All Forum Comments
Comment by Roscoe posted on UV or not UV at 06/02/2010 - 18:44
womble wrote:
Some of you may feel that all my posts are pretty pointless...
This is message 2000. A long way to go compared to some people on here but I am amazed I have had so much to say. I feel a bit like the old geezer in the pub who wanders over and bores everyone rigid and won't go away.
On a positive note, I have learnt one hell of a lot from the folks on here, and have ended up with some very nice kit also thanks to folks on here. You're a grand bunch and I am glad to have stumbled on this little corner of the internet.
Oh well, here's to the next 2000
K.
Dear Kris,Some of you may feel that all my posts are pretty pointless...
This is message 2000. A long way to go compared to some people on here but I am amazed I have had so much to say. I feel a bit like the old geezer in the pub who wanders over and bores everyone rigid and won't go away.
On a positive note, I have learnt one hell of a lot from the folks on here, and have ended up with some very nice kit also thanks to folks on here. You're a grand bunch and I am glad to have stumbled on this little corner of the internet.
Oh well, here's to the next 2000
K.
One should always be prepared to listen to advice,and other peoples opinions.
How one may choose to react, is another matter
Speaking for myself I tend to generally like your contributions.
Kind regards,
Peter.
Comment by Roscoe posted on A completely pointless post at 29/01/2010 - 18:33
Pwynnej wrote:
Glad you got the camera back... Your other 1/2 is not alone putting the wrong fuel in, one of the police forces recently reported a high number of patrol cars were off the road because of the wrong fuel
Yes it was the Suffolk Force,Darkmunk wrote:
Diesel is a lubricant, petrol isn't.
diesel is the fuel of the devil I know turbocharging and 16 valve technology has made diesel more 'liveable' but I would rather live with a petrol turbo giving 260 horses than diesel offering just 150 horsesDiesel is a lubricant, petrol isn't.
Glad you got the camera back... Your other 1/2 is not alone putting the wrong fuel in, one of the police forces recently reported a high number of patrol cars were off the road because of the wrong fuel
Maybe the officers concerned, should pay for cleaning out the tank and fuel lines, from their wages, instead of expecting poor taxpayers to foot the bill!
Comment by Roscoe posted on lost ALL my gear! at 29/01/2010 - 18:25
Darkmunk wrote:
Woh Hooo!!!!
Police have rung and informed me that everything was handed in by the Dad of one of the 'children' in the park who brought it home.
I am sohhhh relieved! I can't tell you.
You guys have been BRILIANT! I have been overwhelmed by your empathy and generosity. I only started the thread as a warning and an interesting story, I had no idea it would spark such camaraderie.
So give yourselves a big pat on the back people.
And thank you, thank you, thank you for all your support. It really helped a difficult situation.
Did I say whooo hooo! ?
yeah
yea really great news, good job there are a few honest people around eh?Woh Hooo!!!!
Police have rung and informed me that everything was handed in by the Dad of one of the 'children' in the park who brought it home.
I am sohhhh relieved! I can't tell you.
You guys have been BRILIANT! I have been overwhelmed by your empathy and generosity. I only started the thread as a warning and an interesting story, I had no idea it would spark such camaraderie.
So give yourselves a big pat on the back people.
And thank you, thank you, thank you for all your support. It really helped a difficult situation.
Did I say whooo hooo! ?
yeah
Comment by Roscoe posted on lost ALL my gear! at 29/01/2010 - 18:19
Darkmunk wrote:
I went to the park to shoot a long exposure for Prieni's comp and left ALL my camera gear in a black ruck sack in the playground!!!!!!!
Still waiting for the police to get back to me, Sunday but if you hear of Pentax gear being sold in Plymouth on eBay or whatever, be sure to let me know! Don't try and entrap him with questions, I'll do it - I don't want him getting wind of any suspicions. Cheers.
I am such a twat..... Every sodding thing I have built up over 2 years, everything in my sig. in ONE sodding bag.....and I forgot it ! aaaaaarrrrrrrhhhhhhgggggggggg.
