All Forum Comments
Comment by Reuben0 posted on Pentax 300mm K mount. at 01/06/2008 - 20:27
Quote:
And although these lenses are good, used wide open, stopped down one or two stops will increase sharpness dramatically. Better stick to the A version.
There's a big difference between the K & M 300. The M is an M* and is the same optically as the A* (the M is also a hell of a lot smaller and lighter than the K).And although these lenses are good, used wide open, stopped down one or two stops will increase sharpness dramatically. Better stick to the A version.
My copy of the M* is terrific wide open and you don't need to stop it down to get it sharp!
I also think "The light meter will go nuts at any given aperture except wide open" is exaggerating somewhat
R
Comment by Reuben0 posted on Pentax 300mm K mount. at 01/06/2008 - 00:14
Quote:
So, Reuben0, how did you get on with the viewfinder in practice?
I must confess that I've never looked through the viewfinder So, Reuben0, how did you get on with the viewfinder in practice?
That's because the 3" rear screen is fabulous - puts the one on my K20D to shame
--
R
Comment by Reuben0 posted on Digital Compact comments please at 29/05/2008 - 22:37
Quote:
The only one to come up to this spec is the Canon G9. I know this might be a dirty word here but does anyone have experience of this camera?
There is no point asking on a Canon forum - they would be biased - but if a Pentax enthusiast has one, then that seems a good recommendation
My wife has the G9 and I've used it a fair bit myself The only one to come up to this spec is the Canon G9. I know this might be a dirty word here but does anyone have experience of this camera?
There is no point asking on a Canon forum - they would be biased - but if a Pentax enthusiast has one, then that seems a good recommendation
Image quality is great at low ISO - better than my old *ist D + kit lens.
It's also very well made - feels like a real quality item.
In addition it supports raw, which is the best way to get quality images out of it.
Negatives are as follows:
1/ Huge amounts of noise at med & high ISOs.
2/ Zoom doesn't go particularly wide.
3/ It's surprisingly heavy.
4/ As usual with Canon cameras, it's not very intuitive to operate and there are vast numbers of options.
5/ No printed manual and the online manual is 250 pages!
HTH,
Reuben0
Comment by Reuben0 posted on Digital Compact comments please at 29/05/2008 - 18:49
My preferred method is to make a bounce card out of a piece of paper and a rubber band (see eg http://www.abetterbouncecard.com/).
The principal is basically the same as the Whale Tail, but made out of paper. You can't get any cheaper than that and almost as good as a lightsphere
It has attracted negative comments though about not looking professional when I've taken pictures using it at a few functions
R
The principal is basically the same as the Whale Tail, but made out of paper. You can't get any cheaper than that and almost as good as a lightsphere
It has attracted negative comments though about not looking professional when I've taken pictures using it at a few functions
R
Comment by Reuben0 posted on Best Diffuser Solutions. at 05/06/2008 - 20:42
Quote:
According to the EXIF data of the Sidmouth shot, the mkII version was used.sockpuppet wrote:
I'm suprised the K20D isn't supplied with the MKII version of this lens.
It is, and if you look at the picture on the review it shows it's the mark II. Maybe they actually tested with the old model and didn't realise that there's a new one - seems like a mistake in the review.I'm suprised the K20D isn't supplied with the MKII version of this lens.
R
Comment by Reuben0 posted on K20D review over at Trusted Reviews at 19/04/2008 - 18:01
Quote:
"Plus, of course, the M35/1.4"
I think you will find that this lens does not exist and is a figment of everyones imagination.
It may appear in some Pentax literature and there may be in existance a lens hood marked 35/1.4 ...
That was meant to be a joke "Plus, of course, the M35/1.4"
I think you will find that this lens does not exist and is a figment of everyones imagination.
It may appear in some Pentax literature and there may be in existance a lens hood marked 35/1.4 ...
BTW, the hood definitely does exist as I have one!
I don't seriously expect to ever find the matching lens though
R
Comment by Reuben0 posted on Latest "M" Purchase Need Another For The Prime Set at 16/04/2008 - 18:57
Quote:
When I say the full set I'm not counting the 400mm and 2000mm as they are just "K" series lenses with an "M" stamped on them. That's cheating I think.
Plus, of course, the M35/1.4 When I say the full set I'm not counting the 400mm and 2000mm as they are just "K" series lenses with an "M" stamped on them. That's cheating I think.
R
Comment by Reuben0 posted on Latest "M" Purchase Need Another For The Prime Set at 27/03/2008 - 22:38
Quote:
Bokeh and rendition - 24-90 wins.
I agree with this 100% on the K10D Quote:
Is the 24-90 sharper than the Pentax 16-45?
Brute force sharpness - 16-45 just pips the 24-90.Is the 24-90 sharper than the Pentax 16-45?
Bokeh and rendition - 24-90 wins.
I recently did the comparison again on the K20D (and also compared the 16-50). The 24-90 displayed quite a lot of red-cyan CA which I never really saw on the K10D and I'd have to give the verdict to the 16-45 (the 16-50 was slightly better than both of them though )
R
Comment by Reuben0 posted on SMC A-Zoom 28-135 F/4 at 19/03/2008 - 17:31
I would agree with Matt's recommendation of the 24-90. Optically superb, but compact and lightweight.
The only negative is the cheap plastic build quality - I think if you dropped it it would be toast
R
The only negative is the cheap plastic build quality - I think if you dropped it it would be toast
R
Comment by Reuben0 posted on SMC A-Zoom 28-135 F/4 at 18/03/2008 - 23:05
So I am presuming this one is a waste of time?
http://tinyurl.com/6jgw5m
R