All Forum Comments
That was a good find, good price.
Comment by edumad posted on Sigma 28-105mm f2.8-4 mini review at 08/03/2010 - 16:46
It doesnt seem likely to be shutter speed. Not at that speed. Nothing seems in focus.
I had the same problem with my Sigma 17-70.
I had the same problem with my Sigma 17-70.
Comment by edumad posted on Can't get focus lock on at 07/03/2010 - 23:02
This is the lens I talk of here (check it).
Comes with original front cap and generic back cap. Has a built in hood.
The glass is good, although I suspect it was open at some point. I see only some specks of dust nothing big, no scratches or fungus.
On the second picture you can see the dust from the last element which still is pretty far from the mount, so I couldn't clean it very well.
Once you minimize the PF, the results aren't too bad
I'm asking £55 shipped to UK (1st class), for elsewhere ask me for a quote.
Comes with original front cap and generic back cap. Has a built in hood.
The glass is good, although I suspect it was open at some point. I see only some specks of dust nothing big, no scratches or fungus.
On the second picture you can see the dust from the last element which still is pretty far from the mount, so I couldn't clean it very well.
Once you minimize the PF, the results aren't too bad
I'm asking £55 shipped to UK (1st class), for elsewhere ask me for a quote.
Comment by edumad posted on Helios 300mm F4.5 at 07/03/2010 - 21:34
Bob and his Pentax wrote:
Well I think a judge who asks "where was your 5D, 7D, 1 series or 10D?" classing all of those as 'proffesional equipment' clearly knows little about photography.
It seems he knows little about the law too as he was not prepared to explore what the truth was when there were differences between the 2 sides - one says they met at a wedding fair the other not at a wedding fair, one says flash was allowed the other not so where were the independant witnesses to verify/refute these statements?
The judge misses the point that with digital photography fast glass is less important to acheive correct exposure in low light because we can change the ISO from frame to frame.
At no time was the contract between bride and photographer refered to in court - nor was the photographer permitted to show her portfolio and thus weather or not the work was to the standard, and therefore the expectation projected to the bride, of the work in that portfolio.
As I see it the whole thing was a biased character assination of the work of a budget wedding photographer who produced budget results. It completely lacked objectivity and I suspect was just recorded to titilate the American public and not to objectively explore weather or not the photographer had performed according to the contract and to the standard implied by a portfolio of work shown to the bride before the wedding.
It IS a court room on TV... Well I think a judge who asks "where was your 5D, 7D, 1 series or 10D?" classing all of those as 'proffesional equipment' clearly knows little about photography.
It seems he knows little about the law too as he was not prepared to explore what the truth was when there were differences between the 2 sides - one says they met at a wedding fair the other not at a wedding fair, one says flash was allowed the other not so where were the independant witnesses to verify/refute these statements?
The judge misses the point that with digital photography fast glass is less important to acheive correct exposure in low light because we can change the ISO from frame to frame.
At no time was the contract between bride and photographer refered to in court - nor was the photographer permitted to show her portfolio and thus weather or not the work was to the standard, and therefore the expectation projected to the bride, of the work in that portfolio.
As I see it the whole thing was a biased character assination of the work of a budget wedding photographer who produced budget results. It completely lacked objectivity and I suspect was just recorded to titilate the American public and not to objectively explore weather or not the photographer had performed according to the contract and to the standard implied by a portfolio of work shown to the bride before the wedding.
Imagining this was a real court, the girl would probably have no grounds for complaining. Sure the images don't look much, but hey, she hired her right? She has photos...
I wish the photographer was not in the business, but she is...
Gear is almost irrelevant, its what the togger can afford and the costumer can pay for. What you can make with the gear is the mark of a GOOD professional photographer.
If a crappy togger uses good gear poorly he can still make crappy pictures, maybe with less grain and taken more quickly, but still crappy.
Good, not professional. I mean professional as in profession, not professional as in the subjective understanding that good = pro.
Comment by edumad posted on Professional wedding photographer......FAIL at 02/03/2010 - 20:32
Hard to compare at different FL, crop the images.
Comment by edumad posted on Comparing Pentax-A 200mm f4 with Pentax-F 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 at 02/03/2010 - 14:54
If you think of the repercussions of what the law allows, its very scary.
Comment by edumad posted on Copyright & Privacy Legislation - Brace yourselves..... at 02/03/2010 - 10:47
Sigma and Pentax 28-80mm still available.
Comment by edumad posted on Some zooms for Pentax at 26/02/2010 - 00:10
