All Forum Comments
Comment by stevejcoe posted on Newbie from Hinckley at 04/09/2009 - 08:21
In pretty good condition for its age. The glass is clear with just a couple of tiny dust specks visible to the naked eye. The aperture movement is very snappy. Focus movement as with all of the M series is very smooth. There is a small amount of paint loss on the aperture ring.
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/SMCM40-28a.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/SMCM40-28b.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/SMCM40-28c.jpg[/IMG]
Supplied with Pentax front and back caps and I will throw in a 1A filter for added protection during transit.
These have been selling for between £60-70 on eBay recently. I am looking for £50 plus p&p (£3.50 Royal Mail insured in the UK, overseas postage will be higher)
Please contact me via pm if you are interested. If the lens is not sold by Sunday 6pm it will be listed on Ebay.
Steve
Payment by cheque or Paypal. Paypal payments to be made a a 'gift'
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/SMCM40-28a.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/SMCM40-28b.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i198.photobucket.com/albums/aa184/stevejcoe/SMCM40-28c.jpg[/IMG]
Supplied with Pentax front and back caps and I will throw in a 1A filter for added protection during transit.
These have been selling for between £60-70 on eBay recently. I am looking for £50 plus p&p (£3.50 Royal Mail insured in the UK, overseas postage will be higher)
Please contact me via pm if you are interested. If the lens is not sold by Sunday 6pm it will be listed on Ebay.
Steve
Payment by cheque or Paypal. Paypal payments to be made a a 'gift'
Comment by stevejcoe posted on For Sale SMC Pentax-M 40mm 1:2.8 Pancake Lens at 03/09/2009 - 19:23
ChrisA wrote:
As it happens, I signed up with them yesterday, at the recommendation from a friend who apparently gets quite a bit of money back from them.
Try also Top CashBack www.topcashback.co.uk. Similar to Quidco , but no annual fee.vic cross wrote:
Mike. Do you have a link to CDiscount and Quidco? CHEERS Vic.
www.quidco.comMike. Do you have a link to CDiscount and Quidco? CHEERS Vic.
As it happens, I signed up with them yesterday, at the recommendation from a friend who apparently gets quite a bit of money back from them.
Also HotUKdeals .www.hotukdeals.co.uk, useful information site for a whole range of sale and clearance offers. Check out the Voucher section. Dixon, Curry's ect quite often have 5 or 10% off vouchers, which you can combine with the discount you get from a cash back site.
Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K7 and Amazon at 03/09/2009 - 12:07
El Dingo wrote:
Focus confirmation is shown by the green hexagon. The red indicator is the focus point being used.MattMatic wrote:
Just a point when doing AF adjustments: you should always move the lens waaaay out of focus before getting the camera to AF I normally shift to infinity before AF-ing on the test target.
The 50/1.4 can be a pain to adjust anyway. It's field isn't flat, and I've found a combination of test target at f/1.4 plus some portrait tests to get the right balance. I've normally found the test target adjustment produces a measure of FF, so somewhere in between is usually good - slightly BF seemed to produce sharper portraits for me. Just a thought
Matt
Really good point this - to avoid focus backlash I adjusted back from infinity manually, stopping at focus confirmation point (red indicator), and IMHO this gets more consistent results than relying on the AF system (with AF lenses).Just a point when doing AF adjustments: you should always move the lens waaaay out of focus before getting the camera to AF I normally shift to infinity before AF-ing on the test target.
The 50/1.4 can be a pain to adjust anyway. It's field isn't flat, and I've found a combination of test target at f/1.4 plus some portrait tests to get the right balance. I've normally found the test target adjustment produces a measure of FF, so somewhere in between is usually good - slightly BF seemed to produce sharper portraits for me. Just a thought
Matt
I used spot focus for my tests and for all AF adjustments.
Regards - Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K10 focus check at 03/09/2009 - 11:17
As a matter of curiousity I just carried out a limted test using the same methodology , but this time with my MZ6. I will not document all of the results, but it certainly seems like there is less 'tolerance' with the MZ6.
