All Forum Comments
Comment by vrapan posted on 70mm Limited and DA*50-135mm at 16/02/2012 - 20:08
rosstownsley wrote:
It is a bit slow, I'd much rather have something like 1.8, I can counteract that because the K-5 is fantastic on ISO 1600 even 3200 with some noise reduction post processing. With the GX20 you might need a bit more care.vrapan wrote:
If you care about weight/size get a 40mm if you care about money get the 35mm 2.4 . For whatever it's worth I like the pictures out of the 40mm more but I wish it had a faster aperture. Ideally I'd have a Nikon 35mm 1.8 sized like a 40mm DA. I can keep on dreaming
Is the 40 suitable for use indoors or is it a bit slow?If you care about weight/size get a 40mm if you care about money get the 35mm 2.4 . For whatever it's worth I like the pictures out of the 40mm more but I wish it had a faster aperture. Ideally I'd have a Nikon 35mm 1.8 sized like a 40mm DA. I can keep on dreaming
Comment by vrapan posted on Lens decisions -Pentax 35 f2, 50 f1.4 or 40 f2.8 at 15/02/2012 - 23:52
9aul wrote:
vrapan - I did seriously consider the D7K also, good to hear that you're happy with Pentax.
It's a shame that Tokina dont make the 11-16 in the Pentax mount which I have seen so many great images from on Canon forums.
Have recently downloaded an image stitching program called Hugin (open source) which is amazingly fully featured and can give great results for still landscapes with sharp 'normal' lenses.
If you were just after a cheap carry round camera, have noticed the Samsung NX100 have been heavily reduced (same sensor as the K-7) you can pick up the kit for just over £200.
Frogfish - Thanks - I'm sure there's nothing there that long term Pentax users don't already know.
Have just been on your Smugmug - the Pentax seems to be serving you well - you have some really great shots on there.
Have you had any issues with the reds on the K-5 - if so have you changed any settings in-camera?
Not impressed with the lens lineup and if I am to buy one it will have to be a system that has a significant amount of lenses for me to choose from. This is why I am sticking to Pentax or m4/3 - that and the fact that I love the looks of both the GX1 and the EM-5 still on the fence about the K-01 regarding looks.vrapan - I did seriously consider the D7K also, good to hear that you're happy with Pentax.
It's a shame that Tokina dont make the 11-16 in the Pentax mount which I have seen so many great images from on Canon forums.
Have recently downloaded an image stitching program called Hugin (open source) which is amazingly fully featured and can give great results for still landscapes with sharp 'normal' lenses.
If you were just after a cheap carry round camera, have noticed the Samsung NX100 have been heavily reduced (same sensor as the K-7) you can pick up the kit for just over £200.
Frogfish - Thanks - I'm sure there's nothing there that long term Pentax users don't already know.
Have just been on your Smugmug - the Pentax seems to be serving you well - you have some really great shots on there.
Have you had any issues with the reds on the K-5 - if so have you changed any settings in-camera?
Comment by vrapan posted on Why buy Pentax? (k5 mini review) at 15/02/2012 - 23:49
If you care about weight/size get a 40mm if you care about money get the 35mm 2.4 . For whatever it's worth I like the pictures out of the 40mm more but I wish it had a faster aperture. Ideally I'd have a Nikon 35mm 1.8 sized like a 40mm DA. I can keep on dreaming
Comment by vrapan posted on Lens decisions -Pentax 35 f2, 50 f1.4 or 40 f2.8 at 15/02/2012 - 21:13
9aul wrote:
Can I ask why you switched from the D7000? Are you happy with the change?
I switched really for all the reasons Pentax users like Pentax cameras:vrapan wrote:
I had a rather similar trip with you. I too had (still have though) a D40. It has been an amazing camera given that I bought it from SRS nearly 5 years ago for £219 with the kit lens... Despite having sold all the lenses I accumulated over the 4 years I was using the camera I kept it and the amazing 35mm 1.8 .
