Lives in United States Aurora, United States
Has a website at www.zenfolio.com/adairphotos
Joined on Apr 19, 2008


Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

miles green: Many listed this in the cons of the K-1: can't use pixel-shift without a tripod. So Pentax delivered, with in-camera image stacking. Not quite pixel-shift, but at least i don't have to go home to process.. If one does not need the extra detail, don't bother, just shoot normally. Or shoot in PS mode and if you don't like the outcome (too many artifacts) keep and process the first RAW and discard the other three.

What I'm looking forward to reading about is the AF test, as the K-1ii has increased processing power (new co-processor) and new AF algorithms, Apparently, it's much better than before, to the point of being competitive with other similar cameras (i.e. not a 14 fps sports beast).

Adam - clearly you don't really understand the K-1 pixel shift and have never used it. It requires a VERY stable camera, something that is impossible to hand-hold for 4 shots. This was clear in every review and every test shot that I've ever seen on line.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2018 at 16:54 UTC

I'm holding out for the one that shoots peanuts at squirrels . . .

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2018 at 01:13 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

virtualreality: Where are the lenses?

In my bag - 15mm to 450mm covered quite nicely, thanks. And, no, there is not every possible iteration of primes, but it does not prevent me from taking a single photo . . .

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2018 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

zakaria: If Pentax want to sell more of this camera just learn from Fuji. Give buyers a good kit lens like the XF 18-55mm. I know it is crop lens but you can sell the k1 with dfa 28-105 at attractive price say 2300$.

What? Isn't $2,300 what the current K1 ($1800) and DFA 28-105 ($500) already cost? It is already a great deal.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2018 at 16:30 UTC

For his purposes, aid to memory, documentation for donors, and internet-ready thumbnails, the phone is ideal. I've been to Nepal several times and travel frequently to similar locations. Nowadays, along with my DSLR gear, I bring my phone which I pull out when I find a particularly good shot and then duplicate what I took with the big gun. The phone shots are plenty good enough to share online, the big RAW files will wait until I'm home. The phone works pretty well for the occasional terrifying video of a wild tuk-tuk ride as well. As with most things, horses for courses.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2018 at 17:43 UTC as 102nd comment
In reply to:

ttran88: In conclusion get a Pentax K1 and with the money left over by yourself some lenses 😉

Huh indeed - I've got high quality glass from 15-450 mm for my K-1, zooms and primes, mostly Pentax. Its a great kit that delivers.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2018 at 23:31 UTC
On article Buying Guide: The best cameras for landscapes (180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Benfr69: Hello everybody,

I would like to go over the "cons" on the Pentax K-1, which I think is a bit far fetched in the context of landscape photography:

What we don't:

Disappointing continuous AF performance

- It's indeed very important to have top notch AF tracking for that mountain you are trying to photograph.... who knows, it might be blurry.
Joke aside everybody knows that AF Tracking for landscapes is irrelevant. Hell, most of the time I use MF.

JPEGs are soft and noisy at high ISO

- *cough cough* .... shooting landscapes in JPG ??? Enough said.

Limited lens availability

- I don't see why "Limited" lenses are bad, actually they are gorgeous .. (caresses his 20-40 Limited).
OK, not funny, this is the only one I actually agree on and as recently revealed Pentax Ricoh is actively working on lens development. So in time this will be a non-issue.

Just my 2 cents.

By "rolled out" you mean photos and descriptions were shared online - you can't actually buy these lenses anywhere and only one is for FF (and not exactly a landscape lens). Love my K-1, plenty of good to great glass out there for it so no need to stretch this far . . . :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 16:32 UTC
In reply to:

Peter Del: It's a two and a quarter, twin lens reflex, with a waist level screen.

My first real camera in the 60s . . . nostalgia surge!

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2017 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

sop51: The article doesn't mention if the defendants have sufficient recoverable assets to satisfy this judgement, or some type of liability insurance policy that would cover such acts. If they don't, the wedding photographer won't see any part of that award. The Goldmans are still waiting for OJ to send them their money.

No responsible attorney should undertake such an action without some realistic possibility of recovery for his/her client. Perhaps the plaintiff's attorney was charging by the hour, in which case the wedding photographer will be left paying thousands in legal fees and never see a dime of the award. All for $125.

If you are going to speculate about the facts and circumstances, why not include other elements? These defendants appear to have assets and, likely, insurance coverage against such things (many homeowner's policies have umbrella liability coverage). Plaintiff photog's attorney likely was on contingency and, if so, would have done due diligence on defendants' ability to satisfy a judgment before investing a lot of time in the case. And, if this case took 2 1/2 years to go to a week-long trial, defendants put significant resources into their defense thereby demonstrating a) they have resources and b) are willing to spend $$ to protect them. All for $125? That appears to be the defendants' initial issue, but it was not the photographer's issue who was awarded a sum consistent with the loss of business. Defendants could have resolved this amicably (indeed, the photographer apparently waived the additional cost) but instead took it upon themselves to trash the photographer. Karma is a

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 16:58 UTC

So much for semi-pro or pro photography in Egypt, Morocco, etc. - I can't imagine anyone with serious gear checking their camera or laptop. What's the workaround - fly to an unrestricted location and then take a 3rd party flight?

