All Forum Comments
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on DA* 60-250? at 20/11/2009 - 00:07
iceblinker wrote:
I don't know your printer, but with Silkypix I don't think it makes any difference for any printer whether you print directly from RAW or make a JPEG first. The settings (and therefore the processing) can be exactly the same.
For the benefit of those unfamiliar with Silkypix: it doesn't actually print directly from RAW. It does a conversion first with your settings, just doesn't save the results.
Indeed, I used a RAW file I have already pp'd to jpeg, so as silkypic holds the most recently applied pp'ing settings in a sidecar file the pp'ing settings we're included when I printed the file. I don't know your printer, but with Silkypix I don't think it makes any difference for any printer whether you print directly from RAW or make a JPEG first. The settings (and therefore the processing) can be exactly the same.
For the benefit of those unfamiliar with Silkypix: it doesn't actually print directly from RAW. It does a conversion first with your settings, just doesn't save the results.
I compared with a pp'd jpeg opened again on silkypix and printed from silkypix (file/print...) and can seen no difference between the two.
If I had started from the scratch RAW file then there would have been a significant difference in output.
...so what do folks feel they get the best (most accurate) results from - setting B9180 to application managed or printer managed colour ? I know the colour managed solution should give the best but am interested to hear users experiences
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on printing from Silkypix Pro to B9180 at 14/11/2009 - 10:55
my fave forget-me-not is "wait for the blue screen to set the SR focal length when using the A50/1.7 or the TC" - 50mm registered as 340mm or vice versa doesn't work so well
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on Today's tip for the taking of the photographs is... at 13/11/2009 - 21:08
Hi folks,
recently acquired myself a 2nd hand HP B9180 from eekbay and whilst I was slightly in trepidation as to what it would be like after reading a number of unhappy user reports - NEDD, paper sensor etc - I decided to take the plunge as I could collect in person.
I'm somewhat relieved that everything seems to be working fine and I'm pleased with the preliminary results so far.
I've just started exploring printing directly from silkypix pro to the 9180 and wondered if anyone else has this combination and if so what folks feel they get the best (most accurate) results from - setting B9180 to application managed or printer managed colour ?
Also do you choose to print direct from RAW of from a pp'd jpeg to the 9180 ?
Currently I'm printing onto HP premium paper at 6x4 (it came free with the printer), once I feel I'm happy with the colour management aspects I'll print bigger. The profiles for the HP paper come with the printer, my monitor is profiled using a huey pro.
OT - wonder when the new buzzword will come along, we've had turbo, laser, and now pro for a while
recently acquired myself a 2nd hand HP B9180 from eekbay and whilst I was slightly in trepidation as to what it would be like after reading a number of unhappy user reports - NEDD, paper sensor etc - I decided to take the plunge as I could collect in person.
I'm somewhat relieved that everything seems to be working fine and I'm pleased with the preliminary results so far.
I've just started exploring printing directly from silkypix pro to the 9180 and wondered if anyone else has this combination and if so what folks feel they get the best (most accurate) results from - setting B9180 to application managed or printer managed colour ?
Also do you choose to print direct from RAW of from a pp'd jpeg to the 9180 ?
Currently I'm printing onto HP premium paper at 6x4 (it came free with the printer), once I feel I'm happy with the colour management aspects I'll print bigger. The profiles for the HP paper come with the printer, my monitor is profiled using a huey pro.
OT - wonder when the new buzzword will come along, we've had turbo, laser, and now pro for a while
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on printing from Silkypix Pro to B9180 at 13/11/2009 - 13:52
bladerunneruk wrote:
Hi folks
I wonder if some of you could indulge me with your thoughts on this....
c) a tamron 28-75/2.8 - not wide enough indoors, but longer is nice ?
e) a sigma 24-60/2.8 - would like a bit of overlap with my 60-250 (but the 24-70 seems expensive and an inconvenient filter size too IIRC)
thanks for lending me a few grey cells temporarily.
any views regarding c) or e) ?Hi folks
I wonder if some of you could indulge me with your thoughts on this....
c) a tamron 28-75/2.8 - not wide enough indoors, but longer is nice ?
e) a sigma 24-60/2.8 - would like a bit of overlap with my 60-250 (but the 24-70 seems expensive and an inconvenient filter size too IIRC)
thanks for lending me a few grey cells temporarily.
