All Forum Comments
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Jessops at 05/03/2011 - 21:11
But yeah it's only the DA*16-50 and DA*50-135, the DA17-70, DA*60-250, DA*55, DA*200 and DA*300 doesn't seem to have much problems with SDM, at least never heard of one except dirty contacts.
Did a bit of searching and it seems to be a known problem with some of the lenses.
I have been advised to try leaving the lens hood off but couldn't really see how that would improve matters - focus is via the light reflected from the subject and surely the hood makes little difference to that?
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Getting upset with Pentax at 05/03/2011 - 20:57
Comment by Dangermouse posted on trashing a shop? at 05/03/2011 - 19:39
You can leave this setting alone after changing it, it makes no difference to the way the camera will behave with more recent lenses.
You will then need to dial in the focal length of the lens for the shake reduction, which is a simple case of turning the thumbwheel and pressing OK.
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Compatibility of Vivitar 28-210mm F3.5-F5.6 lens with Pentax K10D at 05/03/2011 - 19:36
Shortly after I bought a "Cambridge Audio" (who now seem to be a Richer Sounds own brand) CD player. From new it had an annoying hum from the transformer, then it developed what I can only describe as a death rattle! I'll replace it with a Marantz one matching the amp sometime as that way I can use the amp remote to control both.
I use an ancient GEC direct drive turntable with a new cartridge/stylus and a GEC tuner from the same era. You really do hear a lot more detail on vinyl than CD, especially on older albums which were mixed for vinyl.
I don't mourn the loss of cassettes, but a properly handled vinyl record on a properly maintained turntable will knock spots off a CD for pure quality.
Comment by Dangermouse posted on I have just listened to a CD! at 05/03/2011 - 18:11
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Anyone dealt with “www.panamoz.com OR www.onestop-digital.com” at 05/03/2011 - 15:19
If you can get an A 135mm f2.8 "for cheap" then pounce on it, if you don't like it you can always sell it on for what you paid. Zoom lenses were taking over for telephoto work by the time the A series arrived so primes from that era are unusual.
Comment by Dangermouse posted on SMC-M 28mm F2.8 and SMC-A 135mm F2.8 at 05/03/2011 - 15:17
I love these huge ancient lenses, have a K 85-210mm f4.5 which isn't especially common, especially mint in original case with original hood. Unfortunately it has a blob of fungus inside which I should probably look into having cleaned.
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Help with Ultra Achromatic Takumar 300mm f5.6 at 04/03/2011 - 19:51
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Help with Ultra Achromatic Takumar 300mm f5.6 at 04/03/2011 - 16:50
Are you implying that it would be cheaper to fry chips in Diesel???
Comment by Dangermouse posted on Another pointless thread at 04/03/2011 - 15:56


There are some very peculiar ideas regarding value of used gear in independent stores too. A brief browse today saw the usual lunatic prices. Now, I'll pay a few quid more to support a local shop/get a warranty/be able to inspect the goods, but I draw the line at paying twice or even four times as much!