mggm59

<p>Thanks, Dusseldorf is also closer to me, might even drive it there and see what they tell me (if they take this kind of jobs on the spot). I am thinking of opening it anyway, to see what happens, maybe there is some mechanical hitch I can solve</p>

 

<p>Lite update: tesi morning it scared two slides after restarting and then just stopped, after a few tens of seconds the scanner "quit" trying to scan (there was a sort of click) and the SW continued to try a bit and then saved the partial scan. I tried again and it stopped at the same point. this point is more or less at the same position where the stripes started in the scan above. </p>

<p>Thanks to all,<br>

the problem appears after about 10-15 slides with the automatic feeder. It goes away after a rest (unpowered) of 10-15 minutes at least.<br>

I am located in Europe, and Mr Ketzner recently had a big problem, he told me he'll not be around until mid September.<br>

I have a USB scanner, not a FW, on a mac Pro.<br>

Here is a bigger image.</p><div></div>

My scanner, after processing many tens of thousands of slides, produces from time to time partially scanned pictures where a part (smaller or larger at each time) where it just seems to repeat the last read row of pixels, thus producing a striped image. When the scan stops to be regular, the noise changes. <br />After some time I can restart and it works again.

 

<a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/107-film-processing-scanning-darkroom/321973d1471505524-strange-coolscan-5000-behavior-image002.jpg">321973d1471505524-strange-coolscan-5000-behavior-image002.jpg</a>

 

If I continue scanning, the scan is black on a side and part of the slide is regularly scanned, only shorter (but the slide is completely inserted) or has the same striped appearance.

 

<a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachments/107-film-processing-scanning-darkroom/321974d1471505524-strange-coolscan-5000-behavior-image004.jpg">321974d1471505524-strange-coolscan-5000-behavior-image004.jpg</a>

 

I must point out that the problem initially presented itself at longer time intervals, and it is becoming more and more frequent (I suspect this has something to do with heating of some component). <br /><br />Is this an HW problem? Anybody had it and can tell me what the problem was? How costly was the repair? Can it be done by a reasonably able DIYer?<br /><br />Thanks in advance<br />Maurizio

 

<p>Adobe is bringing everything to the cloud, they mentioned keeping Lightroom available as a package "for the foreseeable future" which for corporations is rarely longer than a development cycle or two. I hope to live and take pictures for longer than that.</p>

<p>I don't trust Adobe anymore, the same way I don't Microsoft and am starting not to trust Apple, at least on pro SW (ask video professionals about Final Cut).</p>

<p>If Adobe stops supporting the package at some point I would be in the same situation as today with Aperture, only having spent some more money on a dead end, not to mention the effort to learn it and move 136 687 pictures with their organization (not sure how the export tools will work, but I don't trust them either, migrations are a pain in the neck more often than not).<br>

<br />Should I decide to start paying for CC and then I wish to stop, I have the images in my HD, true, but lose a lot of effort to archive them and the non-destructive edits, not to mention the hassle of exporting a few tens of thousands pics in TIFF (thus freezing all changes, so for instance if I want to apply some mods to another picture I have to do it all over again instead of just "lifting and stamping" them) and keeping these huge files along with the originals. Convenient, right? Call it drama, if you wish, or is there anything wrong in the above (I just tried the trial of Lightroom for a few weeks, so it might be)?</p>

<p>Today the minimum for CC is 146€ per year (i.e. paying more than a copy of Lightroom package every single year), tomorrow? I know I am a cheapskate, but I am no longer making money on photography and I am used to buy my stuff and own it for many years. At my age I'm not going to change that, at least until there is the possibility to do it and I can avoid being shafted by the likes of Adobe.<br /><br />I'll keep Aperture (and the MacPro it's on) and wait for Photos for the time being. Or for a cheaper CS offer (something like half today's rates might convince me). </p>

 

