r.t. dowling

<p>Hello Hin Man! Are you still enjoying your HS50EXR? I ordered one from Amazon a few days ago. I wanted to replace my 4 years old Panasonic ZS7 (point-and-shoot with 25-300 equivalent lens). I also wanted a longer zoom and 1080p video. The Fuji looks nice, and the price was down to $340, so I ordered it. It should arrive in a few days.<br>

<br />(I also recently purchased a Pentax MX-1, but I had to send it back to Amazon because it had focusing problems. Instead of getting another one, I decided to get the HS50EXR instead.)</p>

<p>Did you ever find a solution to this problem?</p>

<p>Unfortunately I ended up returning my MX-1. I'm not sure if it was defective or what, but the focus was consistently soft, and it seemed to have an inordinate amount of trouble acquiring focus in the first place. The highlights also seemed to burn out very easily (worse than my other point-and-shoots), even when using the highlight protection mode.<br>

<br />I was particularly surprised by the size and weight of the camera. It's quite a bit bigger than it looks in the online photos, and heavier than I thought it would be. I have to say that it feels VERY nice in the hands, has great controls, and looks beautiful. The tilting LCD screen is a great feature and Pentax really ought to incorporate that into their other cameras! Alas, those traits were not enough for me to keep the MX-1. </p>

<p>Well, the price is down to $279, so I ordered one to replace my ailing 4-year-old Panasonic point-and-shoot. I'm really looking forward to receiving the MX-1. It has gotten a lot of excellent reviews, and the pictures look very good.</p>

<p>"you do not want a mismatch - which means that the lens which has auto focus does not synchronize with the auto focus"</p>

<p>I have no idea what that means.</p>

<p>I hope he's not also an English teacher!</p>

<p>I would assume that the 35 Macro is easier to manually focus than the other two... but I haven't personally used it so I can't say for sure. They're all very nice lenses, and the only one I'd rule out is the FA 35/2 simply because the less-expensive 35/2.4 has the same optical formula and will perform just as well at a fraction of the cost.</p>

<p>Unfortunately these modes look nothing like the films they're named after.</p>

<p>Beautiful. I can almost smell it! :)</p>

<p>Wouldn't a mirrorless camera have the <em>potential</em> to actually be <em>more</em> durable/reliable than an SLR, due to having fewer moving parts? Manufacturers could build a mirrorless camera to be just as rugged (or heavy, or big) as an SLR if they wanted to. They simply haven't done that <em>yet</em>. That doesn't mean that mirrorless cameras are inherently less rugged.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"RX10 looks interesting, but not at $1300. at that price, it should have had APS sensor."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If they had used an APS-C sensor, they would have needed a much larger and much more costly lens in order to cover the larger sensor area, which probably would have pushed the price far higher than $1300 and made the camera significantly bulkier and heavier.</p>

<p>I'm not worried about it. I can still get parts and service for my 30-year-old Technics turntables even though Panasonic exited that business a few years ago. And should I decide to sell them, they're worth more now than when Panasonic was still making them!</p>

<p>When you were shooting with the Tamron, did you have Image Stabilization turned on, and did you enter the focal length in the camera menu?</p>

<p>Glad to hear that you were able to get your Tamron fixed! That must be a huge relief.</p>

<p>That's annoying that Rainbow Imaging's contact form doesn't work; however, their email address is listed on the "About Us" section of their web site.</p>

<p>http://www.rainbowimaging.biz/shop/cms.php?id_cms=4</p>

<p>Regarding the menu thing: some cameras are set up so that they won't allow you to take a picture if no lens is attached to the camera. The lens adapter doesn't have any electronic contacts, so the camera thinks that no lens is attached. The setting in the menu allows you to tell the camera that it's ok to "release" the shutter (take a picture) even when there's no lens attached. </p>

<p>Now here's the thing: I could have sworn that I saw a menu like that in either my E-PL1 or my K100D... but I just went through the menus on both of them and can't find it on either of them. Weird. But as long as you're able to take pictures with the adapter, don't worry about it. It would only be an issue if the camera wouldn't let you take pictures with the adapter.</p>

<p>Only if you buy the really pricy ones. I paid less than $20 for mine.</p>

<p>Pentax K to Micro Four Thirds adapter:</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/RainbowImaging-K-mount-Adapter-Panasonic-USD24-99/dp/B003GRB4EK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1378069907&sr=8-3&keywords=pentax+micro+four+thirds+adapter</p>

