jay_d5

<p>I appreciate the discussion and the input this has generated (even though it did wander off topic in a few posts), and thanks to those who addressed my question. Zack, it was interesting that you say some newer full format dslr's can beat the film stocks. Which films are you referring to and which parameters are you thinking of?<br>

Leszek, I'm interested in the test you mention, but based on your response, it sounds like the digital files from which the prints were produced are not available online or for public view. Is that right?<br>

David, do you have any example shots you can point to which illustrate the differences? One hindrance to making conclusions with flickr views between users is the lack of post-processing data...however, I think it may be possible to make some hypotheses based on patterns over a wide range of pictures. </p>

<p>I was having a discussion with someone who shoots with a 10MP dslr as well as a large format camera. He is enjoying the huge resolution increase and overall look of film, and began talking about the need to upgrade his dslr to a newer model. One reason he gave was that in viewing low res shots on the web (like flickr) he could see big improvements in resolution from other cameras over his 40d. He also said he noticed that there was more detail in shots at low res, 500-700 pixels, from his large format than his current camera. I believe at small sizes, 700 pixels or so, sharpening methods are much more important for the appearance of detail than the resolution of the cameras one uses. Ergo, at that size, you won't be able to tell a significant difference in resolution at that size between say a 10 MP camera and a 36 MP camera, or even large format camera. And any appearance of enhanced detail between film and digital at such low res probably boils down to the way film handles contrast, etc and not due to increased resolution. Therefore, you need to look at larger file sizes or close-up crops making a valid visual comparison.<br>

Do you concur? Why or why not? Thanks in advance. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for the constructive responses gentlemen. I called and spoke with one of the salesmen (not the same one I had talked to initially). I mentioned I had talked to the manager and gave him the specifics of the situation. I also requested my money back. His response was an offer to comp me a piece of equipment of comparable value for the weekend. You can bet I'll be testing it out before I leave. :) If I had to do it over again I would have asked that the manager look into the situation while I was in the store, instead of relying on him to get back to me.</p>

 

<p>I know this post may be a bit tangential to this forum, but I was unsure of a better venue. It's not a complaint as much as a question. What would you do if this happened to you?</p>

<p>You rent a camera and lens for the weekend, mostly for personal use. The autofocus fails to work in the camera. Upon returning it, you explain to the salesman the problem. He tests the camera out and the autofocus indeed does not work. He puts the camera away and offers no explanation or apology. You say "It would be nice if the autofus had functioned." The reply comes, "of course it would have," and he begins to help the next customer. This happened to me and I was irate enough by the salesperson's response that I said nothing, because I was unsure a string of expletives would not be forthcoming(i.e. you're #$! right it would have been nice if it had &$@# worked) . Afterwards I spoke to the rental manager who offered to look into the situation for me. </p>

<p>My question to you is, what would you do or say given the above scenario? This store is the largest rental outfit in town and there really is little competition for their business. Had I strongly voiced my opinion and stirred the ire of the employees there, in a worst case scenario I could open myself up to some very surreptitious tactics (for example: I return equipment in good working order, and they claim I broke it, or maybe the item I want is "not in stock.") That being said they cannot help but alienate clientele by renting equipment that does not work properly, and then dismissing any complaints that arise, and disrespecting those who bring the issues to their attention. </p>

<p> </p>

Addendum to the first post: My question should read, "...to achieve good prints from slide film, it is best to

avoid the average pro-lab and print at home on your own equipment. Do you agree? Why or why not?"

Being relatively new to the world of film, I have used a pro-lab and have been underwhelmed by the results. The

colors are not rich, the dynamic range pales in comparison to the slides, etc. They use a Noritsu scanner. One

employee at the lab mentioned a while ago that their scanners are optimized for negatives, not slides. I'm

currently looking into getting Imacon and possibly drum scans of certain slides, and expect to see better quality.

 

In a couple of posts I have read on photo.net people alluded to an apparent "truism" that to achieve good prints

from slide film, it is best to avoid the average pro-lab. First of all, do you agree? Why or why not?

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Note: The mistake was that the employees put the wrong comment on the package slip. The lens was never disassembled.

Andrew, that is a good point. My local repair store uses a collimator, checks the diaphgragm, and uses the lens on the camera body to make sure it's focusing correctly. I assumed wrongly that Pentax would do similar testing and inform me of the results, then if the lens failed any of their tests, would inform me of the necessary repairs in the estimate.

 

Instead they automatically generated a repair order. They initially told me almost everything that could go wrong did go wrong-- "defective lens optics, defective diaphragm, defective focus." Those statements were not true (at least not known), with no other information. No one ever could ever tell me what, if any testing, was ever done to them.

