All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Comparison of 16-50 and 16-85 at 31/03/2015 - 19:12
toy_car_uk wrote:
I personally think the general perception of the SDM failure rate is much greater than the reality.
I don't know if you have any experience with the DA* lenses or not but such is the quality of the glass I would say that I would happily replace them like for like if they did fail out side of 2 year warranty and they could not be repaired because they are that good.
My thoughts entirely.Pjy123 wrote:
i was very tempted to go for the da 300 star but im worried about sdm failures
I own the 16-50, 50-135, 60-250 SDM lenses and have done over 2 years plus. I am a second owner of the 16-50mm and the documentation it came with indicates that it has had AF circuity and SDM replaced but the lens also show signs of being dropped. I personally have never had an issue with them over the several years I have used them and have probably taken in excess of 40,000 shots using AF-C. I also own two Sigma HSM lenses. Both of which have been repaired outside of warranty for AF faults. (Looking at the paperwork for the 16-50, the cost of the repair was about 2/3 of what its has cost me to get the 50-500mm sigma AF circuit repaired)i was very tempted to go for the da 300 star but im worried about sdm failures
I personally think the general perception of the SDM failure rate is much greater than the reality.
I don't know if you have any experience with the DA* lenses or not but such is the quality of the glass I would say that I would happily replace them like for like if they did fail out side of 2 year warranty and they could not be repaired because they are that good.
Do you remember the dodgy horizon issue a few years back?
Some people claimed that their sensors weren't perfectly horizontal. Pentax could find nothing wrong. A huge hue and cry was raised, web pages set up, and this went on for a while. The impression given was that loads of cameras had a major problem and that Pentax needed to do a recall.
When the dust had settled it transpired that the alleged problem affected only half a dozen users worldwide, and that it was quite possibly all in the mind anyway.
I do recognise that some early SDM lenses had a problem, but you can bet your life that every single one has been mentioned a number of times, so that people have the impression it's a common issue. It's not. And more recent lenses appear too be fine.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Heads up... Mega Pentax Lens deals next weekend at 29/03/2015 - 11:50
fritzthedog wrote:
Carl
He's not representative. He is intelligent, liberal, and well-educated.JAK wrote:
Don't worry until the Governor of Arkansas has personally written to you and all the the other photographers in the w̶o̶r̶l̶d̶ (no, sorry) universe to point out their new law to you!
If the Governor of Arkansas did write to you - chances are it would make little sense, be contradictory, and contain denials of any knowledge of ever having agreed to the bill in the first place - if Bill Clinton is representative of Arkansas Governors.Don't worry until the Governor of Arkansas has personally written to you and all the the other photographers in the w̶o̶r̶l̶d̶ (no, sorry) universe to point out their new law to you!
Carl
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on We're all doomed! at 29/03/2015 - 11:37
George Lazarette wrote:
Unless you are making invisibilty cloaks, like Professor John Pendry at Imperial College, you will find it hard to bend light. Certainly I have never managed it.
But maybe there are better snoots that I haven't seen.
G
Nigel,McGregNi wrote:
Just looking back at George's comment there , I think a snoot WILL have the effect of concentrating and directing the light ... that is what it is designed to do. So it severely reduces the angle of coverage but concentrates the light into a tighter beam which is stronger as a result. This is a similar effect to flash head zooming, but more extreme.
The practical result I believe would be an increase in effective guide number, therefore brighter light although only on a small area, say just a head and shoulders.
The OP asked about 1/8000sec .... for the AF-540 FGZ , HSS operation at 1/6000th sec , ISO 100, maximum flash head zoom position , will cause the guide number to drop to 6.2 (that's half the power of the built-in flash!). You won't light up much in bright sunlight with that unless you find a way to highly concentrate the beam ...
All the snoots I have seen are matt black on the inside. This will absorb the light that hits the inside, and the only light that comes out will be coming straight from the light source.Just looking back at George's comment there , I think a snoot WILL have the effect of concentrating and directing the light ... that is what it is designed to do. So it severely reduces the angle of coverage but concentrates the light into a tighter beam which is stronger as a result. This is a similar effect to flash head zooming, but more extreme.
The practical result I believe would be an increase in effective guide number, therefore brighter light although only on a small area, say just a head and shoulders.
The OP asked about 1/8000sec .... for the AF-540 FGZ , HSS operation at 1/6000th sec , ISO 100, maximum flash head zoom position , will cause the guide number to drop to 6.2 (that's half the power of the built-in flash!). You won't light up much in bright sunlight with that unless you find a way to highly concentrate the beam ...
Unless you are making invisibilty cloaks, like Professor John Pendry at Imperial College, you will find it hard to bend light. Certainly I have never managed it.
But maybe there are better snoots that I haven't seen.
G
Your Powersnoot is something I hadn't seen before, and it is not a snoot in the normal sense of the term. Normal snoots don't concentrate the light, they simply mask some of it. I can see that the Powersnoot will bring much more light to bear on the subject.
I do agree with Matt though about trying to use flash in harsh daylight.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on high speed flash triggers at 28/03/2015 - 00:32
DaveG14 wrote:
Okay, final note;
I have returned the camera and received a full refund; there were other, none technical issues with the camera, and when I did get to compare image quality, with that of my K100d, there was a marked lack of "sharpness" to the K10 images. That despite gradually "maxing" the in camera setting.
Anyway, what with that, and the other bits and pieces, I called time.
Many thanks to all those who helped and advised, but for me, and my upgrade....the search continues!
Regards, Dave.
