All Forum Comments
Comment by Don posted on My first Fashion Shoot – what a disaster! at 23/10/2010 - 19:18
fatspider wrote:
I fear my plans to sell the K10&20D to fund a K5 have been scuppered by the wife, who would like a new wood floor in the hallway and some new laminate down in the small bedroom
I'm just glad I didn't sell either, or the proceeds would have ended up under my feet
I did the install myself and got a camera as payment last year.....I fear my plans to sell the K10&20D to fund a K5 have been scuppered by the wife, who would like a new wood floor in the hallway and some new laminate down in the small bedroom
I'm just glad I didn't sell either, or the proceeds would have ended up under my feet
Comment by Don posted on K5 Arrived! at 22/10/2010 - 17:33
Anvh wrote:
FA35
DA16-45
The DAL will most likely be better in every aspect but not by miles and the DA16-45 already preform very good, i doubt you will see a real difference unless you zoom in 100%
But still my earlier comment stand though, you will use a zoom for different things as you would a prime.
I doubt you will be sitting at home contemplating if you should use the DAL35 or the DA16-45 today.
Both my primes and zoom lenses overlap and i never have to think hard which to take, if in doubt i'll always take the zoom because i've more reach that way.
If i know the DA40 or DFA100 would be suitable i'll take those for the extra quality.
your question ignores value.cardiff_gareth wrote:
Thanks JR, yes, I wanted to know how much better it is. We all know that primes are 'better' than zooms but what I was getting at was how much 'better' it is as I can set the 16-45mm to 35mm so I have that focal length already. The question I was looking for Stefan is weather anyone has compared the DAL 35mm to a 16-45mm that's set at 35mm for a comparison
Well you can compare the shots, like you can see the FA35 and the DAL35 aren't miles apart.Thanks JR, yes, I wanted to know how much better it is. We all know that primes are 'better' than zooms but what I was getting at was how much 'better' it is as I can set the 16-45mm to 35mm so I have that focal length already. The question I was looking for Stefan is weather anyone has compared the DAL 35mm to a 16-45mm that's set at 35mm for a comparison
FA35
DA16-45
The DAL will most likely be better in every aspect but not by miles and the DA16-45 already preform very good, i doubt you will see a real difference unless you zoom in 100%
But still my earlier comment stand though, you will use a zoom for different things as you would a prime.
I doubt you will be sitting at home contemplating if you should use the DAL35 or the DA16-45 today.
Both my primes and zoom lenses overlap and i never have to think hard which to take, if in doubt i'll always take the zoom because i've more reach that way.
If i know the DA40 or DFA100 would be suitable i'll take those for the extra quality.
would I buy an inexpensive prime when I got that range covered?
only two reasons to consider the 35...
do I need a prime in that range? or... can I make do with what I got?
if the image quality is better, then the matter is settled.
if the image quality is not better, then it's back to saving for the 21mm...... or the 35mm macro... unless I have a winfall and decide to splurge on the 31mm.
it's all about bang for the buck.
Comment by Don posted on DAL 35mm Review at 22/10/2010 - 13:50
so on a scale of 1 to 10...????
seriously how's this lens stack up to the 16-45 at 35mm? image quality wise? equal? better?
I just don't have time to go through that lengthy review and want the readers digest version...
seriously how's this lens stack up to the 16-45 at 35mm? image quality wise? equal? better?
I just don't have time to go through that lengthy review and want the readers digest version...
Comment by Don posted on DAL 35mm Review at 21/10/2010 - 14:42
Gwyn wrote:
But apart from all that you are happy .
Were you a member when the great change occurred? It cost us members and a near riot. Not sure I, or the forum, could stand another change of format.
Whilst I don't mind some sections not being visible to lurkers, only to members, I don't like the idea of invitation only sections or pay to view sections.
any excuse to join a riot...But apart from all that you are happy .
Were you a member when the great change occurred? It cost us members and a near riot. Not sure I, or the forum, could stand another change of format.
Whilst I don't mind some sections not being visible to lurkers, only to members, I don't like the idea of invitation only sections or pay to view sections.
just gimme an excuse...
Comment by Don posted on New Forum Ideas at 21/10/2010 - 14:21
also try higher iso combined with wider apertures in aperture priority mode, camera set to continuos shooting in the fn menu.
Comment by Don posted on continuous flash shooting at 21/10/2010 - 02:42
well it is damn near impossible to shoot oneself in the foot, if one is aiming high.
Comment by Don posted on Pentax Aim To Quadruple Sales at 21/10/2010 - 00:26
doingthebobs wrote:
It also held up my tent one night, when the poles were left behind!
my wife's giotto's tripod makes me nutz... hate those twist locks.Quote:
Dont really want one with twist grip locks.. I have heard these can be a pain.
They can be a pain. I've got an old Cullman 741 with twist locks and they can be a bit slow to operate at times. Mind you they do make the monopod more compact and easier to stow in a rucksack. Dont really want one with twist grip locks.. I have heard these can be a pain.
It also held up my tent one night, when the poles were left behind!
Settle for an apology and a proper written agreement to cover next years event.
Take it small claims court if you have to.
I hold people to their agreements. Not doing so was your second mistake. Agreeing to shoot images and not asking for payment and retaining your copyright was your first mistake, and that is what made them think it ok treat you so unprofessionally.
Remember you showed up, they broke their agreement, you incurred expenses and invested time expecting to get something for your effort, and they cheated you.
For a commercial shoot.... I expect to get $100.00 per hour + expenses. That is from arrival, equipment set up, shoot, on site edit, sign off on project, take down equipment, the meter runs..... then expenses like travel and meals.... and if needed accommodation....
If I don't get to shoot for ANY reason, it isn't my fault, I'm still getting paid.