All Forum Comments
Comment by Horst posted on Classified advert fees at 04/11/2015 - 06:35
Ebay usage is quite simple: You know how much you like to pay. That's the amount you bid. If you get it, great!
If not, wait for the next auction.
If by any chance you win and get a dud, You get your money back and if you pay with PayPal, You also get your return postage refunded.
I have bought about 5 lenses and various cameras from Ebay. They where exactly as described.
never had to return them.
My last lens I received today is the DA21mm f3.2 Ltd. The seller advertised it like new, And it was like new.
Not a mark on it. it came with all the accessories to. The price: $AU304.- = 141GBP .
I put a bid in for $AU320.- and was lucky.
The big problems buying stuff through eBay is the Chinese crap. Especially electronics parts and components. lots of it does not do what it is advertised it would. Lots of it are remarked components, sold as new . However some of it is oK.
You can not blame eBay for this, or the prices. Sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you are not.
Regards, Horst
If not, wait for the next auction.
If by any chance you win and get a dud, You get your money back and if you pay with PayPal, You also get your return postage refunded.
I have bought about 5 lenses and various cameras from Ebay. They where exactly as described.
never had to return them.
My last lens I received today is the DA21mm f3.2 Ltd. The seller advertised it like new, And it was like new.
Not a mark on it. it came with all the accessories to. The price: $AU304.- = 141GBP .
I put a bid in for $AU320.- and was lucky.
The big problems buying stuff through eBay is the Chinese crap. Especially electronics parts and components. lots of it does not do what it is advertised it would. Lots of it are remarked components, sold as new . However some of it is oK.
You can not blame eBay for this, or the prices. Sometimes you are lucky, sometimes you are not.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Frustrated with second hand sellers prices at 30/10/2015 - 11:07
you're right, i really don't think the idea of this type of lens is to take super close ups.
Also, the DOF automatically decreases by a large amount when getting close. Even at f 3.2 or around this value.
My previous used prime wide angle lens is the SMC-A 24mm f2.8.
I never used it at this large opening. mostly anywhere between f 5.6 and f11.
I personally found, that lens reviews are mostly useless. If you take the serious, you wouldn't buy any lens at all. Especially the comments about "soft, wide open" or "the edge sharpness is not as good as the centre ". Really, I never had any problem with the edge sharpness of any lens. manly because i couldn't care less about the far upper or lower edge. My eye goes to the centre, like in real life.
I also have the FA 77 f1.8 Ltd and you wouldn't believe some comments: " my only negative is: soft wide open" . What a useless comment for a mainly portrait lens.
to be honest, I personally haven't found a bad Pentax lens. But I may be a bit simple in my expectations.
I also refuse to photograph brick walls.
Regards, Horst
Also, the DOF automatically decreases by a large amount when getting close. Even at f 3.2 or around this value.
My previous used prime wide angle lens is the SMC-A 24mm f2.8.
I never used it at this large opening. mostly anywhere between f 5.6 and f11.
I personally found, that lens reviews are mostly useless. If you take the serious, you wouldn't buy any lens at all. Especially the comments about "soft, wide open" or "the edge sharpness is not as good as the centre ". Really, I never had any problem with the edge sharpness of any lens. manly because i couldn't care less about the far upper or lower edge. My eye goes to the centre, like in real life.
I also have the FA 77 f1.8 Ltd and you wouldn't believe some comments: " my only negative is: soft wide open" . What a useless comment for a mainly portrait lens.
to be honest, I personally haven't found a bad Pentax lens. But I may be a bit simple in my expectations.
I also refuse to photograph brick walls.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on My Pentax 21mm f3.2 Ltd at 30/10/2015 - 07:16
Hi , I just bought a 21mmf3.2 limited lens from Ebay
It cost me 304.- Australian Dollars.
It was advertises as used, but like new. and it was like new. In its original box with all the relevant accessories and 1 year Australian Guarantee.
I have just tried it and i am super impressed by It. I am glad I bid on it.
Some of the reviews complained about the f3.2 aperture. it suits me fine.
i still haven't worked out why I need a faster lens of this focal length
Here is just one of a few pictures I took this afternoon. (as it was taken)
Regards, Horst
It cost me 304.- Australian Dollars.
