All Forum Comments
Comment by Mongoose posted on First photo of another planet outside our solar system at 05/07/2010 - 18:00
I found the 50-200 to have higher contrast, but the 70-210 to be slightly sharper.
Eventually I came to the conclusion that the difference was not as significant as the difference in size between the two lenses, so I kept the 50-200 which is smaller.
For me it came down to a choice between 135 format coverage and an aperture ring and portability. Since I have an FA 80-320 for when size doesn't matter too much, I went for the more portable 50-200.
Comment by Mongoose posted on pentax f lens at 01/07/2010 - 10:56
M42 is a very basic system and Adaptall was designed from the ground up to be adaptable, yet it is still a pain in the behind to swap lenses on unless you have one mount per lens.
For Pentax to change mounts at this stage would be most unwise, they have invested a lot in backwards compatibility
Comment by Mongoose posted on Why use a 135format lens mount? at 30/06/2010 - 15:45
Comment by Mongoose posted on let''s support the powers that be? at 30/06/2010 - 15:32
More plausible that it's desirable old lenses like say a 50mm f/1.2 (take a 1.4 and change the numbers)?
Like you hefty I think it seems strange.
edit: Sorry hefty, that last sentance was rather derogatory to you for a moment there!
Comment by Mongoose posted on Counterfeit Pentax & Canon Lenses at 30/06/2010 - 15:19
This raises the question. How do we 'see' a picture? Is it a gift. Is it learned?
Take ten photographers and a single object. How many will see the same picture? How many will look beyond the obvious and see someting unique?
The brain is incapable in processing all the information off what your eyes see so the brain make logical assumptions for what's normal so it's almost certain we all see something differently.
Does this answer your question?
I think not but it sounded interesting to write it down. ^^
A few years ago I spent some time groveling around in the grass with a Pentax 110, trying to get a particular wide angle shot of a building from low level. Eventually I was satisfied that I had the shot I wanted and moved on.
When the film came back I had got the angle right enough, but several very tall blades of grass ran right up the middle of the building in the extreme foreground. I could swear they were not there when I framed the shot, but clearly they must have been. Unfortunately my concious mind is not as good at photoshop as my subconcious, and I was unable to save the shot.
In another example, my Gran has a blind spot caused by a blood clot in her retina years ago. She tells me that when it first happened it was very annoying, but that now she never notices it except when she is somewhere she hasn't been before, her brain doesn't know what to fill in into the blank.
Comment by Mongoose posted on visually impared photographers at 30/06/2010 - 15:04
To my barely concealed surprise when one of them spotted my SLR around my neck his imediate response was "ahh, Pentax, you look, I have many Pentax lens".
Now generally speaking these people are the type who will try and argue that whatever they are selling is better than whatever you have, in the face of any and all evidence to the contrary. They are also known for selling large numbers of Nickon, Cannon, Pantex and Ollompus cameras.
I am now even more happy than I already was that I did not go and look at his lenses.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Counterfeit Pentax & Canon Lenses at 30/06/2010 - 14:55
Comment by Mongoose posted on Another pointless thread at 28/06/2010 - 17:12
Comment by Mongoose posted on *ist model comparison !? at 28/06/2010 - 17:09
The rest of them should eat fewer pies, every game I saw them play they were being comprehensively outrun by their opponents. The best right boot in the world is no use if it's at the opposite end of the pitch from the ball.
Comment by Mongoose posted on For you Tommy, ze vorld cup is over!.. at 28/06/2010 - 14:30


Not everyone will necessarily realise how impressive this is. Before the invention of adaptive optics this image would have been physically impossible even with the mighty 8 meter telescopes.
The atmosphere blurs the image so that anything above about 20" diameter is essentially just a bigger light bucket, you don't really get a resolution increase because the dominating factor is atmospheric blurring.