All Forum Comments
Comment by Lance B posted on DA15 f/4 review at 20/10/2009 - 23:56
George Lazarette wrote:
Furthermore, there may be problems with the light reaching the sensor sites which are furthest from the centre, which I think is what Ned Bunnell was referring to.
Anyway, it's all hypothetical.
G
ETA: Just seen Hefty beat me to it.
Yes, you are correct. My assertions were more so that the overall resolution would not be any worse. The issue with the FA31, or any FF lens that is used on APS C, is that we only get the central portion of the image circle, which is obviously the best part, and the part that is of most interest in a photo. I should have made myself clear that I meant that if we take the central portion of the image that a FF sensor would not make the FA31 look any worse.Lance B wrote:
Well, a FF camera won't make the FA31 appear any worse than when used on APS C, just that it may not appear any better than on APS C although I am not so sure this is the case.
There are two reasons the lens may look worse, Lance. First, on a larger sensor all lenses will look worse (unless they normally look better at the edges than in the centre, which is highly unusual).Well, a FF camera won't make the FA31 appear any worse than when used on APS C, just that it may not appear any better than on APS C although I am not so sure this is the case.
Furthermore, there may be problems with the light reaching the sensor sites which are furthest from the centre, which I think is what Ned Bunnell was referring to.
Anyway, it's all hypothetical.
G
ETA: Just seen Hefty beat me to it.
Comment by Lance B posted on Even the 31mm Ltd may not be up to the optical challenge? at 20/10/2009 - 03:17
I am purchasing this lens upon seeing the Photozone review and excellent the results I have seen here and elsewhere. This looks like a very impressive lens. I pick it up tomorrow.
Comment by Lance B posted on DA15 f/4 review at 20/10/2009 - 03:09
Well, a FF camera won't make the FA31 appear any worse than when used on APS C, just that it may not appear any better than on APS C although I am not so sure this is the case. The thing is the FA31 will still be better than any other lens bar some of the other Limiteds so I don't see what the fuss is about. What other lens is there, other than the other Limiteds, that anyone could use on FF anyway?
Comment by Lance B posted on Even the 31mm Ltd may not be up to the optical challenge? at 18/10/2009 - 05:23
As I stated on that other forum, this is a great image, Peter.
Comment by Lance B posted on Artist Point at 15/10/2009 - 01:59
Mongoose wrote:
I don't understand why such a fuss is made over AF speed by so many people.
For fast moving subjects, fast AF is going to be a big plus. In everyday use by most of us, it makes no difference whatsoever beyond bragging rights.
The SFX already focussed faster than I can manually, more than that is a bonus in my humble opinion.
Now focus accuracy, that I can see why people would get worked up about, but it never seems to get mentioned.
I have no idea who is best at focus accuracy, but it seems to me that, all things being equal, any AF system design should be a trade off between speed and accuracy.
The consensus has been that Pentax have opted for accuracy over speed.I don't understand why such a fuss is made over AF speed by so many people.
For fast moving subjects, fast AF is going to be a big plus. In everyday use by most of us, it makes no difference whatsoever beyond bragging rights.
The SFX already focussed faster than I can manually, more than that is a bonus in my humble opinion.
Now focus accuracy, that I can see why people would get worked up about, but it never seems to get mentioned.
I have no idea who is best at focus accuracy, but it seems to me that, all things being equal, any AF system design should be a trade off between speed and accuracy.
Comment by Lance B posted on K7 vs D300 at 15/10/2009 - 01:55
As I said on the "other forum", great shots of the grandkids, mate.
Comment by Lance B posted on Some DA*60-250 shots (of our grandchildren) at 13/10/2009 - 01:25
RichardDay wrote:
At around 1/3 the current cost of the DA 12-24, the Tamron does seem a reasonable option. As you know I don't believe now't but my own eyes when it comes to lenses, so I will be making a trip to see Chris in the near future!
At a 1/3rd of the cost it's worth at least trying it as it looks like it has the IQ to match the DA12-24. Lance B wrote:
I often wonder the value of doing an f25 or f22 shot when diffraction becomes an issue.
I do agree Lance, a shot at f8 (approx optimal aperture) on a flat plane subject would have been very useful, but I think Peter was trying to compare them both with max DOF, nevertheless even at those very small apertures both lenses held up very well.I often wonder the value of doing an f25 or f22 shot when diffraction becomes an issue.
At around 1/3 the current cost of the DA 12-24, the Tamron does seem a reasonable option. As you know I don't believe now't but my own eyes when it comes to lenses, so I will be making a trip to see Chris in the near future!
Comment by Lance B posted on Tamron 10-24 ePHOTOzine review by Pete Bargh at 12/10/2009 - 12:24
You use minus amount for front focus, ie to get the camera to focus further back you need to use a minus amount and conversely, to get the camera to focus further forward, for back focus, you need to use positive adjustment.
I do not think that there is any relationship between a focus chart and the actual amount of focus adjustment of the camera and lens combo.
I do not think that there is any relationship between a focus chart and the actual amount of focus adjustment of the camera and lens combo.
Comment by Lance B posted on Focus adjustment at 12/10/2009 - 06:20
I often wonder the value of doing an f25 or f22 shot when diffraction becomes an issue.
Comment by Lance B posted on Tamron 10-24 ePHOTOzine review by Pete Bargh at 12/10/2009 - 06:13
Do Clarky and Lance have Australia's supply of Pentax lenses split between them?
K.