All Forum Comments
Comment by JAK posted on Squirrels with Sigma 10-20mm at 15/04/2012 - 17:11
DrOrloff wrote:
Camera lenses are an entirely different matter. The 40% odd rise in price of a 12-24 I suspect is neither due to massive increased demand (unless the Chinese are going nuts for them) or production costs which are predictable.
Who knows why really, but it could be production issues following the tsunami.Camera lenses are an entirely different matter. The 40% odd rise in price of a 12-24 I suspect is neither due to massive increased demand (unless the Chinese are going nuts for them) or production costs which are predictable.
Like to think the Chinese are going nuts over fritzthedog's Sainsbury's Peanuts.
John
Comment by JAK posted on Pentax/Ricoh putting prices up at 14/04/2012 - 18:30
No, because of SDM failures. What I think happens though is that the SDM motors get over torqued if the lens is quick shifted.
John
John
Comment by JAK posted on Fast focus for baby shots at 14/04/2012 - 18:23
Optically the 17-70 (to me) is not quite as good as the the 16-45 but is a more convenient lens. It's certainly fast and quiet focussing, but not a pro lens.
If you read Photozone's review of it link it states
John
If you read Photozone's review of it link it states
Quote:
The fast and near-silent ultrasonic AF is also a very welcome new feature.
which is where I got the impression that SDM was supposed to be faster and why I purchased one.The fast and near-silent ultrasonic AF is also a very welcome new feature.
John
Comment by JAK posted on Fast focus for baby shots at 14/04/2012 - 18:19
17-70 ?
Already apologised for that - I had misunderstood the meaning of supersonic as used by Pentax. Thought it related to supersonic as in fast aircraft, not quietness!
John
Quote:
would say that was a totally valid answer, no matter how many times you try and justify your statement (which I believe at the start was saying SDM was for their fastest focusing lenses?).
would say that was a totally valid answer, no matter how many times you try and justify your statement (which I believe at the start was saying SDM was for their fastest focusing lenses?).
Already apologised for that - I had misunderstood the meaning of supersonic as used by Pentax. Thought it related to supersonic as in fast aircraft, not quietness!
Quote:
It is generally accepted that the lenses with SDM have the best optics (16-50mm...
Some apparently reject the lens because it is SDM, so I have read here.It is generally accepted that the lenses with SDM have the best optics (16-50mm...
John
Comment by JAK posted on Fast focus for baby shots at 14/04/2012 - 18:04
Isn't it normally down to supply and demand?
If more people want fritzthedog's peanuts and there have been growing problems meaning they are in short supply, up will go the price. If there has been a glut they'll be thankful to give them away.
Supermarket prices though seem so volatile though, they'll put the price up by say that 30% one week and reduce it to something even less the week after. Who knows why?
Another time they'll hide a price rise with a special offer, hoping no one notices.
John
If more people want fritzthedog's peanuts and there have been growing problems meaning they are in short supply, up will go the price. If there has been a glut they'll be thankful to give them away.
Supermarket prices though seem so volatile though, they'll put the price up by say that 30% one week and reduce it to something even less the week after. Who knows why?
Another time they'll hide a price rise with a special offer, hoping no one notices.
John
Comment by JAK posted on Pentax/Ricoh putting prices up at 14/04/2012 - 17:52
Mike-P wrote:
As Pentax only make their "professional range" with SDM and considering the price of them you would be quite within your rights to expect better IQ than a lens without.
There are of course lenses still made that have IQ just as good (or even better) such as the 31mm/49mm/77mm but they are old school and are unlikely to be reworked for SDM.
Don't wish to appear rude, but how on earth can a lens focussing system have any relation to a lens's optics?JAK wrote:
It still is true that SDM is nothing to do with IQ as said in the original post.
John
Actually that is not strictly true either.It still is true that SDM is nothing to do with IQ as said in the original post.
John
As Pentax only make their "professional range" with SDM and considering the price of them you would be quite within your rights to expect better IQ than a lens without.
There are of course lenses still made that have IQ just as good (or even better) such as the 31mm/49mm/77mm but they are old school and are unlikely to be reworked for SDM.
Saying 'price' is not really a valid answer!
As an aside, I'm not convinced that this thread was ever meant to be taken seriously!
John
Comment by JAK posted on Fast focus for baby shots at 14/04/2012 - 17:29
whelmed wrote:
Can I conclude then that there is nothing that will be faster than my 35mm f2.4 then?
A 126 Instamatic? It's fixed focus so no focus speed issues at all. Can I conclude then that there is nothing that will be faster than my 35mm f2.4 then?
John
Comment by JAK posted on Fast focus for baby shots at 14/04/2012 - 11:19
Given the amazing, precisely timed shots we see in the gallery of wildlife etc. I feel that it is more down to technique than anything else. If you just can't get the timing right, put the K-5 into moviemode and film a sequence that way. Select a sharp image from within that and you've got your photo. That'll save you spending that 700GBP which you can put towards a replacement pair of trousers or getting the hole mended!
John
John
Comment by JAK posted on Fast focus for baby shots at 13/04/2012 - 23:29
ChrisA wrote:
For £1000 or more, it's not unreasonable to expect better.
It is pointless to argue that technique would have had to be better with old gear. It's true, but irrelevant.
My ME cost me quite a bit more than £25. Probably more on a par with a K-r today.JAK wrote:
It would have been harder. But an ME costs £25.whelmed wrote:
The problem with pre-focusing is they move front and back so depending on the DOF that 1 inch is enough to bright them out of the depth of field.
If you were using a Pentax ME or similar manual focussing cameras, how would have coped?The problem with pre-focusing is they move front and back so depending on the DOF that 1 inch is enough to bright them out of the depth of field.
For £1000 or more, it's not unreasonable to expect better.
It is pointless to argue that technique would have had to be better with old gear. It's true, but irrelevant.
The old techniques are valid today.
Perhaps what the OP needs is one of those cameras that take the picture before you press the shutter - as advertised on TV!
John
Comment by JAK posted on Fast focus for baby shots at 13/04/2012 - 23:11
John