d_syd

<blockquote>

<p>Well, speaking for myself, I happen to own a full frame Pentax....And I love it very much...I never leave home with out it...Actually I have a few of them, but my favorite is my beloved me super :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's classic- I was thinking the same thing just recently Javier. I've been reading so many posts in Nikon and Canon forums about going full frame and suspecting that many were doing it for the wrong reasons. I took My Super Program to a kids birthday party this past weekend and kept thinking: I got your full framer right here in this amazingly compact and durable body. All with a SMC f1.4 lens for less than a few hundred dollars total investment. My photgrapher enthusiast friends with their crop sensor DSLRs had a chuckle but they were oooing and aaaawing over the viewfinder.</p>

<p>Bela, I get it, there's a lot of ruler shooters out there. But as Michael just said, if one is about to invest $1700+ in optics, why not be careful and diligent? And perhaps the only thing sillier than people overanalyzing technical details on forums like this is one who types up long lectures to criticize and expose them. Your Holga line is really getting kinda cliche these days, we've heard it so many times. You have to accept the world of photography is now filled with all kinds and levels of shooters and if PN only allowed discussions of art amongst the elite, and banned all technical discussions and silly questions from newbies or members with absent or amateur portfolios, I suspect it's membership wouldn't even be 10% of what it is today. Respectfully, I agree with most of what you are saying, and you are obviously an amazing photographer looking at your portfolio, but I think you're on a bit of a soapbox here. I personally am interested in this thread, and maybe so are others, so let it continue please.</p>

<p>Thanks Peter. That brings up another issue. Since the files are renamed, pointing LR to them won't be easy- unless I got something completely wrong in my assessment. For example I would have an old photo that I have worked on in LR, and LR thinks it is named "abcxyz". That image was then lost and now recovered to a different directory/location and is now called "123go". While the recovery was in process I tried opening one of the recovered dng files to see how easy it would be to match up to the preview in LR and the filename was no help whatsover. The date info in the file properties helped me narrow it down a lot, but I actually had to compare the recovered file preview in windows to the LR preview to be sure it was that photo. Maybe when I get to that stage, I'll only have to point LR to one missing/recovered file per date folder and it will magically recover all the rest based on some exif data. But for now I'm scared to clear the LR previews for this reason. What a mess....</p>

<p>Yeah, what a dummy. Thought I was cleaning up old/redundant folders on my 500gb Lacie external drive and accidentally deleted a folder that had a subfolder with all my archives, archives which I have deleted from my PC hard drive to keep my hard disk usage down. Of course the folder was huge and windows gave me the "too large for recycle bin, do you want to delete permanently?" message to which I clicked yes/OK.</p>

<p>The Good News:<br>

I have not turned off that hard drive and this just happened this morning. I also have not rebooted my PC that the hard drive is connected to.<br>

I have downloaded and installed a found a program called photorec that is free and reported to be effective in recovering lost and deleted files of many types. It was unclear on dng files- but as I type this it seems to have recovered many dng files. I also had pef, nef, tif, and some jpgs in that folder.<br>

I have some, probably most of the older files on CDs/DVDs off site, but I got behind in my backups and I fear that I'll still be missing 2007 and 2008 when I get the discs here and go through them.</p>

<p>What I'm really wanting to ask here is that the recovery program is running and seems to be recovering much of what was lost (and a whole pile of other files that I didn't need recovered- didn't set the options right but too deep into the recovery now to stop and restart)...BUT... everything appears to be renamed. I use Lightroom 2.2 to manage my images. Anyone have any advice from a similar experience or mishap? I am willing to spend the time to do this all properly but any shortcuts or advice would be appreciated- I am concerned about files that were renamed by the recovery software and how to bring them back without losing the changes that I may have made to the file in lightroom. Do I try to recreate the lost directory structure and sort them all back into that directory in windows explorer, then open LR and try to "point" the missing file dialog to the renamed file in the recreated directory?</p>

<p>And this one, same gear but without HDR treatment</p><div></div>

<p>K10D and Sigma 10-20 lens. HDR by Photomatix</p><div></div>

<p>Well I'll get a gel holder first and try it empty, see if I notice any focus issues. If I do, I guess I'll be looking around for a deal on the regular filter holder. I found an L37C that I might be able to get for a decent price, but the holders seem kinda rare.</p>

<p>Yes as others have mentioned this is the older AF version of the 300/4 with the good collar, slower AF, rear-load filter slot, and 82mm front filter size. And for me, unless I improve my technique somehow, I won't be shooting much handheld.</p>

<p>My copy seems to have some pretty bad CA (purple fringing), which I've never read to be a common issue with this model- lucky me!</p>

<p>One last thing- is that telescopic lens hood supposed to lock in place somehow when it's extended?</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses!</p>

