|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
09-21-2011, 06:06 AM
|
| |
When I got mine, it came with the 18-55mm nonWR kit lens. I was disappointed because of the lack of WR, but the lens itself was quite versatile. When Pentax started including the WR version of the 18-55 as a kit lens with their premium models, I figured a lot of buyers would end up selling their "kit" lens when they got a star version. I think that did happen, because I was able to pick up an 18-55WR for only about $100 at that time. It serves admirably for that price, in any weather. I've read a lot about the 16-45 lens, but it's not WR, and it runs about twice as much as the 18-55. Obviously, the more you want to invest, the better lens you can get, but most K200D people are careful budgeters. For me, that means the 18-55WR to get the most for the least. For now. : )
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-03-2011, 05:38 AM
|
| |
That seems a good diagnosis to me. The little drive connector is spring loaded so that the non-AF lenses can mount as well. It's very possible that with some rotational pressure on the connector as it was pushed down got it to catch under the lip of the body mount. At that point, it would spin without connecting to anything.
When some jiggling got it to pop free again, then it would work as ever.
I hope that's all that happened. If so, and if it happens again, you'll have a more specific point to investigate.
BTW, that is a wonderful photo. : )
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
05-29-2011, 08:23 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-04-2011, 06:06 AM
|
| |
@minahasa - it seems a good step and a good match for your lenses.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-22-2011, 03:47 AM
|
| |
I had thought it was 50,000 shutter actuations - but now when I go back to the websites where I had thought I'd seen it posted, I don't find it.
Still, my other cameras have served me well far beyond their "rated" service life.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-30-2011, 06:22 AM
|
| |
cbaytan - If you use a memory card larger than 2G (SDHC instead of SD) you absolutely need - NEED - to do the firmware upgrade. If you're unconvinced, take a few controlled comparison shots of identical images on the SD card and then on the SDHC and try looking at them at 100% or closer - or try doing some contrast adjustments. You'll be convinced.
I've also noted that I seem to have better (smoother, fewer artifacts) results using the DNG format for RAW instead of the PEF. Probably just my software's ability to read it, but I work with what I have. : )
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-27-2011, 08:48 PM
|
| |
I got the "cheapest," the AF-200FG for about $50 (including shipping) for a like-new unit off the internet - and find it's pretty useful for being so small. No swivel. No tilt. But it does have a built-in flip-down diffuser for wide-angle, it's compact, works seamlessly with my K200D, and seems to cycle fast enough for my purposes even with plain NiMH rechargeables. (Some folks have been using the NiZn rechargable batteries in their various models of flash units for a slightly faster cycle time, but caution against over-cycling them with the higher native voltage than alkalines.) I imagine you can look up the guide numbers for the various models to see how high you need to set your ISO to work with them at a prescribed distance.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-17-2011, 09:39 PM
|
| |
I put the BG3 on my K200D - and it looks - and acts - like a thousand-dollar camera.
Example: My favorite night-shot of the Mackinac Bridge, 13-second-exposure merged image.
Mackinac Bridge at Night - WXGA pictures from michigan photos on webshots
However, I don't think we'll see weather sealing on a AA dSLR anytime soon. Market trends are pointing in other directions. But then, that makes me happy to have such a unique and competent instrument.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-17-2011, 09:22 PM
|
| |
Thank you, everyone who has posted in response to my initial concern. I've come to the conclusion, after reviewing pre-firmware update images, that the firmware did what it was supposed to do. However, I've been carefully studying the DNG v PEF v JPG images, and - at least for my own use with the K200D, have arrived at the conclusion that the DNG files are decidedly superior to the PEF for RAW files, and that even prefer the JPG files (at the 3-star setting) to the PEF files. I've posted a few "screen shots" of the wires in my window screen that show the differences. To those who accuse me of "pixel peeping" - call it what you will, I like the cleaner images. No, it is not a lab test - just used a central portion of the image taken with my DA 40mm Limited at 5.6 aperture, ISO200 on A priority to get as clean an image as I thought was easily gotten. Here are the three images that provided the basis for my conclusion:
3162PEF screen shot at 400pc Pentax Photo Browser pictures from midwest photos on webshots (PEF)
3162JPG screen shot at 400pc Pentax Photo Browser pictures from midwest photos on webshots (JPG)
3159DNG screen shot at 400pc Photoshop CS3 Camera RAW pictures from midwest photos on webshots (DNG)
Again - thanks for your comments and thoughts.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-07-2011, 06:13 PM
|
| |
Thanks Ivan - et al. I am aware of the variations in the ink and paper media - my first observation of the digital artifacts was on a plastic ID card that had no grain or texture, so the printing was as crisp as a test pattern.
