All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Building your own set of lenses in Pentax World at 04/12/2007 - 12:26
Very interesting, Flink, and useful I'm sure to those who might be contemplating/lusting after some of the lenses you mention.
I'm very glad the 24-90 has met with your approval, and it's nice that it's gone to a good home. It's a superb lens, but I wasn't giving it the use it deserved. If there were a remote prospect of a Pentax full-frame digital I wouldn't have sold it. On APS-C, it's not wide enough (for me) as a GPZ (general purpose zoom).
As for the choice of an AF lens to fit between the 31 and the 77, I would choose the FA 50 1.4 if strapped for cash, and the new DA* if not. The latter just might turn out to be Pentax's best ever lens. The 43 (though great) is too close to the 31.
Why do I expect the 55 to be possibly Pentax's best ever lens. Well, functionally it's the successor to the 85 1.4. A tough act to follow, but I would hope Pentax has learned a thing or two since that paragon first appeared, and it's apparently easier to make a good 50mm (or 55mm) lens than any other focal length.
G
I'm very glad the 24-90 has met with your approval, and it's nice that it's gone to a good home. It's a superb lens, but I wasn't giving it the use it deserved. If there were a remote prospect of a Pentax full-frame digital I wouldn't have sold it. On APS-C, it's not wide enough (for me) as a GPZ (general purpose zoom).
As for the choice of an AF lens to fit between the 31 and the 77, I would choose the FA 50 1.4 if strapped for cash, and the new DA* if not. The latter just might turn out to be Pentax's best ever lens. The 43 (though great) is too close to the 31.
Why do I expect the 55 to be possibly Pentax's best ever lens. Well, functionally it's the successor to the 85 1.4. A tough act to follow, but I would hope Pentax has learned a thing or two since that paragon first appeared, and it's apparently easier to make a good 50mm (or 55mm) lens than any other focal length.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Building your own set of lenses in Pentax World at 03/12/2007 - 22:51
Quote:
shoot through will give better results with low powered flashes as they generally lose less light than bounced.
results are good both ways, but bounced tend to have more even lighting without the hotspot you'll get from a shoot through.
not so much an issue of which is better, but an issue of using whichever you got properly. Which means it depends on many factors including the subject matter.
an example might be a group shot indoors:
using shoot throughs, I'd place the lights wide apart at 45 deg angles on either side of the camera aiming the hotspots to the people furthest from the umbrella, to feather the light on the people nearest the umbrella, to get nice light all the way across. (both lights equal power)
using bounce, I might prefer to have one light over the camera lens pointed down at the group, and one under the lens pointed out towards the group for fill light. (main light 0.5-1.5 stops brighter than fill)
in both cases the subjects will wind up being evenly lit with main and fill light balanced to give pleasing soft light with a proper ratio of main to fill light for modelling.
Interesting approach, having one light high and the other low. I'll have to try it.shoot through will give better results with low powered flashes as they generally lose less light than bounced.
results are good both ways, but bounced tend to have more even lighting without the hotspot you'll get from a shoot through.
not so much an issue of which is better, but an issue of using whichever you got properly. Which means it depends on many factors including the subject matter.
an example might be a group shot indoors:
using shoot throughs, I'd place the lights wide apart at 45 deg angles on either side of the camera aiming the hotspots to the people furthest from the umbrella, to feather the light on the people nearest the umbrella, to get nice light all the way across. (both lights equal power)
using bounce, I might prefer to have one light over the camera lens pointed down at the group, and one under the lens pointed out towards the group for fill light. (main light 0.5-1.5 stops brighter than fill)
in both cases the subjects will wind up being evenly lit with main and fill light balanced to give pleasing soft light with a proper ratio of main to fill light for modelling.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Umbrellas - Bounch or shoot-through at 03/12/2007 - 23:10
Quote:
I am undecided about these digital frames. I like to have my photos printed and framed the "old" way.
Maybe I am old fashioned!
The only conceivable use for them in my view is to have the picture changing automatically at pre-selected intervals.I am undecided about these digital frames. I like to have my photos printed and framed the "old" way.
Maybe I am old fashioned!
Although I suppose you can see them in the dark, if that's an advantage.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Digital Photo Frames at 03/12/2007 - 07:58
Quote:
Well I agree that both my monitor and eyesight may be at fault - seriously. I have had loads of trouble getting a cheap flat screen to render photographs properly.
I have visited sundry sites that offer subjective calibration from grey scales etc. and while I have the monitor set up as well as I can I'm still not convinced it's right.
As for own eyes they're not getting any younger!
Is this one too dark then?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9890138@N08/
Looking at that wall picture again I suppose it's sort of OK but I'd expect it to be darker and I'm sure it lacks contrast - I have a bad feeling my ignorance is part of the problem here.
I am very grateful for all you guys taking time to help!
Mike
The fountain is definitely a little on the dark side. I wonder if your monitor is too bright.Well I agree that both my monitor and eyesight may be at fault - seriously. I have had loads of trouble getting a cheap flat screen to render photographs properly.
I have visited sundry sites that offer subjective calibration from grey scales etc. and while I have the monitor set up as well as I can I'm still not convinced it's right.
As for own eyes they're not getting any younger!
Is this one too dark then?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9890138@N08/
Looking at that wall picture again I suppose it's sort of OK but I'd expect it to be darker and I'm sure it lacks contrast - I have a bad feeling my ignorance is part of the problem here.
I am very grateful for all you guys taking time to help!
Mike
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on K lens at 03/12/2007 - 09:05
Mike, your wall picture is not over-exposed. There's nothing wrong with it.
I wonder if you need to check your monitor. Or your eyesight.
Seriously.
G
I wonder if you need to check your monitor. Or your eyesight.
Seriously.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on K lens at 02/12/2007 - 22:42
Ebay is the best place to sell them, and you should sell each item separately - few people are likely to want everything.
DON'T say "I know nothing about cameras". This usually means the seller knows the item is broken, and doesn't want to admit it.
But if your contact has offered at least £50.00, I should accept it. It'll save a lot of hassle.
G
DON'T say "I know nothing about cameras". This usually means the seller knows the item is broken, and doesn't want to admit it.
But if your contact has offered at least £50.00, I should accept it. It'll save a lot of hassle.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on help please at 02/12/2007 - 20:29
Quote:
Of course CorporationTax affects retail price.
Actually, no. CT is a tax on profits, not on costs. It has no effect whatsoever on what you charge your clients, especially if you are a small business, and will pay yourself before any CT is charged.Of course CorporationTax affects retail price.
Quote:
But hey, George, I do notice that you live in an off-shore tax-haven!
Sadly, my reasons for being here have nothing to do with needing to reduce any enormous tax bills. But it's still a nice place even without the tax benefits (which in any case are largely offset by the high prices of most things - despite there being no corporation tax!).But hey, George, I do notice that you live in an off-shore tax-haven!
Ken[/quote]
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Buying from the USA now. at 05/12/2007 - 20:26
Quote:
I float this thought...
the reason that price of just about everything in the UK is higher than elsewhere is because of much higher levels of taxation - particulary corporation tax and business rates which hammer small businesses which covers just about all camera suppliers except Jessops. Dont moan - vote!
Taxes on profits (corporation tax) don't affect retail prices. Fixed taxes, like business rates, do.I float this thought...
the reason that price of just about everything in the UK is higher than elsewhere is because of much higher levels of taxation - particulary corporation tax and business rates which hammer small businesses which covers just about all camera suppliers except Jessops. Dont moan - vote!
But this argument applies to goods manufactured in the UK, not to goods imported from outside. The exporter is charging more, because he can get away with it. Fortunately, the Internet is helping to level the playing field by encouraging arbitrage.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Buying from the USA now. at 03/12/2007 - 21:02
Quote:
I think there's a feeling that suppliers are charging over the odds, but the reality is that margins can be very tight............
This is the crux of it. It's not just Pentax, it's not just cameras; foreign manufacturers have been over-charging the UK for years. I think there's a feeling that suppliers are charging over the odds, but the reality is that margins can be very tight............
Car prices dropped quite dramatically when the EU insisted that right-hand drive vehicles be made available on the continent for people to import privately into Britain.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Buying from the USA now. at 03/12/2007 - 18:36
That would equate to 18mm, 33/43mm, and 90mm on a DSLR.
Now people complain they can't get long lenses, when zooms going up to 300mm (450mm on film) are common, and any gaps in the Pentax range are filled by Sigma, among others.
We're spoiled, I think.
G