All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on K10 D 1.3 version update... ( for a novice) at 27/02/2008 - 10:00
Chris,
Even Homer nods.
I have observed that my occasional lapses cause glee in some quarters; and I must say I am delighted to be the bringer of pleasure, no matter how fleetingly.
However, I should, in the interests of accuracy, point out that my error was not a malapropism, but a humble typo.
May I commend to you my motto: "Only use long words when you know what they mean." (Or when nobody else does.)
We are both guilty of schadenfreude, it seems.
G
Even Homer nods.
I have observed that my occasional lapses cause glee in some quarters; and I must say I am delighted to be the bringer of pleasure, no matter how fleetingly.
However, I should, in the interests of accuracy, point out that my error was not a malapropism, but a humble typo.
May I commend to you my motto: "Only use long words when you know what they mean." (Or when nobody else does.)
We are both guilty of schadenfreude, it seems.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on K10 D 1.3 version update... ( for a novice) at 27/02/2008 - 00:24
Well, I don't suppose it is essential, but Pentax will fix any bugs they find when they update the firmware, so it might be more reliable.
The first update, I think, enabled wireless flash using the RTF, and 1.3 activates the focussing of SDM lenses.
If you don't use these, you can probably get away without an upgrade.
However, it really is very simple.
Download and unzip the file.
Copy it to an SD card.
Place the card in the camera, and switch on while pressing the menu switch.
It'll ask if you wish to upgrade, and you say yes.
That's it. (Those are from memory - check the isntructions first)
And use a freshly charged battery.
G
The first update, I think, enabled wireless flash using the RTF, and 1.3 activates the focussing of SDM lenses.
If you don't use these, you can probably get away without an upgrade.
However, it really is very simple.
Download and unzip the file.
Copy it to an SD card.
Place the card in the camera, and switch on while pressing the menu switch.
It'll ask if you wish to upgrade, and you say yes.
That's it. (Those are from memory - check the isntructions first)
And use a freshly charged battery.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on K10 D 1.3 version update... ( for a novice) at 26/02/2008 - 22:18
Quote:
The left half is completely black on my monitor but I can see all of the numbers on the right (white) side. The number one is very feint.
I've tried tweaking brightness & Contrast to no avail.
Any ideas?
The viewing angle makes a big difference.The left half is completely black on my monitor but I can see all of the numbers on the right (white) side. The number one is very feint.
I've tried tweaking brightness & Contrast to no avail.
Any ideas?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on weekly competition: 34 Street Furniture at 27/02/2008 - 21:09
Thank you, Mike.
I do agree with you about natrual colours. Of course, there are times, especially with more abstract images, where high saturation is essential to the picture. But it is often overdone.
G
I do agree with you about natrual colours. Of course, there are times, especially with more abstract images, where high saturation is essential to the picture. But it is often overdone.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Weekly competition 34: Street furniture at 03/03/2008 - 09:44
Quicker by air.
*ist D, ISO 800, F300 4.5, 1/3200 at f5.6
*ist D, ISO 800, F300 4.5, 1/3200 at f5.6
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Weekly competition 34: Street furniture at 26/02/2008 - 09:00
Quote:
Sigma state that the minimum focusing distance is 25cm. Surely that's OK.
Using a 135mm with 65mm worth of ext. tubes I can focus down to about 36cm which leaves more than enough room to be comfortable. What about the Sigma 105mm macro as an alternative (or anything else for that matter) ?
On a Pentax K-mount DSLR, my (affordable) choices would be:Sigma state that the minimum focusing distance is 25cm. Surely that's OK.
Using a 135mm with 65mm worth of ext. tubes I can focus down to about 36cm which leaves more than enough room to be comfortable. What about the Sigma 105mm macro as an alternative (or anything else for that matter) ?
1 SMCP-FA 100mm (or the F or A versions)
2 Tamron 90mm (any)
3 Old Vivitar S1 105mm
4 Almost anything else. All macros are pretty good.
The only reason to have AF on a macro lens, in my view, is so that you can use it for normal (non-macro) work. If you plan to do a lot of macro work, I would give few points for AF.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Sigma 70mm , F2.8, EX DG MACRO at 25/02/2008 - 22:10
Quote:
Martin.