I think my biggest problem here is that I have overly high expectations of the RAW format, and the PEF format of RAW in particular.
Specifically, I keep forgetting to make allowances for things like:
(1) my computer only shows 8 bits of color depth, when the PEF files have 12.
(2) PEF (Pentax RAW) files DO employ some compression - I had not known or else forgot that. Compression of any kind naturally leads to digital artifacts, no matter how small.
(3) virtually all my files end up converted to jpg for actual viewing/printing - so they can never show all the information stored in the higher fidelity files.
Since I found the digital artifacts even in the best PEF files, I've tested using the DNG format instead for the RAW files, and that seems to produce a cleaner file, although I had to download a new converter to see them because the Pentax bundled Silky Pix wouldn't convert or view them.
Although the DNG files seem only have 8 bits of color depth, (maybe that's the fault of my conversion settings) they are still a larger file size than the PEF format RAW files and seem not to display the same degree of fragmenting/fracturing at the square corners of high contrast imaging.
My goal/hope in using the PEF to preserve all the color depth was to be able to extract more usable image information from the shadow areas, since I try to underexpose to prevent burnout and so achieve the greatest EV range in the final 8-bit JPG image. From what I've read about the JPG format, much of its compression is accomplished through limiting the color depth in the darker levels. But I don't think I want to sacrifice the clean-ness of the image to achieve the extra bit depth.
Thanks, everyone.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-05-2011, 09:58 AM
|
| |
Thanks, Adam - I am with you 100% on the futility of an attempted reinstall of 1.01.
Thanks, enoeske - here are two images - shot with the K200D on RAW+ and then viewed with the Pentax Photo Browser - screen capture at the pixel level. I think the digital artifacts in the PEF file will be apparent - even though, in my ignorance, I've resorted to posting it on a compressed file host. This is the first thread I've ever started on PF
Wheatfield - I don't normally zoom past 100% unless I think I see something my aging eyes find disquieting, in which case I want to verify that the problem isn't just intraocular floaters (muscae volitantes).
K200D IMGP3078 PEF pixel level pictures from midwest photos on webshots (PEF file scrn cptr)
K200D IMGP3078 jpeg pixel level pictures from midwest photos on webshots (JPG file scrn cptr)
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-04-2011, 06:57 PM
|
| |
I suppose the only way to check on the RAW processor is to send the camera in ... and wait for an expensive quote for repairs.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-04-2011, 05:09 PM
|
| |
In November of 2010 I noticed the PEF (RAW) files of my K200D were showing some very choppy digital artifacts – almost a posterization of the image. The artifacts were just as pronounced in the broad open areas of the images as they were along high contrast edges.
Searching for a solution I discovered the 1.01 firmware update at the Pentax site. I successfully installed it, and went happily on my way, shooting PEF files without the digital junk in them. I had no idea it could revert.
However, today, I happened to be looking at a PEF image at the 400% view on the Pentax Photo Viewer, and realized the very ugly artifacts had returned. I had no idea why. The camera still shows firmware update 1.01 is correctly installed.
I can only think of two possible explanations:
(1) At Christmas I got a 32 Gig class 6 SDHC card. Before then I had used 8 Gigs max, class 4. This would be my first guess.
(2) It also occurs to me that there is a slight chance the lower voltage output of NiMH batteries could cause some write issues to the card, although that is even less likely than the previous guess.
The k200e101w.exe download that created my firmware installation file was version 2.80.5.12 – it created the file fwdc184b.bin for the update – which gives me no indication of whether it is the 1.01.00.05 or the 1.01.00.06 update. The date for the file’s modification is 3-24-2010.
I just checked again on the Pentax website and it is still the same file version of k200e101w.exe being posted for the firmware update – version 2.80.5.12 (I just downloaded it to check). So I have no indication that there is any improved update available for my K200D.
I am wondering about the possible benefit of an attempted reinstalling the firmware update – except I’m quite concerned about disabling my K200D entirely. I’d just as soon keep shooing *.jpg files as shooting none at all.
Any thoughts are much appreciated. |
