All Forum Comments
Comment by stevejcoe posted on Those Who Never Sleep at 16/07/2009 - 08:20
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K20D + DA*300mm @ ISO 6400 - Does it cut the mustard? at 16/07/2009 - 08:18
Mannesty wrote:
Y'know, now I think back over the 4 or 5 years I've used Pentax DSLR's, I can think of only a handful of times when I might have used a high ISO setting, mostly at concerts.
So was it all worth it? Yes as an exercise, but I honestly doubt I will need it much. I'm sticking with my K20D's until something substantially better comes along at an affordable price (for me).
Peter I agree with you. I have a K10 and 95% of the time it is set to ISO 200. I have have at times found myself wishing for reduced noise at ISO 800, but from what I have seen the K20 would be all that I would need. stevejcoe wrote:
Thanks for your efforts Peter, Stefan and Tooks
Regards - Steve
You're welcome Steve.Thanks for your efforts Peter, Stefan and Tooks
Regards - Steve
Y'know, now I think back over the 4 or 5 years I've used Pentax DSLR's, I can think of only a handful of times when I might have used a high ISO setting, mostly at concerts.
So was it all worth it? Yes as an exercise, but I honestly doubt I will need it much. I'm sticking with my K20D's until something substantially better comes along at an affordable price (for me).
Having said all of that I am in no hurry to upgrade.
Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K20D + DA*300mm @ ISO 6400 - Does it cut the mustard? at 16/07/2009 - 08:17
Thanks for your efforts Peter, Stefan and Tooks
Regards - Steve
Regards - Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K20D + DA*300mm @ ISO 6400 - Does it cut the mustard? at 15/07/2009 - 23:50
George Lazarette wrote:
I started to post this in the classified section in response to a post by TTK, but JR pointed out that it was the wrong place to do so. TTK was pointing out some additional virtues of the D300.
I'd also like to see a demo using the D300 with the best lens in Nikon's arsenal versus the K20D with the 31mm Ltd.
High ISO noise. Useful, no doubt, for some, but like most people, I seldom shoot above 400 ISO. 800 at the most.
In what way is the build quality "better"? A friend has a D300, and I wouldn't say the build quality was better (or worse). It's not as well sealed against water and dust.
Considering it costs more than twice as much, I would find it very difficult to justify a D300 over a K20D unless I were a sports photographer, when the AF and continuous shooting would obviously be very useful.
G
Getting back to the original post, this might be a cheeky ask, but I wonder if Chris and SRS can help out here as they sell the D300?I started to post this in the classified section in response to a post by TTK, but JR pointed out that it was the wrong place to do so. TTK was pointing out some additional virtues of the D300.
ttk wrote:
Better IQ.
Less noise at high Iso.
Better build quality.
I'd love to see a demonstration of the alleged better image quality. The demo should use the same nice SMC Takumar on both cameras, shooting RAW, and then post-processing in Silkypix.Better IQ.
Less noise at high Iso.
Better build quality.
I'd also like to see a demo using the D300 with the best lens in Nikon's arsenal versus the K20D with the 31mm Ltd.
High ISO noise. Useful, no doubt, for some, but like most people, I seldom shoot above 400 ISO. 800 at the most.
In what way is the build quality "better"? A friend has a D300, and I wouldn't say the build quality was better (or worse). It's not as well sealed against water and dust.
Considering it costs more than twice as much, I would find it very difficult to justify a D300 over a K20D unless I were a sports photographer, when the AF and continuous shooting would obviously be very useful.
G
With a the help of a forum member who owns a K20 with a DA* or FA 31 ltd it should not be too hard to set up a meaningful test.
Personally I would like to see how the two compared at various ISO's, paticularly 1600 + where the Nikon is said to excel.
I would advocate RAW files processed under a standard set of conditions in Silkypix. In camera processing is subject to taste and adds an extra degree of variability.
I am in Leicestershire and do not have a K20, but I could provide a FA 31 ltd for the exercise.
Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on K20D versus Nikon D300 at 15/07/2009 - 11:31
George Lazarette wrote:
I only have one DA lens - the 16-50 - and it vignettes noticeably at every focal length.
But interesting speculation.
G
George the thread on Pentax forums states that both the DA 16-50 and 50-135 show vignetting, not too surprised by this as they are older reworked Tokina designs. Speculating further, it may be why the Tokina 11-16 has not made its way over to Pentax.I only have one DA lens - the 16-50 - and it vignettes noticeably at every focal length.
But interesting speculation.
G
Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on lenses designed for digital at 14/07/2009 - 22:51
Thanks for the link Stefan, quite a lot of information there, but having read quickly through the thread and followed several of the links it appears that the DA 55 and DA 60 - 250 give quite respectable performance on a 35mm film body.
This gives some weight to my thought that sometime after these 2 lenses first appeared on the roadmap, a review and rethink took place the result of which are lenses that could well be have designed for a larger sensor. I accept that this is conjecture, but it would explain why there was a long delay before the lenses became available.
Steve
This gives some weight to my thought that sometime after these 2 lenses first appeared on the roadmap, a review and rethink took place the result of which are lenses that could well be have designed for a larger sensor. I accept that this is conjecture, but it would explain why there was a long delay before the lenses became available.
Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on lenses designed for digital at 14/07/2009 - 22:18
The DA 16-45 shows a little vignetting at 20mm, after that it is pretty good. Matt (matic) did some trials a couple of years back, the results were pretty good.
It might be an idea to create a thread that shows DA lens performance on 35mm. I think we can rule out the 18-55 and the 50-200 as both show significant vignetting.
The DA 200 and 300 are reworked FA lenses so, they are FF.
The DFA 50 and 100 are also FF.
Anyone with some DA* lenses care to try them on film?
Steve
It might be an idea to create a thread that shows DA lens performance on 35mm. I think we can rule out the 18-55 and the 50-200 as both show significant vignetting.
The DA 200 and 300 are reworked FA lenses so, they are FF.
The DFA 50 and 100 are also FF.
Anyone with some DA* lenses care to try them on film?
Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on lenses designed for digital at 14/07/2009 - 21:10
johnriley wrote:
You may be right Ben, in which case my FA lenses might find new found favour. Although I do rather like the Quick Shift facility on the DA lenses...
John, I believe that most of the recently introduced lenses are FF. We know that Hoya hired consultants to develop a new strategy for Pentax, this would almost certainly have included a review of the lens lineup. I may well be wrong, but it could explain why many took so long to come to market after first appearing on the roadmap.You may be right Ben, in which case my FA lenses might find new found favour. Although I do rather like the Quick Shift facility on the DA lenses...
Regards - Steve
Comment by stevejcoe posted on lenses designed for digital at 14/07/2009 - 13:19
Pentaxophile wrote:
Hum, that’s about £10 for each of the 17 lenses! But if Amin’s insider at Heathrow comes through it might not be necessary.
Might be a bit of a challenge fitting 17 boxes into carry on luggage. I believe that in the past, larger items could be sent to a UK address providing VAT was paid. That would seem the better option if it is still available.Hum, that’s about £10 for each of the 17 lenses! But if Amin’s insider at Heathrow comes through it might not be necessary.
Don't forget to factor in a day's parking at Heathrow and the fact the the volunteer would need to spend a day travelling to, in and back from Edinburgh. So probably £20 a lens would be more reasonable.
Comment by stevejcoe posted on Samsung 12-24mm F4 at 13/07/2009 - 14:23
Steve