If the JPG file was 156kB then it probably was a tiny image!
Sounds like your editing software has produced an emailable image rather than a printable image


Pixel dimensions is the criteria for printing.

Regarding DPI (or perhaps more accurately PPI) there are two ways it is used:

1) Where the print company tells you what DPI your image is. For this, they have calculated the DPI value with the formula: pixels ÷ width-in-inches.

For example, if you have given them a full K-30 image (4928 pixels wide) and you want it printed 10 inches wide, then the DPI = 4928 ÷ 10 = 492 DPI

In this scenario they are giving you an indicator of how detailed the printed image will look. You'll need at least 300DPI for a high quality print (so a K-30 image at 4928 can be printed up to 16 inches across - 4928 ÷ 300 = 16.4")

They will ignore the embedded EXIF value for DPI (i.e. what was set in Photoshop and only use the pixel dimensions)


2) Where the DPI figure is embedded in the EXIF information of the JPG.
This is largely ignored

But if you are doing publishing this value is taken into account when placing an image into DTP pages. For example, InDesign will automatically scale the imported image based on the DPI embedded value and the pixel dimensions. The width will start off as width-in-inches = pixels ÷ DPI-value-in-EXIF
Of course, it can be scaled from there. But setting a 'correct' DPI is helpful not to annoy the publisher (Imaging them placing a 4928 pixel image that was indicated at 72dpi - they'd end up with a 68 inch wide image that they would have to rescale! It gets really, really irritating when you have tens of images to place on a prepress document :roll


But again, for Louise's issue - this is scenario 1.

Matt

For audio editing, Reaper is top for me
Reaper.fm
Primarily a DAW it handles video too. Has nice noise reduction options - though of it is a bit buried in detail.
You can even stretch audio - useful for syncing a secondary audio capture with video.
Matt

Thanks John.

Looking online the mAh rating isn't much of a help! The basic battery shape is used by a huge number of cameras from Leica, Panasonic, Fuji, Ricoh, and Pentax. But looking for replacement batteries for each of these yields equal quantities of shallow + deep notch version - all with varying mA ratings

(Including this Ricoh one which is only 1050mAh and has shallow notches! But then it says DB-60. Perhaps the genuine DB-65 is the correct one!)

Sigh.

I picked up a Vivitar 80-200mm that had this issue. Got it for the massive sum of £1.04 + £4p&p.

Ten minutes to whip off the collar, mark it out, hacksaw & file off the extra lump, paint with permanent marker, and replace the collar again and job done
(DON'T try cutting it when it's on the lens :roll

Has kept my son going for quite some time!

Just regarding the original question - lenses with an A setting are the easiest to work with. Original K lenses that have no A setting require stop-down-metering on digital. But that's not always a big deal

Matt

That's helpful John to know about the GR (which version?!) But, looking on eBay there seem to be two styles of DB-65 compatible batteries listed - the same issues that I experienced with the D-LI106!

e.g. Shallow corner cut outs

vs Deep corner cut outs



And as I found out first hand, the battery actually shipped may not be exactly the same as displayed on the eBay listing

And yes, the Ricoh battery price is £45 from SRS

Matt

Has anyone any positive experiences of third-party batteries for the MX-1?

It is listed as a D-LI106 battery, but as I've found out there was an earlier version that had corner notches to about 1/3 depth. In contrast, the MX-1 uses a battery that has corner notches to about 2/3 depth. The older style just won't insert properly!

Bought one from eBay that had the deep notch image shown... but it arrived with the shallow notch. Thankfully the seller was very helpful in refunding - but I still want a spare battery!

£40 is just a bit steep for a £200 camera
(£20 would be much more appropriate IMHO)

Matt

For testing it's worth trying out the Live View. That shows exactly what's hitting the sensor - so is helpful in checking what the lens can actually do

Once you have that referenced you can work from there... and possibly add in some focus adjustment to correct the phase detection autofocus and bring it in line with the contrast detection.

Be aware though that K5 and prior are quite sensitive to lighting colour temperature changes when performing AF. The K5ii/iis made a huge difference for AF accuracy on fast glass. But, as I found out the other day there are still situations where things can go wrong (backlit dancer in poor fluorescent light was a right pain!)

Matt

I found LR3 was far superior to Aperture for noise control.
Things have moved on... and I've been using LR4 which has been excellent. About to hit the upgrade to LR5.

Very nice feature of LR is the lens profiles. If you have supported Pentax lenses then LR will automatically correct distortion and CA. Top notch! Makes my DA12-24 & DA*16-50 absolutely shine

Worth reading the Aperture reviews on the AppStore too

Matt

When I first got the Q for my wife, I did some quick comparisons against the *ist-DS + DA16-45.

The Q won by a fair mile. I found it had better detail, was faster and is certainly much lighter!

Trouble is that the Q keeps getting pinched by our kids

Matt

Completely understandable then. Even trying out the DNGs on the K3 I could feel the CPU grind when trying out NR options in LR4! Makes upgrading to a K3 even more expensive - new laptop, new LR upgrade, etc, etc

Matt