All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on The RAW vs JPEG Debate at 12/07/2007 - 17:06
Another reason for using RAW is that the workflow, using Silkypix, is so fast and efficient, whilst at the same time producing superb quality.
It (the paid version) is designed for fast batch processing. I haven't used any of the high-end Adobe products, but I find it difficult to believe that they do the job better than Silkypix.
Indeed, I believe PeteKD uses Silkypix for processing JPEGs!
G
It (the paid version) is designed for fast batch processing. I haven't used any of the high-end Adobe products, but I find it difficult to believe that they do the job better than Silkypix.
Indeed, I believe PeteKD uses Silkypix for processing JPEGs!
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on The RAW vs JPEG Debate at 12/07/2007 - 10:50
My guess is that you are not going to see much vignetting using a P series on the 18-55.
Don't forget that the digital sensor is significantly smaller than a film frame (which is what Cokin are talking about when they mention focal lengths).
And the filter size is a mere 52mm.
G
Don't forget that the digital sensor is significantly smaller than a film frame (which is what Cokin are talking about when they mention focal lengths).
And the filter size is a mere 52mm.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Filters at 03/08/2007 - 10:19
Quote:
I have a K100D with the kit lens. I will be heading to Namibia in Autumn.
I am new to photography but would like to upgrade the lens to something more suitable for wildlife photos while on safari. Also, I will have to travel light so cannot bring a large quiver of lenses/equipment.
Any recommendations?
Something "more suitable for wildlife" probably means something pretty long, which won't be much use for "normal" photography. So keep your 18-55, and buy a telephoto (prime or zoom). If budget is an issue, get the Samsung 50-200 from Jacobs for £50.00.I have a K100D with the kit lens. I will be heading to Namibia in Autumn.
I am new to photography but would like to upgrade the lens to something more suitable for wildlife photos while on safari. Also, I will have to travel light so cannot bring a large quiver of lenses/equipment.
Any recommendations?
http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/index.php?target=products&product_id=174261
Alternatively get a longer tele-zoom like the Pentax 80-320. You've got plenty of time to find one on Ebay.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Safari Lens at 11/07/2007 - 17:27
Quote:
I'll probably put it back in a box and forget about it. Thanks for the info.
At least try it. Most 50mm primes, whatever the manufacturer, are pretty good.I'll probably put it back in a box and forget about it. Thanks for the info.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Auto Chinon F/1.4 50mm - worth anything? at 11/07/2007 - 17:19
Hello Hoshisato.
Had you not said that you were from Holland, I would have assumed you were from Japan. Are you a manga fan?
G
Had you not said that you were from Holland, I would have assumed you were from Japan. Are you a manga fan?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on New Here at 29/03/2008 - 08:37
Quote:
............. however the current low K10D prices were too good to pass by. Having used it a bit now I'd have to say that it's handling is quite reminiscent of my beloved Z1p, which is very high praise indeed IMHO.
.
Although th MZ-S was well-made, it seemed to be an evolutionary throwback after the Z1 and Z1-P. Thankfully Pentax got back on track with the *ist D, and the K10D continues in the same vein. A worthy successor indeed.............. however the current low K10D prices were too good to pass by. Having used it a bit now I'd have to say that it's handling is quite reminiscent of my beloved Z1p, which is very high praise indeed IMHO.
.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on K10D - a digital version of the Z1p? at 10/07/2007 - 19:11
Quote:
I intend publishing a book with numerous photos of aircraft. The photographs vary in origin. Most of the original photographers will be properly credited and I have their permission. The remaining photos are from a friend's collection, and he does not know who took the original photos because they were purchased and paid for {edit} from aviation related stores {edit}.
The question is: Do I have the right to publish those photos since they were bought and paid for? Or could I be sued at a later date for royalties for making money from those photos?
Do you relinquish your copyrights to a photo when you sell it without any conditions?
You have acquired from your friend (presumably) all the rights to the photos that he acquired when he bought them.I intend publishing a book with numerous photos of aircraft. The photographs vary in origin. Most of the original photographers will be properly credited and I have their permission. The remaining photos are from a friend's collection, and he does not know who took the original photos because they were purchased and paid for {edit} from aviation related stores {edit}.
