All Forum Comments
Comment by K10D posted on What do you shoot? at 21/11/2010 - 23:40
The guy who runs this business is Wayne. He had a play with the only demo 645D that went the rounds over here in Oz. He has ordered one and this is his site. Caution: Fetish themes, not sick or gross..
link
He is a Pentaxian with a lot of his shots taken with a K100
link
Best regards
link
He is a Pentaxian with a lot of his shots taken with a K100
link
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on Warped 645D at 21/11/2010 - 01:32
A couple of links for guys over here in Oz.
link
I've linked directly to the "tech" section on this link
link
Worthwhile read if not your scene.
Best regards
link
I've linked directly to the "tech" section on this link
link
Worthwhile read if not your scene.
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on For those serious about quality at 21/11/2010 - 01:23
Anvh wrote:
If you would have nailed the photo in jpg then there is little to nothing you need to do with RAW, i believe you meant that.
If you would have nailed the photo in jpg then there is little to nothing you need to do with RAW, i believe you meant that.
alig wrote:
Unless I am just wanting snaps, or trying timelapse stuff, then jpgs are fine.
Just converted a Nikonian colleague I work with to shoot RAW, he been jpg for years... and he uses a D3!
I must be trying to nail snapshots?Unless I am just wanting snaps, or trying timelapse stuff, then jpgs are fine.
Just converted a Nikonian colleague I work with to shoot RAW, he been jpg for years... and he uses a D3!
I only shoot jpg. By the way, owning a D3 does not automatically qualify you as a competent photographer, it does mean you have to put up with a large, bright viewfinder and be able to carry it.
Feeling inferior now, need to try and take less than 200 to 300 shots per outing so that I have time to process RAW images. Will my photo,s reflect the improvement and can some one point out which photo's of mine already posted would show benefit from being shot in RAW?
I'm not against RAW, just some attitudes that people have against using just jpgs.
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on What do you shoot? at 21/11/2010 - 00:48
Some common sense comments here and one or two not so.
link
So if we have as near as doesn't matter image quality, what do we shout about next?
Best regards
link
So if we have as near as doesn't matter image quality, what do we shout about next?
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on I want a K5...NOW!! at 19/11/2010 - 13:03
Now that we have a few K-5 users amongst us, can someone have a look at this and see/say if it's true or bull****? Maybe do a test?
link
The new firmware may have sorted it, if the symptom actually exists.
Best regards
link
The new firmware may have sorted it, if the symptom actually exists.
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on Detail loss??? at 19/11/2010 - 06:05
Sorry to hear that.
No suffering with an illness. Its the unexpectedness of it that comes as a shock.
Best regards
No suffering with an illness. Its the unexpectedness of it that comes as a shock.
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on My dog died. at 18/11/2010 - 11:36
Number three is best of bunch. Lots of shadow detail, no symetry needed and well framed.
No.1. Arch bridge is balanced but not the one in the foreground? Access/position issue?
No.2. The missing left hand side of the first arch maybe should have been "in shot" rather than too much of the right side pillar.
No.4.Could be an oil slick as not enough reflective deatil to show what it is.
All images are well exposed, detailed and show vibrant colour. The light in the first three looks great.
Best regards
No.1. Arch bridge is balanced but not the one in the foreground? Access/position issue?
No.2. The missing left hand side of the first arch maybe should have been "in shot" rather than too much of the right side pillar.
No.4.Could be an oil slick as not enough reflective deatil to show what it is.
All images are well exposed, detailed and show vibrant colour. The light in the first three looks great.
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on On the Tyne at 17/11/2010 - 01:23
Greytop wrote:
However I do think the lens choice is relevant, both are good quality primes, are well respected for their optical quality and therefore to me it gives more of 'realworld' comparison.
I suspect the difference is more down to the Jpeg engine in both cameras than lens quality per-say. With RAW output I'm sure the Pentax would have the potential to draw level or even nudge ahead
(low pass filter influence aside).
