gene_brewer1

Skip the K110D and go for the K100D providing your mind is really made up on not getting the K10D. I looked at the K100D and decided to wait till the K10D came out. Glad I did. Well worth the additional money and waiting time (at least I feel so).

Good Luck

Gene

To answer my own question, I finally got my K10D and did some experimenting with my AF400T strobe. It appears the TTL mode with the AF400T doesn't work correctly with the K10D as it wants to always overexpose on every shot. I tried it in Green Mode and P mode. I could get it to work in Manual mode (on the K10D) and by adjusting the settings on the flash head for the proper level for just that particular shot, which is a non-starter for any useful work when moving around and shooting in a flash range of a few feet out to several feet. So looks like I'll be looking into a dedicated AF flash for the K10D. I'll keep the AF400T for my Pentax film gear where it works excellent.

Thought others may be interested in this information.

Most of the forums dealing with the K10D are starting to have photos posted by the users as they try out the new K10D's. There are many over on the DPREVIEW.COM Pentax DSLR forum. Just look around.

Gene

Hello,

I am soon to join the ranks of proud K10D owners. My special 'elf' has chosen

this as my Christmas present.

I have been reviewing the great images being displayed all over the 'net by

K10D users so far. Lots of variations on settings and conditiones however one

thing I haven't seen yet is any images using any external flashes or strobes. I

realize the camera has just recently been released but would like to hear about

any experiences using external flashes / strobes especially the Pentax AF400T

strobe kit, as I have one of these I use with my film gear and would like to

employ it with the K10D if possible.

Thanks

Gene

Ridgecrest, CA

"I have been appalled at the recent rise in price of used Pentax gear, particularly on eBay."

I would expect it to get worse not better as the popularity of digital cameras increase at the rate it is over the last couple of years combined with the advertising zeal of using older Pentax lenses with the newer digital K10/100/110D bodies. As the existing quantity of quality SMC Pentax primes and other lenses are 'cherrypicked' from eBay and other venues, I predict the value of Pentax lenses will rise even more.

I have several Pentax lenses and almost made a fatal mistake a couple of years ago of allowing myself to be talked into selling off my Pentax stuff and going totally digital with the Canon 10D system. I came to my senses soon enough to prevent sorry and still have my Pentax gear. I am getting a K10D as soon as I can get ahold of one to try out first to ensure it is what I want. Reviews are nice but hands on is much better.

Gene (KI6LO) Ridgecrest, CA

In response to where are the 24 to 40 million Pentax lenses, I can not account for all of them but I know where 8 of them are......in my film 35mm SLR bag, to be joined by a shiny new K10D body really soon hopefully. :)

Gene (KI6LO)

Ridgecrest, CA

Exactly Trent. Gustavo, my list may have been poorly worded. I have a collection of K-mount Manual (M), Apreture Priority (A) and Auto-Focus (AF) lenses that I current use on a collection of older Pentax bodies including the Super Program, ME, SF-1N and sorry to say, a recently sold K-1000, which I now wish I had kept.

I have looked at Canon and Nikon {who hasn't} but was wanting to leverage off the current K-mount lenses I have until I decide whether to invest in more 'modern' glass. If I went with either of the "-ON's" then I would be limited to the kit lense to start and would have to immeadiately invest more money in additional lenses from the start.

I had about concluded that the K100D (and maybe the K10D) inherited the crippled K-mount issue from the *istD lineup but wasn't certain.

Thanks to all for the info so far. Now I have to decide do I want the K100D or hold out for the K10D since it's one or the other but definitely not both on my budget :)

Gene

I have been looking at Pentax digital SLRs as I, like many here, have several

older KM, KA and KAF mount lenses that I would like to take advantage of for use

with both digital and film bodies. I have found the answer to most of my

questions concerning these two model lines but I still haven't found information

on whether the K100D has the same inherit shortcomings when using older KM, KA

and KAF lenses like the *istD lineup. I assume that it does but I would like to

hear from users to the extent of the differences, if any.

Also does anyone have similar information concerning the soon to be released

K10D body?

Thanks

Gene

Ridgecrest, CA

I had a Pentax AF 28-70 short zoom lense that had a similar problem. I was using it on a SF-1N film body and it would not AF at the widest point. Narrowing the FOV by only a fraction of a turn would cause it to AF and then you could zoom out to the extreme and the image was just fine. Bought it used off eBay and since it was a non-return issue, I learned to live with it.

