Comments made by johnriley - Page 1261

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

boeforce wrote:
Here's a video.
link
It seems the grip is also WR.

Well that was aggressive enough! That's what I call advertising with a clear message!

Comment by johnriley posted on How WR without a WR Lens ? at 19/02/2011 - 08:32

Using a filter to secure the bag, into which was made a lens sized hole for the glass to peer through. Adding a lens hood will help keep water off the filter.

The hands go inside the bag to operate the controls.

It's clumsy but works. Proper lens shields are made which are better, and lens capes.

The alternative is to get someone to hold the umbrella.

Comment by johnriley posted on How WR without a WR Lens ? at 19/02/2011 - 00:01

It's defined on page 7 of the lens instruction booklet, up to a point. In practical terms it is a useful feature though that offers better water resistance than standard lens manufacture.

Comment by johnriley posted on How WR without a WR Lens ? at 18/02/2011 - 23:57

The Summit PhotoFix scanner does 110 and 35mm and offers modest file sizes, at less than £100.00

Flatbed scanners don't make great negative scanners, especially not cheap ones.

Comment by johnriley posted on Best of bad job - budget flatbed scanner advice at 18/02/2011 - 23:28

Pentaxophile wrote:
Is this really true about the 1.4 being less sharp than the 1.7?

The erphotoreview nifty fifty shoot out puts the A f1.4 ahead of the F f1.7.

It's not sharpness that's the issue - both lenses are sharp. The f1.4 has higher contrast and lower resolution and may look sharper in lower light. The f1.7 has higher resolution and a flatter field and is more suitable when used close up or with accessories such as close up lenses, converters, bellows, etc.

Comment by johnriley posted on 50mm lens change - 1.4M or 1.7A? at 18/02/2011 - 22:18

snappychappy wrote:
The clue is in the title, "resistant" and not "waterproof".

Very true. However, the lenses are resistant enough to use in the rain without any problems. The promotional video shows a jug of water being poured over camera and lens, which amounts to the same thing.

Comment by johnriley posted on How WR without a WR Lens ? at 18/02/2011 - 21:37

There are quite a few weather reesistant Pentax lenses. The WR lenses have simplified resistance to water ingress but the DA* lenses have a more complete weather and dust resistance.

The latter category include 55mm f1.4, 300mm f4, 200mm f2.8, 16-50mm f2.8, 50-135mm f2.8 and 60-250mm f4.

So far as I am aware there are no other makes offering this feature for Pentax cameras.

Comment by johnriley posted on How WR without a WR Lens ? at 18/02/2011 - 20:19

I went through a period of eggsploration of the egg, but this competition needs new images. So, here is my interpretation of the theme "Eggs":
[IMG]http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff250/johnriley1uk/041Eggs800px.jpg[/IMG]

Comment by johnriley posted on Entries, fortnightly competition #62- Egg(s) at 18/02/2011 - 20:04

Some years ago I had a SMC Pentax-A 35-70mm f4 lens that was filled with water through a leaking camera bag. It was quite a storm I was caught in to be fair.

I emptied the water out of the lens, half a cupful it seemed, and left the lens to dry out. It continued to perform perfectly well.

This is not something I would recommend! Ideally WR lenses should be used and then there is some confidence that we can actually go out and shoot in the rain.

Comment by johnriley posted on How WR without a WR Lens ? at 18/02/2011 - 18:49

Check exposure compensation in the EXIF data. It's the most likely reason.

Comment by johnriley posted on K5 Sensor Issues... at 18/02/2011 - 13:56

Proudly supporting Pentax User

johnriley

All Forum Comments

All Forum Comments

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Proudly supporting Pentax User