Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-10-2008, 06:11 AM   #31
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
amen, again brother.

05-10-2008, 06:14 AM   #32
Site Supporter
Buffy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Greater Boston area, Massachusetts
Posts: 303
QuoteQuote:
To be a bit philosophical, why on earth would people spend hundreds of dollars to get worse image quality, just to get autofocus?
Well, I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I'm nearly blind and can't focus manually. I must say I do get envious of people picking up great old glass for $20!
05-10-2008, 06:32 AM   #33
Not Registered
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
amen.


as for bringing back takumars..... well as long as they are assembled in japan by properly skilled and paid technicians as to ensure the quality and not tarnish the name any more than the bayonet takumars have then I would happily agree to that. I think pentax needs to properly bring back that glorious name. Takuma Kajiwara deserves better homage than current lenses could possibly offer.
I agree with you, but it is my understanding that the "kit" takumars were made and priced to attract people to Pentax at a lost. At any case, I have never seen other lenses as beautiful and well done as the takumars. There is absolutely nothing I dont like about the takumars. Takuma Kajiwara et al deserve a shrine in this forum.
05-10-2008, 06:49 AM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nowhere, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 654
QuoteOriginally posted by Buffy Quote
Well, I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I'm nearly blind and can't focus manually. I must say I do get envious of people picking up great old glass for $20!
Well obviously all trinkets that can be developed to help people with more or less handicaps, be it blindness, having one arm or similar, is of goodness. And I can appreciate that some people can't do something that may seem easy to others. I myself wear glasses, not very bad eyesight, but it helps and I am constantly getting worse.

HOWEVER, with cameras and other techno-popular-things, it tends to go too far, always. Camera lenses or cameras for that matter is no exception. To be perfectly honest, does someone that have two functional hands and arms really need autofocus so badly that they need to spend a months pay to get it and sacrifice quality for it? Same with the zooms really, if you have feet, use them damnit.

I have not been into digital DSLR's for long, but I am already sick and tired of all the whining all over the intraweb. It's "Omgozors you can't use Pentax! They can't shoot 8bps at highest quality!!!", "LOLOLOMFG You can't seriously mean you are going to use a Canon?! They don't have stabilization in their house!" etc. etc.

Fact is, if you can't go out and get a good picture with a manual Super Tak or any other EXCELLENT lens for 3(yes my Pentacon 135/3,5f cost me 3$)-20$ on any of the new houses, no matter what brand, you probably should get another hobby. For some reason we seem to need technical solutions/compromises for everything nowdays. And it do cost, both cash and quality. But more importantly, it costs fun/skill/brain activity.

Just some days ago I saw some articles about a camera that was being developed at MIT(i believe). It put focus into post production. Basically, you took up the camera and shot a picture, no focusing or anything needed. When you got home to postproduction you could then select where in the picture the focus should be. Basically, a branch in the wind could take a good picture with it. Where is the fun in that? When all labour is taken away from a profession/hobby it slowly dies. I went thru this with computers and telephones, back in the eighties we used to do tricks to telephones to make them do funky stuff. We used to use internet (before it was internet) to do funky stuff. And all of the sudden, the general population was surfing the web. Quality in the web, computer accessories, computers themselves etc, went down the drain.

We demand that everything should be done for us. We demand that everything should be cheap. We demand that we should be professionals over night. Thats the problem, not Pentax, not Sigma or any other lenseproducer. It's the amateur photographers that ruins the quality of the lenses, by demanding prices that cannot be done with all the trinkets inside our lenses and with proper build quality, noone would pay for them lenses.

We have told the industry that we want them to make plastic crap that we can buy one year and throw out the next for a new one. How many DA 50-200 lenses or DA 18-55 will you see in 60 years used by people? I guess, near NONE. I believe there is a bigger chance that people will use Super Takumars 2050 then todays lenses. Because they scream buildquality. And they are way better then most amateurs will ever need. Most of us will never need the sharpness of the 2500$ or 50000$ lenses. We can use a 3$ lense and get the same quality of the end product our pictures. And appearently after seeing this thread, we can get even better pictures with our 3$ lenses, by just taking a deep breath, turn our wrist and maybe take a step back or forth.

Just take a minute and consider it, if it is so damn hard to manually turn a wheel on your lense to get a personal picture that you personally made. Is photography really for you?

And the same is for pixelpeepers in general. Seriously. Go out and take a picture instead.

<rant mode : OFF>

Btw, Buffy, I had a hard time too. I then turned on the sound that beeps when I am in focus and turned of the red irritating square in the centre. Try that and focus with your lenses. It helps alot. Also changing the focusscreen helps alot I hear. Have not tried it yet, but getting a new one in the end of the month.

