SDM Lenses

I have a battery of DA*Lenses and I have up to now not found anything optically better in Telephotos. (in wider primes their are very good options as their are in some zooms some of which are Ricoh / Pentax).

However the SDMs are prone to failure in early releases of the DA*range and I have had one fail twice (DA*50-135) both on new lenses (the second a replacement provided by Pentax for the first ,which failed with in a year).
I must say that whilst they are definately my most used and reveered lenses the SDMs and focus in general is definately very good when it is "behaving" but is at best tempramental at worst unreliable; two of my DA*s are newish and I have learned two tips that keep them functionin;

1. Always keep the contacts clean, carefully buffing frequently
2. Always carry a small flat head scew drinver as "twiddling" the small drive sprocket on the lens seems to "wake them up " when they decide to have "day off".

This was a tip that came via PU some years ago and for me it works.

I have just bought the HD 150-450 which has the DC motor and apart from the now well reported "blistering" optical performance I am glad to say the focus is definately crisp, wholly reliable and spot on.

Coupled with, (in my view) the "undersold improvements " on the K3II this combination has made redundant most other lenses I have in the telephoto range.

I am usually deflated by the actual functional performance of new Lenses and Cameras that are hyped up so much butin this case, whether it is the DC motor, the improved K3 II, or the combination of both: the functional performance has consigned my K3 and the DA*s (300, 200 and 60 -250) to the cupboard for the time being.

So if the DC motor stands the test of "work and time" and maintains it's functionality as it is now, then I for one would not be sorry to see the SDM technology superceded.

Interestingly someone in another current post/ thread mentioned what a fan they were of the much underrated 18-135, well so am I, and that is not SDM either, it is DC: mine (18-135) is optically wonderful and has been hammered; yet it just goes on and on like the day I bought it, interestingly that lens focusses like lightening on the K3II as well, maybe that is another pointer about the way to go.

The photos are as taken, no sharpening, the lens quite stunning as most everything I have taken so far have exhibited sharpness as good as prime lenses and arguably better in some cases than the DA* 300 and DA* 200.

Regards

Tried to post some some examples showing the sharpness of the HD 150-450 but could not insert them in the post so they are posted in the gallery

I think it is fair to say this in one sharp lens.

Regards

Daron

i have the same view, mine never ceases to amaze.

Regards,

I completely agree with Smeggypants; sold a few myself and had a few nicked including a front cover shot sold to a British Country sports magazine which turned up in an advert from a prestigious British artist run in an Italian Gunmakers magazine;.

However, I considered that as an advert and reference for my photos too and embedded copyright and the archived original helped me successfully win a very handy compensation claim; but that was pure luck as firstly the "stolen image" needs be seen before you can take any action.

Taking action can be horrendously expensive compared to the value of the photo or what you might get back, so that doesn't really help if the image has not had high profile exposure and publication by a well known user who could be discredited by such an action; even then they might ignore your protestations; and a copyright lawyer will cost a couple of hundred quid just to get a letter out to them.

if you put an image on the net it will get used by someone; if you only sell hard copy prints the image can still be scanned and can end up being circulated on social media, the internet etc.

So if you don't want photos to be "poached" don't get into selling photos, you practically can't control it.

Systematic digital defacing will not guarantee they are not knicked but definately guarantee they are not sold

Regards

Lovely photography very charming place, No 7 is my favourite too.

Regards

Thanks for your appreciative comments Jeff and you are right knockers are a great subject; I can't walk past nice knockers when I am out with my camera, I have to pause a moment and admire them, my wife has given me a loving kick in the shins a few times.

I have photographed many in the past and will go on doing so; Sometimes I will see a nice matching pair and approach the owner asking, "can I take a couple of shots of your lovely knockers", invariably, they being very proud of their knockers, especially if the are big ones, will give a an appreciative smile and let you indulge yourself.

Knockers come in all shapes and sizes but personally size is not so important to me as long as they are well made and in decent condition.

