Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-07-2010, 10:05 AM   #76
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
Perhaps, I am taking this list a bit too seriously. I'm an all-MF user and should be adding reasons to this list but it's just so much more fun to play Devil's Advocate.
OK. If I can take the original post as a bit of harmless fun, I can take your response similarly :-)

QuoteQuote:
I'm fairly certain that a 16-50mm zoom is smaller/lighter than a collection of 15mm, 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm primes and wouldn't be far behind in image quality.
True, but pare that list down to just a 15 and a 40, or 15, 28, 40, and that's not so true. Plus, it isn't just about size and weight in the bag, but also size and weight on the camera.

BTW, I usually have a terrible memory for specifics about what people have posted in the past, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that to the best of my recollection, I think the OP has *one* manual focus prime, a 50/2.

09-07-2010, 10:10 AM   #77
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,599
QuoteOriginally posted by RolloR Quote
Good luck focusing on manual wide primes on your APS-C viewfinder without split-screen/prism or LiveView.
Not so, check out this link:
Re: Is a KatzEye required for those using manual focus?: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

NaCl(manual focus is a skill that can be learned like any other)H2O
09-07-2010, 10:35 AM   #78
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,762
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote

I'm fairly certain that a 16-50mm zoom is smaller/lighter than a collection of 15mm, 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm primes and wouldn't be far behind in image quality. Also the F/FA/DA LTD series primes are lighter/smaller than MF counter parts.
That's an easy call because the older 15mm lenses are the same weight as the DA16-50. However, if the 15 became a DA15 and the rest MF, I'd bet a decent collection would be pretty close in sum to the DA16-50. Your average prime is about 1/4 the weight of the DA16-50, and much smaller. You don't keep all the size and weight on the camera, either.
09-07-2010, 10:45 AM   #79
Senior Member
stover98074's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 153
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
True; I don't think "most" people today would be happy with MF. But I'd also argue that by taking photography seriously enough to buy a DSLR, and then to join pentaxforums, and then hang on the SLR Lens forum - we're talking about people clearly a cut above average in terms of dedication and willingness to invest a little time and effort.



I hear you. The spin I try to cast isn't that MF is just as convenient - it clearly isn't (usually - there are still situations where I think it is actually more convenient). Mostly, I generally bring up the bit about everyone using it for 100 years to observe that it needn't be a dealbreaker if everything else is pointing to an MF lens as the best option.

Quite a few people have never manually focused a lens in their life and imagine it to be rather harder than it actually is once you get the hang of it. Others have tried MF with the kit lens and struggled but don't realize that MF with an actual MF lens is quite a bit easier. So I think it important to point out that it isn't as those who have either never tried or have tried only with the kit lens might think.

But of course, it's also true that a typical APS-C DSLR isn't as easy as a typical 35mm film camera. I agree with another poster that this becomes more of an issue the wider the lens - although DOF gets bigger, subject size gets smaller.
Marc,
Thanks - You have captured my sentiments very well and diplomatically since my “Olympic” comment.

09-07-2010, 10:52 AM   #80
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mainz
Posts: 20
Who looks at the screen to focus??? To make a picture one looks through the viewfinder anyway, then it's just the issue of turning the ring until the hexagon appears.

Non-viewfinder focussing sucks. I tried manual focussing on a panasonic GF1 in the store, where there is a general control ring or smth that sort of relates to the point of focus if you want it to. You see an extra screen appear. It's an ass because you there is no apparent feedback from the focus ring and it doesn't really stay at its spot.
09-07-2010, 12:32 PM   #81
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
??? I can't think of a single lens that lacks a focus ring. Seems maybe I heard of some obscure fisheye somewhere, but surely that's not what you were trying to shoot a tiger with...

Maybe you mean you sold off lenses that lack quick shift?
The Pentax 18-250 was on the camera when the tiger came calling. After a lot of PP I got the pic below.



The two main lenses I sold were the 18-250 and the 10-17.
09-07-2010, 12:34 PM   #82
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,216
What a funny thread


I shoot mostly primes, but my reasons may be somewhat different than what I am reading here. Here is my rational:
  • Handling
  • Handling
  • Handling
  • Size
  • Size
  • Size
  • Weight
  • Weight
  • Weight
Further down the list:
  • High value (I can buy 4 Helios 44M for the price of a used 18-55 kit)
  • Generally faster maximum apertures
What about zooms? It may be strange to hear a "prime" guy say this, but there are things that my two zoom lenses (yes, I only own two zooms ) do much better than any of my primes:
  • Close focus
  • Perspective in framing...No there is no such thing as zooming with your feet. Perspective is determined by the location of the lens relative to the subject.
What about AF? Ha! Ha! I don't shoot much action, but I know that the only way I am going to get the shot with my Pentax is to turn AF OFF. This is particularly true if there are bystanders or background objects that the camera might lock onto. Maybe things are better with other camera brands, but AF is hardly an advantage on Pentax except for snapshots.

Before I close, I had to chuckle a little about the comments on focus screen calibration. For sure there is the potential for issues in the focus path and several users on this forum have complained about such, but the manual focus (with Katz Eye) on my K10D is spot on with the factory alignments and much more precise than the focus confirm system. Unfortunately, manual focus with the factory screen is somewhat less accurate and precise than the AF system. The result being that critical focus with wider aperture lenses may be essentially impossible with a stock setup using either manual or auto focus.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 09-07-2010 at 12:40 PM.
09-07-2010, 01:02 PM   #83
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 523
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
OK. If I can take the original post as a bit of harmless fun, I can take your response similarly :-)



True, but pare that list down to just a 15 and a 40, or 15, 28, 40, and that's not so true. Plus, it isn't just about size and weight in the bag, but also size and weight on the camera.

