[MNCurt-K10D]

The DPReview of the kit lens says that it has the "QuickShift" capability to manually 'touch up' focus without switching the body to MF. I noticed this had been mentioned with the new version of the lens coming with the K20D, but I don't recall ever hearing this about the original version. If true, does it mean I can just 'tweak' the focus ring on my 18~55 after autofocusing? It may be a carry-over from my days with my ZX-5n, but I seem to recall that there were dire warnings about messing up the AF drive if I tried manually adjusting focus while the AF drive was engaged. Can anyone clarify? Thanks!

Curt

[kjao]

All the DA lenses, maybe except DA18-250 which is just a rebadged Tamron, have QuickShift. So yes, AF can be fine-tuned on your kit lens without changing the body to manual focus.

cheers
Kenny

[Tbear]

Joe A tests his pentax lenses on a *isD, in a poorly constructed studio, and his outside shots are taken from Mt.Kilimanjaro

Joe B tests his pentax lenses on a K10D, using a low quality monitor, in a very well constructed studio and proper lighting, but hes at sea level for outside shots.

Joe C tests his pentax lenses on a K20D, using the best hardware you can buy, in a half decent studio, and lets say 500meters above sea level for outside shots



lets say Joe A gives the lens a 9/10, Joe B gives the lens a 10/10 and Joe C gives the lens a 6/10


what do you have?

you have nothing, you are sitting scartching your head, and you will still come back to this forum and ask for opinions from people that use that particular lens every single day.

I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that sites that evaluate lenses like Photozone and now DPR are not helpful in researching future lens purchases?

[Gooshin]

I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you saying that sites that evaluate lenses like Photozone and now DPR are not helpful in researching future lens purchases?

i'm all for multiple PEOPLE testing lenses,

but i would like those different people to test lenses under identical settings, that way you get identical RESULTS, and the only difference will be the interpretation of the results by various testers.

which wont happen unless the parties involved collaborate together.

[hudsong]

Who is the American?

Yeah.. Isn't Phil based in Lun done?
Also, interesting how he didn't choose the Nikon kits. Maybe Pentax is beginning to garner a soft spot in his heart.

[Arpe]

Though from the American used on those reviews it would appear that they were not done by an English speaker.

[Abbazz]

Though from the American used on those reviews it would appear that they were not done by an English speaker.

That's since DPReview has been bought by Amazon. The reviewers had to follow a crash course in American lingo.

Cheers!

Abbazz

[skaktuss]

I just read their article about 16-45.

...and while the MTF results may not look impressive...
...The resolution results may not appear wonderful...

But

The resolution figures indicate a very good resolution characteristic throughout the zoom range.
The Pentax SMC-DA 16-45mm f/4 ED AL produced very good resolution figures in the MTF lab

[prof68]

I just read their article about 16-45.

But

So who do you believe?

[osv]

i'm all for multiple PEOPLE testing lenses,

but i would like those different people to test lenses under identical settings, that way you get identical RESULTS, and the only difference will be the interpretation of the results by various testers.

which wont happen unless the parties involved collaborate together.

you'd be hard pressed to get identical settings for multiple testers, especially when it comes to things like lighting... and not all cameras and lenses are exactly alike to begin with.

when you run imatest, the results can vary depending on things like how well the lense was focused, and the exposure.

[Gooshin]

you'd be hard pressed to get identical settings for multiple testers, especially when it comes to things like lighting... and not all cameras and lenses are exactly alike to begin with.

when you run imatest, the results can vary depending on things like how well the lense was focused, and the exposure.

exactly my point!

Phil starting his own "testing lab" isnt going to make or brake Klaus's results, it will only confuse us buyers even more (see example above for the 16-45).

ergo, i revert back to my original statement that the two of them should have collaborated, pool resources or something, hire a 3rd party to do all the lens testing in a agreed upon and controlled enviroment.

[Tbear]

exactly my point!

Phil starting his own "testing lab" isnt going to make or brake Klaus's results, it will only confuse us buyers even more (see example above for the 16-45).

ergo, i revert back to my original statement that the two of them should have collaborated, pool resources or something, hire a 3rd party to do all the lens testing in a agreed upon and controlled enviroment.

If you were researching a stock to buy would you rather read expert opinions from one analyst or 10?

[Gooshin]

If you were researching a stock to buy would you rather read expert opinions from one analyst or 10?

as someone that spent a good chunk of his university education taking investing and finance courses, i disagree with your statement.

you cant possibly compare the volatility and analyzing strategies of public stock to the quality of a lens.

[Tbear]

as someone that spent a good chunk of his university education taking investing and finance courses, i disagree with your statement.

you cant possibly compare the volatility and analyzing strategies of public stock to the quality of a lens.

I'm sorry, but what part of my statement that you have quoted above do you disagree with, particularly as someone who is knowledgeable about stocks?

All I am saying is that I think it is self-evident that no matter what one is researching, whether it be a lens, a stock, or a camera, or a car, that it can only be beneficial to take into account the analysis of more than one expert.

[Gooshin]

I'm sorry, but what part of my statement that you have quoted above do you disagree with, particularly as someone who is knowledgeable about stocks?

All I am saying is that I think it is self-evident that no matter what one is researching, whether it be a lens, a stock, or a camera, or a car, that it can only be beneficial to take into account the analysis of more than one expert.

no... you have a Lens, it costs X dollars give or take 50 bucks depending on where you buy it from.

the Lens has Y focal length or Z zoom range, at B aperture, C weight, and D size.

it is either soft, sharp, or really sharp, you can also throw in a really really sharp bit for extra points.

it either focuses fast, or it focuses slow

it either vignettes alot, or not too much

it either has chromatic abrasions or it doesnt

and some other stuff...

very cut, clear, to the point.


then Lets see we have a stock

- how much does it cost now
- how much will it cost tommorow,
- you have to do research on the company to find out where the company is heading
- you are researching INFORMATION, that may or not be truthful, information that is then interpreted by someone with different personal RISK assessments
- do you short sell the stock?
- do you get options for it instead?
- do you plan on doing it short term or long term?
- are you going to hedge your investment
- where are you going to hedge your investment in relation to this stock?
- more research

blah blah blah blah

everything in the stock market is based on research of information that is never guaranteed to be 100% true, and is processed by people to make an always varying decision based on their own personal risk assessments.

apples and oranges, i'm surprised i even had to explain it to you!




let me put it to you in another way

you have ISO ( International Organization for Standardization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

would you want them to have competition??? lets have ISO-A ISO-B and ISO-C run around the world with their different of standards... yeah, that would be fun.