<p>I have to say that my DSLR has seen far less use ever since I got my E-PL1. It's much more versatile, much more fun, and has much better image quality than I ever imagined. And my DSLR's 50/1.7, paired with an inexpensive adapter, makes an absolutely lovely portrait lens on the E-PL1.</p>

<p><em>"How is Newegg to deal with?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

I've always had good experiences with Newegg. I bought my E-PL1 from them last year. I've been buying computer gear from them for almost 10 years.<br>

<br />That's a great price on the E-PL3! Go for it. I think I paid $299 for my E-PL1 last year.</p>

<p>Sort of related to what Wolf Weber wrote is this opinion piece by Ken Rockwell (scroll about one-third of the way down the page until you get to the headline <strong>"Disposable Photos"</strong>):</p>

<p>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm</p>

<p>As far as image hosting is concerned, I'm still using Photobucket myself. I'm not a big fan of the changes they've made in recent times, but I'm too lazy to switch to something else.</p>

<p>I like Geoff's suggestion. Web site hosting is ridiculously cheap these days, and having your own site would give you complete 100% control. The biggest difference, which may or may not be a downside for you, is that you don't have the "social" features found on image sites like Flickr.</p>

<p>If you decide to go that route, try DreamHost. I've had great experiences with them in the past. For about $4 a month you can get your own site with your own domain name and unlimited storage. Not a bad deal. http://www.dreamhost.com/promo/sizzling395/</p>

<p>It's actually pretty common for sensor shift stabilization to not work in video mode. I believe the E-P5 and E-M5 were the first Olympus cameras to allow it; all others, including the E-PL5, rely on "digital" stabilization when shooting in video mode.</p>

<p>I find that I get the best performance and best reliability out of my K100D when I use lithium (non-rechargeable) batteries. They cost a bit more, but they last a surprisingly long time. A nice side effect is that they weigh less than most rechargeable batteries.<br>

<br /> If you try lithiums, be sure to check your camera settings to make sure the camera is configured correctly for the type of batteries you're using. I'm not sure about other models but my K100D has a setting to choose between rechargeable and non-rechargeable batteries. I believe this allows the camera to compensate (or at least TRY to compensate) for the lower voltage of rechargeables. I suspect that as rechargeable batteries age, the voltage drops even further, beyond the camera's ability to compensate, thus resulting in malfunctions and weird behavior. I recently had to toss out a set of good quality NiMH rechargeables that wouldn't even power a portable CD player, even though they were fully charged. They were a few years old and had been recharged dozens of times.</p>

<p>What kind of batteries are you using, and how fresh are they? I've found that Pentax's AA-battery cameras can occasionally act odd if they're not getting enough voltage, which can sometimes happen with certain rechargeable batteries. Especially rechargeables that have been recharged many times.</p>

<p>I sent a list to your photo.net inbox.</p>

<p>Very sorry to hear of your misfortune, Christopher!</p>

<p>I hope it can be affordably fixed, but if not, shoot me an email... I'm in the process of thinning out my collection of photographic gear and I have a mint condition Tamron 70-300 that will be needing a new home in the near future.</p>

<p>Since no one has mentioned it yet, I'll cast my vote for the Pentax MX-1.</p>

<p>http://www.pentaximaging.com/digital-camera/MX-1_Black</p>

<p>The K-01 may have been pulled from certain markets but it is still actively marketed elsewhere, such as Japan. In fact, Pentax recently gave the K-01 a boost there by offering it in a new range of color combinations. Apparently it's selling pretty well there.</p>

<p>That said, I agree that the NEX 6 is probably the best overall choice, although the OM-D E-M5 is a viable choice too if you don't mind the 2x crop factor. I prefer the design/controls/handling of the E-M5, but the Sony has other features that I appreciate. It's a tough call. </p>

<p>Yeah, I don't think they put numbers on it because every lens has a different range of numbers... for instance, a fast lens might start at 1.4 and end at 16, while a slow lens might start at 4.5 and end at 32.</p>

<p>That adapter will work with all Micro Four Thirds cameras, as they all use the same mount. And you're right, at $17 how can you go wrong?! The only caveat is this: if you want to use a newer Pentax lens that doesn't have an aperture ring (such as the Pentax DA series), you'll have no way to adjust the aperture, and the lens will always shoot at the widest aperture. There is, however, a slightly more expensive (but still very affordable) adapter that has a built-in aperture ring, which would allow you to use those lenses and adjust their aperture:</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-10-New--PK-M43-Adapter-Aperture/dp/B0048AG03Y/</p>