05-10-2008, 07:05 AM   #35
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,599
Like everybody else I'd say that the CA/PF issues bother me most. In addition the SMC 300mm F4.0 did not come with a tripod mount. I had to get a third party mount for it. One question, do the limiteds have as much a problem with CA/PF on film bodies? Or is it purely a digital phenomenon?

NaCl(I still think my best buy was my SMC 135 F2.5)H2O
05-10-2008, 07:10 AM   #36
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
I cant count how many times I have had that same discussion with people, and I couldn't agree more with your views.


for manual focusing, yes turn off the red focus indicators, and use the beep or the green hexagon in the viewfinder display for focus accuracy, I find the green hexagon very accurate. and if you have the cash, nothing beats a split image focusing screen for ultimate accuracy.
05-10-2008, 08:56 AM   #37
Pentaxian
8540tomg's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,444
DA 70 and Limiteds

YIKES!!!

Frank you're scaring me. That's a very disturbing image for those of us with a DA 70 in their bags. No problems with mine so far. I have nothing but good things to say. We can only hope this is a unique instance or that the lens had been damaged in some way. I was unaware of other issues with DA Limiteds. Has anyone else experienced problems such as this with DA Limiteds?
05-10-2008, 10:35 PM   #38
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
Original Poster
Ah yes another gripe I had was the FA zooms with the powerzoom buttons. The switch often failed and just popped out from the lens barrel.

Another this is that some of the consumer zooms like the FA 100-300mm don't even have a metal lens mount but hard plastic. How much more would it cost to have a metal bayonet mount?

05-11-2008, 12:09 AM   #39
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,309
In generally terms. Inconsistent QC.

Ben
05-11-2008, 06:21 AM   #40
Junior Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 34
By far the thing I like most about Pentax lenses is the ability to use the older lenses with the new bodies. I have a heap of fun using the old manual focus lenses and they have already stood the test of time.
05-11-2008, 07:22 AM   #41
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 512
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
... and if you have the cash, nothing beats a split image focusing screen for ultimate accuracy.
I spent about $30 for one of the Ebay screens and it is working just fine.

Zewrak, that was funny as hell! I enjoyed your rant and with your permission will share it with others.
05-11-2008, 07:28 AM   #42
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 942
QuoteOriginally posted by frank Quote
...

The lens just fell apart when the friend was taking photos w/ it (pointing downwards), the front part just came out of the lens w/o any reason I've heard exactly the same thing happened to a DA21 and DA40 too. These are LIMITED lenses, this just can't be happening!

To be honest, I don't have much confidence w/ the qualities of current DA lenses, including DA* or DA pancake limiteds, although I still have some (including the two DA* zooms). We know all current DA lenses are made or assembled in Vietnam. But think about this, some employees there even take the lens out of the factory and sell them on the second hand market! (please don't ask me how I know, but yes, I know it's true). How do we expect good QC if there are employees like this

Pentax, please bring back the old Takumars (and put AF/SDM in them) ...
Frank, you have the worst luck with lenses!

This, the DA35, hopefully you've not had to suffer any others! (for those that don't know, the metal ring that serves at the filter threading on the DA35, was dinged in 4 places out of the box. Bent so that a filter could not even fit in at all. The finish was not effected so unless you tried to put a filter in, it wasn't obvious - but once you saw it, it was clearly a missed QC, not to mention who assembled it like that... again, a limited.)

I will say that the PF monster wasn't really an issue on the DA35, plus one for a new Pentax (Tokina?) optic.

It is really the only drawback outside of price on FA31 however. It fringes quite readily given the opportunity.

QuoteOriginally posted by Zewrak Quote
...
To be a bit philosophical, why on earth would people spend hundreds of dollars to get worse image quality, just to get autofocus? Is it really that valuable, not only monetary, but also qualitywise on the end product, the picture.
Marketing! Not to talk down to those who need what they need because they need it though, sometimes people actually work with their cameras, lol.

QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
In generally terms. Inconsistent QC.

Ben
I think this is the #1 gripe we'll take out of this thread. My first K20 had a hot pixel, returned and the afforementioned DA35, returned. The only Pentax lens I have in my wish list is the 60-250 as my only zoom, for outdoor sport shooting. I'll be waiting to buy it from my local store though, just in case.
05-11-2008, 07:46 AM   #43
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS
Posts: 3,262
QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
In generally terms. Inconsistent QC.
Someone else brought this up in another thread, asking if Pentax has any Quality Control.

