of fun, highly recommended.

Dan

What, hovering like this?




istD, Sigma 105mm f/2.8 @ f/13, Manual Focus (preset then waived in front of hovering hoverfly), manual flash - Centon FG30 with diffuser. Cropped down to approx 1/4 of the frame.

This one worked, many didn't!

But nowhere near as sharp as Brian's.

Dan

Quite chuffed?!? It's bloody marvellous!!