All Forum Comments
Comment by Pwynnej posted on Pentax thinking on K10D at 10/12/2006 - 21:43
Quote:
An acquaintance of mine got one yesterday. I am seriously impressed with the first photos!
Bumped into a guy at Hong Kong Zoo yesterday - my eyes were immediately drawn to the camera.. he said he was very happy with his new toy....An acquaintance of mine got one yesterday. I am seriously impressed with the first photos!
Comment by Pwynnej posted on K10D available in Holland at 10/12/2006 - 11:15
Seen one in Hong Kong for the equivalent of 500 pounds.... salesman wouldn't take it out of the box (which means in HK forget about buying)......
Failed to destroy my *ist D coming down from Victoria Peak, slipped on some steps, my camera plus lens, one knee and elbow crashed down, I can't bend my knee, I can't rest my shoulder, NO scratch on the camera. PHHEEEEEWWWWWW!
I am enjoying using the D so much at the moment. Gezillions times better than the EOS 20D...
K10D will have to wait until I see the new 2.8 lenses
Failed to destroy my *ist D coming down from Victoria Peak, slipped on some steps, my camera plus lens, one knee and elbow crashed down, I can't bend my knee, I can't rest my shoulder, NO scratch on the camera. PHHEEEEEWWWWWW!
I am enjoying using the D so much at the moment. Gezillions times better than the EOS 20D...
K10D will have to wait until I see the new 2.8 lenses
Comment by Pwynnej posted on K10D available in Holland at 08/12/2006 - 15:55
Seems they have set their standards a bit lower......I would prefer to interpolate from a 36 mB file than an 18 mB file....
Comment by Pwynnej posted on Poll - who would £1000 for a full frame K10D? at 14/12/2006 - 16:25
Quote:
If you are going to come and post here, please take the trouble to keep up with what is going on in the modern world. This is 2006, not 1906. Pentax have already announced lenses with motors in them that will be available in the first half of next year.
http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf
There really is no point in your posting when you clearly know absolutely nothing.
Now get it into your head:
98% of serous photographers use digital
80% of snappers use digital
35mm film is almost dead.
99% of digital photography is done using cameras with a sensor smaller than 35mm.
Canon is the only supporter of 35mm sized sensors, but these account for only 2.1% of its digital camera production.
Neither Pentax, nor Nikon, nor anybody else is going to produce a new DSLR with a 35mm-sized sensor. Olympus, Sony, inter alia, have gone with even smaller sensors than Pentax and Nikon.
Because so few people are now using film, and because Pentax is not going to produce a DSLR with a larger sensor, there is no point in NOT using DA lenses.
Now get real, face facts, and adjust your life accordingly. You have become VERY irritating.
G
PS: Anybody who thinks film isn't almost dead should look at the financial position of Agfa (dead), Ilford (almost dead), Kodak (almost dead), and Fuji (now making its money from digital).
I don't agree entirely.If you are going to come and post here, please take the trouble to keep up with what is going on in the modern world. This is 2006, not 1906. Pentax have already announced lenses with motors in them that will be available in the first half of next year.
http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf
There really is no point in your posting when you clearly know absolutely nothing.
Now get it into your head:
98% of serous photographers use digital
80% of snappers use digital
35mm film is almost dead.
99% of digital photography is done using cameras with a sensor smaller than 35mm.
Canon is the only supporter of 35mm sized sensors, but these account for only 2.1% of its digital camera production.
Neither Pentax, nor Nikon, nor anybody else is going to produce a new DSLR with a 35mm-sized sensor. Olympus, Sony, inter alia, have gone with even smaller sensors than Pentax and Nikon.
Because so few people are now using film, and because Pentax is not going to produce a DSLR with a larger sensor, there is no point in NOT using DA lenses.
Now get real, face facts, and adjust your life accordingly. You have become VERY irritating.
G
PS: Anybody who thinks film isn't almost dead should look at the financial position of Agfa (dead), Ilford (almost dead), Kodak (almost dead), and Fuji (now making its money from digital).
Some of us continue to favour using film, and I guess that there are a lot of people out there who have not yet bought a digital camera. It's just that the market for film cameras has evaporated. I will continue to use film alongside digital.
I, like you George, am irritated that another thread has been hijacked by one person who thinks his views are better than those of established members. I own a Z-1, Z-1p and an MZ-S (plus the D and DL) which I love and to be absolutely brutally honest I don't give a sh*t about the sensor size on my digital camera.
Will the irritant please note that it is image/picture quality that matters, and composition and exposure that matter. Not the size of the sensor.
Mind you if, one day in future, after years of happiness with my APS-C K10D or K1D, with DA* lenses, pentax bring out an M-series digital with a 36 x 24 sensor that is leap years ahead in terms of everything over the KD then I might consider the jump. Will I cry over spilt milk that my DA* lenses will be incompatible? No, I will have a battery of older lenses to enjoy again....
So 1000 pounds for a full frame K10D??? Only if it's better than the K10D itself, from what I read that will take some doing...
I'd be happier with a 12MP camera like the D2x which would make picture library submissions a likelier possibility
Comment by Pwynnej posted on Poll - who would £1000 for a full frame K10D? at 14/12/2006 - 15:50
Seen a 24-90 on ebay - very popular it seems....
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SMC-PENTAX-FA-24-90mm-f-3-5-4-5-AL-IF-AF-ZOOM-LENS_W0QQitemZ170049551227QQihZ007QQcategoryZ48558QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SMC-PENTAX-FA-24-90mm-f-3-5-4-5-AL-IF-AF-ZOOM-LENS_W0QQitemZ170049551227QQihZ007QQcategoryZ48558QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Comment by Pwynnej posted on getting ready to buy some new glass at 20/11/2006 - 06:49
Thank you gents....