 

I spoke to Richard Eliot (spelling?) at Pentax (I was able to get his name as someone who works in Colorado), regarding the statement on the package slip about irreparable damage to the lens. He's at extension 1318 at the toll free Pentax number.

 

He was argumentative to the point of being adversarial, and informed me, that because I requested the lens be shipped overnight and put a time constraint on them, I caused the employees to make a mistake.

 

Love that customer service.

Lindy, thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify, Pentax does repair the items in Colorado, but when you call to get updates on the service of your product, you go through customer service in North Carolina. Communication between these two sites, I have found is slow. If you have days and days to wait, then you likely will not have a problem with the sluggishness.

 

Before sending the lenses in, I called Pentax and was told a technician would know within 2-3 days what needed to be repaired, and have an estimate ready. I found that not to be the case.

No where did I say the cost was unjustified for the service rendered. You fellas ought to read the post more carefully. Engaging, in a repair under false pretenses, regardless of the price, is poor business practice. They should have told me up front that there was no KNOWN problem with the lens and camera. It's pretty simple: it's called TRANSPARENCY, and communication. This was complicated by the fact that, per the agreement with the seller, if there were known defects, I had the right to return the 35mm lens, and I also asked the seller to pay for repair of the defects. I believe she probably would have agreed to pay for defects which are possibly not there.

 

Again, stating that items were defective: "defective lens optics, defective diaphragm, and focus" was flat out unsubstantiated. Yet I was never told this until hours on the phone trying to uncover the problem. In fact, only when I talked to a local repair shop did I receive an explanation for Pentax's mode of operation: boilerplate generic comments that are not indicative of any real problem but based purely on customer comments. Pentax's operators intially told me the comments were based on tests done by the technicians and real issues that were uncovered, that is, that the lenses and camera were in fact defective.

 

I received the 35mm lens today, as I requested it be sent back with the plans to take it to a local repair shop.

Pentax's note in the packing slip reads:

 

"After disassembly of your Pentax equipment we have found damage that is not economical to repair or the product is not repairable for some other resason. Please read below fore specific information on your product."

 

There are no notes below! Pentax was never authorized to take it apart as I did not approve the estimate nor did I pay it. This has reached the level of comedy of errors. My guess is they never took it apart or did anything more than hold it in their hands and look at it. But it's just another thing I have to get to the bottom of.

My research corroborates Fredrik's statement on resolution versus dynamic range. The k20d does have a feature that increases dynamic range, but I'm skeptical about how many stops you'll actually get. One owner online (albeit not an authority) said he was able to get only 0.4 stops. I have also noticed that the colors from the k20d and k10d appear to be muted. One could possibly fix that in photoshop or through in camera presets, but I would check on the color output and dynamic range to see if they meet your needs.

 

I would go for the k20d over the k10d if you plan on shooting jpegs, as the output from the k10d in jpeg form in naturally very soft.

The issue is that they stated items were defective, when in fact they were not. It took hours on the phone to figure that out. Instead of inventing problems and charging money to fix them, the service department should clearly state what diagnostics have been done and specifically what problems they have found.

 

 

CLA is not a bad idea though.

Cliff, I recently found out that Pentax neither trains nor certifies any private camera shop. I still am not sure how they go about earning the title of an "authorized" Pentax dealer. That is one reason I sent some gear I purchased used to Pentax, in Colorado. However, that is a very poor option for having used equipment inspected. They gave me a list of things that were defective along with a $300 estimate, when in fact,as I discovered later no real tests had been performed, and nothing was known to be defective.

Dave is right on. KEH's rating system applies to cosmetic appearance only, not function or performance.

Just so people know, according to a KEH rep I spoke with today, their rating system applies ONLY to cosmetic appearance.

I thought about taking the gear to a local repair store, but I learned Pentax neither trains nor certifies the technicians at any of the privately owned camera shops. I thought by sending it directly to Pentax, I would be getting the highest caliber diagnostics and inspection.

I recently purchased a used 35mm f3.5 645 lens and sent it in to Pentax for some

routine testing. Along with the lens I sent along my 45-85 and 645n body as a

precaution.

 

I called Pentax a few days later and was told that all 3 had repair estimates,

the total was around $350. When I tried to dig deeper to find out specific

information as to the nature of the problems, I hit a brick wall. Only generic

statements like "defective lens optics" were provided. I assumed these

self-explanatory but generic statements were correct. Not so. Later I discovered

there were no known defects.

 

After a couple of days of calling, I was finally able to get a bit more

information, but it turned out this was a generic laundry list of procedures for

any equipment sent in with my specific requests (ex: align optics, adjust

optics, clean or replace lens optics). Apparently Pentax does little testing

on their own in order to generate an estimate, and instead almost entirely

relies on a customer's comments. Communication and obtaining information was

complicated by the fact that the only people one can speak to are in North

Carolina, while the service repair store is in Colorado.

