The GX10/K10D really is sealed! (longish)

Went on a little jaunt in the Springbrook national park yesterday, and went
to capture a few shots of Natural Arch and it's associated waterfall. On the
hike down we could hear a bit of a rumbling noise that sounded a little like
thunder, but since what little of the sky we could see was clear, we put
down to being a jet flying overhead. Got down to Natural Arch, started
taking shots, went into the cave area and took a few more, then noticed that
it was raining quite heavily outside.

Sat & waited, & waited, but it just kept getting heavier. Then I noticed
that the waterfall had grown quite considerably, and a quick recon revealed
that if we didn't leave soon and the rain kept up, we could possibly be
trapped in the cave where we were sheltering. The camera went into the (not
remotely close to waterproof) bag, along with the wife's IXUS, and we
started the dash in the torrential rain.

About halfway back to the car we started getting peppered with golf-ball
sized hailstones, so we sheltered the kids under a large rock and waited
until the hail stopped before continuing to the car. When we finally got
there, we were drenched to the bone, and so was the camera bag. A moment of
horror as I opened the bag to see the back of the camera sitting in about
half an inch of water. Lifted it out, wiped it dry, opened the battery and
mem card covers and they were both dry. Turned the camera on and working
without a drama. Fortunately the non-sealed lens was sitting up, so other
than a few drops on the front element it was basically dry.

Unfortunately, the wife's ixus wasn't so lucky. Might put one of the Lowepro
AW cases on my wishlist for Christmas too.

Here are a couple of my shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/1517818003/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/1517827329/

On Oct 9, 8:45 pm, "Doug Jewell" wrote:
Went on a little jaunt in the Springbrook national park yesterday, and went
to capture a few shots of Natural Arch and it's associated waterfall. On the
hike down we could hear a bit of a rumbling noise that sounded a little like
thunder, but since what little of the sky we could see was clear, we put
down to being a jet flying overhead. Got down to Natural Arch, started
taking shots, went into the cave area and took a few more, then noticed that
it was raining quite heavily outside.

Sat & waited, & waited, but it just kept getting heavier. Then I noticed
that the waterfall had grown quite considerably, and a quick recon revealed
that if we didn't leave soon and the rain kept up, we could possibly be
trapped in the cave where we were sheltering. The camera went into the (not
remotely close to waterproof) bag, along with the wife's IXUS, and we
started the dash in the torrential rain.

About halfway back to the car we started getting peppered with golf-ball
sized hailstones, so we sheltered the kids under a large rock and waited
until the hail stopped before continuing to the car. When we finally got
there, we were drenched to the bone, and so was the camera bag. A moment of
horror as I opened the bag to see the back of the camera sitting in about
half an inch of water. Lifted it out, wiped it dry, opened the battery and
mem card covers and they were both dry. Turned the camera on and working
without a drama. Fortunately the non-sealed lens was sitting up, so other
than a few drops on the front element it was basically dry.

Unfortunately, the wife's ixus wasn't so lucky. Might put one of the Lowepro
AW cases on my wishlist for Christmas too.

Here are a couple of my shots:http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdaj/15...aj/1517827329/

You have a couple of very nice pictures there Doug. The getting wet
tale you tell is something anyone who owns a 20D, 30D or 40D camera
should take note of. Pentax cameras have always had a decent build
quality compared to Canon's "slapped together" approach.

I think the number one consideration for anyone likely to "go bush"
with a camera should be either waterproof cases or a sealed camera.
Have you have any issues with limited dynamic range or noise in
shadows with that camera Doug? How does it handle high ISO? Not much
is said about Pentax cameras here. Pity because they are cheap and
well built. I for one would like to know how they stack up.

CK

"Chon Kei" wrote in message
ups.com...
snip

You have a couple of very nice pictures there Doug. The getting wet
tale you tell is something anyone who owns a 20D, 30D or 40D camera
should take note of. Pentax cameras have always had a decent build
quality compared to Canon's "slapped together" approach.