Gene

Gib,

While Daniel Borzynski writes that he absolutely hates the older Zone VI camera and can't say enough bad things about it, I have had the exact opposite experience. I have an older Zone VI (not the original mind you but a Zone VI Labs version and not the Calumet version). My Zone VI is a dream to operate and does everything I ask it to do. Granted there are numerous 4x5 cameras to chose from and some are built like tanks (weigh like them too) but don't dismiss the Zone VI offhand without at least taking one for a test drive if possible.

As many will tell you, get a decent LF body but invest in quality lenses. The best body on the market with a cheap lense won't perform as well as a cheap body with an excellent lense.

Good Luck.

A very satified Zone VI user,

Gene

Parker,

My suggestion is to keep your current equipment. I own and shoot 35mm, MF (6x6, 6x7, 6x9) and 4x5. I find that each format has its niche in my work. Kind of like having a full set of golf clubs when out on the links.

Like many have said in this thread and other subject threads like this one, the main reason I like LF can be simplified down to two things, "the simplicity and control".

Again to reiterate what has been said, LF done properly is not about how many images can be made but rather how the image is made and what it can be made to protray to its viewer. I hike alot with LF gear and many times I have hike for hours to take only one image or maybe no images becasue either I just didn't find what I wanted or the light I wanted only lasted for time enough for a single image.

By all means, I would recommend that you give LF a try. That way you will know for sure if it is for you. I would recommend that you shoot on more than one occasion and see if it grows on you, like it does most LF users.

Good Luck and remember, "Being there is only part of making the image"

Gene

Thanks Zee. I wandered over to the Silverfast website on chance and looked for info on the missing file. WOW! I could not believe the number of entries related to this problem and how long it seems to been a problem. Anyway I downloaded the DICELib.dll file and will load it on the photo pc as soon as I get home tonight. I guess I was just totally puzzled and didn't think to check on the Silverfast forums even though I did contact their customer support. Seems like that might be a waste of time too given the number of complaints I saw on that topic there.

I would like to send a bit of praise to Epson. At least they repsonded within a few hours and told me the same thing that Zee said about the missing DLL being from Lasersoft and not Epson. Nice to see a quick repsonse to a customer problem even if it wasn't the company's problem.

I consider this topic closed. This has got to be the fastest I have ever solved a problem via a posting. I'm spoiled now :)

Gene

Forgot to mention I have already contacted both Epson and SF customer support to see if they can help.

Gene

First let me say that I'm not pointing fingers at either side of this

issue. With that said, let me try and explain what seems to happened.

I have a P4 3 Ghz system that I had recently built. The OS and s/w I

use is:

Win2000 Pro w/SP4

Epson Scan v2.6A (from Epson 4990 Pro s/w bundle)

Silverfast Ai6 v6.2.2r3 (also from bundle)

Epson R320 printer s/w (v??)

Photoshop 7.0

Focal Blade sharpening plug-in

Test Strip plugin

All of the photo editing/scanning/printing software had been loaded

and seemed to be working as expected with no error messages or

abnormal outputs. I was in the process of experimenting with setting

up the color management for all the devices.

Since I had just reloaded Silverfast from the original Cd from the

4990 s/w bundle, SF6 notified me of an available update (v6.4.3r9)

which I reviewed and decided it was benefical for my 4990 scanner.

After downloading the new update and loading it, I now get an error

message whenever I either open Photoshop or use Epson Scan in any

mode (plugin or TWAIN).

The error message states that the file "DICELib.dll" cannot be

located in the path. Clicking the OK button closes the error message

box and then the selected application continues to load normally. I

have tested the PS7 ACQUIRE using Epson Scan and Epson Scan

standalone in TWAIN mode and both ways seem to work after the error

message has been displayed and closed. I cannot locate the

DICELib.dll file anywhere nor can I find it on any of the install CDs

for the different applications. It is probably in one of the data

libs used in instal and I haven't dug through all of those YET!

What I find confusing is that loading Silverfast update should

corrupt the Epson Scan s/w. I could undeerstand if it corrupted SF

itself or if it caused the scanner to quit working altogether. The

updated SF seems to work correctly except again when using it via PS7

I get the error msg when PS7 is opened.

Has anyone seen anything like this or similar? I really don't want to

have to totally rebuild this hard disk again as I just finished that

last week. Ideas anyone?