<p>Good suggestions, thanks! Michael, you make perfect sense. And Alex, yes I've seen these around for as low as around $20-25 - sounds like a plan.</p>

<p>Okay Michael. I have heard of others doing the same as you suggest. I'll tell you that my concern is, right or wrong, more on the cleaning aspect and dust, dirt, getting into the rear of the lens over time. That rear element is recessed so deep in there it must be a bear to clean.</p>

<p>I recently bought a used AFD 300/4 and it came with the Nikon circular polarizer in the rear slot and that's all. I didn't get the original standard 39mm filter holder nor the gelatin filter holder. I can't complain much because the cpl is worth around $200 or so, but my shooting doesn't often need a polarizer and I'm kinda being robbed of a couple stops of light all the time. It's like I paid for a nice f4 lens but I'm in effect getting f6.3/f8 shutter speeds at best.<br>

<br /> So I want to have the option to take the polarizer out and shoot without it, but would rather have some neutral (UV, clear, skylight) preferably multicoated glass to plug up the hole.<br>

<br /> I've googled, checked ebay and some online classifieds, and it looks like the replacement Nikon std filter holders are hard to find. The few I've been able to find are priced for more than I'm willing to pay. The gelatin filter holders on the other hand are a dime a dozen.<br>

So my question is, could I use a multicoated filter, but only the glass, no ring, and stick that in the gelatin holder and be on my merry way? And if so, can anyone point me in the right direction to get one? I somehow don't think the standard companies like B+W, Hoya, etc offer a ringless filter, and as far as I know the gel filters are all colored/tinted and probably not high quality, more for special effects.<br>

<br /> P.S. I know I can just use the filter holder without anything in it to plug up the big slot on top of the lens, but I have heard some pretty strong arguments in favor of having a filter of some sort there, for various reasons.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun: I tend to use Program a lot because when I shoot quickly, the camera gives me a reasonable default...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's so refreshing to hear someone of known experience and skill confess to using P mode at times. There's almost a kind of bravado in forum threads attached to doing everything manual. Too funny.</p>

<p>FWIW, I ended up finding a mint used AF (non AF-S) 300/4 for $600 and thought that given the feedback provided here, and research I've done elsewhere recommending the Kenko PRO 300 1.4X TC, will give me 300 & 420mm capability with good optical results, this is a better option for me at this time. I think I can live with slower AF compared to the newer AF-S 300/4, my D300 should drive it fairly well and I can try to learn to use the focus limiter to my advantage. I can now almost add the 80-200/2.8 on top of this combo and still be around what I would have paid for a new 80-400VR, which I am seriously considering doing. Thanks for all the help!</p>

<p>FWIW....I was shooting moving water yesterday at LO1 with a CPL threaded on my lens and a ND filter (not sure the number) in a Cokin type holder, in Aperture priority mode and the D300 was badly underexposing the shots- they were almost completely dark. I was getting so much glare off my rear LCD (with a protector) that it was hard to tell in chimping the shots. I went to histograms and saw they were way underexposed, so I switched over to manual mode and tried a few more shots at different shutter speeds. When I got home and loaded into Lightroom, the matrix metered shots were unusable (I should have tried switching over to spot- doh!), but a couple of the manual shots were good. Problem there was the shots in which the water and trees were properly exposed, the rushing water pouring over rocks- where I was trying to get that milky smooth look with longish exposures, was blown out and not completely recoverable in LR. Obviously there's a lot of variables, and I need to improve my technique.</p>

<p>I recently bought this lens too. I am also in Canada and I notice we Canadians pay quite a bit more for Sigma lenses than the US (even with the currency exchange factored in). I think the US warranty is shorter, so I guess that's part of it. Mine cost me CA$700 in Calgary. To me, that's overpriced- it should only be a $500 lens IMHO.</p>

<p>After hearing a lot about Sigma QC and sample variation, I also stressed out and rushed to do some testing. I did the brick wall test, and I <em><strong>think</strong> </em> that my copy fits the majority characteristic: lots of distortion at 10mm but pretty good from 12mm up, a bit soft in the corners wide open, especially at 10mm, but okay once stopped down a bit. I was mainly paranoid about the soft side issue reported by some, but my copy seems okay there.</p>

<p>The thing I noticed is I think the same as what you mention- it's just not that sharp overall. I can shoot at 14mm, f8 in good light, and from center to corners there's not much difference, but it just doesn't look sharp. I actually started to wonder how much zoom in Lightroom is fair to assess lens sharpness, because I thought my pixel peeping expectations may have been too high. I was using it on a 10 MP Pentax body, tripod mounted, with cable release and mirror up.</p>