The question is: Do I have the right to publish those photos since they were bought and paid for? Or could I be sued at a later date for royalties for making money from those photos?
Do you relinquish your copyrights to a photo when you sell it without any conditions?
The question is, what rights did he acquire? Did he acquire the copyright, in which case all is well, or did he acquire a licence to use the photographs in some way? In which case, what way?
Speaking pragmatically, if the photographers were amateurs, and there is no record or memory of any conditions, then in your place I would take the risk of using them. If they were professionals, then it is unlikely that they would have sold the copyright, and I would proceed with caution.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Copyrights question. at 10/07/2007 - 08:13
Congratulations.
You have probably read some of the threads about using older non-A lenses (those which lack an A setting on the aperture ring) with the K10D. Basically, it meters correctly wide-open, but not stopped down.
The technique (aside from trial and error) is to put the camera in manual mode, meter wide-open, and then for every stop you reduce the aperture, reduce the shuitter speed by the same amount. This is second nature to those of us who remember cameras with coupled aperture and shutter rings.
Alternatively, if you like a shallow DOF, shoot in AE wide-open.
G
You have probably read some of the threads about using older non-A lenses (those which lack an A setting on the aperture ring) with the K10D. Basically, it meters correctly wide-open, but not stopped down.
The technique (aside from trial and error) is to put the camera in manual mode, meter wide-open, and then for every stop you reduce the aperture, reduce the shuitter speed by the same amount. This is second nature to those of us who remember cameras with coupled aperture and shutter rings.
Alternatively, if you like a shallow DOF, shoot in AE wide-open.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on I am now part of the Pentax family at 10/07/2007 - 08:04
Quote:
Looking forward to your thoughts
To put it into perspective, I do use (wireless) P-TTL where full manual isn't practicable, and the results are usually OK. However, there are sometimes duds which I can't explain. I find I get more consistent results with my old AF240Z, but there are other reasons, like lack of power and the necessity of using a slave trigger, that make the modern gun more convenient to use.MattMatic wrote:
I have a very high hit rate in P-TTL... but I understand what's happening and I'm just about to outline a number of pertinent thoughts in Pete's thread...
Splendid. This is the sort of wrong I like to be Quote:
And this seems to be a consistent theme from others too - there's a worrying amount of "dud results on auto" out there. Particularly since I'm thinking of investing in something that's supposed to be able to give me good results on auto.
Actually... I disagree And this seems to be a consistent theme from others too - there's a worrying amount of "dud results on auto" out there. Particularly since I'm thinking of investing in something that's supposed to be able to give me good results on auto.
I have a very high hit rate in P-TTL... but I understand what's happening and I'm just about to outline a number of pertinent thoughts in Pete's thread...
Looking forward to your thoughts
I am contemplating the purchase of a 540, so the occasional problems with P-TTL aren't sufficient to put me off the technology.
I mean to try some tests with and without a diffuser. It is possible that very bright reflections from an un-diffused flash may be the root of the
difficulty. It would be interesting to hear what Matt uses.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Bounce type flashgun at 10/07/2007 - 09:52
I have a 2gb card in my k10d, on startup with a formated card it tells me I can take approx:
DNG= 119.
PEF=120.
Not a great deal of difference there but it is an assumption on the camera's part.
however, there is a ~ 6Mb saving for PEF files per image taken. For two identical shots the DNG is 16.2 Mb and the PEF is 10.2 Mb
I've been using DNG as i was under the assumption that there was little or no compression used, whereas PEF has 'some' compression. I thought compression was to be avoided where possible for several reasons.
1. image degradation, even lossless compression would cause some loss or change of data captured.
"Lossless" compression works by recording the data more efficiently, eg: "1 and 100 zeroes" instead of "1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000."
PEF files are losslessly compressed, so there is no image degradation.
2. performance issues, saving the raw data must be faster than compressing, THEN saving the data.
I'll do some more research on the PEF format.
G