All Forum Comments
Comment by Don posted on Bridge Cameras at 25/06/2011 - 18:12
This is why John is a classy guy.
Pretty girl, hanging on a pole, oil and yet he refrained from going with the cliche......
Pretty girl, hanging on a pole, oil and yet he refrained from going with the cliche......
Comment by Don posted on Hanging Around at 25/06/2011 - 15:17
those of us that use the spot meter, or shoot lots of video put a fair deal of wear and tear on that AE lock button...
one example would be at a wedding... spot meter off the face then AE lock, lock focus on the eyes, recompose and shoot... not only are your subjects eyes in focus, but the White dress and Black tux aren't throwing off your cameras built in metering system...
one example would be at a wedding... spot meter off the face then AE lock, lock focus on the eyes, recompose and shoot... not only are your subjects eyes in focus, but the White dress and Black tux aren't throwing off your cameras built in metering system...
pentaxian450 wrote:
Hey, Don.
I just bought a BMW R1200 RT to commute to work. It's a wonderful bike. Not as fast as the "R" bikes, but a very nice bike to drive. And it 'drinks' a lot less than my van.
That is so frickin' awesome! I cannot wait to head out your way again, but on the bike! We'll go ridin together one day!Hey, Don.
I just bought a BMW R1200 RT to commute to work. It's a wonderful bike. Not as fast as the "R" bikes, but a very nice bike to drive. And it 'drinks' a lot less than my van.
I used to have the k-bike (k100 lt) the flying brick... great bikes!
Comment by Don posted on Ok 'Canada Don' I found my perfect motorcycle at 25/06/2011 - 13:38
PentaxExpert wrote:
Iwent out with my mate for a nfew (quiet a lot actually) of beers last night round Bradford.
He has given me some inside pentax info which he get to know through his contacts in the camera world.According to him Pentax are designing a nb biulding a new lense series, it is goint=g to be called the DFS reange.
So, howmany other of you so called pentaxians knew that?
let me guess... this new lens range involves duct taping your empty beer glasses over the kit lens to improve the optics and add a special diffusion filter effect? When the DFS (Drunk Fool Says) series lenses arrives try to remember this:Iwent out with my mate for a nfew (quiet a lot actually) of beers last night round Bradford.
He has given me some inside pentax info which he get to know through his contacts in the camera world.According to him Pentax are designing a nb biulding a new lense series, it is goint=g to be called the DFS reange.
So, howmany other of you so called pentaxians knew that?
There is Always gonna be another camera, another series of lenses... It has to happen or the company goes under... Even I could have got drunk and told you that much... so how many rounds did this sage future foretelling cost you?
Comment by Don posted on lens question at 25/06/2011 - 13:34
rparmar wrote:
Hoya seems to be intent on carving a path of high profit margins ever since they took over Pentax. Gone are the days when I could recommend the brand as good value for money. Now it's just one of many. And, personally, I find that rather sad.
possible you mean gone are the days of lost profitability, and losing market share?Pentaxophile wrote:
But at web sizes or normal print sizes, I bet the quality will be indistinguishable unless you're talking about shallow DOF or ISO's over 800.
You can say the same about your phone. So why spend $800 if your image quality standards are that low? That's the whole point of what Smeggy and I are trying to make. It's not that everyone needs a whizz-bang delicious camera, certainly not for web images. But a minuscule sensor with a maximal price is a rip-off no matter what else is thrown into the mix.But at web sizes or normal print sizes, I bet the quality will be indistinguishable unless you're talking about shallow DOF or ISO's over 800.
Hoya seems to be intent on carving a path of high profit margins ever since they took over Pentax. Gone are the days when I could recommend the brand as good value for money. Now it's just one of many. And, personally, I find that rather sad.
Comment by Don posted on Pentax launch the Q at 25/06/2011 - 03:20
Pentaxophile wrote:
Can I quote Imaging Resource, which sums up nicely what I think about the Q:
My point is it is a tool. In the right hands.... it will produce images that shame some of the crap I've seen made by imbeciles with top name, top quality gear. At the end of the day... the final images count more than anything else.Don wrote:
I suspect the Q will match the current d-slr's under good light now.
Not for the pixel-peepers it won't! But at web sizes or normal print sizes, I bet the quality will be indistinguishable unless you're talking about shallow DOF or ISO's over 800.I suspect the Q will match the current d-slr's under good light now.
Can I quote Imaging Resource, which sums up nicely what I think about the Q:
Quote:
While I understand the criticism, I think it largely misses the point. Because the Pentax Q is properly described as a Compact System Camera, people automatically compare it to the existing Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competition on the market. In that comparison, though the Pentax Q is indeed smaller, its small sensor means that image quality is unlikely to rise to the level we've seen from these larger-sensor cameras. Point taken.
But at this size, the Pentax Q has another list of more relevant competitors, namely the Canon G12 and Nikon P7000, both quite a bit larger, and the Canon S95, and Panasonic LX5. A large number of professional and enthusiast photographers have decided that the tradeoff of a smaller sensor is worth it for the compactness and simplicity found in these otherwise serious camera designs.
When compared to these cameras, the Pentax Q is smaller than any, and has the advantage of interchangeable lenses, some of which in theory could be of higher quality, with greater sharpness in the corners and less chromatic aberration.
For most enthusiasts photography is a hobby. Some enthusiasts get so deep into the speeds and feeds they forget this, and are the first to decry a camera like the Pentax Q. That's fine, and part of the hobby, frankly: comparing, measuring, ranting, and ultimately preferring this or that. We cater to them, happily so. But I'd like to remind enthusiasts like myself that it is a hobby, and if we're not having fun, what are we doing?