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on the usual quandry at 13/11/2009 - 13:25
RichardDay wrote:
Yes, the 16-45 is a bit wobbly, but mine always stayed the same over many thousands of shots and 4 years of use.
The 24-90 is also a "loose" construction. I compared Steve Jacobs with my FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5 (which was also loose, but a bit less) and the latter was a bit more contrasty (which I liked) but the 24-90 was sharper overall and also across the frame. I suspect that yours needs a look at by Asahi Photo. Hopefully they would be able to fix it, Steve took his there recently for servicing, but they couldn't help it was knackered, so it's done for, apparently they weren't built that well.
I prefer the 17-70 for the usual reasons (bokeh, reach overlap etc.,) to partner with my 60-250 (yes, I'm very happy with it! ), I just wish it had the same IQ as the 60-250. I think that some ED glass, and stretched to 16mm would make it perfect, but I shudder to think how much more it would cost with Pentax's new (Rip-off?) pricing strategy!
Due to the increased barrel distortion, you lose a slight amount of FOV when you correct for it, and coupled with the loss of that all important 1mm, I'm looking more seriously at getting a wider lens, so I haven't avoided the need/desire for another lens . I would prefer a DA 12-24, but at £899 compared with the Tamron 10-24 at £359, I suspect I will get the Tamron if I can find a very good copy, I tried four on a D90 locally and one was a cracker, so they do exist! I just have to find one in Pentax mount, so it's off to SRS soon, probably next month.
mmm, my 16-45 didn't degrade either, my wife was a bit puzzled by the barrel play 'at that price!' though.Yes, the 16-45 is a bit wobbly, but mine always stayed the same over many thousands of shots and 4 years of use.
The 24-90 is also a "loose" construction. I compared Steve Jacobs with my FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5 (which was also loose, but a bit less) and the latter was a bit more contrasty (which I liked) but the 24-90 was sharper overall and also across the frame. I suspect that yours needs a look at by Asahi Photo. Hopefully they would be able to fix it, Steve took his there recently for servicing, but they couldn't help it was knackered, so it's done for, apparently they weren't built that well.
I prefer the 17-70 for the usual reasons (bokeh, reach overlap etc.,) to partner with my 60-250 (yes, I'm very happy with it! ), I just wish it had the same IQ as the 60-250. I think that some ED glass, and stretched to 16mm would make it perfect, but I shudder to think how much more it would cost with Pentax's new (Rip-off?) pricing strategy!
Due to the increased barrel distortion, you lose a slight amount of FOV when you correct for it, and coupled with the loss of that all important 1mm, I'm looking more seriously at getting a wider lens, so I haven't avoided the need/desire for another lens . I would prefer a DA 12-24, but at £899 compared with the Tamron 10-24 at £359, I suspect I will get the Tamron if I can find a very good copy, I tried four on a D90 locally and one was a cracker, so they do exist! I just have to find one in Pentax mount, so it's off to SRS soon, probably next month.
asahi photo is worth a thought, I'll try and post some pics of the problem over the weekend if I have time, see what people think.
yes the 12-24 is now in silly money territory, prices on some other pentax lenses have been improving slowly over the past few months, not this one yet though. A few samples here just to give you a nudge in the right direction https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/da12-24-examples--3img--10867
12mm isn't always wide enough as you can see from one of my pics - if I'd moved any further back for #3 I would have been over the barrier and in the moat ! I haven't looked at the 10-24 so can't comment on it I'm afraid. (it did cross my mind to climb over the barrier and cling on in mid air about 20ft above the water to take the pic - technically feasible but as my mrs pointed out not that wise...!)
there's always another lens, enjoy the trip down the M4... !