However last spring I felt the camera was great but I did need a few more MP to crop a bit more and would have liked to be able to take pictures when ISOs start hitting the 1000+ mark. Went for the D7k which is a great camera in its own right but ended up with a K-5 and would recommend it to anyone that does not need super long lenses or a fairly sophisticated AF system.
Sometimes wish I had kept the D40, I have read it was Nikon's best ever selling DSLR, not sure if that's true but wouldn't surprise me.I had a rather similar trip with you. I too had (still have though) a D40. It has been an amazing camera given that I bought it from SRS nearly 5 years ago for £219 with the kit lens... Despite having sold all the lenses I accumulated over the 4 years I was using the camera I kept it and the amazing 35mm 1.8 .
However last spring I felt the camera was great but I did need a few more MP to crop a bit more and would have liked to be able to take pictures when ISOs start hitting the 1000+ mark. Went for the D7k which is a great camera in its own right but ended up with a K-5 and would recommend it to anyone that does not need super long lenses or a fairly sophisticated AF system.
Can I ask why you switched from the D7000? Are you happy with the change?
The D7000 felt big and awkward in my hands. I didn't like the weight coming from the D40 and I always found that I needed a lot of patient to get a sharp picture from my 50-150 because of unsteady hands. AF was great, IQ was excellent and external controls just as good so I was keeping it.
Not sure how but looking around I came across the K-5 asked around on another forum about it and blame Mike.P but days later I was in SRS playing with one. Put the 50-135 on it and compared it weight/size/IQ with the D7k and in my very humble opinion they were not even close. K-5 felt like it was part of my hand, I instantly knew how to hold it and on the spot I was sold on the amazing 50-135 too. IQ was similar though the 50-135 was sharper (maybe due to the activated IBIS) nicer colours on JPEGs and felt so much nicer to use than the Sigma (noticed it was slower to acquire focus straight away though).
On top of that I had found out that there are some primes that are tiny further increasing the advantage of the size/weight of the system. That sealed the deal for me, I had ordered a K-5 and got a DA 40 right after I had sold all my Nikon gear (save for the D40, 35mm and the rather amazing for the price 17-50 which has now been sold). Now I have the three primes 21,40 and 70mm, a 10-20 Sigma, a 50-135 and a 16-50 (which I still haven't managed to take out and try properly). Weakest link by a mile the Sigma so much so I am looking for a 12-24 Pentax if I can find one for a reasonable price.
I wouldn't go back to Nikon. The main advantages I find in the Nikon system are ones that are simply not very relevant to me : FF cameras (weight/size/price of bodies/lenses simply kill them for me), long teles (not into them at all) and a much more complete lineup of bodies but then I only want one . The only advantage of the Nikon system that I care about but not enough is AF speed/flexibility. The SDM lenses are snail paced to focus compared to the motorised Nikon and Sigmas (never used the 18-135 which is said to be a lot faster) and admittedly the D7k made my lethargic 10-24, 17-50 Tamron focus extremely fast.
Pentax is excellent for me as APS-C DSLR systems go. However size is still an issue for me so I am considering pairing it with a K-01, OM-D or GX-1 + a widish prime as an always on me kit.
Apologies for the novel!
Comment by vrapan posted on Why buy Pentax? (k5 mini review) at 14/02/2012 - 22:24
I had a rather similar trip with you. I too had (still have though) a D40. It has been an amazing camera given that I bought it from SRS nearly 5 years ago for £219 with the kit lens... Despite having sold all the lenses I accumulated over the 4 years I was using the camera I kept it and the amazing 35mm 1.8 .
However last spring I felt the camera was great but I did need a few more MP to crop a bit more and would have liked to be able to take pictures when ISOs start hitting the 1000+ mark. Went for the D7k which is a great camera in its own right but ended up with a K-5 and would recommend it to anyone that does not need super long lenses or a fairly sophisticated AF system.
However last spring I felt the camera was great but I did need a few more MP to crop a bit more and would have liked to be able to take pictures when ISOs start hitting the 1000+ mark. Went for the D7k which is a great camera in its own right but ended up with a K-5 and would recommend it to anyone that does not need super long lenses or a fairly sophisticated AF system.