<p>The problem with lightroom and the whole CS is the lifetime commitment to pay or lose access to your stuff. I just don't like this system. I like to own my stuff and do whatever I want with it. What if Adobe decides to raise the prices, and you're stuck with an investment of hundreds of thousands of hours of work? I am staying with aperture (which i pad 300€ and not 60 as it costs now) and see what Phots does. Hopefully someone else will come with some other solution, or I'll keep this Mac just for this version of Aperture.</p>

<p>I might have found the reason for these problems, at least on a Mac.<br>

The bin file which is included in the zip file has the same name as other upgrades, so if you have one of more of these previous versions in your download destination, when the bin is extracted it gets a number attached to the end in order not to destroy the previous file, and therefore is no longer recognized by the camera.<br>

That's why saving directly in the camera solves the issue, but it is enough to delete the added number and it works also when downloading to the computer</p>

Seem to remember it was the first Pentax Dslr to have it, only it could memorize only a few lenses

<p>Thanks to all<br>

yes, I was doing this for have higher precision in focus confirmation and this worked on all previous models I owned (K10, K20, K5). The difference is that there you set a manual lens as a common value applying to all, except if it knew the lens, in which case it applied a specific value you defined for that lens.<br>

Here it seems it does not have the possibility to store a value for manual lenses at all. Of course, if with previous cameras you put a correction for a lens and then used another, it might lead to gross errors, but having to set it every time is even more tedious, at least in the past you could note a value for each lens and dial it in when you changed lens, and then the value was applied to all shoots with that lens.<br>

I am not that interested in using manuals, I am gradually selling them, but the 50 f1.4 is still the best lens in terms of resolution I own, and sometimes it comes in handy. Provided it is in focus, that is...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yesterday I put myself to work on the tedious but fundamental job of searching the best focus point for all my lenses on the K3 and I found some surprises.<br>

First, the Sima 10-20mm wanted quite different corrections at the two ends, i.e. +3 at 10mm et -10 at 20 (and possibly it needed more)<br>

Second, the camera refuses to store the -8 value for the manual focus 50mm f1.4 A and goes back to 0 every time (but the correction seems to be there at least just after I set it, the differences in focus point are sensible). <br>

Did anybody find similar issues? Any way around the problem for the MF lenses (I'll try with the 20mm f4 M as soon as I have time to see if the issue is common to all MF or just the 50.)</p>

<p>Good news on the subject.<br>

Even though it is not mentioned in the list of new cameras whose support is added with the latest update (and I had fused Apple for this), I had the surprise to see that I could reprocess the K3 DNG files that were' previously recognized. I did not test the PEF files since I had none (I'll try when I have time).</p>

A 12 mm and a 36mm one seem odd to me, pictures would help, as well as anything which is written on the front ring

around the lens.

 

If it really were a 12mm (I only know a 12-24mm zoom which is quite modern) it could be worth something, possibly also

the 20mm, the rest of the lenses and the camera not much

<p>Interested in the results, although I have the 4.5. Any tests of this combination welcome</p>

<p>It's update time for most recent Pentax (loops… Ricoh) cameras, due to the retro converter!</p>

<p>http://www.ricoh-imaging.fr/fr/nouveaux-firmwares-pour-reflex-pour-convertisseur-de-focales.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Just for info, a first estimate by Pentax assistance, based on the photos above, is around 450 euros, and 350 for the 12-24 if the helicoids need to be changed. I also learned that the 12-24 needs special tools for centering and it needs to be sent to the EU Pentax labs in Paris.</p>

<blockquote>I believe that these are limited to jpeg files and do not get included in the raw DNG file.</blockquote>

<p>In fact they are, you can turn ON/OFF the correction when developing, but the data is there, I verified in the manual. Aperture unfortunately doesn't support lens correction (one of the few gripes I have with it, other than not supporting the K3 yet ;-)</p>

If I want to compare something, I prefer looking at them side by side, my memory for image details is not so good, and I

could compare several pictures in a row by pivoting on the best and switching the one on the side until I found a better

one (including one shoot at a different time), while with the wheel you can at best compare two adjacent ones.

