mattluther

<p>I've always been a little confused by the ratio-setting for wireless flash with sony - the trouble is remembering which number belongs to which flash, when you don't use it often enough. The Pentax way is more intuitive.<br>

Yes, I'm referring to the slow sync/AEL-button which is a very good feature in Sony. Pentax also has an AEL button, fine, but it just doesn't lock the exposure if you use flash. The way it works - doesn't work - is the one thing that really drives me mad about the system. It would cost nothing to do it right.</p>

<p>The settings: Sony has managed to unify the system to just the usual menus on leafs on one hand, and the infoscreen with the actual settings on the other hand. Every setting you see on the info screen can be accessed directly. Pentax still has the menus on leafs, the first info screen with not accessible settings and then a second info screen where you can change some settings. Better than at K10D and K20D but still not as good as Sony. <br>

Noise: Sonys sensor just seems to be a little less noisy. Just my impression. <br>

I actually forgot an important advantage for the whole Pentax platform: DNG output. Means your software will support the raw files at once, and probably still after many years.<br>

Flash: I have two dedicated flashes for both systems, and it seems the Pentax ones work better in wireless mode which I think is pretty important. More accurate, easier to adjust the output of individual flashes – plus the possibility to use the built-in flash as controller only, which is a real killer. On the negative side is the somewhat more cumbersome procedure with Pentax when you want to balance flash and ambient light, on Sony a one-push affair. The K-7 also for some reason disables anti-shake when in wireless flash mode, but Sony retains it.<br>

In shake reduction there might be another difference. It seems Sony moves the sensor only when the shutter is opened, while the Pentax approach is to keep it kind of floating like on a gyrocompass all the time. The Sony method seems somewhat more effective, but this is a very hard thing to measure.</p>

<p>I own both and my short summary of differences would be like this.<br>

Pros for K-7: <br>

- Live View, very compact and sturdy design, movie. A somewhat more versatile flash system.<br>

Pros for the A700:<br>

- AF still faster and more hassle-free than Pentax, and shorter release lag. A better UI combining viewing of the settings with direct access to changing them. In my mind a better high ISO performance. Three well laid out memory slots for storing personal shooting settings. <br>

Wether you like Sony lenses or Pentax ditto is a largely a matter of taste, with some notable exceptions. The 12-24/f4 is an indispensable reporters tool, very good for architecture also, but Sony has nothing comparable. Sony on the other side has some high grade zooms and tele lenses, the choice for Pentax is more dubious. Likewise Sony has the 16-80 lens which is said (I don't have one) to be very good, and has a unique range. <br>

But the worth of the Sony 18-70 kit lens is best described by the price of my kit. It was cheaper, with the lens, than the body only. The Pentax 18-55 WR which accompanies a K-7 kit is much better.<br>

This may come late for Johns decision, but in time for someone else.</p>

<p>Everything can be fixed... I suppose you simply want to make the vertical line dividing warm and cool less visible. Try this: Select the part to the left of the line, feather the selection a bit (5-10 px), do New Layer via Copy. Now adjust the color of the new layer to match the part to the right, the dividing line will disappear from sight when you are there. Take the Eraser tool, a big soft brush, opacity set at about 11 per cent, and erase from the new (partial) layer gradually from the left. When you are satisfied, Merge down. <br>

The same procedure works if you want to increase warmth to the right of the line instead. And of course, you always work on a copy, not the original scan.<br>

There's many other possibilities but this is pretty failproof.</p>

How about starting a rumble in favour of getting camera manufacturers to start offering out-of-the-

camera DNG:s? If they could agree on just one "raw" format (16 bit depth is the essential thing) life would

be easier for software makers and especially for us. Who needs proprietary formats?

I'm a little worried that everybody seems to be so enthusiastic about the pixel count. I don't

think 24.6 MP appeals to all professionals. In press work you have to be fast, and extra Mb:s

are bound to slow both your camera and your computer down.

I'm working now with a 10.6 Mp camera and i don't want to have a bit more. With the raw

files around 16 Mb this is what my Macbook can process on a single battery charge, which is

a very stragegic measure for a reporter. Moore's law hasn't been in effect for some years

now so how are we going to get along with 24.6 Mp? The present Canon 5D seems much

better then.

What do you people on Macs use for archiving and viewing A700 ARW files? I've been using iView and

Expression Media (same thing) for jpegs and MRW:s but it doesn't seem to support ARW. Since I have

about a hundred thousand files in different formats I need a pretty comprehensive solution.

Hallo, Tommy,

The right question is probably what you have or plan to have as the next lens in the setup.

I have a KM system where the Sigma 10-20 (optically surprisingly good, yes) is reasonably

well complimented by the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (excellent, as been said here too). But when

I recently got into Pentax I went with the 12-24 because I wanted to be able to

compliment it with just the Sigma 28-105/ f 2.8-4 which I knew from Minolta to be a

surprisingly good lens for portraits.

10-17 would in my eyes seem to be a needlessly limited zoom scope, unless you are

specifically into for example architecture or some other very specialized kind of

photography where you know you will always need the extreme wide angle.

BTW none of the mentioned lenses are really fisheyes - they all fill the picture frame to the

corners and barrel distortion is moderate.

- Mathias Luther

Hi Hoang,

I have used both of those lenses semiprofessionally. They are both optically very good, the

Tamron mechanically somewhat more convincing. The main difference is what you see

from the numbers: The longer focal span of the Tamron, the greater aperture.

What you don't notice as easily is that the 17-35 is noticeably bulkier, especially when you

have the hood on, and you usually do. This is because the 17-35 is full frame whilst the

17-50 is for an APS-C sensor. What you think of this feature depends on which rumors

about coming Sony bodies you want to believe, and whether you have any use for the lens

in a film camera.

Mathias L