All Forum Comments
Comment by Hythloday posted on Pentax K-3 Mark 1 vs Pentax KP ergonomics at 19/09/2020 - 11:17
fourfivesix wrote:
I'm considiering buying a lighter dslr
Pentax Q(10)?I'm considiering buying a lighter dslr
Comment by Hythloday posted on Light weight Pentax dslr? at 05/11/2012 - 18:59
fourfivesix wrote:
the problem I'm having at the minute is its weight.
I have used Pentax (D)SLRs for over 30 years. This year I left my camera at home on many occasions because it is so heavy. Last month I bought a Panasonic Lumix LX5. It is a joy to use that camera and its IQ is great. I won't sell my Pentax K200D. The Pentax colours are OK. Ik will continue using it but when I want to travel light, I will take my LX5.the problem I'm having at the minute is its weight.
Comment by Hythloday posted on Light weight Pentax dslr? at 31/10/2012 - 17:38
Smeggypants wrote:
I've found with my K20D going out and shooting with AWB on the colour balance is a little to cold and green tinted. I set up a couple of presets in Lightroom to change the RAWs to either 4800 or 5000 as required.
And I've definitely noticed colour changes in different lenses. It's subtle though.
The K200D also goes wrong, especially when there is a lot of green. Many pictures will have a greenish cast, while the warm colours are suppressed.I've found with my K20D going out and shooting with AWB on the colour balance is a little to cold and green tinted. I set up a couple of presets in Lightroom to change the RAWs to either 4800 or 5000 as required.
And I've definitely noticed colour changes in different lenses. It's subtle though.
In Photoshop Elements I make a layer and use levels. Then the Blur, average, color 5% option and the colour cast will have gone.
Comment by Hythloday posted on Do you like Pentax colour? at 09/07/2010 - 08:05
jack2012 wrote:
The K-x is a very capable little camera indeed. Pentax has managed to squeeze what is, for this class of camera, an impressive feature set into the camera's minuscule, rather inconspicuous, body and the image quality, especially in low light, is the best we have seen so far in the entry-level bracket of the DSLR market. To put some icing on the cake, all of this comes at a currently, compared to the closest rivals, very attractive price point. To us the lack of visible.
I cannot agree more. Today I received my K-x and although you have to get used to certain things, it is a pleasure to use. I also have a K200D but the IQ by the K-x is better.The K-x is a very capable little camera indeed. Pentax has managed to squeeze what is, for this class of camera, an impressive feature set into the camera's minuscule, rather inconspicuous, body and the image quality, especially in low light, is the best we have seen so far in the entry-level bracket of the DSLR market. To put some icing on the cake, all of this comes at a currently, compared to the closest rivals, very attractive price point. To us the lack of visible.
Comment by Hythloday posted on Pentax K-x: Slow focus! at 16/06/2010 - 19:05
Offertonhatter wrote:
I didn't want to mention the 16-45mm as Stefan wanted F2.8, but is indeed an excellent lens and hardly off my camera.
I quite agree. The 16-45mm is a very good lens indeed. It was unused in my photobag for a year. Last year I bought a DA17-70mm. The 1mm extra and the light weight of the DA16-45mm makes it a pleasure to use it. It's on my camera again and it will be there for a long time.I didn't want to mention the 16-45mm as Stefan wanted F2.8, but is indeed an excellent lens and hardly off my camera.
Comment by Hythloday posted on DA*16-50 vs Sigma 17-50 at 07/06/2010 - 18:41
Page 26:
Shooting in RAW format and processing with Adobe ACR 5.4 squeezes some extra detail out of both cameras' output. Using the 'equalized' ACR processing and considering the K-7 and K20D are being built around a very similar sensor it does not come as a surprise that there is not much discernible difference in terms of detail. Again, the colors are very similar too. If you're currently a K20D user, from a picture quality at base ISO point of view there is certainly no need to upgrade to the K-7.
Shooting in RAW format and processing with Adobe ACR 5.4 squeezes some extra detail out of both cameras' output. Using the 'equalized' ACR processing and considering the K-7 and K20D are being built around a very similar sensor it does not come as a surprise that there is not much discernible difference in terms of detail. Again, the colors are very similar too. If you're currently a K20D user, from a picture quality at base ISO point of view there is certainly no need to upgrade to the K-7.
Comment by Hythloday posted on DPreview K-7 review at 02/10/2009 - 19:00
Dr. Mhuni wrote:
It was my default lens until I returned to the UK last Xmas and was too tempted by the versatility - and £50 cashback + VAT refund - of the DA17-70. However, at current prices there's no question I'd go for the DA16-45. The 17-70 is a tad sharper, has a more useful range (though I sometimes miss the extra 1mm), and is much better built (the 16-45 being on a par with the kit lens) - but it's not worth twice the price, which it is now.
Was going to sell my 16-45 earlier this year, but in the end decided that the £185 quid I was offered wasn't enough to prevent me keeping it. Mostly because I thought it would be good to keep as a back up if something was to happen to the SDM on the 17-70 (was reading about problems with this at the time) here in Colombo, where it would be difficult to obtain any replacement. But also because I'd simply developed a fondness for it!
I feel exactly the same about the DA16-45mm and the DA17-70mm. The DA16-45mm is a WA zoom, whereas the DA17-70mm is really a standard zoom lens. I hardly used the DA16-45mm this summer, but I won't sell it.It was my default lens until I returned to the UK last Xmas and was too tempted by the versatility - and £50 cashback + VAT refund - of the DA17-70. However, at current prices there's no question I'd go for the DA16-45. The 17-70 is a tad sharper, has a more useful range (though I sometimes miss the extra 1mm), and is much better built (the 16-45 being on a par with the kit lens) - but it's not worth twice the price, which it is now.
Was going to sell my 16-45 earlier this year, but in the end decided that the £185 quid I was offered wasn't enough to prevent me keeping it. Mostly because I thought it would be good to keep as a back up if something was to happen to the SDM on the 17-70 (was reading about problems with this at the time) here in Colombo, where it would be difficult to obtain any replacement. But also because I'd simply developed a fondness for it!
Comment by Hythloday posted on Pentax DA 16-45 at 24/09/2009 - 18:06
Hardgravity wrote:
Compared to the Sigma it lacks performance, which it shouldn't, it should be better according to the reviews I've read.
I have a Pentax 18-250mm. Just focus at 250mm and zoom out to the desired focal length, while locking focus. In this way my pictures are very sharp indeed.Compared to the Sigma it lacks performance, which it shouldn't, it should be better according to the reviews I've read.
Comment by Hythloday posted on Tamron 18-250, how's yours? at 07/09/2009 - 19:17
Kenty wrote:
any ideas on what I should do??
ACR version 5.3 cannot handle Pentax K7 Raw files. You should install ACR version 5.4:any ideas on what I should do??
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4524
and your Pentax K7 raw files can be processed.
Comment by Hythloday posted on Photoshop Elements/Camera Raw and the K7 at 30/08/2009 - 09:55
What are the pros and cons you've encountered for k3 vs kp ?