All Forum Comments
Comment by Tyr posted on FS: K20D, 16-50 SDM, 50-135 SDM, K10D and much more... at 03/03/2011 - 10:57
layingback wrote:
Same with sofas, that is how I ended up with mine 2nd hand for next to nothing.Tyr wrote:
I will agree £250 is a lot to pay for comfort.
Agreed. Ridiculous price! But fortunately lots of people don't get on with them! I will agree £250 is a lot to pay for comfort.
Comment by Tyr posted on D-BG2, D-BG4 ??? at 03/03/2011 - 10:56
fatspider wrote:
Plus;
I also heard that large amount of alcohol can pickle your liver, and we all know that pickling things preserves them
Pickling is with vinegar, so no preservation with alcohol.Plus;
I also heard that large amount of alcohol can pickle your liver, and we all know that pickling things preserves them
Well, not directly anyway.
Alcohol > Aldehyde in the liver which is why Methanol is so poisonous. It gets converted into formaldehyde by the liver and kills & preserves you very quickly from the inside out.
Comment by Tyr posted on Another pointless thread at 03/03/2011 - 10:54
I think I threw away the clear body caps that came with the K10Ds we've got and I need some replacements ones for packing them for transit without lenses. I know SRS have some but if anyone has got one they don't need that would be handy.
Comment by Tyr posted on Wanted Pentax Body Caps at 03/03/2011 - 10:45
simonkit wrote:
Colour/contrast look similar on both the 17-70 & 18-135, I can't imagine the difference been significant as the 17-70 is excellent in this regard. The main downside to the 18-135 seems to be CA, which from my experience is very well controlled on the 17-70.
Personally I see the choice of 18-135 over 17-70 been more about range/technology (DC/WR) than image quality - on a similar line to the old 18-250 vs 17-70 debate of old.
Simon
Klaus at photozone is apparently really disappointed with the 18-135.Don wrote:
anybody know how the 17-70 stacks up against the new 18-135?
I am thinking the new lens might be useful, as Gerri likes zooms, and the 17-70 is just a range we have well covered already....
I've given this some thought myself - a few threads I've read suggest that the DA 18-135 may not be as sharp as the 18-250, which having just bought the Tamron version looks pretty close to the DA 17-70 so my guess is that it's not quite so sharp, there's a few comments around that mention corner softness. anybody know how the 17-70 stacks up against the new 18-135?
I am thinking the new lens might be useful, as Gerri likes zooms, and the 17-70 is just a range we have well covered already....
Colour/contrast look similar on both the 17-70 & 18-135, I can't imagine the difference been significant as the 17-70 is excellent in this regard. The main downside to the 18-135 seems to be CA, which from my experience is very well controlled on the 17-70.
Personally I see the choice of 18-135 over 17-70 been more about range/technology (DC/WR) than image quality - on a similar line to the old 18-250 vs 17-70 debate of old.
Simon
Review will be up in the next couple of days but it is apparently a very poor performer.
Comment by Tyr posted on Any FA 28-70 F4 owners? at 03/03/2011 - 10:27
George Lazarette wrote:
Well, as a lonely voice crying in the wilderness, I shall present the case against grips.
1 They are very expensive, and do very little.
2 They make a petite Pentax look like, and weigh nearly as much as, a lumpen, bloated, camera like a Canon.
3 They make your arms ache if you are using them for long periods.
4 In practice, you almost never need the extra battery, unless you are so dis-organised that you go to a shoot with a flat battery in the camera. And pockets were designed to carry things like spare batteries.
5 The correct way to hold a camera is with your right hand holding the body, and your left holding the lens. Balance doesn't come into it.
6 There are much cheaper and easier ways to carry a spare card. But again, how often do you need one?
7 It's child's play to hold a camera vertically. You don't need a grip.
8 You can put the money saved towards another lens.
But, there is one massive argument in favour.
The production cost of a grip is a couple of quid. The rest is profit. If Pentax weren't selling loads of grips, they'd have to raise the price of the camera.
So, keep buying grips, chaps. They're a thoroughly good idea.