Comment by vrapan posted on Why buy Pentax? (k5 mini review) at 13/02/2012 - 20:34
The focal length stated on lenses is always the actual focal length that you would get on a FF camera. So the 135 when put on a crop sensor camera would give you a 205 equivalent focal length. The 50-200 would give you a 75-300equivalent focal length.
The DA designation does not mean that the focal length is stated after being adjusted for a cropped sensor, it rather means that if you try the lens on a full frame / film camera (assuming you can) it would provide plenty of vignetting as the lens does not cover adequately the larger area of the film/ff sensor. However it will then provide the stated FOV.
I hope I haven't confused you.
The DA designation does not mean that the focal length is stated after being adjusted for a cropped sensor, it rather means that if you try the lens on a full frame / film camera (assuming you can) it would provide plenty of vignetting as the lens does not cover adequately the larger area of the film/ff sensor. However it will then provide the stated FOV.
I hope I haven't confused you.
Comment by vrapan posted on Confused on equivalent focal length at 13/02/2012 - 16:13
Why would it? You use both lenses on the same crop body so 135mm on the zoom will give you the same FOV of the 135mm on the Takumar. Why would you expect the Takumar to have smaller field than the 50-200 on an equivalent setting?
Comment by vrapan posted on Confused on equivalent focal length at 13/02/2012 - 15:41
George Lazarette wrote:
Actually, the market depends very much on the price. It's my view that lens manufacturers often over-price items which they deem (rightly or often wrongly) to be of little interest to the wider public.
And, of course, the high price puts off all but a few buyers, and apparently confirms the view that the market for the item in question is indeed very small.
But had the item been priced more reasonably, it might have sold in huge numbers, and been a lot more profitable as a result.
If this 560mm were to be priced at £300, I am sure it would sell in vast numbers, and yield a handsome return. But it won't be, of course. It'll be priced at £2,000, and very few people will buy one.
C'est la vie.
G
Your logic is flawed I am afraid. There is no certainty that enough people will buy it at a lower price to make it a profitable product. Elasticity of demand is a fairly simplistic yet surprisingly accurate way of describing what is going on when price of a product moves. Actually, the market depends very much on the price. It's my view that lens manufacturers often over-price items which they deem (rightly or often wrongly) to be of little interest to the wider public.
And, of course, the high price puts off all but a few buyers, and apparently confirms the view that the market for the item in question is indeed very small.
But had the item been priced more reasonably, it might have sold in huge numbers, and been a lot more profitable as a result.
If this 560mm were to be priced at £300, I am sure it would sell in vast numbers, and yield a handsome return. But it won't be, of course. It'll be priced at £2,000, and very few people will buy one.
C'est la vie.
G
Considering how specialised very long prime is I am not surprised at the levels they are priced.
Comment by vrapan posted on New 560mm weather sealed? at 12/02/2012 - 13:37
The new XPro1 does not have it either and it does not have a version that does like the D800. Nikon is reportedly providing a version of their software with the camera that takes care of the moire patterns. I think it provides an extra level of control over your final image which for people buying a 2500£ camera might be a welcome option.
Also it is not like you pay to have it removed, you pay for the option and Nikon expects it to be a smaller run so they have to recoup the expense.
Also it is not like you pay to have it removed, you pay for the option and Nikon expects it to be a smaller run so they have to recoup the expense.
Comment by vrapan posted on Removal of Anti-Aliasing Filter at 07/02/2012 - 15:04
There are two reasons I can see for you to buy a 70mm:
Size. Obvious and huge advantage.
AF speed, not a speed demon but faster than the 50-135 by quite a margin, which says more about the AF speed of the 50-135 than the 70mm to be honest.
IQ wise I think there is not much between them if anything I prefer the 50-135 one. I am not so sure how you can do better in that range than the 50-135 IQ wise to be honest. Maybe the 77mm is better but then it is as expensive as the 50-135.