DA 16-45 F4 @ 24mm 2-3mm of focus movement
DA 16-45 F4 @ 45 1mm
FA 50 F1.4 1mm
K 55 F2 1-2mm.
Maybe the brighter viewfinder of a full frame 35mm is a factor here, allowing a tighter tolerance to be used. I certainly did not notice a trade off with time to lock on focus.
This would support the view that the revised viewfinder of the K7 is an attempt to get back to a tighter focusing tolerance without any perceptable loss of speed.
Regards - Steve
DA 16-45 F4 @ 24mm 2-3mm of focus movement
DA 16-45 F4 @ 45 1mm
FA 50 F1.4 1mm
K 55 F2 1-2mm.
Maybe the brighter viewfinder of a full frame 35mm is a factor here, allowing a tighter tolerance to be used. I certainly did not notice a trade off with time to lock on focus.
This would support the view that the revised viewfinder of the K7 is an attempt to get back to a tighter focusing tolerance without any perceptable loss of speed.
Regards - Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K10 focus check at 03/09/2009 - 10:31
johnriley wrote:
When you focus manually you focus until the image is at its sharpest on the ground glass. The distance from the ground glass and from the sensor have to be the same and fixed, otherwise all shots would be off.
Therefore I'd suppose that the change being made is to the AF calibration so that its focus point coincides with the actual focus point, rather than anything being physically moved.
There will be a few factors involved, such as also the accuracy of the lens manufacture and its ability to stop dead in its tracks at the focus point, rather than over-shooting.
Has anyone tested the focus point from both directions? That is, say when focusing on 5m has it been tried from the lens starting at the closest focus as well as from infinity? Does the lens focus equally well from both directions? If anything I'd expect front focus from one direction and back focus from the other in a fairly consistent manner.
Being able to set an adjustment for individual lenses as on the K20D seems like a good feature to have.
I have just carried out a rather simplistic focusing test that may be of interest.When you focus manually you focus until the image is at its sharpest on the ground glass. The distance from the ground glass and from the sensor have to be the same and fixed, otherwise all shots would be off.
Therefore I'd suppose that the change being made is to the AF calibration so that its focus point coincides with the actual focus point, rather than anything being physically moved.
There will be a few factors involved, such as also the accuracy of the lens manufacture and its ability to stop dead in its tracks at the focus point, rather than over-shooting.
Has anyone tested the focus point from both directions? That is, say when focusing on 5m has it been tried from the lens starting at the closest focus as well as from infinity? Does the lens focus equally well from both directions? If anything I'd expect front focus from one direction and back focus from the other in a fairly consistent manner.
Being able to set an adjustment for individual lenses as on the K20D seems like a good feature to have.
Using a variety of lenses I focussed on a fixed object approx 3 feet away, first moving from closest focus to when the green hexagon appears, followed by moving from infinity again to when the green hexagon appears. The camera was tripod mounted.
The lenses I used were DA 16-45, DA 18-55, FA 31 ltd, FA 35, FA 50 KA 50 and K 55.
I was interested in the amount of movement I could make to the focus ring while maintaining the green hexagon.
I accept that the measurements were crude and more than a little subjective, but as I repeated the exercise several times, I think that the results can be taken as a reasonable indicator.
DA 16-45 F4 @ 16mm 6mm
DA 16-45 F4 @ 45mm 2mm
DA 18-55 F3.5 @ 18mm 4-5mm
DA 18-55 F5.6 @ 55mm 2-3mm
FA 31 F1.8 3mm
FA 35 F2 2mm
FA 50 F1.4 1-2mm
FA 28-70 F4 @ 28mm 4mm
FA 28-70 F4 @ 70mm 1-2mm
KA 50 F1.7 2mm
K 55 F2 3-4mm
Quality of lens build is obviously a factor, I found the 18-55 the hardest lens to focus manually.
Build quality aside I think we can see 2 effects both of which not surprisingly relate to depth of field i.e. focal length and aperture.