G
Well, as a lonely voice crying in the wilderness, I shall present the case against grips.
1 They are very expensive, and do very little.
2 They make a petite Pentax look like, and weigh nearly as much as, a lumpen, bloated, camera like a Canon.
3 They make your arms ache if you are using them for long periods.
4 In practice, you almost never need the extra battery, unless you are so dis-organised that you go to a shoot with a flat battery in the camera. And pockets were designed to carry things like spare batteries.
5 The correct way to hold a camera is with your right hand holding the body, and your left holding the lens. Balance doesn't come into it.
6 There are much cheaper and easier ways to carry a spare card. But again, how often do you need one?
7 It's child's play to hold a camera vertically. You don't need a grip.
8 You can put the money saved towards another lens.
But, there is one massive argument in favour.
The production cost of a grip is a couple of quid. The rest is profit. If Pentax weren't selling loads of grips, they'd have to raise the price of the camera.
So, keep buying grips, chaps. They're a thoroughly good idea.
G
George Lazarette wrote:
9 The camera won't fit in the bag!
Thanks Stu.
G
I really like my gripped K10D. I took it off for about 6 month to make it smaller but kept finding it uncomfortable. I put the grip back on and it is just so much easier to hold. I don't necessarily use the vertical grip when shooting portrait though. It fits my hands much better gripped than without.9 The camera won't fit in the bag!
Thanks Stu.
G
I will agree £250 is a lot to pay for comfort. I could have gotten myself a DA40 for that price at the time and I wouldn't know any different comfort wise.
Comment by Tyr posted on D-BG2, D-BG4 ??? at 03/03/2011 - 10:20
George Lazarette wrote:
Now a boat, that's another matter altogether.
G
I wanted a boat, my wife wanted a house. Got the house DrOrloff wrote:
Would anyone like to hazard a guess when I may actually finish the damn work in the house?
That's easy.
It will take exactly six times as long as you originally predicted. But it will never quite be finished. And it will cost two and a half times your original budget.
Then you will need to start maintaining it.
Be grateful that it is only a house.Would anyone like to hazard a guess when I may actually finish the damn work in the house?
That's easy.
It will take exactly six times as long as you originally predicted. But it will never quite be finished. And it will cost two and a half times your original budget.
Then you will need to start maintaining it.
Now a boat, that's another matter altogether.
G
Nah, just kidding, house is good too....
...
...
Comment by Tyr posted on I'm back (kind of) with a little guessing game at 02/03/2011 - 16:46
George Lazarette wrote:
Let's disassemble Mr McLennan, drop Damien Hurst into a vat of formaldehyde, and pour a load of concrete down Tracey Emin's throat.
That would be an exhibition I'd pay to see.
(Just joking, Damo and Trace. Love you really.)
G
We could get Gunther von Hagens to perform the first. Blame an accident at a formaldehyde plant for the second and just walk her into a building site for the third...Let's disassemble Mr McLennan, drop Damien Hurst into a vat of formaldehyde, and pour a load of concrete down Tracey Emin's throat.
That would be an exhibition I'd pay to see.
(Just joking, Damo and Trace. Love you really.)
G
You've come up with some odd posts in the last few minutes...
Very nice, reminds me of a field mouse I nearly trod on in my first week with a DSLR.
link
It just didn't dare move. Amazingly managed to get it at 1/40 so SR is very handy.
link
It just didn't dare move. Amazingly managed to get it at 1/40 so SR is very handy.
Comment by Tyr posted on Guess I'm not just feeding the spuggies at 02/03/2011 - 16:15
George Lazarette wrote:
Clever the way the prog has removed the purple fringing from the image and placed it at the top.
G
Clever the way the prog has removed the purple fringing from the image and placed it at the top.
G
I'll take two!
Comment by Tyr posted on Linux image apps roundup at 02/03/2011 - 16:14
DA* 16-50mm arrived safely and very well packed!
I can't get over the autofocus speed of this lens. I've not made any objective measurements, but it seems significantly faster than the SDMs on the 50-135 or the 17-70.
Cheers,
Paul