What I like about Pentax is that they seem to understand this. Photography is fun. I get the sense that they're having fun, too, pursuing the art of making cameras that are fun to use, plenty capable, and yet novel. While of course they're in business to make money, their bold, photographer-centric--and often hobbyist-centric moves tell me that it's not their only motivating factor. I like that.
While I understand the criticism, I think it largely misses the point. Because the Pentax Q is properly described as a Compact System Camera, people automatically compare it to the existing Micro Four Thirds and APS-C competition on the market. In that comparison, though the Pentax Q is indeed smaller, its small sensor means that image quality is unlikely to rise to the level we've seen from these larger-sensor cameras. Point taken.
But at this size, the Pentax Q has another list of more relevant competitors, namely the Canon G12 and Nikon P7000, both quite a bit larger, and the Canon S95, and Panasonic LX5. A large number of professional and enthusiast photographers have decided that the tradeoff of a smaller sensor is worth it for the compactness and simplicity found in these otherwise serious camera designs.
When compared to these cameras, the Pentax Q is smaller than any, and has the advantage of interchangeable lenses, some of which in theory could be of higher quality, with greater sharpness in the corners and less chromatic aberration.
For most enthusiasts photography is a hobby. Some enthusiasts get so deep into the speeds and feeds they forget this, and are the first to decry a camera like the Pentax Q. That's fine, and part of the hobby, frankly: comparing, measuring, ranting, and ultimately preferring this or that. We cater to them, happily so. But I'd like to remind enthusiasts like myself that it is a hobby, and if we're not having fun, what are we doing?
What I like about Pentax is that they seem to understand this. Photography is fun. I get the sense that they're having fun, too, pursuing the art of making cameras that are fun to use, plenty capable, and yet novel. While of course they're in business to make money, their bold, photographer-centric--and often hobbyist-centric moves tell me that it's not their only motivating factor. I like that.
Comment by Don posted on Pentax launch the Q at 25/06/2011 - 03:00
Pentaxophile wrote:
Professional frames are great but you can always find a cheap way of getting cheap frames, and print to fit the mounts. One of the cheapest ways is to buy ready framed prints from a bargain store and replace the print with your own.
We have enough electronic screens in our homes already in my opinion! A print is also nicer to look at than an illuminated electronic screen.
we sell a lot of prints on kodak metallic foil paper..a few on hanemule bamboo, some epson matte or luster, but still... every lcd in my studio is running a slideshow of my images and videos when not being used... they are stunning.Professional frames are great but you can always find a cheap way of getting cheap frames, and print to fit the mounts. One of the cheapest ways is to buy ready framed prints from a bargain store and replace the print with your own.
We have enough electronic screens in our homes already in my opinion! A print is also nicer to look at than an illuminated electronic screen.
Comment by Don posted on Digital photo frames- novelty or good? at 25/06/2011 - 02:30
johnriley wrote:
Well I've read the blog and the comments and it's surprising how negative people can be, even before something is available to test.
Why not be a bit more open minded, wait until the Q appears and then see what it can actually do?
As for small sensors, they are terrific for macro shots and indeed I use an X90 for all my eBay images. Diffraction limited? Yes, all lenses are. I can quite happily use my DSLR lenses at f22 though, when that is what's required. They don't become useless simply because performance is being limited at that point by diffraction.
In fact, a high class lens will show a definite rise and fall pattern from open aperture to optimum aperture to smallest aperture. Theory tells us that the lens performs best wide open. We know it doesn't. That's because our lenses are not perfect lenses.
A while back... on this very forum... a Pentax Canada rep asked for help with images for marketing... he got a less than friendly response as many, myself included doubted the veracity of his claims. Once established, he was who he said he was, he privately messaged me about some of the images he saw on my website. 8 of the ten images he enquired about had been shot on a small sensor compact, not Pentax. My ds2 was brand new and I hadn't updated my website so about two thirds of the images on there had been shot (both on digital and also on film with my mz5) with a canon g5. since the g5 was so good I never bothered scanning the mz5 pics, where I had used the g5 for proofing. the g5 was capable of matching the *ist d under good light then, and I suspect the Q will match the current d-slr's under good light now. Well I've read the blog and the comments and it's surprising how negative people can be, even before something is available to test.
Why not be a bit more open minded, wait until the Q appears and then see what it can actually do?
As for small sensors, they are terrific for macro shots and indeed I use an X90 for all my eBay images. Diffraction limited? Yes, all lenses are. I can quite happily use my DSLR lenses at f22 though, when that is what's required. They don't become useless simply because performance is being limited at that point by diffraction.
In fact, a high class lens will show a definite rise and fall pattern from open aperture to optimum aperture to smallest aperture. Theory tells us that the lens performs best wide open. We know it doesn't. That's because our lenses are not perfect lenses.
Comment by Don posted on Pentax launch the Q at 25/06/2011 - 02:21
Pentaxophile wrote:
My preference would be to get some new cartridges and some nice photo paper (Hahnnemule?) and get printing
i use a mitre box, make a frame, mount an lcd and attach an apple tv...My preference would be to get some new cartridges and some nice photo paper (Hahnnemule?) and get printing
prints are nice but for the cost of a professional framer doing ONE print, an lcd and apple tv will show all your photo and photo and video montages.... can't be beat.
Comment by Don posted on Digital photo frames- novelty or good? at 25/06/2011 - 02:07
Having gone through point and shoot, to a Minolta A200 and a Canon G9 before ending up with Pentax DSLRs I'd say all had mertis but none match a modern and compact DSLR.
If Pentax did an equivalent of the Canon G series I'd consider it but the tiny sensor high zoom models that are often referred to as 'bridge' have too many shortcomings for me. Lens distortion, poor high ISO performance, vignetting, burn out in highlights spring to mind.