Industry wide indications and ceasing film body development by Pentax altogether in early 2003 more than suggest the manual focus Pentax LX will not be having an upgrade (except, perhaps for very rare Limited Edition Models hand assembled by special commission by the new HoyaPentax Corporation). In 2008 Pentax became a division of Hoya Corporation, which had together with Pentax released jointly developed professional grade optics (since 2005); Pentax has shifted its attention to development of auto focus Digital SLRs having build qualities constructed for the long run--now with weather seals--like the LX. You may use this site for common support and sharing of mutual users knowledge or experiences among yourselves. You may also use this message board as a guestbook for the advanced users Pentax SLR cameras from the LX forward, including many such auto focus film cameras, and Pentax digital SLR cameras. We keep the site going too for the WORD SEARCH FEATURE found here as to its magnificent K mount system user archives: as have been shared here for many years. Have an inquiry related to Pentax gear? First try KEYING IN YOUR KEY WORD(S) for a preexisting archived response on your subject of inquiry from this LX site. If your inquiry or sharing is from advanced users K10D, K20D, or K200D SLR needs, proceed on to t NEW PENTAX ADVANCED USERS K10D, K20D SLR site.
This LX site was specifically created for the great Pentax LX SLR camera model(s), and now has incorporated increased opportunity for an expanded interchange with the introductions of the Pentax K10D, K20D, and K200D SLRs to include advanced and professional digital user models. Interchange is encouraged with the intention to continue as a forum for advanced system users of past K-mount film based SLR systems and the mentioned Pentax DSLRs. With decreasing forum traffic here, and enthusiasts moving on with SLR digital imaging products futures, we hope the continued convenience of this site and its past Pentax advanced LX users data archives--provided by the database KEY WORD SEARCH FEATURE found here--can be very useful to you. Most past site user techniques, systems components, and lenses of Pentax advanced applications--as have been past examined by users on this site--are still of use regarding the newest Pentax SLRs. Please don't mail us with other than constructive suggestions or to rectify mistakes found within this site, thank you. Since this is a non-profitable resource site, maintained by professional and advanced system users, the developer of this site reserves the rights to censor or delete any inappropriate, unrelated, misleading or excessively hostile messages posted herein. If your intention is to dispose of your Pentax cameras or its accompanying accessories and/or you are looking for a used model, or even for any of its system components: please use a separate section with a higher volume of related traffic for these purposes: on the Free Trade Zone site instead. The Photography In Malaysia sites sponsor has no Guestbook standing on its own, because it is an integral part of the MIR site. But if you want to leave a note on your experience of visiting our site and its service, you may use the MIR's Guestbook found at another new window by clicking on the Guestbook Link.
Add a Posting to the Message Board
A kind reminder: Please do not misuse of this message board system.
Main Index Page of Pentax LX SLR Website
The respective Message Boards are some of the HARDEST hit sections of the PIM served sites; if, at any one time, the traffic is high--the table of contents or individual pages may take a while to load your input data, or our's. So, just be patient. If your interaction stalls, just click on the 'Reload' or 'Refresh' button on your browser menu once to re-attempt interaction here. Thank you. Welcome to MIR!
1. From : Philip Ashman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 04:41 PM Thursday 23 June, 2005
I hadn't thought, or looked, at the Dimage 1V as a possibility, but from what you say, as I do not have need for very large enlargements, then it would no doubt be more than enough for my needs and a damn sight cheaper! I will now see about trading up for one, but have the feeling that due to software copyright etc.. I may have to sell privately as a high street dealer may not accept a scanner for trade in? I wonder if this may have an effect on people wishing to trade in DSLR's like you used to with your film cameras, that of course had no software sold with them?
I should imaging that people will no doubt change their DSLR's more often than they ever did with SLR's and this could be a problem for those who (like me) don't like selling privately on places like Ebay etc.. and prefer to do a trade in.
I would welcome any views on this.
Phil2. From : Jay (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 01:48 AM Thursday 23 June, 2005
In spite of the best intentions, a Dimage III does not have/offer the scanning density of the Dimage IV, of the Elite 5400, or of some other scanners out there. It cannot offer DMax 16 bit depth per color channel, nor in the B & W channel, without some lacking of reality in the shadows founded of these other scanners. Since a IV can be had for a little less than USD $300, it stands to reason to sell the III, make up the difference, and buy the IV, which is a very good unit (with the same density or depth of the 5400). Unless one is doing very large enlargements the Elite 5400,for most, is overkill. It would be like owning an 8 X 10 viewcamera where only miniature format was needed for prescribed results. Also, Photoshop CS does some encoding as per working with 16 bits per channel which is unavailable in earilier and simpler versions. It offers many other features which will keep it useful for at least another five years as to manipulating very complex digital file encoding realities and results. --Jay3. From : Philip Ashman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 03:31 PM Tuesday 21 June, 2005
Thanks Ian, most helpful and informative. I will indeed try a few adjustments to my scanning as you suggest to see if things can be improved, as I have tended to just take the easiest and simple route up to now, especially as I often haven't a clue what I am doing! LOL.