Don't let one bad experience put you off Ebay - most transactions are fine. And you got your money back, so all you have lost is a bit of time.Okay, final note;
I have returned the camera and received a full refund; there were other, none technical issues with the camera, and when I did get to compare image quality, with that of my K100d, there was a marked lack of "sharpness" to the K10 images. That despite gradually "maxing" the in camera setting.
Anyway, what with that, and the other bits and pieces, I called time.
Many thanks to all those who helped and advised, but for me, and my upgrade....the search continues!
Regards, Dave.
When I buy something expensive on Ebay I like to check the buyer out first. And if possible, I like to collect and pay cash. That gives you a chance to try the thing out befote parting with the hard-earned.
Good luck with the search.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on K10d Operational problem? at 27/03/2015 - 18:20
I have the 17-70, and it's a nice range, but it doesn't compare with the 16-50 for IQ.
With the coming 135-format camera, I am wishing I hadn't sold my 24-90. Hopeless range on digital, but wonderful performance on the film cameras.
G
With the coming 135-format camera, I am wishing I hadn't sold my 24-90. Hopeless range on digital, but wonderful performance on the film cameras.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Lens Upgrade Choices at 27/03/2015 - 11:25
Garybaldbee wrote:
Thanks one and all for your comments and input. I think the 50-135 is a given for me. I'm interested in the number of people advocating the DA 16-50. I know that it's quality control problems are probably behind it but everything I've read suggests that optically it's little or no better than the Tamron 17-50 (I'm not too worried about weather sealing). I'm interested in the idea of the DA 15 to deal with the wide angle gap - especially with the current SRS deal!
One other question on some of the suggestions, would the DA 55 be likely to offer a significant improvement in IQ over the FA 50 1.7?
There are good reasons for the fact that people advocate the 16-50. Personally I would pay more heed to owners' opinions than to reviews.Thanks one and all for your comments and input. I think the 50-135 is a given for me. I'm interested in the number of people advocating the DA 16-50. I know that it's quality control problems are probably behind it but everything I've read suggests that optically it's little or no better than the Tamron 17-50 (I'm not too worried about weather sealing). I'm interested in the idea of the DA 15 to deal with the wide angle gap - especially with the current SRS deal!
One other question on some of the suggestions, would the DA 55 be likely to offer a significant improvement in IQ over the FA 50 1.7?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Lens Upgrade Choices at 27/03/2015 - 10:07
McGregNi wrote:
Just looking back at George's comment there , I think a snoot WILL have the effect of concentrating and directing the light ... that is what it is designed to do. So it severely reduces the angle of coverage but concentrates the light into a tighter beam which is stronger as a result. This is a similar effect to flash head zooming, but more extreme.
The practical result I believe would be an increase in effective guide number, therefore brighter light although only on a small area, say just a head and shoulders.
The OP asked about 1/8000sec .... for the AF-540 FGZ , HSS operation at 1/6000th sec , ISO 100, maximum flash head zoom position , will cause the guide number to drop to 6.2 (that's half the power of the built-in flash!). You won't light up much in bright sunlight with that unless you find a way to highly concentrate the beam ...
All the snoots I have seen are matt black on the inside. This will absorb the light that hits the inside, and the only light that comes out will be coming straight from the light source.Just looking back at George's comment there , I think a snoot WILL have the effect of concentrating and directing the light ... that is what it is designed to do. So it severely reduces the angle of coverage but concentrates the light into a tighter beam which is stronger as a result. This is a similar effect to flash head zooming, but more extreme.
The practical result I believe would be an increase in effective guide number, therefore brighter light although only on a small area, say just a head and shoulders.
The OP asked about 1/8000sec .... for the AF-540 FGZ , HSS operation at 1/6000th sec , ISO 100, maximum flash head zoom position , will cause the guide number to drop to 6.2 (that's half the power of the built-in flash!). You won't light up much in bright sunlight with that unless you find a way to highly concentrate the beam ...
Unless you are making invisibilty cloaks, like Professor John Pendry at Imperial College, you will find it hard to bend light. Certainly I have never managed it.
But maybe there are better snoots that I haven't seen.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on high speed flash triggers at 27/03/2015 - 09:30
OldTaffy wrote:
Is anyone else getting overwhelmed by recent spam from a Chinese media corporation, offering variants on photo-editing?
I am being flooded by invitations from "David" (Return-path: bommsha-at-mail.com) or from "Harry" (Return-path: xuegao-at-mail.com). There are several daily variants but in all cases the Reply-to is to an email address that ends with sina.com
Easy enough to kill with a filter, but it's just a nuisance to have to bother to set one up.
Martin
I am deluged with 'em. And as soon as you set-up a filter, they send another from a different address.Is anyone else getting overwhelmed by recent spam from a Chinese media corporation, offering variants on photo-editing?
I am being flooded by invitations from "David" (Return-path: bommsha-at-mail.com) or from "Harry" (Return-path: xuegao-at-mail.com). There are several daily variants but in all cases the Reply-to is to an email address that ends with sina.com
Easy enough to kill with a filter, but it's just a nuisance to have to bother to set one up.
Martin
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Another pointless thread at 26/03/2015 - 22:47
We are used to Golden Mean proportions, so most people would expect to like No 2, and would find the square shape of 1 to be a bit unusual.
But despite this, I prefer No 1, and for similar reasons to Conexus (Beano notwithstanding). No 2 feels a bit flat. No 1 appears to have more depth, and is therefore more interesting.
G
But despite this, I prefer No 1, and for similar reasons to Conexus (Beano notwithstanding). No 2 feels a bit flat. No 1 appears to have more depth, and is therefore more interesting.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Which Version? at 26/03/2015 - 19:16
Ramble much appreciated. Sparkle is the word.
G