There's still hope that it has been found and kept safe, and I knew one of the Dad's there who was the only person there when we left, so I'm hoping to see him at school on Monday with a grin on his face
Oh dear Mark,I went to the park to shoot a long exposure for Prieni's comp and left ALL my camera gear in a black ruck sack in the playground!!!!!!!
Still waiting for the police to get back to me, Sunday but if you hear of Pentax gear being sold in Plymouth on eBay or whatever, be sure to let me know! Don't try and entrap him with questions, I'll do it - I don't want him getting wind of any suspicions. Cheers.
I am such a twat..... Every sodding thing I have built up over 2 years, everything in my sig. in ONE sodding bag.....and I forgot it ! aaaaaarrrrrrrhhhhhhgggggggggg.
There's still hope that it has been found and kept safe, and I knew one of the Dad's there who was the only person there when we left, so I'm hoping to see him at school on Monday with a grin on his face
Im sorry to hear this.
Hopefully your kit will turn up or the Insurance will pay up.
Chin up,
Kindest regards,
Peter.
Comment by Roscoe posted on lost ALL my gear! at 24/01/2010 - 18:42
Do any "Wedding Photographers", use the Cokin masks for wedding photos,
I remember seeing the Keyhole,and the Champagne mask?
Although these masks were designed for SLR film cameras, can they be used with Digital SLR's, and what efect do they produce?
Are there any Wedding Pro's out that that have any relevant information on using masks for weddings, or has this all become "old hat", and is no longer used/practised?
Kindest regards,
Peter.
I remember seeing the Keyhole,and the Champagne mask?
Although these masks were designed for SLR film cameras, can they be used with Digital SLR's, and what efect do they produce?
Are there any Wedding Pro's out that that have any relevant information on using masks for weddings, or has this all become "old hat", and is no longer used/practised?
Kindest regards,
Peter.
Comment by Roscoe posted on Using masks for Wedding special effects at 09/01/2010 - 13:54
Bob and his Pentax wrote:
I recieved the Pentax email news letter a couple of days back announcing that their on-line store was now up and running. On-line Store
I cann't recall anyone commenting on it (post launch) so I decided to take a look...
Now I welcome the concept of Pentax having an on-line store - it should be a good place to get all those hard to find Pentax accessories which other shops don't stock.
However I was disapointed by the range of items on display. For instance the new 100mm WR Macro isn't mentioned, nor the WR kit lenses, nor flash leads, focusing screens, lens hoods, body/lens caps...
What's the point of a PENTAX shop if it doesn't have the full range of kit availlable? Enhusiasts want somewhere to easily buy esoteric pices of Pentax kit.
Some of the kit is not labled very well - apparently the DA*55 is a wide angle lens and it has a K-AF mount (not K-AF3 i.e. SDM only focusing)!!!!
If someone looking for binoculars went to the Pentax shop they would have a poor view of what Pentax had to offer - the range of Pentax binocculars is far greater at SRS.
And to cap it all the prices are simply staggering - would you pay £219.99 for a DA 18-55 II?
I had nothing wider than 16mm so decided to buy a 10-17 fisheye and a 12-24 on 2 December 2009 (after some shopping arround) I got them for a total of £1099.23 the Pentax shop price for these 2 lenses is £1929.98 (both prices before cashback).
Clearly Pentax are not attempting to compete with shops such as SRS (et al) who have a better range availlable at better prices.
Well I've book marked it but unless the range and prices improve then I doubt if I'll be buying from there.
Footnote
DA 10-17 fisheye was £356.80 from PurelyGadgets.co.uk
DA 12-24 was £742.80 from Amazon.co.uk
prices included VAT and delivery.
As I bought from 2 places I can only claim cashback on the 12-24 which will be £50
Yes I also had a look, and it's crap!I recieved the Pentax email news letter a couple of days back announcing that their on-line store was now up and running. On-line Store
I cann't recall anyone commenting on it (post launch) so I decided to take a look...
Now I welcome the concept of Pentax having an on-line store - it should be a good place to get all those hard to find Pentax accessories which other shops don't stock.