<p>It's a real pain trying to put the lens cap on or off with the hood on, I can't believe they didn't supply a center-pinch cap instead..... what were they thinking? It is a fun lens though. When you start taking shots of buildings and things you might find you want to do some perspective distortion correction, and I would just suggest trying out a program called PTLens. Free trial, only $25 for a full licence. Corrects distortion of various types, chromatic aberration, and vignetting.</p>

<p>Illkka- Nice point and I don't know why I didn't think of that. So as the story unfolds, I got so many responses recommending the 300/4 and I stumbled across what I thought was the perfect opportunity- a mint 300/4 for US$699 asking price. But now here's the twist:</p>

<p>When I looked a bit closer it turned out to be the older non AF-S version. But it includes a rear loaded Nikon CPL and a front Tiffen UV filter. So since the older version seems to be as good optically as the current version, but the AF is slower, which levels out the playing field somewhat compared to the 80-400 VR...now what's the verdict?</p>

<p>I may have to post that specific question in a new thread in hopes of getting Shun to chime in on this, since from other threads I've seen he's not the 80-400's biggest fan.... at least compared to the current 300/4.</p>

<p>Wow, a lot of votes for the 300/4 here. So I guess the big question is just how slow is the 80-400 AF, and will it really be that bad for my shooting style. Because the 80-400 at 300mm is probably 5.6 max aperture, but with VR able to get back up to 2 stops (Nikon I think claims 3) I'd have to say it's pretty much a wash on light/speed between the two. </p>

<p>Thanks Truman, and that's another interesting option. But I didn't really say "cheap", or at least I don't consider anything up to $2000 to be cheap. I just was trying to say the serious pro caliber Nikkor longer lenses with fast apertures are out of my range, and in this I mean the $5K and up lenses. I'm enjoying the feedback, and so far it seems the 80-400 VR is the forerunner.</p>

<p>Thanks Ilkka. Yes, I see the 300mm/4 can be had well in my price range and have heard great things about it. I've just lately experienced the revelation of accepting that I'm a lazy photographer and that constantly changing lenses and repositioning myself for shots is not my bag when very good zooms are available. After a recent trip to Europe where I shot a fair amount with primes, during the post processing I strongly felt I should be dubbed Sir Crop-alot, and I'm not too happy about it.</p>

<p>Stanley- wow, that's somewhat surprising to me. So I guess it's the TC that is "levelling the playing field" in this regard, right? It's just that everyone seems to rave about the 70-200, and I didn't really think that the 80-400 was quite in the same league optically (I mean more in terms of sharpness, colour, and contrast. I'm pretty sure the 80-400 can't produce the bokeh that the 70-200 is capable of).</p>

<p>So if that's the case my Kenko Pro 2X with a pro caliber 80-200/2.8 way not be the best way to get to 400mm. Rats, I was starting to like that option. I would have everything my heart desires except the VR. But the speed, at least when shooting 80-200 without the TC, would probably balance out the lack of VR. As I understand it with a 2X TC my max aperture would effectively go from 2.8 to 5.6, so I would need plenty of light or a tripod...</p>

<p>Thanks for that Wayne. I am not familiar with that lens but have heard mostly good things about Tokina, and 2.8 is pleanty fast enough.I'll have to look into that option as well.</p>

<p>I should add that I want my next lens to be a step up from the entry level/consumer grade/kit lens class that I already have. I have learned that glass is where you want to invest and to always push yourself to get the best you can possibly afford. So those who might suggest the Nikkor 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR, for example, while it's rates respectably I'm going to plead lens-snob-wannabe there and say I'd like something a little closer to pro grade. Though I'm sorely aware that true pro grade on long Nikkor zooms is out of my budget (such as the 200 - 400 VR).</p>

<p>Anyone out there using a Kenko Pro 2X TC on a Nikkor AF 80-200/2.8 ED?</p>

<p>I know these "Which Lens?" posts get tiresome, but I'm really hoping to get some of your valuable opinions here.</p>

<p>My shooting interests are diverse, and I have not yet become specialized or preoccupied with any one type of photography. I mostly shoot outdoors, nature, animals, birds, some sports (like the occasional rodeo, again mostly outdoors stuff). The only indoors stuff I would do with a long lens is maybe a kid's Christmas concert or something like that.</p>

<p>I have the range covered from wide angle to 200mm on my D300. But I find that 200mm just isn't long enough at times. I can't afford the long, fast top-line Nikkor lenses, and most of them are like carrying around a bazooka anyways. So at some point I'm realizing I will have to compromise on one aspect or another- speed, range/length, stabilization, or AF speed. My current candidates are the Sigma 100-300/4 which I've read very good things about, and the Nikkor 80-400/4.5-5.6 VR. The Sigma will probably cost less but is only a bit faster and only 300mm (50% longer). The Nikkor has the range and VR I like, but is slow in max aperture and AF.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VR is a gorgeous lens, and would be a welcome replacement for my cheap-o 55-200 VR. But getting that with a teleconverter to get some extra reach puts me quite a bit over my price range (In Canada that combo would be about $2500+/-, I needing to keep it well under $2K)</p>

