PLUS

johnriley

Joined: 19th March 2002

All Forum Comments

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

johnriley
A little extreme Don and not really something you would contemplate. A complaint to eBay and/or PayPal is the only sensible way to go.

Who knows what the outcome would be, let's hope we never have to find out for ourselves.

Comment by johnriley posted on always read the small print at 31/01/2011 - 21:22

johnriley
The simplest thing is to stick within the rules and not deviate no matter how pressed. No collections, ever.

Comment by johnriley posted on Sellers of high value items on ebay beware! at 31/01/2011 - 21:19

johnriley
Please enter with care everyone, there's only one shot at posting an image.

Comment by johnriley posted on Discussion Weekly Competition #186 Black & White Landscapes at 31/01/2011 - 20:15

johnriley
Yes, it's not a great idea to explain to everyone how easily they could defraud us....

Comment by johnriley posted on Sellers of high value items on ebay beware! at 31/01/2011 - 20:13

johnriley
I think that's all highly dubious, but unfortunately the internet being what it is it gets repeated until it becomes a fact...

The manufacturers will set their sensor sensitivity so that it closely approximates the ISO value, but we should remember it isn't film. It's a sensor and behaves in a different way.

The main effect of the aperture is on DOF and this will be significantly different at f1.4

Comment by johnriley posted on Difference between Pentax f/1.4 and f/1.7 at 31/01/2011 - 19:09

johnriley
Roscoe wrote:
johnriley wrote:
It's an attractive range and the WR is a useful feature. If it is better than the 18-250mm then it's absolutely good enough. The 18-250mm is not at all a poor lens.
John,
When are we going to see an in depth review of the 18-35mm WR?

Possibly by your good self?


Kindest regards,

Peter.
Can't really predict things like that as everything always happens at short notice!

Comment by johnriley posted on DA 18-135 at 31/01/2011 - 17:55

johnriley
Snootchies wrote:
Algernon wrote:
It's been documented on this board previously that digital sensors can't see f/1.4 they can only see it as f/1.7 anyway
I'm also sceptical about this statement since I can definitely see a difference between 1.4 and 1.7.
I don't see where that's coming from either, it doesn't appear to make any sense.

Comment by johnriley posted on Difference between Pentax f/1.4 and f/1.7 at 31/01/2011 - 17:52

johnriley
Quote:
If not then I'm out of pocket for no reason.
The reason is that you offer a service to your buyer that makes your item more attractive to buy and easier to pay for.

Comment by johnriley posted on Sellers of high value items on ebay beware! at 31/01/2011 - 17:51

johnriley
Every camera model from every manufacturer has its own slight variation of the RAW file. You need to ensure that Adobe have an update that includes the K-x, see their website.

Failing that, use DNG instead of PEF and all should be well. Or shoot JPEG.

Comment by johnriley posted on pentax raw at 31/01/2011 - 12:38

johnriley
Better relates to the f1.7 design having a flatter field and higher resolution.

The f1.4 version has higher contrast and is faster.

This is all related to what the expectation was as reagrds usage. It was assumed the f1.4 was a low light reportage lens and that the f1.7 was the one people would generally have and generally abuse with optical add ons, close up devices, etc.

Of course if you want a low light reportage lens then the f1.4 is better.

Comment by johnriley posted on Difference between Pentax f/1.4 and f/1.7 at 31/01/2011 - 12:35

Proudly supporting Pentax User

Samsung Logo Asahi Pentax Logo