All Forum Comments
Comment by MarkD posted on The Realistic Wants List at 09/02/2010 - 09:28
The extra range of the 17-70 is very useful for a walkaround lens and at it's "old" price was a no brainer, however following last years price increases it is not such an attractive proposition. For the money I'd go for the Tamron. It's a 2.8 for a start and has had good reviews. (mostly!)
Comment by MarkD posted on which lens would YOU choose? at 08/02/2010 - 06:58
At 500m it still hasn't reached infinity focus
Comment by MarkD posted on Pentax 2000/13.5 Reflex at 07/02/2010 - 22:09
Looks nice but I'm concerned that the flash position might cause a lot of red eye.
Comment by MarkD posted on New Pentax I-10 at 30/01/2010 - 14:22
The DA300 is a very good lens indeed. However it is a very expensive lens too.
I also suffered the Tamron 70-300 purple fringing problem. I upgraded to the Pentax DA 55-300 and haven't looked back. It it by far the best "budget" telezoom I have come across. It punches well above it's weight.
I also suffered the Tamron 70-300 purple fringing problem. I upgraded to the Pentax DA 55-300 and haven't looked back. It it by far the best "budget" telezoom I have come across. It punches well above it's weight.
Comment by MarkD posted on DA 300mm f4 lens at 25/01/2010 - 17:25
That K7 super would be nice, especially if it did full HD (1920x1080) video at 25fps, and you could select screw drive or SDM focus for SDM lenses.
Comment by MarkD posted on K-7 now £799!! at 23/01/2010 - 22:07
I have no interest in a full frame digital camera. As far as I can see the only advantage is better high iso performance in low light. Give it a year or two and the APSC will be as good as the best FF cameras today, which is plenty good enough for me.
I can wait......
I can wait......
Comment by MarkD posted on Full Frame Pentax!!!!!!! at 23/01/2010 - 22:02
Damn I wish I'd typed faster!!!
Comment by MarkD posted on Help needed at 18/01/2010 - 23:22
He means a shallow "depth of field".
The depth of field generally increases as the subject to camera distance increases. ( and vice versa)
The depth of field is the range of distances from the lens that are in focus. Say for example everything between ten and fifteen feet( or metres if you prefer) from the lens looked to be in focus then the depth of field would be 5 feet. ( the distance between the nearest point in focus and the farthest.)
Say your stick man was a goalkeeper stood on the goal line and you were on the penalty spot with your camera. If you focus on the goal keeper then everything on the goal line will be in focus too. At wide apertures like 2.8 the depth of field will be quite shallow. so if your goal keeper took a step forwards he would start to become out of focus, and equally if he took a step backwards, as you are still focused on the goal line. At smaller apertures like f8 or f16, the goal keeper would have to take three or four steps forwards or back from the goal line before he started to be out of focus, as smaller apertures give a greater depth of field, ( or a greater range of distances from the lens where everything remains in focus)
If you move back to the half way line now and focus on your goal keeper on the goal line, the lens will probably have to be focused on it's infinity focus limit. Now even at f2.8 the goal keeper can move back as much as he likes and he'll still stay in focus,this means you now have a huge depth of field when the lens is at infinity. But if you move right up close to the goal line the goal keper will only have to sway a little bit back or forwards before he goes out of focus.
Does that make it any clearer or have I confused you more?
The depth of field generally increases as the subject to camera distance increases. ( and vice versa)
The depth of field is the range of distances from the lens that are in focus. Say for example everything between ten and fifteen feet( or metres if you prefer) from the lens looked to be in focus then the depth of field would be 5 feet. ( the distance between the nearest point in focus and the farthest.)
Say your stick man was a goalkeeper stood on the goal line and you were on the penalty spot with your camera. If you focus on the goal keeper then everything on the goal line will be in focus too. At wide apertures like 2.8 the depth of field will be quite shallow. so if your goal keeper took a step forwards he would start to become out of focus, and equally if he took a step backwards, as you are still focused on the goal line. At smaller apertures like f8 or f16, the goal keeper would have to take three or four steps forwards or back from the goal line before he started to be out of focus, as smaller apertures give a greater depth of field, ( or a greater range of distances from the lens where everything remains in focus)
If you move back to the half way line now and focus on your goal keeper on the goal line, the lens will probably have to be focused on it's infinity focus limit. Now even at f2.8 the goal keeper can move back as much as he likes and he'll still stay in focus,this means you now have a huge depth of field when the lens is at infinity. But if you move right up close to the goal line the goal keper will only have to sway a little bit back or forwards before he goes out of focus.
Does that make it any clearer or have I confused you more?
Comment by MarkD posted on Help needed at 18/01/2010 - 23:21
No you're right , it's broken!
I'll give you £20 for it for spare parts...........
I'll give you £20 for it for spare parts...........
Comment by MarkD posted on HELP!! Sudden noise problem with Kx at 06/01/2010 - 14:21
2. 24, 25 and 30 fps framerates for ALL their video modes. If it can do 30 it can do 25!!
3. FAST Glass! some 1.something f stops please.
4. Re release some of the old glass (or DA* versions) 300 f2.8;250-600;600 f4
5. Meet us half way on current lens pricing. (a 100% increase really hurt)
6. Keep pushing the high ISO low noise quest.
7. Teleconverters!!!