mattluther

<p>Obviously those who have left are now in the Canon or Nikon forums. You should ask there.</p>

<p>Come to think of it when you mention Konica: the A7 range could actually be the first body to which you could fit the old Hexanons via adapter, get the frame full – and finally find out if they were crap or not. I've got a box full of those so I can hardly wait. </p>

<p>How about getting yourself up behind/above/the board instead, since the crowd will already be looking in that direction? A funny nose will do the rest.</p>

<p>Well, this was shot in a confined space controlling the output of the wireless flash. No ambient light to speak of. Flash output +1, 0, -1 and -2 stops, PTT-L, the built-in as controller. Lens FA 1,4/50. <br /> Output ratio on the 540 at 1/1 in all shots.<br /> <br />The shutter speed is not the problem, and assume Don uses 1/180 because that's what he wants to do. <br /> </p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17108072-lg.jpg" alt="" width="597" height="550" /></p>

<p>I replicated the situation (with a K-5) and the output adjustment seemed to work correctly. It worked correctly doing the adjustment on the camera, too.<br>

But your problem may arise from the environment where you are doing this. Is it indoors or in open air? Indoors the flash is more certain to get the adjustment signals (small flashes) from the camera, in open air or a large room they may get lost and it just gets the one telling it to fire up. <br>

The 540 GFz should be a little bit in front of the camera, preferably with the sensor (under the dark red window) turned towards the camera. I mostly use a homemade extra diffusor on the camera flash to make sure it carries the signal sideways. <br>

In theory at least you could be too close to your subject, too, and then the flash simply doesn't have any lower output level to offer. But with ISO 100 and f 5.6 that doesn't seem likely.<br>

And you have set Custom function Nr 21 to Off, as you should have? Otherwise what you see may be mostly the light from the built-in flash. Being able to use it only as controller is a nice feature.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just added my comment on this camera to the review page<br>

http://www.photo.net/equipment/pentax/k-01/review/<br>

In retrospect, I think it's sad that this concept has been bashed by people who never used the camera for a day, let alone a week or a month. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Anything else I should be considering?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The K-5II. In fact, that's the only Pentax you should be considering right now.</p>

<p>Yes you will be disappointed with a K-5 if you ever get your hands on a K-5 II. Don't settle for anything less (this is said without selfinterest as it obviously only lessens the K-5 I might now have to sell).<br>

I'v got the IIs and it's no doubt it's top of the line. But if you are in a squeeze the plain II might serve you just as well. </p>

<p>You are getting deep into philosophy of photography here. What makes a photograph good? It's really not exposure, sharpness, color, composition, dimensions, even though those are needed for it to work. It's how well the photograph speaks to us, answers some question, fills a need, reminds us of something important. <br />Many of the images seen here would actually be very effective if they had the right story to go with them. For some, the story would probably have to be made up, for others it's there and just needs to be told. <br />The picture in it's context is meaning. The picture without a context is mostly just technique. <br />Pictures of family and friends are very important – and good ! – in your own eyes, but may seem mediocre when viewed with the eyes of strangers. <br />This is why professional photography is in a sense always more meaningful than just walking around. You have a mission, and you either succeed with it or you don't. You look for meaning – a special meaning – from shooting to selecting and processing. <br />Everyone who has had an assignment knows how envigorating and inspiring that can be. <br />A mediating factor is the presence of universally understood symbols which makes some pictures a ready statement, i e they answer also the question about why they were made and published in the first place. <br />Long essays have been written on the meaning of photography and this is certainly not the last word. Just goes to say that setting a goal for yourself makes it a lot easier to see wether what you have been doing is any good.<br /><br /></p>

<p>I had the small focus adjustment and the ISO-adjustment buttons stick intermittently, which made the camera unexpectedly go completely haywire. The body was under a year old, got fixed under warranty at my local shop – so quickly I barely got home from town when I got the message that it was fixed.<br>

I can very well imagine a shutter button developing something similar. It is after all frequently exposed to fingers that may be just a little sweaty from warm weather or just exitement. And it all flows downwards. </p>

<p>There was some discussion last year here in Finland about this when it was revealed that photographers pay public schools hundreds or even thousands of euros in "arrangement fees" for getting the contract to do the yearl groups and the portraits of the pupils.<br>

What it amounted to was a recommendation from the national school authorities that the contracts be awarded on the basis of an open competition and the kickback goes to the schools funds or the PTA. The point where this becomes corruption, in the eyes of the Finnish School authorities, is if the kickbacks go to the people that decide who gets the contract.</p>

<p>Im not that impressed with the questions that partly went very much into detail. And it seems Pentax doesn't still have a clear understanding about what should be Pentax strengths, except being something else than everybody else. Just filling the gaps other brands may or may not leave will not be very profitable or even easy to do.<br>

It's not all about design. It's also about making choices. Take it from Steve Jobs.</p>

<p>I meant the Apply All-setting, which really should be named Apply <em>to</em> all. I just wanted to get a hint about wether this was a generally troubled body or not.<br>

