Not quite sure what you are saying here. If I pick up one of my prints taken with a 35mm film camera plus 50mm lens, take a pair of scissors to it (the print!) and crop the sides off so it is now half its original size, has its depth of field suddenly changed somehow?

John K

You're probably are already of of these two points, but in case it helps I'll mention them...

1. Many of the older prime lenses actually show the depth of field available at each aperture such as this M50mm f2.



Obviously this is harder to implement in a zoom lens.

2. Don't forget most DSLRs have an optical preview button to save fathoming out the maths!

John K

Try the on-line photo editor at: http://pixlr.com/editor/

It's similar to using Elements but it is cloud based, free to use and you don't have to install anything. Save firing up that knackered laptop!

John K

By purple fringing, do you mean that purple border on the right hand side of the picture, or purple fringing on the stems of the fuscia?
I cannot detect the latter, but in its reduced for web size it doesn't mean they are not there. I actually think you mean the right border which isn't what we normally call purple fringing - that doesn't normally happen unless a raw PEF file has been converted in an old out of date software version that is not compatible with the K5-IIs.

There are certainly several camera set up issues. It wouldn't have helped to set the exposure bias to +1. That would cause over exposure by a stop. I also wonder if the camera hasn't been made to take a stop down meter reading at all (green button) and subsequently exposed the image at full aperture.

While not a major issue in comparison, the camera believes the lens to be a 35mm one, not a 135mm, but that would only affect the shake reduction.

Also it seems the camera is still on software version 1.00, there have been several updates to that and it is now at V1.04. See: link for how to update it.

For those who cannot read the EXIF of the problem picture it is:

Camera Maker: PENTAX
Camera Model: PENTAX K-5 II s
Image Date: 2013-07-15 12:07:19 +0000
Focal Length: 35mm (35mm equivalent: 52mm)
Aperture: f/0.0
Exposure Time: 0.010 s (1/100)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: +1.00 EV
Metering Mode: Spot
Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Creator: CAJ26
Copyright: CJONES
Software: K-5 II s Ver 1.00


John K

I appreciate what you are saying but we really need to trust the people who enter the photos.
EXIF data can be altered. To prove the point, here's a photo of snow bound Scarborough taken with the yet to be announced Pentax K-3 tomorrow!


Just check the exif.

John K

The one I have purchased is second hand but seems just fine (touching wood.) It scores well over most other small sensor cameras in that it is a dedicated long zoom of moderate range. On most small sensor cameras it seems the zooms tend to fall off in quality at the longer end. so the Q scores well in that respect. I did wonder if I'd be able to hold the camera steady with it but that hasn't proved to be an issue. Framing shots can still be difficult with just the rear screen, but not as impossible as I'd have imagined.

John K

The bone of contention seems to be the date showing in the exif data. If that is the case then the 'rule' needs to be applied consistently and any entry not showing it be disallowed.
Presently someone could comply with the stated rule, that is go and take a photo today, enter it into the competition when they get home and have it immediately removed because the camera date is wrong. The technology is taking precedence over fact.
Someone could have a photo of something that clearly had only just happened today - eg the demolition of a building - but because the exif of the photo doesn't show that to be today the entry is made invalid.
I have many images showing the date 1/1/2000 from one of my old cameras. It doesn't mean they were taken then, the camera just reverted to the default when the battery went flat!
Then of course an image from a film camera could have been taken at any time and entered without question.
I wish to point out that this isn't sour grapes because I have never entered a photo that has been disallowed because of incorrect exif, but it really could inadvertently happen to anyone.

John K

Sorry, but perhaps I misunderstand the definition of a judge. A judge is normally defined as 'One who makes estimates as to worth, quality, or fitness.' Hence surely it should be the judge who decides what is fit and eligible and what isn't. Or have I got it wrong? A judge cannot judge on the entries that have been removed by a third party. That makes the third party, in effect, the judge.

John K

Is there any objection to having David's donkeys reinstated? He says that was a camera setup issue and it was taken this month.

Thanks,

John K

Not only was there that beached whale in Scarborough yesterday, there was also the start of the Scarborough Yacht Club North Sea Race.



It wasn't exactly an F1 Grand Prix start... lack of wind meant that after half an hour most boats hadn't even reached the start line! The finish is at Ijmuiden in Holland, 210 miles away, which they are supposed to reach by Monday.

Do you agree that new 06 Q zoom (15-45mm) certainly has that Pentax pixie dust normally reserved for the better * and limited series lenses. That picture looks 3D to me!

John K