Search results for 'back focus' - page 782
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
Maybe you could be the first to try whether the 'Apply to all' or 'Apply to one' adjustments are cumulative? That might fix your problem if they are. Also, I know you've taken pics of cornflake boxes but what about other 'real world' images? What are they like. Personally, I'd continue testing...
Posted by Mannesty on 24/05/2009 - 09:33
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
I really dont think you can compare the 100-300mm f4 to the 120-400mm in any way shape or form. As I said in the other thread I have the 135-400mm Sigma which is the predecessor to the 120-400mm and was never that impressed with it .. especially when you compare it to my 50-500mm DG EX .. its like n...
Posted by CraigF1969 on 24/05/2009 - 09:43
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
Maybe you could be the first to try whether the 'Apply to all' or 'Apply to one' adjustments are cumulative? That might fix your problem if they are. Also, I know you've taken pics of cornflake boxes but what about other 'real world' images? What are they like. Personally, I'd continue testing...
Posted by ttk on 24/05/2009 - 09:49
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
thats right the 150-500mm i had i didn't find sharp at all, also slow focusing, on both my k200d and k20d, and both the 170-500mm have been sharp as a tac on both cameras, it will be interesting when i get the 150-500mm back to see what that is like, not holding my breath,
Posted by scottthehat on 24/05/2009 - 10:19
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
If you are having to make such "large" alterations in settings for "all" your lenses, I would say it's a camera fault!.....I would take it back, fullstop!...........Ken
Posted by beginner on 24/05/2009 - 10:57
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
If you are having to make such "large" alterations in settings for "all" your lenses, I would say it a camera fault!.....I would take it back, fullstop!...........Ken I know where your coming from m8 but ive already had to return 2, its getting really annoying now and not only that i had a week off ...
Posted by CraigF1969 on 24/05/2009 - 11:59
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
So where do i go from here then guys if the shoe was on your foot? Lots of tests have been done now and its pretty obvious that once again there are issues with some or all of my gear. 50mm f1.4 improves greatly at -10 Focus Adjust but still seems to be begging for more. 16-45 - seems to wa...
Posted by iceblinker on 24/05/2009 - 14:04
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
Hi Craig, From where I am sitting you are going through a bit of a 'intense/stressful' time of it. If I were you I would be inclined to put it all down for a week and focus (pardon the pun) on other things. Then pick it all up again and plan out what you want to test then go through that plan V...
Posted by AnnetteW on 24/05/2009 - 14:32
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
Annette is right. Draw a plan for testing and make a list of the things that you want to test. Use the focussing methods described earlier (from infinity to focus and from minimum distance to focus). Just work through the list point for point and then look at the results.
Posted by golfdiesel on 24/05/2009 - 14:36
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
Thanks for the advice folks and links but my problems are a little more simpler than that. 1. First body i had the 16-45mm (my only lens at the time) was nice and sharp without any adjustment. 2. Second body i had the 16-45mm and 50 f1.4 were spot on without any adjustment. The Sigma was very ...
Posted by CraigF1969 on 24/05/2009 - 20:18
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
If I were you think I would find another hobby, this one seems to be jinxed:) Had a similar thing with my boat, if it could go wrong it did. Cut my losses and got some sanity back too, these things are supposed to be fun and I certainly wasn't enjoying all the worry and expense
Posted by leytono on 25/05/2009 - 09:33
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
If I were you think I would find another hobby, this one seems to be jinxed:) Had a similar thing with my boat, if it could go wrong it did. Cut my losses and got some sanity back too, these things are supposed to be fun and I certainly wasn't enjoying all the worry and expense This is the first...
Posted by CraigF1969 on 25/05/2009 - 10:08
So What Would You Do if You Were Me?
That's not so bad then,must say it sounds like the camera rather than all the lenses. Pity you can't get to a shop where they could test for a definitive answer One possible solution, perhaps buy another camera from somewhere like Argos and after doing the tests take it back for a refund
Posted by leytono on 25/05/2009 - 10:24
2 Raws, 1 x f5.6 and 1 x f8
Ive uploaded these 2. These are the best i got today, real world with the 120-400mm @ 400mm. Feel free to knock yourselves out guys with PP and see what you get. They are full size DNG so they are Big. Another thing i noticed; my White cat (with some light brown patches) was playing in the gard...
Posted by CraigF1969 on 24/05/2009 - 11:56
2 Raws, 1 x f5.6 and 1 x f8
Not worth processing, looks slightly out of focus. I think it might help to experiment with your AF Adjustment more, and with real-life subjects rather than test charts.
Posted by iceblinker on 24/05/2009 - 14:14
2 Raws, 1 x f5.6 and 1 x f8
The head of the bird seems out of focus. The bits which are closes to being in focus are in the bottom. Look at the grass for example, that looks like it is in focus. But a shot at max 400 ISO would have been more helpful I think. Or someone like Matt can work this one out with Silkypix as he ...
Posted by golfdiesel on 24/05/2009 - 14:30
2 Raws, 1 x f5.6 and 1 x f8
These are the points i am concerned about guys. The setup was this.. Slik Pro 700 DX Trpiod and head. (Hurricane Katrina would struggle to shift one of those tripods) K20D SR OFF mounted on tripod. Was setup just inside the door so as to eliminate any wind even though there was very little...
Posted by CraigF1969 on 24/05/2009 - 15:31
2 Raws, 1 x f5.6 and 1 x f8
If the shots you took at -10 and +10 fucus adjustments were blurred but the one at 0 adjustment had at least some of it in focus, surely there is a point between -10 & +10 that is OK, or not? The shot you've posted for download has the grass at the bottom reasonably in focus but is very noisy bec...
Posted by Mannesty on 24/05/2009 - 15:55
Recommendations please
If I can join in for a moment and divulge my thoughts on this....(maybe scoop a bit of Andrew's inheritance in the process :wink:) My personal feelings on the DA 55-300 is that in terms of optical quality it is superb...but that is it's only advantage. Since having the Tamron 70-300; the DA 55-30...
Posted by Snootchies on 26/05/2009 - 09:55
Recommendations please
The DA18-250 was optical the same as the tamron lens and it also didn't had quick-shift. So maybe the lens was made in the same factory as tamron and since tamron stopped production because of the newer 18-270. Maybe we will see a 18-270 also for pentax or even with a pentax batch. Also the 1...
Posted by Anvh on 26/05/2009 - 20:05