Phil4. From : Ian (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 10:06 AM Tuesday 21 June, 2005
Phil, If your discovering issues with shadows and highlights in your trannie scans - then yeah, your on the right track. A 5400 will improve this (higher DMAX). However, you might want to apply the 16bit rule to your Dimage III. This will convey the scanners full bandwidth to the output file. It'll give you more scope to play with the scanners exposure setting at the point of scanning (as well as in PS) - to extract more shadow info. Whilst on the subject of shadows, to give you a bit of a cleaner signal to play with - use the multipass feature (x2, x4, x8 etc.). In this way, cleaner shadows are achieved by allowing the scanner to subtract noise (more passes, more accurate noise subtraction). Almost all digital printing is 8bit, so what your trying to achieve with all this bandwidth optimisation malarkey is smoother colour/tone gradations to avoid wedging (blocking) on the final print. i.e. to stop your histogram going spiky (data-destruction) so your print is as analogue (smooth) as possible. The alternative is to do the job properly, and print via the cibachrome process. - Ian.5. From : Philip Ashman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 03:52 PM Monday 20 June, 2005
Thanks for the info Ian and I think I understand what you are saying, but generally I'm a bit slow on all this technical stuff! LOL.
Actually I don't think that PS elements or PSP 8 support 16 bit, but if one does and I should stick with it and learn more, then I would be grateful for any guidance.
There is no way at present I could afford to get the full blown version of PS and not sure I would be able to use it properly anyway. I would be happy just to be able to get the best scans I can onto my PC screen (LCD) and for the rare times I have anything really good to print out for hanging on a wall etc.. then I tend to send the slide off to a specialist cibachrome printing service.
Maybe I would be best advised just to stick with the Dimage Scan Dual 111 for now rather than invest in the scan elite 5400 11, although one thing I would like to improve upon is the detail I lose in dark, shaded and bright areas when I scan, which maybe would improve with a scanner upgrade?
Phil6. From : Ian (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 08:20 AM Monday 20 June, 2005
On a technical note, does the cut-down version of PS (Elements?) or Paint Shop Pro support 16bit per channel images? I'm sure one of them does. Because if they don't, your wasting your time. It goes without saying - always scan in 16bit. If you have to tweak levels or curves with an 8bit master, the data-destruction is catastrophic, and it'll show in your prints (not necessarily on-screen, unless your used to looking for it and have a CRT). You'll get wedging and blown highlights, like you shot it digitally and messed with it. Sorry to state the obvious. Also, with the 5400, you'll have to get used to fafing with the focus. Out-of-focus grain will drive you nuts! trust me, I kinda wish Minolta sold a glass carrier for the 5400. Phil, if you want example scans, before you buy, let me know. - Ian7. From : Ian (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://www.photo.ity.co.uk
Date : 07:30 AM Monday 20 June, 2005
Hi Philip, sounds to me like you need a nice new scanner. There are one or two of us here on the LX forum that own a 5400. I love it, and although I've not used a MKII, I'm sure it's great (faster and ICE4, new light source-LED). Short of going for a Flextight, which has the BIG advantage of flat-field scanning without glass, I'm sure the 5400 is the answer. I'd buy another one tomorrow. Like you, I don't get creative with Photoshop, I just want quality. For my B+W prints, if I find I've had to do anything in Photoshop I pretty much consider the shot a dud. On the other hand, commercially, mastering Photoshop can be a life saver. On a cost note, if you using a Macintosh (UNIX) or Linux you can always negate the expense of PS-CS by using Gimp, which is free (if not as good?). The Minolta 5400 - Highly Recommended. - Ian.8. From : Philip Ashman (email@example.com)
Url : http://
Date : 12:14 AM Saturday 18 June, 2005
Thanks Jay and I think I understand what you are saying and appreciate your views. I do in fact have Photoshop Elements and also Paint Shop Pro, with the latter being my preferred tool, probably because I had it first and got used to it.