I think the number one consideration for anyone likely to "go bush"
with a camera should be either waterproof cases or a sealed camera.
Have you have any issues with limited dynamic range or noise in
shadows with that camera Doug?
Yes and no - how's that for hedging my bets. Coming from film, I find the
limited dynamic range in the highlights to be a perpetual frustration. I've
had the camera for about 3 months now, and am starting to get the intuitive
feel for what I'll have to do to exposure to keep things under control. I
haven't thoroughly tested but I feel that it has less highlight range than
Velvia, so not much!
I frequently find myself dialling in about -1 exposure compensation. But to
be fair, I've used Canon, Nikon and Olympus DSLRs and run into the same
highlight problem with all. I think highlight range improvement is going to
be the next-big-thing in camera design - I hope so anyway.
How does it handle high ISO?
Not bad at all. 800ISO shots are very acceptable. 1600 is getting a bit
grainy, but still not too bad. I've even tried underexposing by 1 stop at
1600ISO and bringing it back in post-processing (ISO 3200 equiv) and it's
handled it fairly gracefully. It's certainly a gazillion times better than
the Olympus E300 that I had. At 400 and below I can't see any issues with
noise. At 800 and 1600, I guess it might be a little noisier than what I've
seen from some of the canons, but not horrendously so. I don't find the
noise that it produces to be ugly though, whereas some other cameras do
produce ugly noise. I don't know the technical terms for what I'm seeing,
just that I like what comes out.
Not much
is said about Pentax cameras here. Pity because they are cheap and
well built. I for one would like to know how they stack up.
As far as I'm concerned, any image quality differences between any of the
big brands are so minor that it's not worth caring about. I've used pretty
much every current DSLR except for the top-level pro stuff that's worth more
than my car, and really I don't see any significant image quality
differences. That's not to say there aren't differences, for example Canon's
produce images that I don't like the look of. I can't pick exactly what it
is, but I don't like them - they kind of look "plastic". Perhaps they are
too perfect?
The reasons I bought the GX10 are as follows: (bear in mind that the samsung
is just a rebadged Pentax K10d with minor changes).
1) From the moment I first handled a K10D, I loved the feel of it. The
position of the dials and buttons is perfect for me. The menu's are easy.
All the commonly used functions are quickly within reach so I can continue
shooting without having to look at the camera to see what I'm changing.
2) I have a small but significant investment in Pentax glass, so a
Pentax/Samsung was probably always going to be the choice - although I'd
almost given up on them bringing out something of the K10D class - if they
never brought out something decent I probably would have changed to Nikon or
Minolta/Sony.
3) Weather sealing in an affordable body was a plus - I've lost a couple of
electronic film cameras to humidity in rainforests so without weather
sealing there are a lot of places I go where the DSLR would have stayed home
and one of my old manual film slr's or rangefinders would have done duty.
This wasn't a huge thing for me, because when I purchased the DSLR it was
always intended to be supplementary to film, not a replacement for it. After
Monday's episode though I'm mighty glad I got a weather sealed camera.
4) I got the Samsung instead of the Pentax because I was able to get an
arrangement through work that saved several hundred dollars. Plus I think
the buttons and menus on the samsung look better than the Pentax. I guess
the "S" word doesn't carry the same prestige as the "P" word, but I use the
camera to take photos, not to have other people swoon over the gear I use.


CK

"Doug Jewell" wrote:

Yes and no - how's that for hedging my bets. Coming from film, I find the
limited dynamic range in the highlights to be a perpetual frustration. I've
had the camera for about 3 months now, and am starting to get the intuitive
feel for what I'll have to do to exposure to keep things under control. I
haven't thoroughly tested but I feel that it has less highlight range than
Velvia, so not much!


That's true of just about any DSLR.

The Fuji FinePix S5 is better than most DSLRs in terms of dynamic
range. However, it still doesn't come close to the dynamic range
offered by high quality colour negative film such as Kodak Portra 160
or Fujicolor Pro 160.

Tony Polson wrote:

That's true of just about any DSLR.

The Fuji FinePix S5 is better than most DSLRs in terms of dynamic
range. However, it still doesn't come close to the dynamic range
offered by high quality colour negative film such as Kodak Portra 160
or Fujicolor Pro 160.