It's a win win situation for both camps, Pentax and Nikon. No one will jump ship for either model, but each offer their respective users marked improvements over existing class models. I need a second Nikon body and was all set up to buy another D700, until the D7000 appeared.K10D wrote:
Aplogies if this has been linked before.
link
It's all good stuff. Never saw this amount of activity in a LONG time.
One comment on another thread said that the K5 & D7000 are distant cousins. I say the companies are watching each other with great respect.
My overall impression? The cameras are getting better, now where is my K3?
Best regards
Interesting link Gary, looking at the comparisons I would have thought RAW processed by identical workflow would have been used for a closer to level playing field comparison.Aplogies if this has been linked before.
link
It's all good stuff. Never saw this amount of activity in a LONG time.
One comment on another thread said that the K5 & D7000 are distant cousins. I say the companies are watching each other with great respect.
My overall impression? The cameras are getting better, now where is my K3?
Best regards
However I do think the lens choice is relevant, both are good quality primes, are well respected for their optical quality and therefore to me it gives more of 'realworld' comparison.
I suspect the difference is more down to the Jpeg engine in both cameras than lens quality per-say. With RAW output I'm sure the Pentax would have the potential to draw level or even nudge ahead
(low pass filter influence aside).
Will I buy a K-5, let's wait and see. Long term (1 year), I want to see what a D4 and a K-? offer, once they arrive.
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on So how good is the K-5 sensor at 16/11/2010 - 23:23
Algernon wrote:
It does need a lens to use Minolta MD lenses they were 43.72mm.
The last one I saw was about £200 Ouch!!!!
I need to re-look at mine when I get back at Xmas, maybe I was sold a duffer? Bought it from Tri-State back in 2004.K10D wrote:
That's sorted then. Only leaving the question of why would anyone want to use Pentax glass on a Nikon, Canon or Sony?
With the exceptions of my 70-200 EX Mk1 and Bigma I don't use third party glass on my DSLR's.
Best regards
Minolta shouldn't need a lens for Pentax stuff. Minolta AF is 44.6mmAlgernon wrote:
Almost any lens will fit on a Canon because it's registration distance is small at 44mm.... Pentax is 45.46mm so no correction lens needed.
Nikon is 46.5mm so a correction lens is needed for infinity focus with Pentax lenses.
Good stuff. So the Minolta registration must be such that it needs a lens.Almost any lens will fit on a Canon because it's registration distance is small at 44mm.... Pentax is 45.46mm so no correction lens needed.
Nikon is 46.5mm so a correction lens is needed for infinity focus with Pentax lenses.
That's sorted then. Only leaving the question of why would anyone want to use Pentax glass on a Nikon, Canon or Sony?
With the exceptions of my 70-200 EX Mk1 and Bigma I don't use third party glass on my DSLR's.
Best regards
It does need a lens to use Minolta MD lenses they were 43.72mm.
The last one I saw was about £200 Ouch!!!!
Best regards
Comment by K10D posted on K5 vs. D7000 & EOS60D at 16/11/2010 - 23:08
Feeling inferior now, need to try and take less than 200 to 300 shots per outing so that I have time to process RAW images. Will my photo,s reflect the improvement and can some one point out which photo's of mine already posted would show benefit from being shot in RAW?
RAW, its the digital negative!
RAW is a processed file. So let’s assume that it is the equivalent of an exposed negative. For me, a jpg is an exposed and developed negative.
Now if the jpg lacks something that can be retrieved through "digital developing" prior to conversion to a jpg, fine, no issue. If the jpg does not come up to spec from the camera with neutral settings or with tweaked settings, then blame the camera as it's built in "developing process" isn’t cutting it. I have no problem with jpgs from my cameras taking any noise issues aside.
The whole discussion is no difference to using direct cut LP's to pressed LP's. Yes there is a difference, but take into account the whole chain of variables. Monitors, calibration, resolution, etc. etc.
I'm moving on. I've decided to do charcoal rubbings. Full frame, great detail, does not fade, great for modelling images and a feeling of one to one contact.
Best regards