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on the usual quandry at 13/11/2009 - 13:23
Reuben0 wrote:
My 24-90 is very loose and is definitely the worst made Pentax lens I have.
Cheap plastic construction and "Letraset" lens markings don't inspire a lot of confidence
However, optically it's really good. Particularly at the wide end, as I mentioned before.
At 90mm the sharpness drops off a bit, which I've always put down to the pronounced barrel droop at full zoom extension.
R
barrel droop !My 24-90 is very loose and is definitely the worst made Pentax lens I have.
Cheap plastic construction and "Letraset" lens markings don't inspire a lot of confidence
However, optically it's really good. Particularly at the wide end, as I mentioned before.
At 90mm the sharpness drops off a bit, which I've always put down to the pronounced barrel droop at full zoom extension.
R
If I have a bit of time free this weekend I'll try and post some test shots I took whilst away on hols, show folks the FA24-90 problem.
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on the usual quandry at 13/11/2009 - 13:01
MattMatic wrote:
My FA24-90 got damaged and I had it repaired by Asahi Photo. When it came back it was soooo much better than it ever was
You might want to see if the FA24-90 could be economically calibrated.
The bokeh on the FA24-90 is similar to the DA 17-70, and much smoother than the 16-45 IMO.
That said, the 16-45 is a brilliant lens for landscapes - and can still be had new from SRS at a reasonable price (if you hurry!)
Matt
Hi matt, thanks for your thoughts, nice to hear you feel the bokeh is acceptable. My FA24-90 got damaged and I had it repaired by Asahi Photo. When it came back it was soooo much better than it ever was
You might want to see if the FA24-90 could be economically calibrated.
The bokeh on the FA24-90 is similar to the DA 17-70, and much smoother than the 16-45 IMO.
That said, the 16-45 is a brilliant lens for landscapes - and can still be had new from SRS at a reasonable price (if you hurry!)
Matt
Might be worth considering sending the 24-90 to Asahi Photo...
however I sent my damaged 16-45 there, it landed nose first onto grass and now the barrel is slightly out of alignment, pics are now sharp on one side and soft on the other, they were unable to fix it and gave me the impression that they couldn't get it back to factory cal std
perhaps the FA's are easier to mend than DA's ??
They suggested it might cost around £150 to fix it if I sent it to pentax. I could send the 16-45 to pentax for repair quote, but at that price I thinking I may as well buy a new one to replace it, and thus the thoughts about different lenses.
Does anyone know if this type of damage is generally repairable - and if pentax uk's new repair agent are up to the job ?
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on the usual quandry at 13/11/2009 - 12:55
RichardDay wrote:
I would recommend that you stay with the DA 16-45 as the current price of the 17-70 is too much IMO.
I had the 16-45 (a very nice one) and bought a very good copy of a 17-70 after testing a couple of samples (as always! :wink.
Upon reflection it was a sideways move as I do miss the wide end of the 16-45 at times, plus the barrel distortion and CA of the 17-70 at 17mm is slightly worse, but the 17-70 is much sharper at 45mm.
Don't diss the 16-45, I still think that overall it's the best bet, but do go along to your friendly retailer and ensure that you get a decent copy that has no centering or focussing issues, it usually very easy to see on the review screen at x11.
I've tried a few samples of the Siggy 17-70, the Tamron 17-50 and the DA*16-50 (which is superb from 24mm up). I would rather have the 16-45 out of them all for various different reasons.
1. It's fairly light
2. It has very fast screw drive AF (I'm not that worried about SDM, but??? :roll
3. Quickshift manual focus overide.
4. I like the large zoom ring and small focus ring, unlike the DA*16-50.
5. 67mm filter, same as my 60-250.
