All Forum Comments
Makes sense given the high rankings in the end of year reviews. At the current price its been a right steal...
Comment by cabstar posted on K30 Update at 29/12/2012 - 19:33
The 50-135 is a lot slower than my 16-50 but then the focus distance travel is a lot smaller on the 16-50.
I will have to do a side by side comparison and video it.
I will have to do a side by side comparison and video it.
Comment by cabstar posted on DA*16-85 still on roadmap at 28/12/2012 - 01:00
Smeggypants wrote:
Exactly. If the differences between models cant even exceed those real world variable condition you describe then it further confirms the K-5IIs is rather pointless. Other than marketing where that 0.0000000001% more resolution makes ALL The difference.
I thought I answered why it was a problem cabstar wrote:
The problem with these comparisons is that they are done under perfect conditions and lighting. I imagine at extremes you will see a difference.i imagine the mkiis gives a little scope for misfocussing and making slightly soft images sharper than they would have been.
I still cannot decide, I have until New Year's Eve to decide before the £100 extra trade in offer ends at SRS...
How is that a 'problem'? The only way to properly compare is to take photos under the exact same conditions to remove all variables exact what is under test. The comparison tests are done at all ISOs upto max 51200 and the same tiny miniscule differences are the same at all ISOsThe problem with these comparisons is that they are done under perfect conditions and lighting. I imagine at extremes you will see a difference.i imagine the mkiis gives a little scope for misfocussing and making slightly soft images sharper than they would have been.
I still cannot decide, I have until New Year's Eve to decide before the £100 extra trade in offer ends at SRS...
Exactly. If the differences between models cant even exceed those real world variable condition you describe then it further confirms the K-5IIs is rather pointless. Other than marketing where that 0.0000000001% more resolution makes ALL The difference.
Comment by cabstar posted on How are 'you' getting on with the K-5 IIs? at 27/12/2012 - 21:16
When I tested af speed on my gx20 and k100d screw drive they where both the same speed travelling from one ene of the focus band to the other...
Comment by cabstar posted on DA*16-85 still on roadmap at 27/12/2012 - 21:13
The problem with these comparisons is that they are done under perfect conditions and lighting. I imagine at extremes you will see a difference.i imagine the mkiis gives a little scope for misfocussing and making slightly soft images sharper than they would have been.
I still cannot decide, I have until New Year's Eve to decide before the £100 extra trade in offer ends at SRS...
I still cannot decide, I have until New Year's Eve to decide before the £100 extra trade in offer ends at SRS...
Comment by cabstar posted on How are 'you' getting on with the K-5 IIs? at 27/12/2012 - 19:07
Why? They fixed the problems and older lenses can easily and cheaply be repaired using the new parts.
I note most people complaining about da* lenses never seem to own any....
Those that do seem to enjoy using them...
I note most people complaining about da* lenses never seem to own any....
Those that do seem to enjoy using them...
Comment by cabstar posted on DA*16-85 still on roadmap at 27/12/2012 - 13:28
This reply was interesting...
On December 28, 2011 at 5:35 AM
LensRentals Employee
Roger Cicala said:
Eric,
Our point would be there’s no sense using a cheap filter to protect a lens – it reduces image quality. Plus the filter doesn’t protect the lens, it protects only the front element which costs only a tiny fraction of what the lens does. A good example is the Canon 70-200 f4 IS, where the front element costs $79. It makes little sense to buy an expensive filter to protect the front element which costs about the same as a good filter. It makes little sense to put a bad filter on the lens and reduce it’s excellent image quality.
On December 28, 2011 at 5:35 AM
LensRentals Employee
Roger Cicala said:
Eric,
Our point would be there’s no sense using a cheap filter to protect a lens – it reduces image quality. Plus the filter doesn’t protect the lens, it protects only the front element which costs only a tiny fraction of what the lens does. A good example is the Canon 70-200 f4 IS, where the front element costs $79. It makes little sense to buy an expensive filter to protect the front element which costs about the same as a good filter. It makes little sense to put a bad filter on the lens and reduce it’s excellent image quality.
Comment by cabstar posted on To filter or not to filter... at 27/12/2012 - 02:15
I have been cleaning my own lenses for years. I think photographers worry unnecessarily about front elements and protection via filters.
I have seen more lenses damaged from broken filters than lenses damaged without. The front element is also possibly the cheapest element to replace.
A bridge camera is a different kettle of fish as they don't usually have hoods to protect them...
I have seen more lenses damaged from broken filters than lenses damaged without. The front element is also possibly the cheapest element to replace.
A bridge camera is a different kettle of fish as they don't usually have hoods to protect them...
Comment by cabstar posted on To filter or not to filter... at 26/12/2012 - 22:05
Smeggypants wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="cabstar"]I don't like finger marks on my monitors so I definitely do not want a touchscreen laptop.
As for outlook express, I said goodbye and use Mozilla Thunderbird now. Much better.
I prefer Win 7 over XP now.
Will check that out thanks.[quote:3496ace15f="cabstar"]I don't like finger marks on my monitors so I definitely do not want a touchscreen laptop.
Quote:
Not really been impressed with win 7 but can't go back as I need win 7 for lr4. The permission system is so frustrating and work arounds don't work. MS seem to be taking backward steps with each new OS. I also miss outlook express, mail live or whatever its called is so ugly and slow.
I can't remember exactly how I did it, but after being frustrated with silly 'permissions' nonsense when I first installed it. I just set it so I took control of everything, and never had any problems since. I can understand the convoluted permissions system for using the OS in tightly structure borg corporate environoment where each employee is only allowed to access certain things, but Microsoft should have an option on install to bypass all that nonsense for users who don't want itNot really been impressed with win 7 but can't go back as I need win 7 for lr4. The permission system is so frustrating and work arounds don't work. MS seem to be taking backward steps with each new OS. I also miss outlook express, mail live or whatever its called is so ugly and slow.
As for outlook express, I said goodbye and use Mozilla Thunderbird now. Much better.
I prefer Win 7 over XP now.
Comment by cabstar posted on Windows 8 at 26/12/2012 - 21:29
Never used them, lens hoods are for protection, I am not putting £10 worth of glass on the front of my £500+ lenses why would anyone want to do that????
Comment by cabstar posted on To filter or not to filter... at 26/12/2012 - 21:19