It was advertises as used, but like new. and it was like new. In its original box with all the relevant accessories and 1 year Australian Guarantee.
I have just tried it and i am super impressed by It. I am glad I bid on it.
Some of the reviews complained about the f3.2 aperture. it suits me fine.
i still haven't worked out why I need a faster lens of this focal length
Here is just one of a few pictures I took this afternoon. (as it was taken)
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on My Pentax 21mm f3.2 Ltd at 30/10/2015 - 05:32
pgweber wrote:
The K5 is an old camera by now, With old electronics.
The later sensors and the amplifiers surely are more superior .
It is not just the sensor which contributes to noise. The amplifiers which amplify the output of each pixel, have to be low noise. This amplifiers improve all the time. the noise figures and the higher amplification required for smaller pixels (if used) are much better than 5 years ago.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
But will it?
The pixels will be about the same size as on a 16 MP APS-C, so similar to the K5 series I would have thought.
Time hasn't stood still.But will it?
The pixels will be about the same size as on a 16 MP APS-C, so similar to the K5 series I would have thought.
The K5 is an old camera by now, With old electronics.
The later sensors and the amplifiers surely are more superior .
It is not just the sensor which contributes to noise. The amplifiers which amplify the output of each pixel, have to be low noise. This amplifiers improve all the time. the noise figures and the higher amplification required for smaller pixels (if used) are much better than 5 years ago.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on more ff rumors part 2 at 29/10/2015 - 13:53
My first camera was a Voightlander Vitomatic IIa with an Ultron 50 mm F2 lens . I bought it on the Never-Never When I arrived in Australia 1962 . I still have it.
My first Pentax was a Spotmatic I bought in 1970 with 20c coins saved in a large jar. I think it cost me about $ 200.- or so with the 50mm f1.8 lens . I still have it too.
Regards, Horst
My first Pentax was a Spotmatic I bought in 1970 with 20c coins saved in a large jar. I think it cost me about $ 200.- or so with the 50mm f1.8 lens . I still have it too.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on being nosie at 29/10/2015 - 13:40
Gwyn wrote:
The same seems to apply to colour. The digital mass consumer wants super sharp, high contrast images.
The whole idea of the subtle colors and more softer image seems mainly used by professionals who do advertising and and images of people and of photographs of Houses and internal rooms in this type of magazine.
They know, this type of images are pleasing to the eye.
This is really what its all about. The photo should reflect the mood and what one really sees.
When we look at harsh surroundings with blaring sunlight and deep shadows, t it may not be worth wasting a pixel.
As to Pentax underexposing and the fix to this , I can not agree with the remedy.
Setting the +- exposure correction to do this permanently does not appeal to me. Firstly, It clogs up the viewfinder and top display more and I don't think that's what it was intended to do. I think its intention was to compensate for taken images against some bright or dark object and then adjusting to make other objects visible which would have been hard to see otherwise.
A better solution would be to be able to do that in the Menu and set one or 2 stops more ore less.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
I am not saying that those photos are better, but many people expect saturated, contrasty, sharp photos without having to make adjustments. That is the type of photo many people prefer.
This is quite correct. In the B&W film era, the basic film consumer wanted high contrast negatives which were hard to print and gave the labs some problems. I am not saying that those photos are better, but many people expect saturated, contrasty, sharp photos without having to make adjustments. That is the type of photo many people prefer.
The same seems to apply to colour. The digital mass consumer wants super sharp, high contrast images.
The whole idea of the subtle colors and more softer image seems mainly used by professionals who do advertising and and images of people and of photographs of Houses and internal rooms in this type of magazine.
They know, this type of images are pleasing to the eye.
This is really what its all about. The photo should reflect the mood and what one really sees.
When we look at harsh surroundings with blaring sunlight and deep shadows, t it may not be worth wasting a pixel.
As to Pentax underexposing and the fix to this , I can not agree with the remedy.
Setting the +- exposure correction to do this permanently does not appeal to me. Firstly, It clogs up the viewfinder and top display more and I don't think that's what it was intended to do. I think its intention was to compensate for taken images against some bright or dark object and then adjusting to make other objects visible which would have been hard to see otherwise.