BTW, I usually have a terrible memory for specifics about what people have posted in the past, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that to the best of my recollection, I think the OP has *one* manual focus prime, a 50/2.
Formaly it is still my fathers...

09-07-2010, 01:49 PM   #84
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that to the best of my recollection, I think the OP has *one* manual focus prime, a 50/2.
Looks like some of us here, including me, got trolled/baited pretty badly.
09-07-2010, 03:23 PM   #85
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
Looks like some of us here, including me, got trolled/baited pretty badly.
LOL, yep, and probably by a high school kid living with his parents, whose only photography knowledge comes from forum surfing.
09-07-2010, 06:03 PM   #86
Pentaxian
Arpe's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,331
QuoteOriginally posted by stover98074 Quote
Every Olympics (or other major sporting event) photographed prior to autofocus was done with a manual focus lens.
Yeah - and there's not many of those photos around is there? Olympics is only one aspect, a team sport on a field where the different players are running in different directions, from sunny to shady areas etc. is very hard to manually focus, plus zoom with your feet. That's why the old photos are fuzzy, and not many of them. Today's publishers demand quantity as well as quality.

QuoteOriginally posted by opiet70 Quote
It depends on what you are shooting. I took this one today also - the only editing was cropping and an auto-adjust.
Nice pic, but one photo does not a sports game photographic coverage make. So yes, of course it depends what you are shooting, which the original post made no mention of.
09-07-2010, 06:10 PM   #87
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Albums
Posts: 230
QuoteOriginally posted by opiet70 Quote
The Pentax 18-250 was on the camera when the tiger came calling. After a lot of PP I got the pic below.



The two main lenses I sold were the 18-250 and the 10-17.
If I were you that day,
I would've definitely freaked out!
09-07-2010, 06:54 PM   #88
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,485
QuoteOriginally posted by Arpe Quote
Yeah - and there's not many of those photos around is there? Olympics is only one aspect, a team sport on a field where the different players are running in different directions, from sunny to shady areas etc. is very hard to manually focus, plus zoom with your feet. That's why the old photos are fuzzy, and not many of them. Today's publishers demand quantity as well as quality.
In all fairness to the photos have been taken since dirt was first discovered discussion, that was also before the mass sharing facility known as the public internet. Publishers also have limited space in magazines and newspapers to deal with. So the fact is, you don't Know what is there in terms of the number and quality of photos. AF and zooms make the job easier and more likely to succeed but it by no stretch means it cannot be done any other way.

09-07-2010, 07:17 PM   #89
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: central Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by pimpim Quote
Who looks at the screen to focus??? To make a picture one looks through the viewfinder anyway, then it's just the issue of turning the ring until the hexagon appears.

Non-viewfinder focussing sucks. I tried manual focussing on a panasonic GF1 in the store, where there is a general control ring or smth that sort of relates to the point of focus if you want it to. You see an extra screen appear. It's an ass because you there is no apparent feedback from the focus ring and it doesn't really stay at its spot.
pimpim - the hexagon confirmation is not precisely accurate. Try putting the camera on burst mode, and use trap focus turning the focusing ring very slowly. You will find that several shots can be taken with slightly different focusing settings, all with the hexagon lit. Alternatively use the hexagon first turning the focus one way (from infinity inwards) and then the other. You will find with a very fast lens (say a 50 @ 1.7) that you get two different results.
09-07-2010, 07:22 PM   #90
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: central Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
What a funny thread


I shoot mostly primes, but my reasons may be somewhat different than what I am reading here. Here is my rational:
  • Handling
  • Handling
  • Handling
  • Size
  • Size
  • Size
  • Weight
  • Weight
  • Weight



Before I close, I had to chuckle a little about the comments on focus screen calibration. For sure there is the potential for issues in the focus path and several users on this forum have complained about such, but the manual focus (with Katz Eye) on my K10D is spot on with the factory alignments and much more precise than the focus confirm system. Unfortunately, manual focus with the factory screen is somewhat less accurate and precise than the AF system. The result being that critical focus with wider aperture lenses may be essentially impossible with a stock setup using either manual or auto focus.


Steve
I agree completely with your list but I don't agree with your comments on the Katz Eye screen - I have fitted them both to my K10D and to my K7D and neither was precisely accurate (produced slight backfocus in both cases). No doubt it was the cameras' fault (needed a different shim) not the screens', but the problem was there. Of course it was only a problem with very wide apertures.

Tim
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
auto, auto focus, focus, focus primes, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, primes, reasons, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What does "auto" mean on older manual focus lenses? jonhock Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 12-03-2009 11:32 AM
Auto-Focus Lenses on Manual Bodies pdx138 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 7 08-22-2009 06:47 PM
9 Reasons To Manual Focus duron Photographic Technique 12 12-08-2008 02:05 PM
Manual or Auto Focus paolo g Pentax DSLR Discussion 35 06-27-2008 10:55 AM
Manual and Auto Focus JCSullivan Photographic Technique 51 12-15-2007 06:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top