But keep in mind one golden rule, that out of courtesy and good manners, it is not good practice to touch their knockers or try to give them a polish up, if you feel inclined to do so, the owner could be offended.

Yes, Knockers are a great photographic subject for sure and would be great for a competition subject ; maybe entitled “lovely knockers".

Such a competition could be expanded to "door furniture" to widen the subject maybe, however that could be a little less interesting than” just knockers”; knockers will always have the magic.

We have had a competition on "doors" so lets hope a progressive and open minded weekly competition winner will make the call - "next weeks competition subject is "Beautiful Knockers" - then we can all show off our best knockers.

Regards

Pm sent

One of a nice left and right pair



Lions head door knocker



These were taken in Barcelona a place renowned for nice knockers (door knockers that is)

This is such a good point Andrew but coming back to the very point of the discussion however, it isn't about being big or dominant per se; it is about establishing a sales volume and corresponding revenues that enables four principle business objectives to be acheived ;

1. Being able to lead the continuous advancement of the technology
2 Sustaining a marketing strategy that consolidates a "continuous brand presence" and customer connection
3. Being able to provide first class customer focussed product support.
4. Being able to maintain a business/ product/ brand going forward in with a long term future

This thread started out of a previous thread relating to "turn around times for Pentax Lens repairs" and the relationship between providing prograde products and timely pro grade support in " times of trouble"

When a company only have 4% of the market that is difficult they are always vulnerable in terms of consolidating their position; not only competing in the same market as the "big two" who dominate, but under attack from the rest of the pack, so to speak.

So, being committed to Pentax I would not want to see them be left behind again as they were in the " noughties", I would like to see them leading as they did for many, many years; one thing that Pentax has in spades is pedigree but that doesn't guarantee their survival or position going forward.

The Saab reference is not the perfect analogy but is exactly the outcome that can happen; I would like an outcome like Nissan or Toyota, to stay with the car analogy; A sustainable product and business is the most important outcome; this requires Class leading technology, great after sales and solid customer support; but not at a BMW price.

( I hope that doesn't start a car discussion on our photographic forum)

Fundamental to taking market share these days is world class after-sales support, because let's face it, none of the top ten camera makers make bad cameras and never have.

Those brands at the very top though, also differentiate themselves by having much stronger marketing and customer support, that's what attracts the pros, indicating the excellence of the company as a whole, not just the class leading excellence of cameras and hardware.

However, highly competitive, commercially persistent marketing and enhanced after-sales support is expensive and requires higher revenue from sales volumes to sustain, hence more market share provides those revenues, so dominant companies like Canon and Nikon can sustain this excellence in supporting the pro sector.

We (Pentax) have the hardware for sure but marketing and customer support, I don't think so..

The big worry / threat might be those companies who are not predominantly camera manufactures but do have the financial clout to " have a go" at the camera market ; Sony, Samsung and Panasonic to name but three.

They do have the finances if they chose to refocus their business predominantly on Photographic products and for sure could mount and sustain a very formidable marketing and customer support strategy that could cause more problems for the less dominant, established "camera makers" than they already do.

Maybe we should be thankful they are chasing (and dominating) the general consumer electrical appliance markets or we could see some casualties amongst the older camera brands.

With Pentax now being supported by Ricoh thankfully, I think we can see this marketing aspect definitely picking up but we still have some way to go on customer support and product support.

Pentax still can't support the pro market which is a key indicator of the competence of a brand, the technical quality of the products and the esteem that brand has established with the most demanding user sector; the pros and It could be a naive misjudgment to ignore this.

Let's not be a Saab, we nearly did become so in the "noughties" ; lets be more dominant; not the most dominant however because that has some negatives too; just dominant enough to ensure that the Pentax heritage and legacy continues into the long term future.

PS; as I said at the start; Just trying to join up the dots here, to the original topic (relating to turn around times) that started this secondary thread running relating to "who dominates the market".