However, I really only use it for re-sizing, sharpening and indulging myself with cropping at times, but certainly do not compeletly re-arrange, alter or greatly enhance the original. For me, I have to decide whether I continue as a film photographer, with my aim to capture and create an image at the point of shooting, with scanned images purely for printing purposes with my average photoprinter and also for web sharing with friends, forum galleries etc.. Or, if I wish, as you have suggested (I think) to move towards making the original image just the raw data from which I then create the final presentation, for whatever purpose, by using computer technology.
My real enjoyment, as I previously said, was the satisfaction of feeling I created/captured the image myself with just camera and film, for which I have tirelessly practiced my skills and built up my knowledge over many years. I am concerned that if I were to switch permanently to digital and make full use of the PC technology, both in digital cameras and thereafter on the PC through software, then I may become lazy as a photographer and just fire away at will in the knowledge that as long as the subject was of some interest I can re-arrange the picture, add, remove, correct later, building a final result possibly far removed from the original shot, as I know many that you see published nowadays are.. Basically I believe that this sort of digital photography is more of artistic manipulation through software, as opposed to pure photograpy. Nothing at all wrong with that and indeed it is really a new art form, but not for me I think. Ideally I would like to continue with film as my prime hobby (manufacturer's permitting) and just dabble at the digital world to see how it goes. Naturally understanding what I am doing there would be a great advantage and as you suggest I probably need to study more finely the help menus and pay a bit more attention! Phil9. From : Jay (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Url : http://
Date : 11:33 PM Friday 17 June, 2005
Yes, Minolta film scanners offer excellent secondary imaging technology. However, they do not substitute for the best of digital cameras regarding issues of capture, uploading for computer data path uses, and ease of use all the way around. I think the best upgrade for such an extra step as scanning, or several steps, toward developing a professional image bank is the avenue of Photoshop CS. It permits and allows beyond limits of capture or scan. By this I mean that its help menu permits learning its best intervention advantages straightforwardly--including automatic dust removal via its software--and various imaging adjustments (it gives an excellent understanding of the histogram and other statistical/mathematical imaging data chart/mapping aids which it permits via the help training function).
What it allows is almost as infinitely variable toward subject approach as the tools of photography themselves. But this permission and allowance is so time consuming that the digital camera image origination has a massive appeal. Pixel count in itself is not as important as the large possible file size of a scan seems to promise. Of course we are in the dark ages as to what digital cameras themselves will permit and allow, with scanners pixel count at advantage. But, even though digital cameras’ digital sensors are in a sense adolescents out on their first dates, it is often refreshing what that will permit and allow. --Jay
10. From : Jay (email@example.com)PAGE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217
Url : http://
Date : 11:29 PM Friday 17 June, 2005
Yes, Minolta film scanners offer excellent secondary imaging technology. However, they do not substitute for the best of digital cameras regarding issues of capture, uploading for computer data path uses, and ease of use all the way around. I think the best upgrade for such an extra step as scanning, or several steps, toward developing a professional image bank is the avenue of Photoshop CS. It permits and allows beyond limits of capture or scan. By this I mean that its help menu permits learning its best intervention advantages straigtforwardly--including automatic dust removal via its software--and various imaging adjustments (it gives an excellent understanding of the histogram and other statistical/mathmatical imaging data chart/mapping aids which it permits via the help training function).
What it allows is almost as infinitely variable toward subject approach as the tools of photography themselves. But this permission and allowance is so time consuming that the digital camera image origination has a massive appeal. Pixel count in itself is not as important as the large possible file size of a scan seems to promise. Of course we are in the dark ages as to what digital cameras themselves will permit and allow, with scanners pixel count at advantafe. But, even though digital sensors are in a sense adolescents out on their first dates, it is often refreshing what that will permit and allow. --Jay
Maintainers for Pentax LX Series SLR Camera Models Message Board:
Tony Davies-Patrick (Globetrotter) (firstname.lastname@example.org); Mico Smiljanic (email@example.com);
Jay Hart (firstname.lastname@example.org); Philip Ashman (email@example.com)
| Post a Message to the Message Board |
Archived Messages of Previous Postings
001-050 | 051-100 | 101-150 | 151-200
Back to Main Index Page of
Pentax LX SLR Camera Website
Back to Message Board of
Pentax LX SLR Camera
for New/Used photographic equipment
on Pentax LX SLR camera
Home - Photography in Malaysia
Copyright © 2007. leofoo @. MIR Web Development Team.
Version three Re-Programmed by our in-house Fairuz Sulaiman, improved from original version by Ang Seng Leong ,Yeak Ngai Siew, Rizal Yahya, Halimaton Yahya (Members of the MIR Web Development Team)
MIR Guestbook On-line. Developed & Copyright@ 2001 by MIR Communications Sdn. Bhd.