The thought of purchasing another 24-90 also crossed my mind...what might not have come through in my initial post was the difference between the 18-55 and 24-90 in terms of image quality....seems like the extra expense of the 16-45 is well worth it.
But I await the 16-50 DA* before commiting...
The thought of purchasing another 24-90 also crossed my mind...what might not have come through in my initial post was the difference between the 18-55 and 24-90 in terms of image quality....seems like the extra expense of the 16-45 is well worth it.
But I await the 16-50 DA* before commiting...
Comment by Pwynnej posted on 16-45 vs 24-90 at 16/11/2006 - 14:30
Quote:
Which lens exhibits vignetting. The 24-90 certainly shouldn't unless you have too small a hood on it. I've never noticed it with my 16-45 on my D either. Maybe your filter is causing it. You'll see other threads on here about opinions on filters. Personally, I can't see the point of buying a very expensive lens high quality lens, then limiting its performance by putting a cheap piece of glass over the front of it.
It's the 18-55 and the filter is a B+W - so 'cheap' lens and good quality filter....Which lens exhibits vignetting. The 24-90 certainly shouldn't unless you have too small a hood on it. I've never noticed it with my 16-45 on my D either. Maybe your filter is causing it. You'll see other threads on here about opinions on filters. Personally, I can't see the point of buying a very expensive lens high quality lens, then limiting its performance by putting a cheap piece of glass over the front of it.
I would prefer a filter on the front to protect the front element, but in some cases like on my Sigma 15-30 it's just not possible....
I should mention the vignetting is gradual and not 'sudden' so whether it's just catching on the edge of the filter or a general flaw in the lens design I'm not so bothered, but the fact it's there warrants some 'expenditure'.
I should add that the 24-90 is probably one of the best lenses I have bought - I know the limitations about the build quality, but that does not affect image quality thank goodness, but stuck on the front of the"*ist D it is an absolute dream to hold.
Comment by Pwynnej posted on 16-45 vs 24-90 at 16/11/2006 - 09:17
Busy editing my photos last night and I have been comparing the photos taken on the *ist D with the 24-90 on the front and my *ist DL which came with the kit lens (the 18-55)
I noticed that wide open at the wide end there is a lot of vignetting (and yes I do have a UV filter on the front) on the 18-55.
Which means itchy feet time, the DL is going to be replaced by the K10D plus 16-45 or the 16-50....I assume the quality of the 16-50 should be as good as the 16-45, if not much better.
So, how much better is the 16-45 versus 24-90? If there they are the same then great, because the 24-90 is a stunning lens. If the 16-45 is better then I had better start saving.
Those who have 16-45 and 24-90 your opinions please.
Ta
Peter
I noticed that wide open at the wide end there is a lot of vignetting (and yes I do have a UV filter on the front) on the 18-55.
Which means itchy feet time, the DL is going to be replaced by the K10D plus 16-45 or the 16-50....I assume the quality of the 16-50 should be as good as the 16-45, if not much better.
So, how much better is the 16-45 versus 24-90? If there they are the same then great, because the 24-90 is a stunning lens. If the 16-45 is better then I had better start saving.
Those who have 16-45 and 24-90 your opinions please.
Ta
Peter
Comment by Pwynnej posted on 16-45 vs 24-90 at 16/11/2006 - 08:38
Hadn't realised this topic had been gatecrashed as well....
I honestly can't believe the nonsense being spouted or SHOUTED:
Buyers of Canon EOS 300/350/400 and 10/20D/30D who obtain the kit lenses are sometimes disappointed when their nice compact EF-S lenses don't work as well when they've updraded to the 5D or 1D....
Buy a Sigma lens for a Canon, change your camera body and find out you get an error message when you start using the lens...
Buy a Nikon digital D40 or D80, you get a digital lens, no good if you want to go out with any F-series camera... Nikon have said they won't go FF.
Olympus... OM-lenses can be used on E-series by use of an adaptor, I doubt that Zuiko Digital series lenses can be used on OM-cameras. 4/3s is a smaller standard than APS-C.
BACK to topic:
BeagleBen - I hope it works, I have a 500FTZ and a D and DL, but not tried the flash to see if it works...
Your manual should give you info on using AF series flashes on your camera...there are good people in the forum that can help you ENJOY your kit, and make best use of it.
I honestly can't believe the nonsense being spouted or SHOUTED:
Buyers of Canon EOS 300/350/400 and 10/20D/30D who obtain the kit lenses are sometimes disappointed when their nice compact EF-S lenses don't work as well when they've updraded to the 5D or 1D....
Buy a Sigma lens for a Canon, change your camera body and find out you get an error message when you start using the lens...
Buy a Nikon digital D40 or D80, you get a digital lens, no good if you want to go out with any F-series camera... Nikon have said they won't go FF.
Olympus... OM-lenses can be used on E-series by use of an adaptor, I doubt that Zuiko Digital series lenses can be used on OM-cameras. 4/3s is a smaller standard than APS-C.
BACK to topic:
BeagleBen - I hope it works, I have a 500FTZ and a D and DL, but not tried the flash to see if it works...
Your manual should give you info on using AF series flashes on your camera...there are good people in the forum that can help you ENJOY your kit, and make best use of it.
Comment by Pwynnej posted on AF330 FTZ and istDL at 13/12/2006 - 13:22
As for demand from Hong Kong - I was told to forget about discount even though the camera was being sold for around 500 pounds...but the camera did not stay on the shelf....