MrCynical

Joined: 12th June 2009

All Forum Comments

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

MrCynical
Brilliant, cheers! Now all I have to work out is which combination of these and the Domke ones (which Warehouse Express also sell at far-more-reasonable-than-Amazon prices) I'm going to go with.

Comment by MrCynical posted on UK bag insert sellers at 05/01/2010 - 23:31

MrCynical
Does anyone know of (reasonably-priced) sources for (camera/lens holding) messenger bag inserts in the UK? Most of the camera bags I've looked at (to fit my recently expanded kit) are either as waterproof as rice paper or are backpacks. I was therefore hoping to just buy some messenger bag inserts and 'roll my own' so to speak. Catch is I can't find anywhere selling the damned things!

Comment by MrCynical posted on UK bag insert sellers at 02/01/2010 - 22:36

MrCynical
The other advantage is that, since option 1 is plasma rather than LCD, you will no longer need you have the heating on in your living room

Comment by MrCynical posted on YOUR CHOICE ? at 02/01/2010 - 22:31

MrCynical
It's interesting that Silkypix allows you to edit the database, but I'm not sure that feature is enough to justify the (£200-ish?) cost of switching from Lightroom

Guess I'll just write an exiftool script to put "D-Xenon 100mm f2.8" into the actual image metadata wherever the lens number in the image is "4 38" or whatever on earth I posted a while ago.

Comment by MrCynical posted on Samsung 100mm not being recorded in EXIF at 02/01/2010 - 19:45

MrCynical
Well I realise this is bordering on necromancy, but I thought it would be wortwhile posting to say I eventually went for the Pentamsung: the thread here advertising the deal forced my procrastination to an end a week or so ago and I got one. Loving it!

Comment by MrCynical posted on Macro lens shootout - binary choice at 02/01/2010 - 19:42

MrCynical
iceblinker wrote:
Maybe the lens simply isn't common enough for it to appear in the databases? It is a Samsung after all I wouldn't worry about it very much.
Yeah, I've just come across a post on the other forum mentioning this issue in connection with precisely this lens. I guess Samsung have sold about as many of these as Nokia sold N-Gages It doesn't really bother me to be honest - if it comes to it (ie if I can be bothered) I can just insert a lens name using exiftool.

Comment by MrCynical posted on Samsung 100mm not being recorded in EXIF at 01/01/2010 - 13:30

MrCynical
iceblinker wrote:
A JPEG might do. JPEG Exif info normally contains the lens ID. Give it a go.
Didn't know that - I'll put a JPEG up later on today (or tomorrow, depending on what time zone you're in!)

Comment by MrCynical posted on Samsung 100mm not being recorded in EXIF at 01/01/2010 - 00:52

MrCynical
Clarky wrote:
You were actually contemplating sending it back because the EXIF data is incorrect. What do you use your camera for, taking pictures or looking at the pretty words. seriously, come on.
Hehe, no not so much that the EXIF data is incorrect per se but because I assumed that this one was faulty (ie that Sammy 100 macros normally would have the correct EXIF).

bforbes wrote:
My Samsung 12-24 on the K20 shows up correctly in Photome. So I was not aware of a problem with the Samsung versions of Pentax lenses. I am assumming your 100mm falls into that group
Yep, it's a carbon-copy of Pentax's DFA 100mm f2.8 (the old, non-WR one)

Comment by MrCynical posted on Samsung 100mm not being recorded in EXIF at 31/12/2009 - 23:04

MrCynical
iceblinker wrote:
The lens is not faulty because it has an ID number, so it's just the software not having the lens in its database. That goes for Photome as well as Lightroom.

If you post an image from the lens, I could test it in Silkypix, if you like.
Thanks for the offer, but I'm not sure that uploading a 15Mb-ish raw file would be very much fun on a DSL with half-meg upload speed

I've updated Lightroom to the latest patch (2.6) and it still isn't picking it up, but if the lens is doing everything it should then it's not a big deal. I'll just set a filtering rule to match any photos taken at 100mm which aren't from the kit telezoom Suppose I could also drop Adobe a line to let them know about the issue.

Comment by MrCynical posted on Samsung 100mm not being recorded in EXIF at 31/12/2009 - 22:23

MrCynical
I just got my Sammy 100mm macro from Park, and having taken a few test shots I loaded them into Lightroom. The problem is that the lens doesn't seem to be getting recorded properly in the image EXIF data. I checked the same images using Photome (since I know there can be issues with the up-to-dateness of ACR's lens database) and it simply says "Unknown FA, FAJ, DFA or DA lens (Id: 4 56)". Is this something that can be fixed (blowing on contacts, doing a voodoo dance etc.) or is another Park prime 'bargain' going to have to go back?

PS: My other two lenses, the Pentax kit zooms, show up fine and always have done, and my K20D has the latest firmware (1.03)

EDIT: Not sure how that typo got into the topic title!

Comment by MrCynical posted on Samsung 100mm not being recorded in EXIF at 31/12/2009 - 20:26

Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo