All Forum Comments
Comment by Reuben0 posted on Angle Finders at 04/05/2006 - 00:08
Quote:
The camera was pretty poorly packaged (moving around in poly chips in the cardboard box)..... All the signs of the camera being dropped, before or during transit, I think. Has anyone had a similar experience? The sympathetic bloke I spoke to suggested that they might replace the camera but this is an old beast - is that likely?
I had a similar experience with my D. It came back poorly packaged and a small dent in the side The camera was pretty poorly packaged (moving around in poly chips in the cardboard box)..... All the signs of the camera being dropped, before or during transit, I think. Has anyone had a similar experience? The sympathetic bloke I spoke to suggested that they might replace the camera but this is an old beast - is that likely?
They said they would "probably" replace it with a new one. Needless to say that didn't happen.
They did repair it however, but only after I went in person to Langley to complain!
I hope you have a better experience than me!
Mike
Quote:
Reuben - what do you typically carry in the your 100? I wouldn't have thought that your M*300 would be all that much smaller than my 80-200 F2.8.
According to Bojidar's site the M*300 is 132mm long and the FA* 80-200/2.8 is 195mm, so there is quite a difference. Reuben - what do you typically carry in the your 100? I wouldn't have thought that your M*300 would be all that much smaller than my 80-200 F2.8.
I usually carry around a set of smallish primes: Z16/2.8, FA*24/2, A50/2.8, FA77/1.8 and the FA31/1.8 on the body. All this fits in the 100 (with an extra pair of dividers).
There's also plenty of room in the top comparment, where I usually store a set of extension tubes, a pocket tripod, spare batteries, lens hood etc.
I hope that helps give you an idea of the size!
Comment by Reuben0 posted on Camera backpacks at 04/05/2006 - 21:45
I think the important thing is to try the bag with your own gear, because it can be very difficult to guage sizes from looking at pictures on a website or even handling the bag in a shop
I've got the 100, but I originally bought a 200. For me the 200 was too big. The main problem being the vertical height of the bag. With my *istD there was at least an inch of extra height and the camera just bounced around when I was carrying it. I suppose it would fit well with the grip attached though...
The 100 would definitely be too small for your 80-200 though, as it only just fits my M*300 and then only if I don't close the zip all the way
I've got the 100, but I originally bought a 200. For me the 200 was too big. The main problem being the vertical height of the bag. With my *istD there was at least an inch of extra height and the camera just bounced around when I was carrying it. I suppose it would fit well with the grip attached though...
The 100 would definitely be too small for your 80-200 though, as it only just fits my M*300 and then only if I don't close the zip all the way
Comment by Reuben0 posted on Camera backpacks at 04/05/2006 - 15:41
Quote:
The 40mm covers the APS-C sized sensors and is I believe more plastic constructed than the 43mm.
I have both the 40 & 43 and I can't agree with this (sorry John)!The 40mm covers the APS-C sized sensors and is I believe more plastic constructed than the 43mm.
The 40 is nicely made all of metal, including the lens hood. It also fully covers a 35mm film frame (I know because myself and many other people have tried it).
In terms of optical character they're very similar, both having the Limited series "3D look". The 40 is sharper at f2.8 and in the the corners, with the 43 being sharper in the centre once stopped down past f4.
I generally use the 43 in preference to the 40 as the 40 is, if anything, too small and the lens cap rather fiddly!
Mike
Comment by Reuben0 posted on FA primes vs DA primes at 25/03/2006 - 21:46
Quote:
The 21mm is a DA Limited so it won't be cheap!
It won't be "cheap", but I reckon it won't be too "expensive" either. The 21mm is a DA Limited so it won't be cheap!
The only DA limited in existence, the DA40, is roughly half the price of the FA43 Limited. I'm hoping that trend will continue with the new DA Limited pancakes.
Mike
Comment by Reuben0 posted on And Here's Pentax Coming up on the Blind Side !!!!!! at 27/02/2006 - 16:50
Quote:
Not sure what that's for as it's quite slow unless it's a Macro.
...
F3.2 though - that's very, very slow for a prime.
Both these lenses are pancakes, which is why they're a bit slower than normal.Not sure what that's for as it's quite slow unless it's a Macro.
...
F3.2 though - that's very, very slow for a prime.
Making a fast lens adds a lot of size and weight, particularly at the wide end.
Just look at the size of the A20/2.8 or FA31/1.8 for comparison!
Cheers,
Mike
Comment by Reuben0 posted on And Here's Pentax Coming up on the Blind Side !!!!!! at 25/02/2006 - 20:12
Quote:
I have the F50/1.7 and the A50/1.4
The 1.4 is stunning The 8 aperture blades (compared to 6 on the 1.7) creates such a lovely bokeh.
Still tempted by the A50/1.2, but can't justify the cost, especially as the 1.4 is so good.
Matt
My thoughts exactly I have the F50/1.7 and the A50/1.4
The 1.4 is stunning The 8 aperture blades (compared to 6 on the 1.7) creates such a lovely bokeh.
Still tempted by the A50/1.2, but can't justify the cost, especially as the 1.4 is so good.
Matt
Mike
Comment by Reuben0 posted on SMC 50 mm 1:1.7 at 10/02/2006 - 12:23
I would spend the money on the A50/1.4.
What a lens! Also stunning as a portrait lens on the *ist D.
What a lens! Also stunning as a portrait lens on the *ist D.
Comment by Reuben0 posted on SMC 50 mm 1:1.7 at 09/02/2006 - 23:16
In fact, Pentax haven't changed the eyepiece fitting since the introduction of the M-series, so any of the eyepiece accessories made since then will work fine on the D/DS/DL.
I'm also using the Nikon DK-21M eyepiece magnifier. It's a bit of a tight fit, but works very well giving a slightly bigger view in the viewfinder. View is still not as good as my MX, but a definite improvement (and relatively inexpensive for a Nikon accessory).
Cheers,
Mike