6. Best wide end of any wide to medium zoom lens.
7. I actually quite like the reverse zoom action!
In fact, I've almost convinced myself to get another one soon, as I think it's a classic piece of Pentax glass.
talking yourself into buying another lens, nooo !!! I would recommend that you stay with the DA 16-45 as the current price of the 17-70 is too much IMO.
I had the 16-45 (a very nice one) and bought a very good copy of a 17-70 after testing a couple of samples (as always! :wink.
Upon reflection it was a sideways move as I do miss the wide end of the 16-45 at times, plus the barrel distortion and CA of the 17-70 at 17mm is slightly worse, but the 17-70 is much sharper at 45mm.
Don't diss the 16-45, I still think that overall it's the best bet, but do go along to your friendly retailer and ensure that you get a decent copy that has no centering or focussing issues, it usually very easy to see on the review screen at x11.
I've tried a few samples of the Siggy 17-70, the Tamron 17-50 and the DA*16-50 (which is superb from 24mm up). I would rather have the 16-45 out of them all for various different reasons.
1. It's fairly light
2. It has very fast screw drive AF (I'm not that worried about SDM, but??? :roll
3. Quickshift manual focus overide.
4. I like the large zoom ring and small focus ring, unlike the DA*16-50.
5. 67mm filter, same as my 60-250.
6. Best wide end of any wide to medium zoom lens.
7. I actually quite like the reverse zoom action!
In fact, I've almost convinced myself to get another one soon, as I think it's a classic piece of Pentax glass.
I do rate the 16-45 having used it for a about two years, for many of the same reasons as yourself Richard (7 is great for candids !) wobbly barrel was always a bit disconcerting though.
Come to think of it the 24-90 I have is similarly 'loose?' build qual and web reports of 24-90 do seem to suggest it's build quality isn't top notch, so that's what I expected. It seems a bit hit and miss wrt IQ of pics I get which is what bugs me, I'm not sure I can trust it to get te job done, hence the angst. Perhaps I should go all scientific with it and give it the test chart treatment
I'm just hoping I could avoid buying 2 new lenses, fill the 45-60 gap with some overlap to the 60-250, and use it indoors for family and nieces&nephews in motion, hence the dilemma.
Thanks for taking the time to post.
PS how's that 60-250 working out for you, I remember the test pics when you got it ?
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on the usual quandry at 11/11/2009 - 13:32
Reuben0 wrote:
The 16-50 has a bit more centre resolution on the K20D, but when I had a K10D it was difficult to decide which was better (24-90 has less CA though).
So it does sound like you may have a bad copy
R
wrt 24-90 bladerunneruk wrote:
I obtained a 24-90 which I thought would be my perfect solution, but I'm not impressed as it seems OK in the centre but quite soft at the edges at least with the copy I have, so not best suited to landscapes
My 24-90 is sharp across the frame at 24mm, even wide open at f3.5 (on digital anyway).I obtained a 24-90 which I thought would be my perfect solution, but I'm not impressed as it seems OK in the centre but quite soft at the edges at least with the copy I have, so not best suited to landscapes
The 16-50 has a bit more centre resolution on the K20D, but when I had a K10D it was difficult to decide which was better (24-90 has less CA though).
So it does sound like you may have a bad copy
R
wrt pentax 16-50 the photozone.de results do suggest it's quite centre happy, partly why I didn't get one some time ago when they were much cheaper, I was happier with the 16-45 MTF characteristics for landscapes usage and the CA isn't as bad as reported. Not had a chance to use a 16-50 though, it's not always all about the numbers.
perhaps I should consider finding another copy of the 24-90.
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on the usual quandry at 11/11/2009 - 13:13
I am interested in purchasing the new DA* 60-250 F4. Has anybody tried it out yet? What is it like? Please let me know...
search for my username on dpreview for some test shots (note most are 100pc crops with not much sharpening applied)