All Forum Comments
Comment by giofi posted on Film Negative Scanner - Recommendations at 01/01/2013 - 22:06
AndrewA wrote:
Hi all, am looking for a film negative scanner and am after some recommendations please?
Thanks,
Hi Andrew,Hi all, am looking for a film negative scanner and am after some recommendations please?
Thanks,
How much will you using the scanner and how many negatives will you be scanning? Budget?
The Nikon coolscan V is very highly regarded, only available used and still pricey because of the demand. That is what I would go for if you want top quality and have a lot of negatives to scan,
Comment by giofi posted on Film Negative Scanner - Recommendations at 01/01/2013 - 22:04
Smeggy, very difficult to spot any difference at least for me.....
But maybe a poll would have been better? Seeing the others' answer does influences me at least....
Out of curiosity: what lens and settings were used for these shots?
But maybe a poll would have been better? Seeing the others' answer does influences me at least....
Out of curiosity: what lens and settings were used for these shots?
Comment by giofi posted on K-5II vs K-5IIs at 31/12/2012 - 07:19
Congratulations on your achievement!!
Comment by giofi posted on 100,000 photos at 30/12/2012 - 15:49
I understood that because of dust the OP is looking for sealed camera and lenses?
If that is the case, that is one reason to consider the DA 18-135 over other alternatives. I, like many other owners of this lens, am very happy with it. I cannot say whether it is better than others, but it gets lots of use and some "better" Pentax lenses stay home.
A couple of comments on your lens thoughts:
- if weight is not a big issue, I would consider the DA* 60-250 over the 50-135.
- the 10-17 lens is a fish eye, if you are looking for a wide zoom, then alternatives are the DA 12-24 or one of the Sigmas (8-16 or 10-20).
Regs, Giorgio
If that is the case, that is one reason to consider the DA 18-135 over other alternatives. I, like many other owners of this lens, am very happy with it. I cannot say whether it is better than others, but it gets lots of use and some "better" Pentax lenses stay home.
A couple of comments on your lens thoughts:
- if weight is not a big issue, I would consider the DA* 60-250 over the 50-135.
- the 10-17 lens is a fish eye, if you are looking for a wide zoom, then alternatives are the DA 12-24 or one of the Sigmas (8-16 or 10-20).
Regs, Giorgio
Comment by giofi posted on A hello and a request for guidance at 29/12/2012 - 18:03
K10D wrote:
Best regards
Hi,giofi wrote:
I used to have filters on all my lenses, but stopped after reading similar threads in the past.
Not sure how your post was related to the segment quoted from my post.K10D wrote:
I doubt a Pentax service centre in the UK would provide a front replacement lens element for say the 50-135mm for the equivalent of $79 and would that include labour? Then there’s the waiting time involved for the repair and we are talking Pentax not Canon or Nikon.
If you have several lenses and consider the likelihood of damaging the front element, then IMO buying a filter for that reason is not a good investment.... If I have, say, 10 lenses, I have to pay several hundreds to buy filters... And in some cases it could be those very filters damaging the front element.I doubt a Pentax service centre in the UK would provide a front replacement lens element for say the 50-135mm for the equivalent of $79 and would that include labour? Then there’s the waiting time involved for the repair and we are talking Pentax not Canon or Nikon.
I used to have filters on all my lenses, but stopped after reading similar threads in the past.
Best regards
It was the related to your comment that a centre in the uk would probably take more than $79 to repair a front element, which I think is correct (that it would cost more). The point I was trying to make (obviously not very well) is that if you have 10 lenses that take filters you might be spending several hundreds £ in filters, and if the only purpose is to protect the front element (which might not be your case) , than one might be better off paying the repair if damage happens. In that sense it would not be a good investment IMO.
And yes, you are right, I did not make a good investment myself, but at that point I only had a few lenses, and in most cases I got the filter with the lens (second hand).
But this is just my opinion, and I can be wrong.....
Comment by giofi posted on To filter or not to filter... at 27/12/2012 - 08:01
K10D wrote:
I doubt a Pentax service centre in the UK would provide a front replacement lens element for say the 50-135mm for the equivalent of $79 and would that include labour? Then there’s the waiting time involved for the repair and we are talking Pentax not Canon or Nikon.
If you have several lenses and consider the likelihood of damaging the front element, then IMO buying a filter for that reason is not a good investment.... If I have, say, 10 lenses, I have to pay several hundreds to buy filters... And in some cases it could be those very filters damaging the front element.I doubt a Pentax service centre in the UK would provide a front replacement lens element for say the 50-135mm for the equivalent of $79 and would that include labour? Then there’s the waiting time involved for the repair and we are talking Pentax not Canon or Nikon.
I used to have filters on all my lenses, but stopped after reading similar threads in the past.
Comment by giofi posted on To filter or not to filter... at 27/12/2012 - 04:55
A wonderful white Christmas day to everyone!
Comment by giofi posted on a Merry Christmas at 25/12/2012 - 14:42
Merry Christmas to you all, and i hope there will be a lot of photo related presents!
Comment by giofi posted on a Merry Christmas at 24/12/2012 - 21:52
Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV .. a bit long in the tooth now...
Mine runs on an old XP computer- I have not tried installing it on a more modern computer and wonder whether the drivers will have been updated to suit later operating systems