eric_mark_palmer

<p>Thank you <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5189561">Wouter Willemse</a> I had not really thought about the working of zoom sucking in dust but it does make sense. The Pentax was my selection as can use old lenses bought for Ricoh XR7 the Nikon was my sisters given to me by my dad when my sister died. As a result it's kept in the bag most of the time.<br> Although I should know better when using the zoom lens with the Nikon the Tamron B008 18-270mm I tend not to realise how much I have zoomed in and go past the point where it can be used hand held. With the Pentax 28mm prime is hardly used mainly use the Pentax-DA 18-55mm which is only coupled lens. The 95 - 210 is rather old and like the 28mm using without being wide open is a lot of messing around. The 400mm pre-set is very basic but as a result very long which I find a great aid to holding steady where tripod is not used. With tripod it is connected to lens not camera. Also have bellows for Pentax K and reversion ring for 95 - 210 and close-up filters for Pentax-DA 18-55mm. Remote cable release and wireless release for Pentax plus 3 batteries (2 for Nikon) so yes the Pentax is used far more than the Nikon. So with Pentax still using lenses bought in early 1980's.</p>

<p>hank you all I was beginning to think my maths was even worse than I thought. I could not believe how small compact sensors were and so was thinking I had made a huge error somewhere.<br> Since the calculation is not a precise figure but just approximation not sure if really worth altering program to work with the approximate value. <br> As to the way colours are done I have seen the normal and special sensor the latter to give high dynamic range and that was not a problem.<br> I have seen such an improvement from my Old Pentax with CCD and my Nikon with CMOS I do realise how important the sensor is. However still love my Pentax I just feel at home with it.<br> I inherited the Casio EX-Z600 and I have been rather impressed so small and easy to take anywhere. Always feel even the K10D Pentax says mug me and the Nikon D7000 with a Tamron 18 - 270 mm lens is really only used when I have some one with me. A few draw backs with the Casio EX-Z600 are no RAW files and no view finder and auto focus often fails to find the subject however the Nikon D7000 with the Tamron lens is not that good either I thought the Pentax K10D was bad until I started using the Nikon but I suppose with such a huge zoom only to be expected.<br> My Father-in-law has the Fugifilm Finepix S2900 Series and I was impressed. Really odd manual warns about aerial erection and one wonders what that has to do with a camera? But I have got use to the idea of only a casual glance at the display when taking photos and any colour correction or similar can be done latter even if done in camera. I always take RAW pictures so was looking at the idea of a compact with RAW and a reasonable ISO and f-stop for the lens.<br> The 4/3 has a lot going for it keeping the interchangeable lens option but my K10D has been a problem with dust. My own fault treated like a film camera and did not appreciate how careful one needs to be about dust and so not being able to remove lens does have some advantages the lens has never been removed from my Nikon D7000 and likely never will be.<br> Seeing the size of sensor on a compact at least explains the poor ISO but the K10D is not that good only the D7000 has a CMOS sensor and a really good ISO capability. But in the main using a tripod I get away with the slow exposures. Although the Nikon sensor is really good the Pentax anti-shake leaves the Nikon well behind and so simply reading reviews does not really help.<br> Main reason for Nikon and Canon is being able to hire a lens since I have no intention of hiring a lens there is really no need to pay the extra for the pair and money better spent getting a good camera. <br> I expect it to be a few years before I buy but still try to keep abreast of developments. I was rather surprised at Nikon finding it would not work with CS4 even with CS5 it needed an upgrade to be able to read the RAW files but then I realised Nikon is 14 bit where Pentax is only 12 bit with RAW files. As to if the 2 bits really make a difference I don't know? But as a result I would not dream of converting Nikon RAW to DNG but have used the DNG save option with the Pentax.<br> With so much to consider it will take years before I have the skill required to select the next camera I had the Ricoh XR7 45 years before I upgraded to the K10D and in the main selected as it could use all the old lenses.<br> I still have a IBSOR D.R.P. bellows compact camera my dad bought for 6D in 1945 so I am a little slow to catch up with technology. <br> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>

<p>I was considering a new compact camera and was comparing spec with D-SLR and compact but when it came to sensor size the D-SLR gave width and hight of sensor but with the two compacts I have been using it say “1/2.3 – in., square-pixel CCD with primary color filter” with Fugi and similar with Casio 1/2.5 and try as I will these figures don't seem to bare any relation to the focal length and the equivalent focal length for a 35mm film camera.<br> Working on basis film is 24 x 35 mm giving a diagonal of around 42 mm I wrote a program which would show me how this related to a D-SLR and what an old for example Pentax lens would do with a new cropped sensor SLR. Since many gave the equivalent size I could also work back to give sensor size from the real focal length and 35mm focal length together with pixals the latter to give aspect ratio.<br> Works it would seem A1 with D-SLR data but however I try to convert the compact data it just does not seem to compute. My calculator http://gw7mgw.co.nf/Camera-Lens.html is here it was at first rather simple but I just can't seem to find what that “1/2.3 – in., square-pixel CCD with primary color filter” means. If the area was 1/23 of an inch then it would be some where near but can't see both Casio and Fugi making a mistake with decimal point so has to refer to something I can't see.<br> Eric</p>