I think it would be naive to think they don't have any QC, but you're right about it needing to improve. My theory is they do have some people doing QC, but probably not Pentax staff doing QC, someone who's got something staked in the quality of the gear.

Methinks that a Pentax rep goes to the factory in Vietnam or wherever, gives a two-hour training session to the "QC" guy, and that's that. Pentax rep hits the next flight back to Osaka.

The guy back at the factory doesn't really do a good job, as what does he care if the lenses get screwed up? They'll get another contract from Panasonic or Sony or whoever to make lenses for them. In all probability, the QC guy will never get to use the lens, so what's it to him?

Or, maybe Tokina give Pentax the scraps.

I'm not gonna be completely naive myself by not stating that maybe it is someone in-house doing the QC. If so, then I'd be very sad.

QuoteOriginally posted by Roburg Quote
By far the thing I like most about Pentax lenses is the ability to use the older lenses with the new bodies. I have a heap of fun using the old manual focus lenses and they have already stood the test of time.
Man, no one gets that.

We're programmed not to get it. We're programmed to blindingly accept that Newer=Better and we should buy it. Even if the actual quality increase is negligible, as well as the difference between the release of the old and the new. In fact, no matter how crap the new stuff is, we should buy it because it's new. God forbid we look poor.

Of course, in the camera world, that's not everything. It's ballsy of Pentax to have kept the K-mount into the digital age, with fully workable compatibility. They could've changed the mount, and the flange-to-film distance (didn't even change the FTF distance when the moved from M42, and even sold adapters for 'em) so as to force everyone to buy news lenses, like Canon did with their FD-to-EOS transition.

Or not change the mount, but simply remove the features from the camera that lets people use older lenses, like Nikon. Same diff, in the parlance of our times.

I was in the great library that is Borders Bookshop, reading a book on "35mm Camera Collecting" the other day. Collector's oughta know something about what they're collecting. Then I remembered this was a camera collector - which means Leica anything, Nikon anything, maybe some old Contax RFs, Canon RFs and the oddball Eastern Bloc stuff. C'est tout - Pentax didn't get a mention in the 60s and 70s category much at all, and bugger-all elsewhere.

It did mention that "as with all older lenses, older [Pentax] lenses won't work with newer cameras."

It just goes to show how unique true backwards-compatibility is, and how it's not recognised much in the Nikon/Canon world.
05-11-2008, 08:04 AM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,749
Fringing, cyan especially but also purple. That and being asked to pay a premium for SDM when other marques have it on budget lenses.
05-11-2008, 08:05 AM   #45
Pentaxian
raider's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,931
QuoteOriginally posted by frank Quote
All the three FA Limited lenses are prone to CA (or PF, or whatever you call it) at wide aperture, and some DA lenses aren't any better in this regard Some users claimed that the DFA100 macro lens has exactly the same optical design as the FA100 macro, but the FA100 produces much less CA/PF at wide aperture.

Funny thing is, some old manual lenses don't suffer this problem, or at least are not as serious as the later FA/DA lenses. Even my old A15/3.5 has much less CA/PF problem than the new DA14.

I don't know what happened w/ Pentax current lens design, not to say the QC issues even w/DA* or DA Limited lenses Here is the DA70 lens my friend just passed to me a week ago (sorry about the lousy IQ, I only had an old FA28-80PZ lens w/ me to take these photos before I sent it to our local agent for repair):





The lens just fell apart when the friend was taking photos w/ it (pointing downwards), the front part just came out of the lens w/o any reason I've heard exactly the same thing happened to a DA21 and DA40 too. These are LIMITED lenses, this just can't be happening!

To be honest, I don't have much confidence w/ the qualities of current DA lenses, including DA* or DA pancake limiteds, although I still have some (including the two DA* zooms). We know all current DA lenses are made or assembled in Vietnam. But think about this, some employees there even take the lens out of the factory and sell them on the second hand market! (please don't ask me how I know, but yes, I know it's true). How do we expect good QC if there are employees like this

Pentax, please bring back the old Takumars (and put AF/SDM in them) ...
Wow! The DA70 lens look so simple after being dissected and the internal shell look so empty too.
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!
eyes, k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Pentax don't need a swivel LCD screen Douglas_of_Sweden Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 10 11-09-2010 04:26 PM
Nature Don't Feck With Me! donallison13 Post Your Photos! 1 11-02-2010 09:10 PM
Nature Don't Feck With Me! donallison13 Post Your Photos! 1 11-02-2010 06:27 PM
HI,I'm Don Dryer d-dryer Welcomes and Introductions 3 11-10-2009 07:47 PM
Don Neal donneal Welcomes and Introductions 2 01-25-2009 05:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 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