Blyhman wrote:

Well, to me as an onlooker only, these shots look great.
However I am inclined to look at the relevant part of the picture. In this case the players .

Do you really think , anyone gives a damn when you see a sports picture in the newspaper for example a super goal in a football game, if the background is taken with a lens with 6 or 9 diaphragm blades or at 100 0r 3200 ASA.

The main thing is to capture the shot and this is exactly what Steve did.

Regards, Horst

It's my favorite lens. Sharp from 35-70mm. Its light and solid build.

Regards, Horst

What sort of Sissies are you? you whinge and whine about something you really don't need.
Whatever happened to manual focus.

What did you guys do before Autofocus?

What you do, say at a soccer game. You hold the camera with one hand , The focus ring of your lens with the other and when the players shift position, you turn the said ring.
you don't even need split prisms, they are to slow anywhere.

then there is the old hyper-focal distance. Since modern lenses don't have it, look it up from a table. It works.

Why do you need to focus when you photograph a plane in the sky. Set it to infinity and f8. That's it.

When I photograph flowers, I have to switch off AF, because on a windy day, the AF focuses on the flower, a few milliseconds after on infinity and so on.
The best thing is to set the focus manually and then shoot when the flower comes back in to view.

Regards, Horst

Gwyn wrote:

I used a Super-A for years (same size as the ME series). It felt only comfortable with the winder fitted to it.
It made it just that bit larger to make it easy to hold for me and I haven't extra large hands.

Regards, Horst

How come, the mirrorless cameras are suddenly so desirable.

I personally find, they are pretty useless on a bright sunny day. About as useless as the smart phones in this light.

The Digital viewfinder if it has one, like the X-5 is horrible to look through at any light.

I mean, if you are all so keen to get a small mirrorless, buy a compact with a big zooming range.

I could understand a 4/3 type with an optical viewfinder of the Leica style. At least it is clear and natural and can take small interchangeable lenses.

I believe however, there is nothing equivalent to looking trough the FF viewfinder of a SLR.

I bet you, I can get a sharp image 2 speeds slower with the SLR viewfinder, then having to hold the thing in front of me, trying to frame and at the same time take the picture.

Regards, Horst

johnha wrote:

Look at all the cars on the marked. They look all basically the same. They have all the same features.

Camera manufacturers must do the same for a given type of camera. Be it compacts or SLR's They can and should not fall behind. If they do. they have a great uphill clime to get back on an even Kiel. See Pentax.

Regards, Horst

johnha wrote:

This is not quite correct.

Barnack decided on the 35mm format, because it was a relatively easy to come by and to develop type of film, which could be used in a pocketable and unobtrusive camera. also a bonus for news reporters.
However he used more of the available film area then the movie people which used it cross wise. Barnack used the film lengthwise.

Your correct in saying it was the smallest format to give acceptable results. That why 110 etc never became a standard.

However it of course was inferior to the Half-plates and 2-1/4 squares when used with the equivalent quality lenses and cameras

The same scenario is the FF with say 36MP compared to the APS with 16- or even 24MP.

Regards, Horst

Here we go again. You do not reduce the focal length of your tele lens with FF. A 300mm lens is a 300mm lens no matter what the size of your sensor.
All say APS-C does, is to give you in effect a cropped version of the FF.
Now If you take the picture with a FF sensor. (of course with the appropriate increase in pixel quantity) You can either crop it already in you camera or later in your software.
It seems everybody is only worried (unnecessary so) about birdwatchers and similar tele photographers. What about the wide angle people.

That's where the real problem starts by having APS-C .
With a given focal length, say 24mm You loose a fair bit of your image.
The to get back to the same as the 24mm lens You now have to invest in a 18mm lens and so on. You loose, no matter what on the wide angles.

No you may say:" just invest in the next smaller focal length" if you hace an APS-C
Fair enough, but at the same time don't forget to the say:" just invest in the next size Tele lens if you have a FF, if you don,t want to crop.

With FF you only gain, You don't loose.

Then we get the comment: "With the extra pixels required, we get more noise." Why should you? The pixel size is the same for APS-C or FF.
This means, the light sensitivity of each pixel is the same as before.
Not even taking in to account the advances in technology.
The Pentax APS-C cameras are really great, but don't knock the FF, they are even greater.
At least your beloved 50mm F-whatever Has still the same angle of view as on your Film camera and is not suddenly a 75mm.

Regards, Horst

The The_archaeologist wrote:

What exactly do you expect a company to do? Sit on their Laurels and let everybody pass them?
They are in business to stay there and make a Buck for the shareholders.
This can only be done by innovation and upgrading.

However, You don't need to buy every new model. Do you buy every year the latest model car?

If you do, then there is of course no need to worry about the new camera models every year. If you have the spare cash, stop whinging and buy it.

But if you haven't, why not be happy with what you have at the moment and wait a few years before investing in anew model. At least you know the pros and cons of your existing model and you can concentrate on improving your pictures if need be.

Regards, Horst

John Riley wrote:

Are you really trying to say, that all 3rd party lenses are inferior to all Pentax lenses.

Well, I bought some Pentax lenses which are optically not so great and mechanically bloody awful.
I also have a couple of Sigma and a Tamron lens, which I think are fantastic, both mechanically and optically.

I think it it good to be a Pentax fan, as I am, but don't be to narrow sighted.

Regards, Horst