However I was disapointed by the range of items on display. For instance the new 100mm WR Macro isn't mentioned, nor the WR kit lenses, nor flash leads, focusing screens, lens hoods, body/lens caps...
What's the point of a PENTAX shop if it doesn't have the full range of kit availlable? Enhusiasts want somewhere to easily buy esoteric pices of Pentax kit.
Some of the kit is not labled very well - apparently the DA*55 is a wide angle lens and it has a K-AF mount (not K-AF3 i.e. SDM only focusing)!!!!
If someone looking for binoculars went to the Pentax shop they would have a poor view of what Pentax had to offer - the range of Pentax binocculars is far greater at SRS.
And to cap it all the prices are simply staggering - would you pay £219.99 for a DA 18-55 II?
I had nothing wider than 16mm so decided to buy a 10-17 fisheye and a 12-24 on 2 December 2009 (after some shopping arround) I got them for a total of £1099.23 the Pentax shop price for these 2 lenses is £1929.98 (both prices before cashback).
Clearly Pentax are not attempting to compete with shops such as SRS (et al) who have a better range availlable at better prices.
Well I've book marked it but unless the range and prices improve then I doubt if I'll be buying from there.
Footnote
DA 10-17 fisheye was £356.80 from PurelyGadgets.co.uk
DA 12-24 was £742.80 from Amazon.co.uk
prices included VAT and delivery.
As I bought from 2 places I can only claim cashback on the 12-24 which will be £50
There is still no mention of the new neoprene quick release neck straps, and Pentax are being their usual unhelpful selves!
I hope Chris of SRS, is getting somewhere with Pentax, because as an "end user", I am p***ed o** with them!
Comment by Roscoe posted on Pentax Europe Online Store at 23/12/2009 - 23:04
Hello James,
Pentax keep promising to release a Neoprene neck strap with quick detachable clips, for using the camera on tripods,or situations such as you mention, when the strap would be in the way.
So far it has been like trying to get ***t out of a Rocking Horse!
If you are interested in one of these, Chris at SRS is still trying to obtain one for me and other members!
Only hand straps I have seen are made by HAMA.
Hope this is of use,
Regards,
Peter
Pentax keep promising to release a Neoprene neck strap with quick detachable clips, for using the camera on tripods,or situations such as you mention, when the strap would be in the way.
So far it has been like trying to get ***t out of a Rocking Horse!
If you are interested in one of these, Chris at SRS is still trying to obtain one for me and other members!
Only hand straps I have seen are made by HAMA.
Hope this is of use,
Regards,
Peter
Comment by Roscoe posted on hand strap/grip at 14/12/2009 - 12:36
johnriley wrote:
Ironically then, we always end up buying Sony TVs as they have the best picture quality.
Panasonic is another excellent choice.
The best thing to do is visit a shop and have a look.
I have no problems with our 40" Sony Bravia,and the USB slot is great for viewing pictures from my K20D(jpegs only).Ironically then, we always end up buying Sony TVs as they have the best picture quality.
Panasonic is another excellent choice.
The best thing to do is visit a shop and have a look.
Peter
jackitec wrote:
Forget the Magic Lantern Guide It's (I'll be polite) not very good you can't do much better than the K20 manual
Sorry, but I beg to differ, the Magic lantern guide for the K20D is very good.Forget the Magic Lantern Guide It's (I'll be polite) not very good you can't do much better than the K20 manual
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to why you think it's not much good?
Kindest regards,
Peter.
Comment by Roscoe posted on K20 E Book at 15/10/2009 - 16:06
UV has almost no effect on digital, so there's no need for a UV filter to improve image quality.
You can use one for protection if you like, or a clear glass protector, but one can cause ghosting or slight loss of image quality, and you have another two surfaces to keep clean.
Lens glass and coatings are actually quite robust and are only damaged if you're exceptionally unlucky or careless, especially if using a hood.
My filters do not affect my shots,(they are also inexpensive).
A scratched lens on the other hand, is very expensive to replace, and remember that accidents can happen to the best of us.
Sorry iceblinker but I don't agree with you and my lenses are always protected with a filter!