[quote="Gashley"]Well, I took your advice and got a reversing ring. Cost £10.99 from Jacobs, which I thought was a little expensive, though my local independent dealer quoted £20! Anyways, here are some initial test shots with an old 50mm 1.7 Pentax prime, the kit lens on my P30! I did notice the problem with the dark viewfinder at smaller apertures, though had to open fully and close down when I wanted to take the pic. Bit of a pain, but overall pleased with the results.


Excellent. Makes me wonder why I bothered to get a proper macro.

G

It has been £599 or less for ages, so the recent price drop to £449 is a drop of £150.00 at most. You mentioned "at the moment", so I presume you were talking about recent events.

G

PS: Some people paid £1,400 for their *ist D, so don't fret too much.

Actually, £150.

G

http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/flashes/AF/index.html

G

Actually, I've only just noticed it. And further research suggests it was Thoreau, the hermit philosopher, not some baseball player, who coined the phrase.

G

Please do. These were, without exception, lovely.

By the way, your sig is, I think, not quite correct. It's one of my favourite quotes, too, but I believe it should be: "Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits". Just one "just".

Google says that it was coined by an American baseball player, but I think it sounds better in a good West Country accent - perhaps more Somerset than Cornwall.

G

Talk about biting the hand that feeds!

When a question relates to something that is explained fairly clearly in the manual, one assumes that the questioner is after something rather more than the manual provides - thus the discussion wanders down different paths.

Of course, just occasionally somebody comes along who has never read the manual, and isn't about to start now when there are all these obliging folk around with nothing better to do than answer basic questions.

But these obliging folk need to learn to stick rigidly to the question, lest a reprimand should come their way.

I think we should consider charging for answering questions. If we are not permitted to enjoy ourselves, we shall have to seek compensation in another form.

G

Yes, it would make more sense. And no doubt Pete will get there in due course. He's actually very talented, photographically, but he also has a talent for thinking without switching his brain on first.

G

Pete, for the last time will you please get out of your thick skull the notion that JPEGs are bad on the K10D. They are not! Arguably they are better than on any other brand because they are sharpened less in-camera, thus giving you more flexibility. You can't unsharpen an over-sharpened image, but you can sharpen an under-sharpened image.

Your constant harping on about this only serves to make you look stupid.

And just remember, the processing power of a camera is infinitely less than that of a decent computer. Sharpening on the computer allows you to do a much better job than the camera can do. And it provides different ways to do it.

G

PS: And don't believe everything that people say on other forums. There are some very silly people on the Internet.

Matt will be better able than me to answer this, but I would make two points:

First, RAW conversion software in the computer might do the conversion to JPEG more accurately than the K10D could.

Second, if the final version of the image is not a JPEG, but a file format that handles more than 8 bits per colour, then there certainly would be an advantage to shooting RAW (provided the additional bits are not lost along the way).

In normal practice, however, most images end up as 8-bit, and I shouldn't think point one would make a very big difference.

But the idea of buying such a capable camera and not doing at least some post-processing seems bizarre to me. It's like buying a Rolls-Royce and choosing to walk behind it.

G