I'm just a bit concerned that I've recently taken some photos on FP4+ pulled
to 80ISO and still got burnt out highlights - or at least to dense for may
scanner. If I were skilled enough, but I am not, I think there is still
detail on the neg, it's just too much for the scanner. Actually looking at
the neg again there is perhaps still a little too much contrast, perhaps I
should have downrated further!

Can't use old Velvia 50 for toffee, always burnt out highlights. Fared
better with Velvia 100 and rather like Provia.

Does the above mean that at the moment digital is not for me?

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the 50mm/1.4? A
friend asked & I recommended the 50 unless he's desperate for
compactness and requires something close to a normal focal length. It
seems the 50 offers more variety departing from the kit lens. The only
real strong point of the 40 I can see is the non-polygonal stopped down
OOF rendering. I figure the kit lens is at about f/4 at 40mm (vs 2.8)
but really that's not as compellingly different than the 50 at 1.4 which
would really be more exciting and worth bothering with.

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the 50mm/1.4? A
friend asked & I recommended the 50 unless he's desperate for compactness
and requires something close to a normal focal length. It seems the 50
offers more variety departing from the kit lens. The only real strong
point of the 40 I can see is the non-polygonal stopped down OOF rendering.
I figure the kit lens is at about f/4 at 40mm (vs 2.8) but really that's
not as compellingly different than the 50 at 1.4 which would really be
more exciting and worth bothering with.

Haven't used either, but from what I've heard both are very sharp. So
personally I'd be inclined to go for the extra 2 stops of the 50/1.4.

Paul Furman wrote:
Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the 50mm/1.4? A
friend asked & I recommended the 50 unless he's desperate for
compactness and requires something close to a normal focal length. It
seems the 50 offers more variety departing from the kit lens. The only
real strong point of the 40 I can see is the non-polygonal stopped down
OOF rendering. I figure the kit lens is at about f/4 at 40mm (vs 2.8)
but really that's not as compellingly different than the 50 at 1.4 which
would really be more exciting and worth bothering with.

Optically any 50/1,4 (Pentax has had many versions of this lens)is
better than 40/2,8. Angle of view is of course different, but if that is
not the determining factor 50/1,4 is the one to prefer. If Your frend
really needs a lens around 40 mm he/she should have a 43 mm 1,9 Limited.
I use a M 50 mm f1,4 and even though this is not the very best 50/1,4 it
is still superb. I have also used a 40/2,8, it is okey but not great.

Väinö Louekari

"Doug Jewell" a écrit dans le message de
...


"Paul Furman" wrote in message
...
Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the 50mm/1.4? A
friend asked & I recommended the 50 unless he's desperate for
compactness
and requires something close to a normal focal length. It seems the 50
offers more variety departing from the kit lens. The only real strong
point of the 40 I can see is the non-polygonal stopped down OOF
rendering.
I figure the kit lens is at about f/4 at 40mm (vs 2.8) but really that's
not as compellingly different than the 50 at 1.4 which would really be
more exciting and worth bothering with.

Haven't used either, but from what I've heard both are very sharp. So
personally I'd be inclined to go for the extra 2 stops of the 50/1.4.

I wish Canon had a lens like that Pentax pancake lens, put that on a Drebel
and you get a nice high performance small (ish) camera. For size only, it
makes perfect sense.

Jean

In article ,
Paul Furman wrote:

Any thoughts on the value of the 40mm/2.8 pancake versus the 50mm/1.4?

Paul-

I have both. The 40mm f/2.8 "pancake" lens is not a KA lens, so is more
difficult to use with an AF body. My 50mm f/1.4 is a KA lens, so all I
have to worry about is manual focus.

I think my 50mm has an edge in sharpness over the 40mm, if both are set
to the same f/stop.

If you don't have either, I'd recommend looking for a 50mm f/1.4 AF lens
to go with an AF body. It looks larger sitting next to the pancake
lens, but the difference may be trivial when mounted on the body.
Especially compared to a zoom!

Fred