Also please don't suggest I run out and get Vuescan to cure all my

woes. I have tried it and it seems like a decent product but I have

the software listed above and I know it DID work. And yes I realize

that the 4990 isn't in the same caliber as a drum scanner, yada,

yada, yada.....all of us lowly flatbed scanner owners have heard it

too many times. I also don't plan on running out and buying another

scanner for film as this one does what I want just fine (or it will

as soon as I get it working again):)

Thanks

Gene

I learned another thing the hard way between the original Spyder with Photocal software and the newer ColorPlus kit. Examining the hardware, the sensors appear to be the same. However, when trying to run the latest PhotoCal software with the sensor that comes packaged with the ColorPlus kit, the PhotoCal software will start to run but where it asks whether you are using a CRT or LCD you will get the same error response stating that the sensor does not support that type of monitor.

I had originally went in with a couple of local buddies and we bought the original Spyder kit a while back. I found the ColorPlus kit for a reasonable price and figured I could use its sensor with the existing PhotoCal software. Won't work!

Since I had the ColorPlus and didn't want to keep having to chase down who had the Spyder sensor so I could use it, I switched over exclusively to the ColorPlus. As far as I can tell, the final ICC profile for my Viewsonic VS-195 19" monitor looks just like the one I had using the Spyder/PhotoCal software. Difference is now I can calibrate my laptops to have proper color rendition also.

I calibrate the printer/scanner using the Monaco EZColor software that came with my Epson 4990 Photo Pro kit. So far, my printouts are spot on as to what the monitor shows and what the original image was.

Just thought someone might have been interested in my results.

Gene

I've always been happy with my Matrox G400 and now a G550 card. These are realtively inexpensive, compared to a high end gamers card which isn't needed for PS work. The dual head feature is nice to use one monitor for workspace and another for displaying photo itself.

Gene

Brian,

I recently bought a 4990 Pro and really like it. I find the Silverfast AI6 software to be extremely capable of doing anything I might ask of it. There are several reviews on the 4990 on the web and I have started posting some of my scans on my Webshots user area at (http://community.webshots.com/user/desertphoto) under the 4990 Scan folder. Most of these are 4x5 as that is my main format but I have some 6x6 that I have started working on as time permits.

I don't think you can go wrong with the 4990 if you learn its limitations and capabilities. It isn't a film scanner so don't expect top quality film scanner results like you would get with one, especially in 35mm format. But having said that, the 4990 does do a remarkable job on MF and LF and with a bit of post scanning sharpening of the scans (I use Focal Blade, nice PS plugin) the results will fulfill the majority of needs of home users and professional alike. I recently scanned a 8x10 ektachrome transparency and when printed I could not tell the difference between the print and the trany with the naked eye. Really beautiful scanning!

But then if you are doing paid professional work, then you could afford to buy (and write-off) a film scanner :-).

Gene

On the contrary to the statement made "don't use a PCI card...". I use a PCI add-on card with 4 USB 2 ports and 2 Firewire ports on my 'older' PC and it works flawlessly. The throughput increase with USB2 over USB1.1 is well worth the $25 I paid for the PCI card. I use the older USB1.1 ports for slower non-critical I/O and save the USB2 for speedier devices. I use a Epson 4990 on USB 2.0 and it is very fast. And yes, my older computer does like to take its sweet time to do some of the functions in PS7 but I'm not doing production work.

I haven't used the 5400 II model but I did get a chance to use the original 5400 for a bit. I really like its performance but that was even on USB1.1 at that time.

Gene

My first question to the 350 lab operator would be "Is the Fuji's printing process using any kind of color correction". You would not want any further color corrections done to the image once they have been processed on your computer. I am assuming that you are using some sort of photo editting software like Photoshop or the like.

Also is you monitor calibrated. I am assuming it is as you state the Noritsu prints match so therefore that would lead me to believe you have some control on color management.

Do the prints that don't have any or much magenta look correct from the 350 printer. Could be the Fuji Frontier is a bit out of adjustment if this only has happened to you once. If it is an ongoing trend, talk to the operator and see if they are knowledgable enough to help. Show them the Noritsu prints as a reference so they can see the deisred results.

Hope this helps,

Gene

I think the Faust target are only available from him in Germany.

The IT8 alone with the scanner is only half of the equation. I'm not sure what scanning software you are using, but along with the IT8 target you will need a utility to allow you to scan the IT8 and then perform an analysis of the results, thus giving you a ICC profile accurately profiling your scanner's colorspace.

I use Monaco's EZColor 2.6 to do such a calibration and it takes a few minutes to do a scanner only profile or a little longer to do both a set of scanner and printer matching profiles. The S/W pkg, along with a 5x7 reflective IT8 target and a 4x5 IT8 transparency target came with the PRO version of the Epson 4990 I bought, which considered well worth the extra $100 over the standard version.

