advertisement


Pentax *ist DL closeout

dan m

dan m

pfm Member
Onecall has 'em for $440-, probably because the K100D will be out soon. I'm very tempted - that's P&S pricing. Haven't seen the DS2 anywhere, so holding out for a pentaprism seems useless. I have a fair number of manual k mount lenses knocking about, so would be inclined to stick to pentax, unless of course the Epson RD1 drops to less than $1K.

So should I?

Dan
 
Dan,

Unless you want something a lot better, I can't see how you could go wrong with a $440 entry into D-SLR photography, but be sure to factor in the cost of Photoshop CS2 if you don't have a current image-editing application.

I don't know anything about Onecall, but I've had good experiences with online orders from B&H... which also has DS2s in stock for $440.

Joe
 
Photoshop Elements is worth considering - much cheaper (£40 odd in the UK), and has most of the features of Photoshop that you're likely to need for photo editing.
 
Joe Petrik said:
B&H... which also has DS2s in stock for $440.
Click to expand...

Joe - is that a typo? I see only DLs. Agreed that B&H is excellent -- I just ordered $75- worth of film from them yesterday. Onecall came up thru Amazon, where I have a $100- gift certificate itching to be spent. :)

cheers,

Dan

p.s. I have elements - what's the main advantage of CS2. I've used Gimp, but perosnally find it not as intuitive as PS Elements.
 
Dan,

Joe - is that a typo? I see only DLs. Agreed that B&H is excellent -- I just ordered $75- worth of film from them yesterday. Onecall came up thru Amazon, where I have a $100- gift certificate itching to be spent. :)
Click to expand...
Sorry. It was a typo. This the the camera I spotted on B&H --

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...085&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation




p.s. I have elements - what's the main advantage of CS2. I've used Gimp, but perosnally find it not as intuitive as PS Elements.
Click to expand...
Don't know. I've used only PS. I just meant that you have to have a recent version of PS (or Elements) if you want to open raw files from a DL or any recent digital camera for that matter.

Joe
 
Thanks Joe - so you realize that CS2 costs $600-, which makes entry into D-SLR photography just a shade pricier. Are the JPEGs produced from these Pentaxes that dreadful?

Dan
 
Dan,

Do you qualify for the academic discount? When I was working at the University of Kentucky I got PS at the reduced price — $260. Not exactly giveaway pricing, but it is a lot lower than the street price.

BTW, Vuk is the guy to ask about Pentax jpegs vs Pentax raw files processed in PS.

Joe
 
Nope, no discount here. TBH, I have little or no desire to futz with photos on the computer - if they don't work out of the can (so to speak), then I failed in how I took them. So I imagine the extra bells and whistles in CS2 might be lost on me. I'd really like to hear (from those here who have *ists) if the jpeg output is usable or not.

Dan
 
My native *istDS jpegs come out just fine. Maybe I'm not fussy enough ...

4010458-md.jpg


James
 
Dan,

I'd really like to hear (from those here who have *ists) if the jpeg output is usable or not.
Click to expand...
The JPEGs I've seen from the Pentax are fine, it's just that if you shoot raw you have much more control over the final image should you want to get all Vuky.

Joe
 
it's always best to shoot raw. i'm using "rawshooter essentials" for processing--the proggy is free and workflow better than photoshop. to my eye, pentax have improved both raw and jpeg captures from the first version of the istDS. i assume the DL would be the same.

vuk.
 
Here's the Adobe option, which works on a mac. I imagine this is good enough.

Camera Raw 3.3 update

This new version of the Camera Raw plug-in replaces the original Camera Raw plug-in that was installed with Adobe® Photoshop® CS2 and Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 software. Visit the Camera Raw page for a complete list of supported cameras.

Support for the following cameras has been added in this update.

• Pentax *ist DL
• Pentax *ist DS2
 
adobe is fine except that you have to pay for the software. they are also ****ers for not providing the pentax raw support for CS.

vuk.
 
Vuk,

they are also ****ers for not providing the pentax raw support for CS.
Click to expand...
Not just for Pentax. Adobe doesn't provide raw support for digital cameras that were released since CS 1 was canned and CS 2 was released -- in other words, if you have Photoshop CS 1 and a recently released camera there's a good chance Adobe will not have released a raw plug-in to convert raw files from your camera. So, if you want to shoot raw, you need the newest version of Photoshop.

This alone makes me leery about upgrading to a newer Nikon D-SLR since the cost of upgrading will have to include the price of a newer version of Photoshop, unless I find a free or cheap raw-converter app.

Joe

Edited for clarity since I had but a second the first time I posted and I now realize what I originally wrote might be confusing
 
Bugger. Ah well, I tend to use Silkypix more than RSE now anyway. Incidently, Pentax have worked with Silkypix for the JPG processing in the new K100D.
 
Dan,

The one thing you shouldn't fret over is whether 6MP is enough resolution. More is more and better is better, all things being equal, but despite the megapixel race there's little difference in practice between a couple of extra megapixels.

Even more stark megapixel comparisons show that it takes a lots more resolution to make a practical difference. Check out this image of Vuk's favourite subject, comparing the 4MP Nikon D2H with the 12MP D2X. Not quite the difference I was expected considering that the D2X has three times the resolution of the D2H.*

D2H_vs_D2X_brickwall.jpg


Joe


[*] From Bjørn's Nikon site --
To compare pixel quality directly, I ran a separate setup in which the subject-camera distance was changed to give the pixels equal angular view. This approach is valid given that the performance of the test lens is constant across the distance range involved, which I'm very certain applies to my AFS 200 VR lens between 3 and 5 m. Since this lens has a focal length which gradually shortens as the lens is focused closer, and the alteration of focal length itself is undocumented from Nikon, it is frustratingly difficult to get a perfect match in pixel angular coverage, but I got within a few percent of the target anyway so that'll do for this time.
Click to expand...

Full explanation of the test is here -- http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev02.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top