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2017 at 17:16 UTC as 84th comment | 9 replies
On article Capturing the unseen: Sam Forencich's Invisible Oregon (46 comments in total)

Well done in every respect - great locations, nice, subtle movement, impressive stability when on water (or apparently on water, perfect scene selection - and the IR takes it to another level. Seems to me the lines in the sky are probably planes, you can even see a following contrail over Mt. Hood. Now off to Champoeg Park for a soggy morning stroll . . .

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 18:37 UTC as 15th comment
In reply to:

Stitzer23: A 4 year reality TV episode begins.

Frankly, its amazing that anyone watches (or reads) only one source and believes they've gotten the whole picture. But as between CNN and FOX, I'll take CNN every time (and then check other sources).

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

HP1999: President Dumpf supporter of evil is not my president. Look at everything O.H. said and did

The speech by actress Meryl Streep was on point.
The last republican president got us in a war with no WMDs to be found. Was part of a massive recession.

Dumpf will isolate and take the US into WW III with his idiotic tweets and lack of diplomacy
Trump will do nothing unless it puts more money in his pockets. Dumpf supporters were blinded by lies so he could win the biggest reality show ever
We have a president with the behavior of a toddler who is spoiled and when they don't get there way it was rigged.
Still Dumpf won't show his tax returns for someone who likes to brag and boast all of a sudden he is shy to be a billionaire (supposedly)

3 million Americans did not want Dumpf and while he won the electoral vote he lost in his home state of New York. His home town did not want this leech
Dark days ahead for all

Obama was CIA? Source, preferably with photos . . .

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2017 at 18:12 UTC
On article Opinion: Park vandals need to be stopped (334 comments in total)
In reply to:

branan: I don't agree with graffiti or anything like that but in this case it's a rock that could have hurt or killed someone. It wasn't a monument but it did add some beauty to the view. Perhaps the area should have been arranged in such a way as to prevent people from physical contact. Unless you could prevent human contact it was inevitable. It wasn't really that stable if those folks could push it over so easily.

Good grief, the notion that "something" could eventually, possibly, perhaps "happen" somehow justifies this destruction? And it was plenty stable - took a gang (8?) to get it unstable, then more hard work to topple it. It was not a danger, but those who destroyed it clearly are.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2016 at 23:49 UTC
On article Pentax K-1 Review (2678 comments in total)
In reply to:

sdgreen: To summarize...

Nice body , shame about the lenses (lack of modern ones that is).

With some lightweight high qual f4 / variable zooms this would be a superb hiking / mountaineering camera for me but I guess that could be years away, if at all

To me that's where Canon / Nikon / Sony are winning

For its range, the new 28-105 is both light and high quality with excellent resolution and is also WR. With this lens, my (and your) K-1 hiking/mountaineering/trekking camera is here right now.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 03:33 UTC
In reply to:

Timbukto: Pentax, the only brand that when guessing the price after reading the specs, I always go over.

Too funny, Alphazoid - best laugh of the day!

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 23:04 UTC
In reply to:

Kostasm: Amazing performance indeed. So bad though there are no equivalent to the sensor lens options at the moment. Visible CA ruins the perfection. Just image how an Otus lens would perform in pixel shift..

You guys are talking past each other. Sure, it would be great to have more lenses, but there are many good K mount lenses available, including the DFA 50 macro, a high end lens that will "proportionally perform" (assuming that means good edge to edge).

Link | Posted on May 9, 2016 at 14:38 UTC
On article Canon announces budget-friendly EOS Rebel T6 (1300D) (872 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonny1976: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/982523-REG/pentax_10883_k_50_digital_camera_body.html

this is an example...290 dollar...pentaprism, big ov, double wheel. weather sealed, in body stabilization....and on and on...more fps...more buffer...
By the way pentax had the correction for tungsten light with k7...probably 5 years ago.

and i could say the same for any camera under 500 dollar of any brand...

i'm sure the answer will be...yes but canon has lenses...asure...big flenses, or cheap plastic apsc not sealed lenses....

K50 is a great camera, but the notion that entry-level DSLR users don't shoot jpgs is just wrong. Most folks who transition from P&S want better images from the camera, not from a PP program - that comes later, if ever. The k50 jpgs are fine, and though the Pentax presets are not as vivid as Canikon, they can always be tweaked. Of course, many users don't even bother adjusting that . . .

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2016 at 16:13 UTC
On article UPDATED: CP+ 2016: shooting the Pentax K-1 in Yokohama (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

GabrielZ: Pentax's 'Limited Primes' are they FF or optimized only for APS-C?

Thanks - the DA 70 looks quite nice and no vignetting wide open

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 01:06 UTC
On article UPDATED: CP+ 2016: shooting the Pentax K-1 in Yokohama (378 comments in total)
In reply to:

GabrielZ: Pentax's 'Limited Primes' are they FF or optimized only for APS-C?

The DA 40 and DA 70 Limited pancakes also appear to cover the FF circle. The 40 is optically similar to the earlier versions which were FF (I have am M 40 from decades ago) - not sure about the 70.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2016 at 15:48 UTC
Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »