Many thanks for pointing this out, I'll look into it and send a reminder.

There is a panel of photographers who take it in turn to choose the POTW.

All images posted to PU should be Pentax images, that's a given. Having said that, it's taken on trust, otherwise endless checking would be needed.

Sort of Pentax related, a new flat roof, new platering to ceiling, new paint and a new computer desk on the way. Pentax related in that my computer room can get back to normal after a leaking roof just narrowly missed making a drama into a mega-crisis.

At the moment the dining room table is hosting my PC needs!

If the camera is OK with other lenses, then I'd start to look at the two that are affected. Perhaps start with cleaning the electronic contacts on both lenses and the body, then remount firmly, making sure there is good contact between lens and body. That might help cure any intermittent connection.

However, as the lenses work fine on the other camera, that may not be the issue, so ultimately a service might be the only way forwards. Perhaps phone the repair house first to have a chat with a technician?

The Pentax name might be a "brand" in one sense, but it is still representing a group of people who make up a company that designs and manufactures DSLR cameras and lenses. That isn't much different to when it was Asahi Optical Co Ltd. Just different owners.

Companies don't exist as such, they are a collection of people doing something that generates income, often for somebody else such as shareholders. The ethos of the company gives it its identity in the eyes of the buyers.

I find Pentax are aiming in a way that gels with what I expect, the only thing being they could perhaps do it a little quicker.

This is Lissy, a new friend of Charlotte's, plus a picture of them both together.




These were shot yesterday, see my EPZ blog for more, the first proper photoshoot for some time. Pentax K-1 and 28-105mm lens.
PS The monochrome was an in-camera JPEG; I really like the results that we can get in this way. I just select Monochrome and get just the tones I strove to achieve in the darkroom.

It depends what you want to achieve, but my read on it would be to make the bark utterly sharp, so crisp that the very crispness makes the picture. That would imply a very sharp lens, a firm tripod and a small aperture to maximise depth of field. However, not too small an aperture lest we take the edge off that sharpness. Perhaps f/11, f/16 if the lens will stay good that far.

Mirrors should never be touched to clean them, the front surface silvering is fragile. But Peter wasn't referring to stickiuness on the mirror surface, but stickiness in the flipping action of the mirror mechanism. I think an overhaul would be the surest way forwards.

I think it goes to show that speculations are often totally adrift. I have lost track of how many doom-ridden opinions there have been about Pentax, and yet here we still are, thriving quite happily.

Other marques will make their own way in the world, or not, and the fortunes of a few of them go up and down all the time.

The exposure on these is wildly different - the first is way over-exposed. The second is much better but there's no way to assess the image for noise without having the original file. What ISO would also be helpful.