I have a 12-24 and use the +1 setting on it, but they are quite individual of course. I'm a little sceptical about using the focusing charts on wide lenses, especially a zoom. You are likely to be off at some focal length. And then the testing is done at a distance you hardly ever use in real life. To get the chart large enough in view at 12 mm the camera back has to be at 40 cm. The lens hood is then 20 cm from the subject.<br>

Not being able to focus at infinity is worse. If the shutter is set to focus priority, it will not release at all. </p>

<p>How about your other lenses ? And do you use any general setting for the body?</p>

<p>3 points:<br>

1) Use Vuescan Pro. Don't get a scanner that isn't supported by it. It will save your settings and eventually your sanity.<br>

2) Get a scanner which is capable of batch scanning, either by scanning the frames one after the other on the flatbed or (better) by moving the film holder automatically.<br>

3) Don't try to choose the worthy frames before you scan. Scan them all, judge them on-screen and keep the keepers.</p>

<p>Wether you call 50mm "standard" or "portrait" is unimportant. Pentax plans on making a new one anyway. My bet is that they are tired of having to keep two f 1.4 lenses in production because the 55 mm one didn't manage to fill the void of the FA 50/1.4.<br>

We can hope it will be an affordable 50mm/1.4 with weather sealing, compact form factor, great optics and fast and reliable focusing. All the things you can get with the "standards" of today, but not with any single one of them.</p>

<p>Douglas, we are right in there with you on this issue. The Japanese have over the years given so much to the world and especially to everyone interested in photography. Our thoughts are with them.</p>

<p>I've got both the Metz58 and the AF540, so:<br>

- Recycling times are about the same, actually the FPS with flash is limited by the camera, not by the flash. Don't know why.<br>

- Accuracy in metering is about the same, again depending more on the camera, plus see next point:<br>

- The Metz has an A mode that really works and meters correctly in normal indoors flash situations. This is useful if you want to prevent getting eyelids half-closed after the metering flash in PTT-L<br>

- The the UI of the AF540 depends on buttons, the Metz on menus. I find the AF540 better in this respect.<br>

- The Metz will remember the last used settings when waking up, the AF540 will revert to defaults and what's defined by the buttons. Choose your preference.<br>

- You can use both together in a wireless setup.</p>

<p>Having made the upgrade recently I must say these were not my best spent 1100 euros. Actually CS5 has brought me nothing but trouble so far and my old iMac will keep it's CS3 for the rest of its life. Content-aware fill should have stayed a joke, and the small tweaks to the workspace have made at least my life harder.</p>

<p>I think the central ingredient is here:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would get up at 5:00 A.M and go shoot wildlife in the natural morning golden light and fog. My heart would beat so fast when I knew I had taken a good shot. I couldn't waste any film, so I would meticulously chose my subjects and surroundings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which is in a sense parallel to playing in a band, vs sitting in front of your iMac. The technology cannot really give us the inspiration. But I think Yvon is very right in saying that it can get in our way, since it's now so advanced in itself.</p>

<p>Why format? I do this transfer every day without formatting. Did you use the Image Capture App? It works very well and if you give your card a distinct name you can have the App download the pics always to the same folder (or get a dropdown menu of the last used). <br>

The only time you really have to format is when you upgrade the firmware on your K-7 – it will only work with a card called NO NAME. </p>

<p>I've used the Pentax adapter. It's possible to use if you have a lens of about 28-30mm and an APS-C sensor. The thread is 52 mm so you may need a step-down or step-up ring. <br>

If your subject is not moving you are just as well of with some other solution. The angle of field with this thing is rather narrow, it would probably be like a 100 mm lens (on 35 mm film) and and all of the picture area will not be of use because the mirrors are adjusted for one distance only. <br>

One important thing about stereo rendering: If you look straight ahead, you can use (print or display) the picture only up to where the distance between the center of the frames are as much apart as your own eyes. But you can display/ print significantly bigger pictures - with better resolution - if you switch left frame to the right and the right to the left. Then you have to look cross-eyed, which really is possible (for some time). Look below. The picture is made with the Pentax adapter and a K20D with a zoom at 28 mm.<br>

This is like it came out of the camera:<br>

<img src="http://mathias.luther.fidisk.fi/images/bildmapp/stereo-1.jpg" alt="" width="463" height="331" /><br>

This is with the frames switched:<br>

<img src="http://mathias.luther.fidisk.fi/images/bildmapp/stereo-2.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Finally an example of the best kind of scene for this appliance. Frames switched, 35mm film, standard 50 mm lens.</p>

<p><img src="http://mathias.luther.fidisk.fi/images/bildmapp/stereo-3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>A700 is certainly a whole lot snappier, also with the beercan. </p>

<p>1) DNG output<br>

2) DNG output compressed<br>

3) Weather sealings<br>

4) small & sturdy<br>

5) The great wide-angles 14 &12-24 mm</p>

<p>One of the most competent reviews I've read. The only one describing the autofocus problem just the way it is.<br>

If you read reviews by people who have already invested in some gear it is bound to be uncritical and overly positive, if for no other reason because they want to be able to get rid of it without too big a loss. The professional reviewers are the only ones who can be even-handed. <br>

If the don't always find Pentax superior it just may be the truth. After two years and 35 000 mostly professional shots with Pentax three top DSLR:s I'm inclined to agree. </p>