Hi,

Just wondered how many here used PN and what you think of it?

cheers Steve. (UK)

Hiya,

If you sell on that site, there is something you should know.

If you sell worldwide, ebay.co.uk NO LONGER by default puts your listings onto ebay.com.

In other words, you think you are able to sell to the USA, Hong Kong, Japan etc, but in fact your listings are not being seen by them.

The UK sellers who sell many items overseas are furious and there have been many threads on the ebay community boards. Apparently ebay UK have 'justified' removing all UK listings from ebay USA by saying that there were so many UK listings that they were damaging US internal trade! HA HA. Sounds like good old US trade protectionism to me.

The really bad thing is that ebay UK has hardly advertised the change and that there are hundreds of UK sellers listing items 'worlwide' blissfully unaware that in effect they are not worldwide at all...

cheers Steve.

Hiya,

Thanks G, I did wonder If any others would also work?

cheers..

Hi folks,

Would someone brighter than me please let me know which cable switch (or switches) are compatible with the old istD please..

cheers Steve.M.

Hi,

Graham..why not contact the magazine? they will have direct contact, probably via the web these days. I would If I were you. Ask why the tester chooses to ignore the results of his own test?

I just read the test myself..I picked up the offending mag in WHS. The conclusions were frankly a joke. They bore no resemblance to the facts of the test as presented in the charts. I could not believe the charts for the Nikon lens, they were noticeably worse that for the Pentax lens, on top of which the Nikkor cost about three times as much and yet in the conclusion it was praised! what on earth is that all about?

Mail them...ask.

cheers Steve.

Hi,

Gwyn..I think this weeks column in AP by the old grumpy beardy one on the back page sums up things in the 'modern world'...do you get it in the land of canals?

He points out (sadly) how we all are getting more competitive retailing...ie cheaper prices and that 'high end' goods in particular are far cheaper in real terms than they were 30 years ago, but the price to pay is that we are getting far less choice of goods. My point is that, Pentax and others will in 10 or 20 years be very lucky if they still exist in the camera making world....bad for digital snappers, but for film buffs, not really of any consequence IMO, but still not healthy at all for competition.

cheers Steve.

Hi,

Apparently it is not off, but merely being re-negotiated...

By the way, for those who think this deal is automatically good for Pentax, I suggest you read this thread from PN below, it suggests there is FAR more to the deal than you may think...

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Kgn3&unified_p=1

cheers Steve.

Hiya,

Apologies to all for going way off the original thread..but you know how these things happen..

"Compare a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 to a Canon L 70-200 f2.8 or f4, is the Canon optically 2 times better than the Sigma?"

...if you could sum up lens performance in this simplistic numerical way, the answer would very probably be a firm no, but that would be to miss the point entirely anyway. Professional sports photographers buy lenses to earn their living. They do not care if the Canon lens costs twice as much as the Sigma. They want the extra pro back up of the Canon service centres and the extra durability of the Canon lenses..as well as some extra image quality for large reproduction purposes...possibly posters or large magazine spreads, advertising, etc.

There is also the point that Sigma (and others) do not duplicate all the Canon lenses. If you are an amateur or semi-pro then yes it makes a lot of sense indeed to buy Sigma or others, I have a superb Sigma lens myself, but many pros NEED the extras you get with Canon & Nikon...they are not schmucks. They are just buying the best tools for their job.

Most people realise that as you buy ever more expensive lenses, the law of diminishing returns sets in...you pay increasingly large amounts of money for smaller and smaller improvements. This has always been the case and probably always will be.

cheers Steve.

Hi,

"Sorry to stamp on that comment, but to give you an example, a cheap 50mm f1.7 Vivitar lens is reckoned to be as good as more expensive Nikkors... "

Reckoned by who? and how have they compared them? or is this just more of the anonymous uninformed internet chatter?

... if you compare any lenses simply by looking at small d&p 6x4 or 7x5 prints you will see no difference. However if you use decent technique and compare lets say a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 with a vivitar 50mm lens and then produce a quality 10 x 12 print you will soon see the limitations of the Vivitar lens..very clearly, especially if the Vivitar lens is used anywhere near wide open.

I agree cheap does not always have to mean naff, but the major lens makers ( Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus ) do make lenses which consistently out perform the others when you start to push the limits harder. If you only produce small prints, you may never see any differences, or if you only ever hand hold your camera you may never see any difference...there are many variables to consider.

"On the other hand, schmucks who spend 1000+ on L-series glass don't always realise that although the lenses contain expensive glass there are much cheaper alternatives that are optically superior....or comparable"

IMO this really is a bit of a silly statement. Many of these 'schmucks' are professional sport photographers who depend on their living from these lenses....to suppose there are far cheaper and superior lenses to do the same job....mmmmm. Some rather dubious comments here methinks.

cheers Steve. (and no I am not a Canon fan)

Hi Thomas,

I do not know what country you are in, but an SMC-M 85/2 has just been listed on evil bay dot co dot uk...

cheers Steve.