All Forum Comments
Comment by johnriley posted on which 10-20 - if at all? at 25/03/2010 - 11:13
There is a designation, or was. E I think is entry level, A is the top of the line at the time, W is water resistant, M I can't remember....
I have a leaflet somewhere that details all this. It also made up names for the different SLR ranges...
However, maybe this has now been lost in a mass of meaningless letters and numbers.
I have a leaflet somewhere that details all this. It also made up names for the different SLR ranges...
However, maybe this has now been lost in a mass of meaningless letters and numbers.
Comment by johnriley posted on Opinions on I-10? at 25/03/2010 - 10:59
Just about the best lens you can buy in ultrawides is the SMC Pentax-DA 12-24mm f4 which is just superb.
Comment by johnriley posted on which 10-20 - if at all? at 25/03/2010 - 00:11
cedricd wrote:
Beware the W90. If it`s anything like the W80 you will be in for a shock. IQ could be very poor and Pentax do not have an answer for it. Leave Pentax out of your buying plans and try other makes.
Cedric
I can't agree with that. Pentax compacts can and do produce some excellent results. I have used the S5i, T30, A20, P70, I-10 and Z750 and all have been perfectly satisfactory.Beware the W90. If it`s anything like the W80 you will be in for a shock. IQ could be very poor and Pentax do not have an answer for it. Leave Pentax out of your buying plans and try other makes.
Cedric
Comment by johnriley posted on Opinions on I-10? at 24/03/2010 - 23:50
MrCynical wrote:
*Are they actually waterproof (through a treatment of the material or somesuch), or do they just protect gear from most rain by the canvas simply absorbing water for longer than most people will be out in rain?
*Do they come with camera/lens-holding dividers or is it basically a single 'cavern' for which dividers must be purchased separately?
They come with a very effective set of inserts that progressively absorb shock. johnriley wrote:
We use Billingham Hadley Pro bags - very accessible, waterproof and compact. We find them big enough in the field and they hold quite a bit of kit.
Those look nice - expensive, but if they're as useful as they look possibly worth it (and probably not that much more expensive than my Timbukhack once the cost of inserts is taken into account). I've a couple of questions about the Billinghams though:We use Billingham Hadley Pro bags - very accessible, waterproof and compact. We find them big enough in the field and they hold quite a bit of kit.
*Are they actually waterproof (through a treatment of the material or somesuch), or do they just protect gear from most rain by the canvas simply absorbing water for longer than most people will be out in rain?
*Do they come with camera/lens-holding dividers or is it basically a single 'cavern' for which dividers must be purchased separately?
The canvas may well be treated as in the most severe downpours the interior does not get wet. Edges are generously overlapped so that rain does not get past the openings. Leather trims and fasteners will ansorb water to some degree, but they dry out fine.
Extra interior dividing sections can be purchased and we always add a double one to the centre section so the camera can be held lens down in one and an additional lens put in the other. In this way I can actually carry the camera with lens attached and at least three more lenses, plus all the lens hoods and other items such as cards, batteries, torch, odds and ends, travel documents, etc.
Comment by johnriley posted on Bag recommendations/comments? at 24/03/2010 - 23:46
When you see the lenses side by side it's obvious they are very different beasts, but fortunately it doesn't seem to have any practical effect on the end results.
Comment by johnriley posted on FA v D-FA 100mm 1:2.8 Macro at 24/03/2010 - 17:32
There are nine images currently - which ones have gone missing?
Just in case, may I remind anyone who may not be aware that once you have posted an entry it should not be replaced. Once only is the rule!
Just in case, may I remind anyone who may not be aware that once you have posted an entry it should not be replaced. Once only is the rule!
Comment by johnriley posted on weekly comp discussion #142 Macro Mystery at 24/03/2010 - 16:35
Anvh wrote:
The optical formula is so good as the same.
FA
DFA
I believe John have said that both are the same as well but I could be mistaken.
The DFA indeed feels a bit flimsy that's why I took interests in the DFA WR lately, you pay a bit extra but you get the quality of the limited lenses for that, you do lose the aperture ring though.
The end results are virtually the same, and the designs are almost the same, but looking at those two schematics they may be very similar but they are definitely different.The optical formula is so good as the same.
FA
DFA
I believe John have said that both are the same as well but I could be mistaken.
The DFA indeed feels a bit flimsy that's why I took interests in the DFA WR lately, you pay a bit extra but you get the quality of the limited lenses for that, you do lose the aperture ring though.
Comment by johnriley posted on FA v D-FA 100mm 1:2.8 Macro at 24/03/2010 - 16:22
Gwyn wrote:
It doesn't inspire me to part with my euros .
Maybe not, but we don't have to believe all that. I've found it to be better than my P70, and the P70 was also very good. The P70 equally got indifferent reviews.nilescrane wrote:
Are there any proper reviews anywhere? Been searching but no luck so far.
I found this one today. Are there any proper reviews anywhere? Been searching but no luck so far.
It doesn't inspire me to part with my euros .
I think it depends what you want such a camera for, and if I can make an A3 print if I want to then it's OK with me.
As one of the people who replied to the review said, the charges levelled against the I-10 could equally well apply to almost every other compact digital camera.
Comment by johnriley posted on Opinions on I-10? at 24/03/2010 - 16:17
Just the 16-45mm and 55-300mm zooms would do nicely for travel, maybe adding a fast 40mm or 50mm for evening shots.
Tripods will just weigh you down - there are ways around not having a tripod for travel.
Primes would be very restrictive IMHO.
Tripods will just weigh you down - there are ways around not having a tripod for travel.
Primes would be very restrictive IMHO.
Comment by johnriley posted on So what will I miss? at 24/03/2010 - 08:36
the difference between 16 and 12 is immense.
See also http://www.kenrockwell.com/tokina/11-16mm.htm for a compare between a tok 11-16 and a 12-24.
Bret
If the difference between 12 and 16 is really THAT much, is it safe to assume that the difference again between 10 and 12 is substantial too?
Thanks again.
Bear in mind that at the wider end, depending on design, there can be some inconsistencies. For example, for film cameras there has been a 15mm rectilinear lens with an AOV of 110 degrees and a longer local length 16mm fisheye with a 180 degree angle.
Also, all marked focal lengths are approximations and tend to favour looking good. So a 24mm lens is often more like 25mm. A 12-24mm zoom that actually was might not be much different from a 10-20mm that was actually 10.8-19.4mm. I'm not saying this is actually the case, but it might be.