Comments made by Renster

Topics Created Topics Contributed Forum Comments Photo Comments

All Forum Comments

Hi Paul, it would have been good to have had a Essex branch. I am flying out to Western Australia on the 3rd June so will have to join the perth chapter.

Thanks for the info regarding potter world though. Think i will take the 16-50 and 100 wr macro .

Cheers , Darren

Boyo2406 wrote:
You can take pictures in Harry Potter world, but there are some rooms where you cannot.

Low light might be an issue so flsh would help, I took my K30 and there was one area that the AF was struggling, I heard somebody behind me cursing at the same problem looked round and he was also using a K30.

Quite a few photo opportunities and if you have some fast glass I would pack that but you can get away with a Kit lens, I took the 16-45 and was happy.

I see you are just down the road from me, we need an Essex branch.

Paul

Comment by Renster posted on Can I take pictures at Harry potter world at 15/05/2013 - 20:00

Haha, I must make a point of printing them off then.

MarkTaylor wrote:
Also, any pictures you take there will miraculously come alive when printed, showing several seconds of repeating 'mini movie' around the moment you captured. Many people do not realise this as they only view their pictures on a computer screen and never print them.

Comment by Renster posted on Can I take pictures at Harry potter world at 15/05/2013 - 19:54

Hi everyone.
We are taking the kids to Harry potter world next week and wondered if I will be allowed to take pictures whilst there.
If so, can you use flash and is it worth taking the dslr along?

Cheers.

Darren

Comment by Renster posted on Can I take pictures at Harry potter world at 15/05/2013 - 06:58

johnriley wrote:
Who can say. You hand held the camera, so both the camera and the subject will be moving to some degree. Judging the point of focus under such conditions isn't very precise.

I wouldn't call it super-sharp but that will also depend on how the image for the web has been prepared. Too many variables....

As you say john. " hand held, possibly moving subject" surely if the detail is as good as it is in the crop from what we can view on the above post, then mounting to a tripod and shooting a static object , it can only get better can't. It?
Maybe If I get time, I'll try to set up the perfect scenario and test again.
Would a service centre be able / willing to run tests to establish if the lens can be improved? It might be easier. If they do, then it will definitely be more conclusive.

Thanks again guys.

Comment by Renster posted on Whats wrong with this lens? at 02/05/2013 - 06:26

well , Ive finally got round to having a play with the lens and attempting to calibrate it.
The shot below is hand held at f2.8

100% crop, i focused on the eye.

It seems sharp enough doesnt it?

Comment by Renster posted on Whats wrong with this lens? at 01/05/2013 - 23:00

Thanks for taking the time to try and work this out for me everyone. I'm rushing around like a headless chicken at the moment trying to sort stuff for the big move. I'll try and get some better shots over the next few days and look into calibrating the lens to the camera. I did adjust the af to ensure that the lens was in the same position when focused as when in live view. But not sure if that's good enough?

Thanks again, It's very much appreciated! ( there needs to be a thumbs up smilie).

Comment by Renster posted on Whats wrong with this lens? at 29/04/2013 - 19:31

Thanks for the input guys. As I mentioned, I'm going to continue to use it and see if anything crops up, but as it is at the moment , I reckon I got a bargain there.

Comment by Renster posted on Whats wrong with this lens? at 28/04/2013 - 22:11

JAK wrote:

Renster wrote:

JAK wrote:
[quote:3496ace15f="Renster"]Well it's no secret. I paid £325 for it. I gather from this comment you think that it's maybe performing below par?

Depends what it is. The shots look fine but if you paid £325 for a basic Pentax 18-55mm zoom it might be a little steep. On the other had if it was £3.25 it would be a bargain. What actually is it?

John K

Hi John, it's a DA* 16-50

Yes, I should have spotted the earlier post. Thought I had read all the earlier posts but had missed that!

If there is a problem with that lens, getting it repaired would certainly be cost effective given what they are worth. However, it might well be just fine and you do have a bargain. Those web sized images could hide a multitude of issues but nothing stands out. Curious you need to ask.

I guess it is possible the lens may have had an issue that's been repaired previously, but the owner wasn't happy with it, who knows??

Hi John, I ask because I'm struggling to see the focus problem. The previous owner obviously had an issue with it to sell for the price he did.
He said that he hadn't noticed a problem when using on a kx but had noticed a problem when on the k5. I suppose I can only use it and see if I notice anything. If not, then all well and good. If I do notice something then at least I will be able to describe the problem to a service centre .

John K[/quote]

Comment by Renster posted on Whats wrong with this lens? at 28/04/2013 - 21:11