I think cost and convenience play a very large part in this. The Pentax 200mm macro sold for about £1,200, so that ruled it out for most people. Furthermore, 200mm is pretty long. You can't shoot portraits, for instance, at 200mm, which restricts the lens's usefulness.George Lazarette wrote:
I never used a macro on film, but I know that I would have considered 100mm to be rather short.
G
I know what you are saying. And Pentax is famous for their 200 mm. Nikon has a fabulous one in that region also. Still......why would it be that the majority of macro lenses sold and made in the pre-digital age was on the 105 mark? Other than stating the obvious reason( price), could it be that the 105 is the best compromise pricewise, 1:1 ratio and working space? Not to make an issue out of it. I would love to own a 200 mm macro. But just wondering Quote:
I don't understand that statement,George. In the pre-digital days the 105 mm was considdered ideal for macro of little bugs and other creepy stuff. 50 mm was always considdered good for static things, that didn't move. The only thing Sigma did, was creating a lens that after cropfactor becomes a 105 mm again. Of course an 100mm now gives you a bit more space( 150mm digital) but it can also limit you in small spaces. I personally think it is a good choice from the sigma boys.
Martin.
Actually, I think 200mm was considered ideal - and still is - but 200mm macro lenses have always been hugely expensive.I don't understand that statement,George. In the pre-digital days the 105 mm was considdered ideal for macro of little bugs and other creepy stuff. 50 mm was always considdered good for static things, that didn't move. The only thing Sigma did, was creating a lens that after cropfactor becomes a 105 mm again. Of course an 100mm now gives you a bit more space( 150mm digital) but it can also limit you in small spaces. I personally think it is a good choice from the sigma boys.
Martin.
I never used a macro on film, but I know that I would have considered 100mm to be rather short.
G
Martin.
If cost were no object, I would have both the FA 100m and the FA 200mm, but in the real world, I just have the 100mm.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Sigma 70mm , F2.8, EX DG MACRO at 25/02/2008 - 21:44
Quote:
I don't understand that statement,George. In the pre-digital days the 105 mm was considdered ideal for macro of little bugs and other creepy stuff. 50 mm was always considdered good for static things, that didn't move. The only thing Sigma did, was creating a lens that after cropfactor becomes a 105 mm again. Of course an 100mm now gives you a bit more space( 150mm digital) but it can also limit you in small spaces. I personally think it is a good choice from the sigma boys.
Martin.
Actually, I think 200mm was considered ideal - and still is - but 200mm macro lenses have always been hugely expensive.I don't understand that statement,George. In the pre-digital days the 105 mm was considdered ideal for macro of little bugs and other creepy stuff. 50 mm was always considdered good for static things, that didn't move. The only thing Sigma did, was creating a lens that after cropfactor becomes a 105 mm again. Of course an 100mm now gives you a bit more space( 150mm digital) but it can also limit you in small spaces. I personally think it is a good choice from the sigma boys.
Martin.
I never used a macro on film, but I know that I would have considered 100mm to be rather short.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Sigma 70mm , F2.8, EX DG MACRO at 25/02/2008 - 21:18
Quote:
Does anyone have any opinions/experience of this lens? I have read a good review on it and can get one for £219 from a UK supplier.
I don't know the lens, but I wouldn't spend much money on any macro with a focal length of less than 90/100mm if my purpose was to shoot bugs and stuff.Does anyone have any opinions/experience of this lens? I have read a good review on it and can get one for £219 from a UK supplier.
The longer lenses allow you to give the animal a bit of space. With a 50mm or 70mm you're liable to have the bug crawling over the front element.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Sigma 70mm , F2.8, EX DG MACRO at 25/02/2008 - 20:20
What's the right word, then, for "creating an amusing alternate meaning by transposing two letters in a word"?
Here on Pentax User we are all shining wits, unlike our contemporaries on DePressing Review.
G