PLUS

johnriley

Joined: 19th March 2002

All Forum Comments

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

johnriley
If we had a bowl of petunias handy, it might be thinking, "Oh no, not again..."

Comment by johnriley posted on The Future of K5 Prices at 03/03/2011 - 17:27

johnriley
As the firmware updates are provided by Pentax to solve problems, there won't be any warranty issues. Just make sure the battery is fully charged when you do it and that you follow the instructions.

Comment by johnriley posted on K7 K5 Gross Over Exposure Problem at 03/03/2011 - 16:27

johnriley
Needless to say it would be easier to put the lens on a Sony body, but if you are determined to modify a Pentax one I guess you'll do it.

Comment by johnriley posted on sony/minolta 135/2.8 STF on pentax? at 03/03/2011 - 16:05

johnriley
Thank you gentlemen, you've covered it for me.

It's not a matter of blame, it's a matter of elimination of possibilities.

Let's see picture 2 and we can progress an investigation in a rational manner.

Comment by johnriley posted on K7 K5 Gross Over Exposure Problem at 03/03/2011 - 11:51

johnriley
Yes please, let's see the correctly exposed version. As things stand, 1/8s, f3.5 and ISO560 would imply quite dark conditions.

My first thought is improper connection between lens and body, causing the lens to operate at maximum aperture. This would be possibly cured by cleaning lens and body electronic contacts (wipe with dry microfibre cloth) and making sure the lens was seated securely and firmly clicked into place.

However, let's wait for picture 2 and see where it takes us.

Comment by johnriley posted on K7 K5 Gross Over Exposure Problem at 03/03/2011 - 10:29

johnriley
Hi and welcome!

Comment by johnriley posted on Hi from Italy at 03/03/2011 - 10:21

johnriley
Many thanks for the HSE link, very useful information.

Comment by johnriley posted on Urban Exploration - Urbex at 03/03/2011 - 10:12

johnriley
I've just looked into this on another forum and, apart from the usual flippant replies and those who don't care about danger, the general consensus seems to be that we should be very careful not to disturb anything, especially pipe lagging, as all buildings prior to 2000 will contain asbestos. We don't want to breathe it in.

Paper masks seem to need to be p3 type, whatever that is, but to be absolutely sure would need a full respirator, which is unrealistic.

So wear a good mask, don't kick up loads of dust, don't disturb anything, presumably move through the building ninja-like.

Hope that helps, but remember I'm not an expert on this so please investigate it for yourselves before putting yourselves in danger.

Comment by johnriley posted on Urban Exploration - Urbex at 03/03/2011 - 09:34

johnriley
Good question Gareth. I suspect many never even think about it. These buildings may be riddled with asbestos in uncontrolled decay and it can be deadly.

I have a friend who works in asbestos removal and it's an expensive business hiring him.

Wearing a msak would help, but it would need a good quality mask I think and not one that was constantly reused.

Comment by johnriley posted on Urban Exploration - Urbex at 03/03/2011 - 09:11

johnriley
One wouldn't presume to judge Mark, but have a good day at work!

Comment by johnriley posted on The Future of K5 Prices at 03/03/2011 - 09:03

Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo