George Lazarette

Joined: 14th January 2004

All Forum Comments

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

George Lazarette
Quote:
So it is always easy to crap a photographer and not the lens itself
You're right. And why is this? Because experience teaches that the majority (a very large majority) of reported equipment failings are attributable to operator error or operator ignorance.

On the face of it, this would appear to be another example, exacerbated by a know-it-all attitude.

It really doesn't matter how many pictures you have taken if you don't know what you're doing. Before you waste time taking the lens to Pentax (who will keep it for three months to punish you) do some proper tests on a tripod in good light.

Then tell us who is at fault. Your concert pictures prove nothing at all.

G

Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax Star 16-50 & 50-135 Lenses at 29/11/2007 - 14:08

George Lazarette
Quote:
well of of the other pics have been taken between 1/15 and 1/30 handheld
so I am assuming that if this was possible with an smc 100mm or 50mm at 2.8 it should also be possible with a Star lens...
Anyway as I am mostly doing concert shots I chose a lens at 2.8.
Now if the lens cannot do the job it is aimed at then I 'll just get rid of it.
Plain simple!!
But I'll keep on trying!
Perhaps the problem lies not in our star lens, Brutus, but in ourselves.

Not only are you hand-holding at low shutter speeds, but you are shooting wide-open. The resultant depth of field is so small that most of the picture will be out of focus anyway, and when you add a bit of camera shake, you are bound to have a very fuzzy image.

To test your lens, put it on a tripod in good light and do some controlled exposures at different apertures and shutter speeds. Then you can determine whether there really is something wrong with the lens.

Plain simple!!

G

Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax Star 16-50 & 50-135 Lenses at 29/11/2007 - 09:52

George Lazarette
Quote:
I do wish people would stop talking about the 16-50! I am still waiting for mine. Not fair!!!!!!!!!!!

Kim
'Tis better to travel hopefully than to arrive.

G

Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pentax Star 16-50 & 50-135 Lenses at 20/11/2007 - 09:50

George Lazarette
Love the first one.

G

Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pics from the Garden at 20/11/2007 - 10:11

George Lazarette
Like Tyr, I think it is reasonable to expect a 400mm lens, but I doubt if we will see anything longer in the near future. The potential market for such lenses really doesn't justify producing them. At any rate, not until Pentax has a significantly larger market share than it does at the moment.

G

Comment by George Lazarette posted on What lenses should Pentax make? at 20/11/2007 - 20:56

George Lazarette
Quote:
George Lazarette wrote:
Its ability to focus quickly, and to find focus in low light, was one of the justifications for my buying the lens.
I think it's going to have to go on my wish list then.
That's the easy bit. I have a DB5 convertible and a castle in a loch on my wish-list. Paying for them is another matter.

Quote:
Once I realised (talk about a flash of the bleedin' obvious :roll that for AF purposes, the camera 'sees' at the lens' widest aperture, the 16-50's potential utility in low light became a lot clearer.

It's not often that I'd want F2.8 for landscapes, but for seeing in the dark I definitely would.
I look forward to these dark landscapes with no DOF. Could start a new photographic genre.

G

Comment by George Lazarette posted on Low-light AF: DA* 16-50 vs DA18-55 at 18/11/2007 - 18:31

George Lazarette
Quote:
George Lazarette wrote:
Quote:
Optical qualities and AF quietness and speed aside, would you expect the ability of the K10D to get AF lock in poor light to be better with the 16-50, purely because of its wide-open aperture being F2.8 rather than that of the much slower 18-55?
Yes.
Ok, supplementary question.

How much better?
Very difficult to quantify, especially as the 16-50 has an internal focus motor.

However, I would say (off the top of my head, and without doing any comparative tests) that the K10D and 16-50 focus significantly more quickly than any other lens/camera combo I have used.

And it's pretty good, though not perfect, in low light (where flash is essential).

Its ability to focus quickly, and to find focus in low light, was one of the justifications for my buying the lens.

G

Comment by George Lazarette posted on Low-light AF: DA* 16-50 vs DA18-55 at 18/11/2007 - 13:19

George Lazarette
Quote:
Optical qualities and AF quietness and speed aside, would you expect the ability of the K10D to get AF lock in poor light to be better with the 16-50, purely because of its wide-open aperture being F2.8 rather than that of the much slower 18-55?
Yes.

G

Comment by George Lazarette posted on Low-light AF: DA* 16-50 vs DA18-55 at 18/11/2007 - 12:05

George Lazarette
Quote:
I read on the I/Net that Irfanview will run under Wine - apparently "straight out of the box". That would be perfect for what I want - a Flashtrax substitute.

Have you tried it?
Not yet, but I probably will. The purist in me thinks WINE is a bit of a cop-out, but the realist says do whatever is easiest. Time waits for no man.

Of course, Irfanview handles DNG files.

G

Comment by George Lazarette posted on Portable data storage and a Linux question (or two) at 10/06/2008 - 18:00

George Lazarette
Quote:
I have been so tempted by these little gems. I've heard only good reports. However, I have a 12" Dell notebook with dual processors, 2GB RAM, 120GB of disk space and a good 5 hours of battery life. It isn't as small and neat as the Asus but it's a whole lot more practical for processing photos.

So, although I think I've now been at the online checkout three times with a single Eee in my basket. Common sense (is it?) has so far prevailed and I haven't actually ordered one.
The Eee PC is not a substitute for a full-size laptop, but it is fantastic as a small, light, cheap, well-sorted, travelling companion.

It is also finding a use in our house as an email machine for my nonagenarian parents. They find full-sized laptops too big and clumsy, but can cope with the Eee. I suspect we'll soon end up with three.

G

Comment by George Lazarette posted on Portable data storage and a Linux question (or two) at 19/12/2007 - 11:24

Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo