All Forum Comments
Comment by ilovesaabs posted on Official Prince George Pics at 22/08/2013 - 10:54
Smeggypants wrote:
What's really funny is Prince Charles Can't stand him - one of the only things I agree with Charles on
The BBC and witchell want us plebs to worship the ROyals like the citezens of North Korea are demanded to worship the Kim Jong ruling dictator Dynasty.
As to the pics, they aren't nice, they're crap.
http://news.sky.com/story/1130749/prince-george-photos-first-official-pictures
If there were just an ordinary unknown family in these pics no one would give them time of day.
They aren't ordinary people they are the elite establishment and they should be honest in that have decent professional pictures taken in keeping with their resources and standing.
Where they've failed is that "ordinary people" who would choose to get some posed pictures of the family with the newborn would have taken care to get some done much better than these badly snapped pics.
They're trying to hard. They should just accept that their popularity and relevance is diminishing.
I'm not disagreeing with you Smeggy, but what is the alternative? Would a Blair dynasty be better than the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Battenberg one?Pentaxophile wrote:
The ones taken by Middleton's Dad ARE the official ones, they have been released by 'Da Palace'. They looked pretty nice to me, yes the bleached out background looked amateurish but otherwise they were nice pics IMHO. I couldn't believe the amount of time given over to this on last night's news - 'do the pictures represent a change in how the monarchy wants to represent itself?' Nicholas Witchell was asking, as if this question somehow had earth shattering consequences....
The Mainstream Media is nauseatingly royal sycophantic and Nicholas Witchell and the BBC in general is the worst of the lot.The ones taken by Middleton's Dad ARE the official ones, they have been released by 'Da Palace'. They looked pretty nice to me, yes the bleached out background looked amateurish but otherwise they were nice pics IMHO. I couldn't believe the amount of time given over to this on last night's news - 'do the pictures represent a change in how the monarchy wants to represent itself?' Nicholas Witchell was asking, as if this question somehow had earth shattering consequences....
What's really funny is Prince Charles Can't stand him - one of the only things I agree with Charles on
The BBC and witchell want us plebs to worship the ROyals like the citezens of North Korea are demanded to worship the Kim Jong ruling dictator Dynasty.
As to the pics, they aren't nice, they're crap.
http://news.sky.com/story/1130749/prince-george-photos-first-official-pictures
If there were just an ordinary unknown family in these pics no one would give them time of day.
Quote:
'do the pictures represent a change in how the monarchy wants to represent itself?'
The Royals are so desperate to portray themselves as ordinary people and it's so transparent. This is obvious in that they're releasing pictures taken amateurishly like "ordinary people take".'do the pictures represent a change in how the monarchy wants to represent itself?'
They aren't ordinary people they are the elite establishment and they should be honest in that have decent professional pictures taken in keeping with their resources and standing.
Where they've failed is that "ordinary people" who would choose to get some posed pictures of the family with the newborn would have taken care to get some done much better than these badly snapped pics.
They're trying to hard. They should just accept that their popularity and relevance is diminishing.
As for the photos, if they please the family - job done. Other than that I hope Party Pieces utilise a more able photographer for their wares.
Comment by ilovesaabs posted on Official Prince George Pics at 21/08/2013 - 10:07
Being in that London I had to deal with:
a) my impatience
b) light pollution
c) every 90 seconds a plane comes over our house
d) isn't the sky over London full of plane, it was actually scary how many aircraft there are occupying the sky over a relative area within the field of view....
but I did see the ISS come over at around 9.10 pm
a) my impatience
b) light pollution
c) every 90 seconds a plane comes over our house
d) isn't the sky over London full of plane, it was actually scary how many aircraft there are occupying the sky over a relative area within the field of view....
but I did see the ISS come over at around 9.10 pm
Comment by ilovesaabs posted on Perseids Meteor Shower - Tonight! 12th August 2013 at 13/08/2013 - 13:50
and the Tunnen as well - insanely jealous
long live Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget
long live Svenska Aeroplan Aktiebolaget
Comment by ilovesaabs posted on Waddington Air Show at 13/08/2013 - 11:11
Why are they quoting for camera repair and not lens repair (under guarantee)? If water damage was cited for the camera repair wouldn't the same apply to the lens?
Very inconsistent.
Very inconsistent.
Comment by ilovesaabs posted on eye-watering water-damage repair cost for K5+18-135mm at 12/08/2013 - 20:26
Mike-P wrote:
I think not
I had to use family friendly terminology, otherwise I'd be stopped by his Rileyness...you probably heard me cursing, was in your neck of the woods (well, Hampshire:roll.....actually, since I couldn't manually focus the lens I sort of knew it wasn't terminal failure - I just wonder how many people have had their lenses repaired when just a twiddle with the jeweller's screwdriver frees up movement....ilovesaabs wrote:
Drat, I thought, another £180.
Really ... you honestly thought Drat ?Drat, I thought, another £180.
I think not
Comment by ilovesaabs posted on DA* motor failure rate at 12/08/2013 - 15:50
New update from me, regarding my 3rd DA* lens...the 300
which makes me think that some of the failures are not failures, but reflect that storage (even correctly) of the lens might cause focussing to malfunction....
yesterday I was at Marwell, spent most of the time with the Sigma 150-500 then I fancied swapping to the DA*300, the focussing just did not want to cooperate, even manually. Drat, I thought, another £180. But I remembered that when this happended to my DA*60-250 post-repair the use of a jeweller's screwdriver in the AF screw released the mechanism so that after a few minutes the AF on manual and SDM was working fine.
How many people try this before sending the lens off for repair? I think maybe more people do now as awareness of the problem is widespread.
which makes me think that some of the failures are not failures, but reflect that storage (even correctly) of the lens might cause focussing to malfunction....
yesterday I was at Marwell, spent most of the time with the Sigma 150-500 then I fancied swapping to the DA*300, the focussing just did not want to cooperate, even manually. Drat, I thought, another £180. But I remembered that when this happended to my DA*60-250 post-repair the use of a jeweller's screwdriver in the AF screw released the mechanism so that after a few minutes the AF on manual and SDM was working fine.
How many people try this before sending the lens off for repair? I think maybe more people do now as awareness of the problem is widespread.
Comment by ilovesaabs posted on DA* motor failure rate at 12/08/2013 - 10:57
Pentax have 2 changes of owner since the K10D came out...
Let's see what they bring out next, after all Nikon and Canon haven't really moved on so far ahead have they? and Sony with all their marketing haven't even dented N&C market share....
Do Pentax have to copy other makers?
Let's see what they bring out next, after all Nikon and Canon haven't really moved on so far ahead have they? and Sony with all their marketing haven't even dented N&C market share....
Do Pentax have to copy other makers?
Comment by ilovesaabs posted on I think Pentax lost a bet... at 12/08/2013 - 10:50
First I checked the lens was WR - which it is.....
I've taken my K10D and K20D plus DA* to some pretty damp environments - they survived rather well....They plus the K5 have gone to dusty environments and then placed under a shower to wash the dust/sand off.
Never any problems.
From what I have read is that the seals on the lens and camera should protect the camera from the elements but it sounds as if Pentax have invalidated the warranty claim due to a substantial ingress of water into the camera...I can't comment further...but it's very much one person's opinion vs Pentax. I wish you good luck with your challenge.
As for disposing the camera FOC - as if they will put the camera in the rubbish can - anything that can be reused will be recycled as spare material for repairs, a good result for them, not for you. But will you be able to claim on insurance though for a replacement?
I've taken my K10D and K20D plus DA* to some pretty damp environments - they survived rather well....They plus the K5 have gone to dusty environments and then placed under a shower to wash the dust/sand off.
Never any problems.
From what I have read is that the seals on the lens and camera should protect the camera from the elements but it sounds as if Pentax have invalidated the warranty claim due to a substantial ingress of water into the camera...I can't comment further...but it's very much one person's opinion vs Pentax. I wish you good luck with your challenge.
As for disposing the camera FOC - as if they will put the camera in the rubbish can - anything that can be reused will be recycled as spare material for repairs, a good result for them, not for you. But will you be able to claim on insurance though for a replacement?
Comment by ilovesaabs posted on eye-watering water-damage repair cost for K5+18-135mm at 08/08/2013 - 22:37
There's life
Slow to start but it's recharging quickly and it's on the rechargables
Thanks!
Slow to start but it's recharging quickly and it's on the rechargables
Thanks!
Comment by ilovesaabs posted on AF500FTZ not switching on at 08/08/2013 - 18:10
I'm not disagreeing with you Smeggy, but what is the alternative?
Pentax - There Is No Alternative