 

For example, with the 645n body, I asked them to perform a general check, paying

specific attention to the metering and shutter. What came back was an estimate

for $200 for a new shutter curtain, timing gear, and balance assembly. However,

no one could tell me what exactly was wrong with the camera or why those needed

to be replaced. Instead, again, it was a generated list based on my request

with perhaps a cursory check. A supervisor told me many times they perform

precautionary replacements, if they think a part may fail with significant usage

in the future. This is because when making any repair, regardless of how

trivial, the entire camera is put under warranty (according to a supervisor). I

found this out after making several phone calls and doing a lot of prodding and

questioning, and a good deal of attitude from employees at various levels of the

company.

 

My conclusion is that sending equipment at Pentax is a poor option for having a

piece of used equipment analyzed and checked, unless you have a specific known

problem, or if you are looking to unload on some extra money that is burning a

hole in your pocket.

 

Has anyone had a similar experience with Pentax service?

Thank you!

You guys made some interesting points. The photo was shot in landscape mode in RAW, and Irfan's rendition looks a lot like what I remember seeing on the LCD, which is a jpeg conversion, right?

 

If I understand correctly then, with Elements the shooting mode is irrelevant (i.e. landscape, vivid, custom, etc.) in RAW because it does not change the RAW data? If that's the case, how can I replicate the landscape mode with Elements, while working with a RAW photo?

Here is the same photo in Elements 6.0, with no adjustments.<div></div>

Here is the IrfanView photo:<div></div>

I use Photoshop Elements 6.0 for my image editing. I photograph with a Nikon

dslr and shoot almost exclusively in RAW. For some reason, today I opened up an

.NEF file of a photo in IrfanView instead of Elements, without making any

adjustments to the picture. The colors were bold and the picture had greater

tonality than I remembered. I then opened up the same photo in Elements (as an

.NEF), and did not make any adjustments whatsoever. In Elements, it was

noticeablly flatter, the overall tone was more yellow, and it was brighter.

When I looked at the histograms in each program, I was even more surprised.

They were different...one being stretched out (could be due to a scale

difference in the program), and in the Elements photo, there was a concavity on

the far left that did not appear in the Irfan picture. They looked like two

completely different photos.

 

In your experience can an image editor make such a drastic difference? I tried,

unsuccessfully, to process the Elements photo so that it looked like its Irfan

counterpart. I prefer the look of the one in Irfan and wish it looked that way

in Elements right off the bat.

 

 

Here are the two photos in question:

http://www.photo.net/photo/7242055

http://www.photo.net/photo/7242049

 

 

Thanks for your help.

you have to look at both house photos by the way since in the second one, the soft area is probably too small to be noticeable.

part of the rocks are sharp. not in the upper right however.

did you look at the house photo?

Regarding the house photo-- I have attached the original: http://www.photo.net/photo/6475333

 

As I mention in the caption, the softness includes around 30% (a conservative estimate) of the photo width. Therefore, it is not due to the normal corner softness expected on a full-frame sensor. Camera shake can also be ruled out as a significant part of the photo is not soft.

 

If the issue were due to improper focusing (user error as opposed to len defect), then one would expect the whole roof to be out of focus since it's about all about the same distance to the camera-- and the aperture was f9. Am I right?

 

Regarding the waterfall picture-- I have also attached the original here: http://www.photo.net/photo/6475476

 

The conditions were dead still...I could detect no movement of trees at all during the shoot. I also looked at a 0.3s exposure of the same scene (that would have been used to create an hdr) and it also had the same softness....not less as would be expected if it were due to movement of vegetation. Furthermore, the blurriness/softness/mush whatever you want to call it in the trees is also present in the part of the cliff face on the upper right hand side, which is clearly not the edge (not the vegetation but the rock). All waterfall pictures were taken with a good manfrotto tripod and 3 way head (8 lbs altogether), all tightened down and placed in a sturdy position. Mirror lock was also used. In adddition a significant part of the photo is not soft. Camera movement can therefore be ruled out.

 

I took another shot which is of the same fall but panned to the right a bit, so that the upper cliff to the right of the falls is in the middle of the picture. In that photo, the upper part of the cliff is significantly sharper than in the photo I posted. To me that supports the notion it might be a lens defect or sensor alignment issue, as a couple posters have alluded to.

 

Focal lengths are 30mm for the house shot and 25mm for the waterfall shot, as stated in the detail section of the photos.

 

In these photos the problems extend way beyond the edges.