The result with the K55 appears at first to be out of synch with the rest until you remember that this lens has a very long focus throw (3/4 of a turn from close to infinity focus). I would expect a 50mm manual macro lens to throw up a similar result.
As an afterthought I took a KA50 F1.7 and set the aperture to F8. I then fitted it to the K10 but only by about an 1/8 of a turn. In other words the auto aperture control was not engaged. I then carefully repeated the focus test
KA 50 @ F8 3-4mm
My conclusion is that for me in 95% of real life situations the K10 is focusing within acceptable limits and I can let the camera take care of it.
For closeup or portrait work when shooting with large apertures, then I will to switch to manual focus and use the screen and my eyes rather than relying on the green hexagon.
Regards - Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K10 focus check at 03/09/2009 - 09:25
ChrisA wrote:
So if you have the green hexagon focus confirmation, that shows that the AF system thinks the picture is focused.
Given that, I would imagine that any adjustment (and I don't know what it is that's actually adjusted) applies equally to AF and MF lenses.
I'm only guessing though - I don't know much about how it works.
That too is my understanding, but like Chris I have no proof that this is the case.Rataegeoff wrote:
Could someone tell me if the adjustments are only going to affect AF. In other words if I manually focus the results should not change before and after adjustment?
I don't think the way the AF system works out whether the shot is in focus is any different whether you focus it manually, or allow the screw drive (or lens motor) to focus it.Could someone tell me if the adjustments are only going to affect AF. In other words if I manually focus the results should not change before and after adjustment?
So if you have the green hexagon focus confirmation, that shows that the AF system thinks the picture is focused.
Given that, I would imagine that any adjustment (and I don't know what it is that's actually adjusted) applies equally to AF and MF lenses.
I'm only guessing though - I don't know much about how it works.
Regards - Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K10 focus check at 02/09/2009 - 18:48
ChrisA wrote:
If I get the chance I might recheck again at the weekend. I will keep you posted.stevejcoe wrote:
I have adjusted my K10 twice. Initially after approx 1000 actuations and then again after approx 7500 actuations. This would seem to support the view that a certain amount of 'bedding in' has occured, though I accept this is far from proven.
Very interesting information, thanks, Steve. I did wonder if it was possible for the adjustment to itself require adjustment, and from what you say, perhaps it does.I have adjusted my K10 twice. Initially after approx 1000 actuations and then again after approx 7500 actuations. This would seem to support the view that a certain amount of 'bedding in' has occured, though I accept this is far from proven.
Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K10 focus check at 02/09/2009 - 14:50
I have adjusted my K10 twice. Initially after approx 1000 actuations and then again after approx 7500 actuations. This would seem to support the view that a certain amount of 'bedding in' has occured, though I accept this is far from proven.
As for the 50 mm, mine was fine originally, but my FA 35 , FA31 and DA18-55 DA 50-200 kit lenses were all slightly backfocussing. I made the appropriate adjustment (40um), which resulted in the FA 50 slightly front focussing.
I adjusted for the second time when I purchased a DA 16-45. I checked the same lenses and found I needed far less adjustment (10um). As a result I now detect no front focussing on the FA50.
Steve
As for the 50 mm, mine was fine originally, but my FA 35 , FA31 and DA18-55 DA 50-200 kit lenses were all slightly backfocussing. I made the appropriate adjustment (40um), which resulted in the FA 50 slightly front focussing.
I adjusted for the second time when I purchased a DA 16-45. I checked the same lenses and found I needed far less adjustment (10um). As a result I now detect no front focussing on the FA50.
Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K10 focus check at 02/09/2009 - 14:27
If this truly does fix the problem and I have no reason to doubt it, then why not call it 1.02? I would have thought that there is benefit in publicising the fact that the problem has been dealt with, given that the green line issue is already in the public domain.
As a follow on thought, are registered owners informed when new firmware/software is available? The K10 was already at v1.3 when I got mine.
Steve
As a follow on thought, are registered owners informed when new firmware/software is available? The K10 was already at v1.3 when I got mine.
Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on Got the green line problem on your K-7? at 02/09/2009 - 14:06
Steve