A better solution would be to be able to do that in the Menu and set one or 2 stops more ore less.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Same old story - where is Pentax? at 18/10/2015 - 23:15
Hello Daron, I heard a similar rumor.
However there are some differences specially for Australian conditions.
We get an additional 10% discount, The BBC I Player is missing and replaced by an emergency coffee making facility and finally The trip to Amazon is cancelled and replaced by a trip to the south of France staying in one of the chalets . The trip does not Include David Attenborough nor John Riley but Kiley Minogue is still part of it.
I've ordered 2 already. A Mate of mine wants to come too.
Regards, Horst
However there are some differences specially for Australian conditions.
We get an additional 10% discount, The BBC I Player is missing and replaced by an emergency coffee making facility and finally The trip to Amazon is cancelled and replaced by a trip to the south of France staying in one of the chalets . The trip does not Include David Attenborough nor John Riley but Kiley Minogue is still part of it.
I've ordered 2 already. A Mate of mine wants to come too.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on more ff rumors at 12/10/2015 - 06:58
johnriley wrote:
I concur with everything John said. I also started of with the Spotmatic. All I had to do is look trough the viewfinder, focus, switch on the light meter, if required , set the speed or aperture and shoot. It was just as automatic a function as changing gears in a car.
To use a Takumar lens on a K5 is no problem either. It is even easier Set your camera to AV or TV
Focus, and set the diaphragm to what suits you and press the button. The camera automatically sets the speed for you.
The Takumar lenses where superbly made. The focusing mechanism was that smooth, that it got a reputation. when rotating the aperture ring, the click stops where smooth and soft to operate.
later Pentax lenses are nothing like it in this respect. When turning the aperture ring, there is a rough and hard feel. Even my 77 can not match the build of the Takumars.
Finally, the images these lenses created where super. They may be different to modern lenses, but they had something special which is hard to try to explain. ( At least for me).
The Takumars , manual focusing and manual diaphragm may not be to every ones temperament, but to say the lenses and the cameras where awkward to use , I have to disagree.
This where the lenses which made Pentax. For good reason.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
SMC Takumar lenses are superb and I would have thought dead easy to use on a Spotmatic, which is where I started some little while ago. Other marques from the same era are generally clunky and awkward, but the Asahi Pentax range was beautifully elegant.
.SMC Takumar lenses are superb and I would have thought dead easy to use on a Spotmatic, which is where I started some little while ago. Other marques from the same era are generally clunky and awkward, but the Asahi Pentax range was beautifully elegant.
I concur with everything John said. I also started of with the Spotmatic. All I had to do is look trough the viewfinder, focus, switch on the light meter, if required , set the speed or aperture and shoot. It was just as automatic a function as changing gears in a car.
To use a Takumar lens on a K5 is no problem either. It is even easier Set your camera to AV or TV
Focus, and set the diaphragm to what suits you and press the button. The camera automatically sets the speed for you.
The Takumar lenses where superbly made. The focusing mechanism was that smooth, that it got a reputation. when rotating the aperture ring, the click stops where smooth and soft to operate.
later Pentax lenses are nothing like it in this respect. When turning the aperture ring, there is a rough and hard feel. Even my 77 can not match the build of the Takumars.
Finally, the images these lenses created where super. They may be different to modern lenses, but they had something special which is hard to try to explain. ( At least for me).
The Takumars , manual focusing and manual diaphragm may not be to every ones temperament, but to say the lenses and the cameras where awkward to use , I have to disagree.
This where the lenses which made Pentax. For good reason.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Full Frame Lenses at 11/10/2015 - 13:43
Silly Rico.
They hit the ball with a bat at the WRC? not kick it . Silly Rico!
Regards, Horst
They hit the ball with a bat at the WRC? not kick it . Silly Rico!
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Same old story - where is Pentax? at 10/10/2015 - 09:07
Why not just advertise in the forum section, which is free?
Paying by PayPal should not attract any fees. If so then it is a scam or greediness. Report it to PayPal and see what they have to say.
PayPal charges only about 10 to 15 pence for a 2 pound transaction to the receiver.
Regards, Horst
Regards, Horst