Whoever used the bracketing functions benefited from this function, and were likely to consider it important, even more

so, I would say, now that you can need to assess the existence of moirè. Of course you can do it in Aperture or lightroom

after the fact, but at 20+Mb pe picture, I'd prefer to be able to do it conveniently in camera.

You can turn it off, or on in two intensities, for the first time on the K3. But since in a few cases there is the risk of finding

moiré, I like the possibility to bracket on it, just I would prefer to be able to bracket exposure as I always did.

<p>Thanks, the adobe DNG converter route works, but I dug a bit yesterday and looks like the lens corrections might be lost, that's the reason the DNG is non standard according to someone. Any confirmation? The converted DNG is about 10% smaller, possibly due to this missing information? Anyway, the K3 seems great, the Sigma slightly less so when compared with the 12-24, except for the 2mm, that is...</p>

<p>Today I had the luck of a nice day, and decided to put the new stuff through its paces at the Aalst carnival. I wanted to oust some stuff but I found that Aperture cannot open the raw files, even though I had chosen DNG in order not to have problems. Is thai normal? I assumed DNG was completely standard, and therefore would not have any problem with any software. Or is there anything else to know?<br>

Viceversa I managed to have the GPs on, it needs calibration (I had done it but obviously does not "stick" and must be repeated.</p>

<p>I don't know if this is another example of strange coincidences, but both the objects I broke in Gent were already supposed to be shouldered and compared with new stuff which took some time to get to me. Two days ago finally I got my Christmas package from Amazon (through a somewhat complicated shipping path, as they did not ship some of the stuff directly to Europe) and today I started playing with it. </p>

<p>Pentax K3<br>

Immediately updated to !.0.2, I wanted to compare the effect of the antialiasing filter, first bad surprise: cannot find the hand function that allowed to pooh at pictures side by side. A big loss for pixel peepers. DId I miss something? Otherwise we should ask to put it back in the next updates, I used it a lot to delete immediately slightly out of focus pictures in the evening after a day of shooting. There still seem to be a visible benefit eliminating antialiasing, but here comes another gripe: Why the bracketing must include both antialiasing levels? And I would prefer to be able to have two exposures as well, so a total of 4 different pictures rather than three with small differences.<br>

Another loss for pixel peepers is the lack of 32x setting it stops at 16x, why? It's good instead that there is a position for 100% view.</p>

<p>Sigma 10-20 4-5.6<br>

No good weather to test it properly, but I already regret the lack of a cutout to rotate the polarizer in the shade, and the lens cover feels cheap. The lens seems sturdy and a quick indoor comparison with the 12-24 does not show very large penalties, while the additional 2 mm show off. I did not have the guts to shell out almost the double to get an additional 2mm on the new 8-16. Maybe when it gets cheaper, or maybe the 10mm samyang if it is really good (LBA, what a painful condition).</p>

<p>GPS1<br>

Simply put, I cannot make it work, it never locks the satellites, any hints?</p>

<p>B+W polarizer<br>

The description said it was low profile, it's not, at least compared with the Vivitar I have. And I immediately checked if the different color temperature I noticed with the Vivitar was there (I posted about this some time ago, I was advised it was an issue due to the low quality of the Vivita) and it's there, I can see it even without putting it on the camera.</p>

<p>And what remains of the attachment</p><div></div>

<p>Another pic of the screw</p><div></div>

<p>After talking to the repair shop I opened the bayonet and this is what I found: the screw pulled out the attachment point, which however only has one millimeter of material on three sides, and probably two tenths of a millimeter on another side, no surprise that it broke. Doesn't seem really a robust design, particularly when magnesium is considered. Cast magnesium is not particularly strong and can have flaws (bubbles of air). These (and the cutting due to the screw thread) can initiate a crack even with no shocks and in the long term lead to breaking the screw support even under repeated strain from long lenses. Caveat emptor!</p><div></div>