I have heard that the EZColor 2.6 non-bundled software pkg does NOT come with a transparency as mine did.

Some scanning software has the capability to work with IT8 targets, although some at a premium extra price such as Silverfast AI 6.0.

Hopefully your Dimage SD-IV came with such software?

Gene

I am in the same situation. I am strongly looking at the Canon lineup of the iP8500 or i9900 although I am looking at the Epson R800 too.

The main issue, as some else mentioned, is the overall TCO (total cost of ownership). How much is ink replacement and does it work with any good paper or does it require OEM paper only?

I have an older HP right now and it suffices to proof with for now until I decide. I also am testing the local WalMart FUJI processor to see what the results are. That could be an alternative to printing on a inkjet.

Gene

Jim,

I'll add my 2 cents worth. I recently went through the same excercise as you are in now. I was looking at different scanners, needing to cover 35mm, 6x6cm and 4x5. Although I don't need a clutch for the car, I just got married AGAIN and was limited on how much I could allocate for a scanner and extras to get a modest digital darkroom up and running.

I decided, after much research, to go for the Epson 4990. I went ahead spent the extra $100 and got the PRO version with the full Silverfast AI 6 / Monaco EZ Color software bundle. I am really pleased that I did that. I like the Silverfast pkg alot and although it does require a bit of study to master it, I feel it was worth the extra $$$.

I have, as others have mentioned, noticed that the 35mm scans are much softer than the MF and LF scans. These can be post-processed in PS and made into a very nice print. The MF and LF scans are a very nice and require little work in PS to complete once the Silverfast AI software has been setup accurately.

I also bought Doug Fisher's MF film holder as the reviews of the Epson MF film holder were pretty accurate in my opinion. Doug's MF holder could be considered a nescessary accessory. The Epson 4x5 film holder is adequate but could be a bit stiffer I think. Rumor has it Doug is possibly owrking to fix that problem too. Comments Doug?

I use Photoshop 7 and found that Focal Blade sharpening plugin is a joy to use. I highly recommend that you check it out if you are looking for a sharpening tool to use in palce of USM in PS.

I had mentioned in earlier posting that I had some sort of 'smudge' on the underside of the glass table but since that posting it seems to have disappeared. I looked at the scanner very thoroughly this weekend and can not find any sign of the 'smudge'. Go figure??

I have started posting some of my scans on my Webshots community page in the 'EPSON 4990 SCANS' folder. I try to add scanning/post processing notes to these images so viewers can see what the image has been through. Take a look and see what you think. I am just a newbie at scanning with the 4990 but I see a vast array of possibilities.

http://community.webshots.com/album/341545132RFttaE

Hope this info helps.

Gene - Ridgecrest, CA

One way to look at it is if Epson had sent back the same printer, you would have still had ONLY the remaining warranty time left on it. I doubt Epson (or any mfgr for that matter) would have reset the warranty clock back to another full year. I have had that happen only once with some audio gear years ago. The gear died flat out at about 4 months and I got a new replacement along with a NEW 1 yr warranty. That company long ago died, probably because they went broke being nice.

I would recommend that you document the entire event starting with the original purchase up to today, and keep a log of use at least until the warranty runs out. That way if it does crap out just before or after the warranty period ends, you might be able to get some results in negotiating with Epson (but don't bet the farm on it).

I keep a use log on all of my equipment along with all related documents and correspondance JUST IN CASE. Call me paranoid but I have found that it helps to a degree.

Gene

Ken,

Great report on Colorvision customer support. Instills confidence in the decision to buy their products. Now if only all vendors would follow their example. Let us know how it turns out.

Gene

Steve,

I see the comparison list you spoke of, but I am now somewhat confused. If I read the Colorvision website info correctly, the colorimeter tool you are referring to is an additional capability that allows the user to check colors AFTER calibrating the monitor. The website specifically states that the ColorPlus kit will calibrate monitors although it is limited to preset Gamma of 2.2 and 1.8.

If I understand what you are saying, you are implying the ColorPlus kit does NOT calibrate monitors so therefore what good would it do Colorvision to sell the kit?

I only ask this information because I was considering the ColorPlus System mainly as a cheaper alternative to replacing a older Spyder that I now borrow when I need to use it. My monitor is now calibrated with the older Spyder and PhotoCal software and appears to be spot on as the colors I see on the screen represent the colors of the scan and the final printout.

Gene