<p>Any feedback? Especially if you've used either or both of these lense, or even just general observations?</p>

<p>P.S. I live in a rural area so it's not all that easy for me to just run out to a local camera shop and try them out. And even if I do drive into the nearest city the stores there will not likely have one (or either) in stock.</p>

<p>The Pentax Silkypix software I think has an adjustment to deal with Chromatic Aberration/purple-blue fringing, if you want to salvage the original file without buying or downloading additional trial software.<br />Lightroom is great for many reasons. But if you plan on shooting ultra wide or fisheye at some point you might also take a look at PTLens. Google it. It has a functional trial, but only costs $25 for a full licence, and it corrects distortion, vignetting and CA. I got it after I acquired my Sigma 10-20mm, well worth it. I can't comment on how good any of these tools are for CA problems specifially and compared to each other, but I do know I tried to correct a couple images with CA problems in Lightroom and was not thrilled by the result. I mainly got PTLens to deal with perspective distortion.<br>

Edit- I'm not suggesting PTLens instead of Lightroom, they are different products.</p>

<p>For what it's worth...</p>

<p>I got one of the Cameta ebay demo k10Ds for $399. Very happy, was absolutely indistinguishable from new other than showing 599 shutter clicks.</p>

<p>I think that is a smoking deal for what you're getting and that I think it can be a mistake to assess the price to pay on down the road resale value. I just look at is as how much camera I'm getting for $399, who cares if I can only get $200 for it a year from now.</p>

<p>Someone mentioned the scant selection of Pentax at prodigital2000 and for the OP that may tie into another thing to be aware of- major lens price increases have already hit Canada and probably coming to USA soon. I'm talking crazy price increases that make me think if I was starting out from scratch I'd skip over Pentax entirely. That was one of their strongest points for me as a lover of the "underdog"- all kinds of great buys on glass. So Scott if you don't already have all the lenses you need, you might get a great deal on a body but get slaughtered on lenses if you don't act fast or at least do some research.</p>

<p>Miserere- you mention the lens adjustment on your wish-list. I really haven't experimented with this, and maybe you are already well aware of it, but I came across a sort of firmware "hack" called a focus debug mode that allows lens calibration specific to I think 5 different lenses for the K10D. It looked legit to me but as I say I have not tried it myself. As I understand it there is a program you load onto your PC, and link up the camera by USB and you can play around with focus calibration, then save it to the camera. Here are some links that I was following on this:</p>

<p><!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --><br /> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --><br /> http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/27040-k10d-firmware-1-3-debug-mode-unleashed-2.html</p>

<p><!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --><br /> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --><br /> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=27855376</p>

<p><!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --><br /> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --><br /> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=26338558</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Edward, thanks- that's exactly why I posted this here. I'm such a nut I didn't realize that the male-female were reversed on the one side so it can be shortened like that. While I know my flailing about thing was a bit exagerrated, I do wish that I could make the entire strap magically disappear completely when off my neck. And the longer the pieces that remain on the camera after quick-released, the less I was feeling any sense of a clutter free clean break between camera and strap. But now at least my life has purpose. if I attach the two remaining ends it's better (less loose ends) and I may find it useful in other ways as you mention<br>

Thanks again.</p>

<p>I recently bought an op/tech neck strap for my camera and I really do like it for comfort. I think it's called the pro loop model. But the one thing that's got me curious is the quick release coupling- where it is on the strap. It's up high right where the neck-padding starts instead of being down closer to the camera. Am I wrong in speculating that the main benefit of a quick release neckstrap is to easily remove the strap for easier use on a tripod or to stuff into a camera bag? If so, then what was op/tech thinking in this design? All that comes off is the relatively light and not all that wide or thick neck part, but there's still like a FOOT of strapping with the hard plastic buckles etc flailing about on both sides. Grrrr....<br /> <br /> Is there some benefit to this design that I am completely missing?</p>

<p>I should add my camera is the Pentax K10D which has very miniscule and difficult strap loops so most caribiners and other things I can use for quick release are not compliant unless I macguyver some combination of strapping and mini keyrings or some awful thing like that. Then I have steel rings bashing into the camera all the time, scratching it up every time it's handled. I like neckstraps when I'm walking around with the camera but I hate them from the second they come off my neck- they just get caught on everything, flail around, make it hard to put the camera into a bag, make using on a tripod rather clumsy etc. But any other suggestions would be welcome!</p>