There is a thread in the "Lenses For Pentax Cameras" forum which is currently discussing the effects of coatings.

https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/a-s-vs--da-s-18375

My experiments with lenses from different manufacturers were done using RAW files so no WB issues, where Pentax/Samsung & Ricoh looked blueish, Tamrom looked neutral.


Regards,
Peter

Last week I assembled all my lenses and in turn, took a picture of a dull white evening sky (minimal discernible cloud to be seen). I shot RAW images in each case.

My Pentax 16-45 & 18-55 Mk1, Samsung 50-200 and Rikenon 50mm f2 all gave a blue cast on the image.

My Tamron 28mm & 80-210mm gave a grey/white appearance to the sky.

Having reviewed other photographs taken with my 18-55, I concluded that it was not unusual to see somewhat of a blue cast.

The differentiation between Pentax/Samsung, Ricoh and Tamron might be as a result of different lens coatings applied.

Also consider which type of White Balance correction was applied.


Regards
Peter

Isn't that back-to-front, 'Iceblinker'?

50mm, a standard lens on film is like ~34mm on digital.

So the 18-55 K10D/GX10 kit lens gives the same Field of View (FOV) as a 27-82.5mm on film.

Emma, the 50 & 135 lenses you have already sound ideal.

I have already tried what Pete/Iceblinker suggested, putting the 18-55 digital lens on my recently acquired MZ6 film body and was pleasantly surprised that the image it casts fills the viewfinder. Below about 20mm there is some darkening in the corners.

I am not familiar with the P30T, but it would need to be able to set the lens aperture from the camera body to work with the kit lens (or any other without aperture ring).

Good luck with the 'new' camera.


Peter

Maybe it is my old film-shooting sensibilities coming through, but I just dislike the concept of taking a picture and then having to make a series of further choices before acieving the end result.

I like to set the camera as best I can and keep that result. I do shoot RAW+jpeg and if the exposure looks ok, I will discard the RAW otherwise I tweak a little.

The in-camera edit produces smaller files which I suppose I always have in the back of my mind. I'm afraid Martin has used one of my pet-hate phrases as well- "work-flow".

Maybe I am a bit of a technophobe as I have not yet tried to master "stopped down metering" with my manual lenses. I tend to take a couple of test exposures and adjust settings until the histograms look right.

'Iceblinker', I do use "Silkypix Developer Studio 3.0 Free Edition" to edit RAW files on occasion and have Photoshop Elements 4.0 which I got free with an Epson scanner. Silkypix seems ok but I expect the functionality is quite limited compared with the PRO version. Can't "get into" Photoshop though!


Regards
Peter

Thanks Martin, I was referring (unclearly?) to the action of creating jpegs from the shot RAW files.

For some of my photographic subjects I just wish to keep a "record" shot, so I can't be bothered to use a RAW editor like Silkypix or Pentax Photo Laboratory.

The in-camera edit gives me the option to tweak exposure after the shot, though it doesn't seem to be a popular technique compared with PC edits.


Regards,
Peter

Dear All,

Hopefully someone can clarify this for me:

When editing RAW files in-camera (K10D), the Sensitivity can be adjusted from -2 to +2 (P.98/99 K10D Manual), but does this represent f-stops or EV steps (which are set elsewhere as 1, 1/2 or 1/3 EV).

Thanks in anticipation,

Peter

I don't know the full details, but the following link was recommended to me for Pentax Gen:

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/

The MZ6 is from the early 2000's whereas the MZ7 is from the late 1990s.

Peter

I was almost tempted by this a few weeks ago (but ended up buying a cheap MZ6 body).

http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/4044/Used-Pentax-MZ7-Body-with-28-80mm-Lens.htm...

Not as "traditional" as John's MZ-M/3/5 but cheaper(?), still with manual overides. There are cheaper MZ30/60s which are more limited on lenses that can be used (i.e. without aperture ring).


Regards
Peter

Dear All,

One needs to be very careful when describing the imaging modality used (i.e. x-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, microwaves, etc).

The use of x-rays is strictly regulated and any exposure of a person to x-rays must be:
1. justified (the benefits from the examination to the individual or society should outweigh any potential harm),
2. optimised (the diagnostic information obtained by the minimum radiation exposure),
3. limited (a member of the public should not exceed a set annual dose limit).

Therefore it is not possible to give limitless exposures of x-rays.
Those delivering an x-ray exposure must be suitably trained.

One should not take x-ray exposure lightly, regardless of other civil liberties.

It appears that the scanners at Schiphol are based on microwave radiation, which is non-ionising and therefore non-destructive at a cellular level and therefore not limited in the same way as x-rays.

See the following link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8433601.stm

Microwave ovens work by making water molecules vibrate which causes heating in the adjacent material. This may be partly why the scanners described are not (as) effective through wet clothes.

Peter

Film: C***n Sureshot Telemax
Digital: Fujifilm S5500, K10D

And back to film: MZ-6...but will it be a 5 minute wonder?

Peter