Thread reopened.

[axl]

Thanks for quick action Gary.
---
guys can we really stick with the original question and leave the other bickering for somewhere else?

TIA
Peter

[Alex00]

Well clearly I've been a poor defender of the (non)faith (sorry Gary! ), but it's a bit amusing that Alex is balancing his entire soapbox on the one photo. He apparently will continue to dismiss anything else out of hand until we all post the requisite indoor-baby-headshot! How about playing devil's advocate and asking for Alex to post some great shots other than babies indoors? When it comes to things like sports I believe for example the Sigma 70-200 HSM AF will run rings around the DA*50-135's vaunted SDM. Although I will agree that the image quality of the 50-135 is excellent, it's the SDM that's the issue in this poll, and when used for purposes other than indoor baby headshots, one may find that this lens is not necessarily the end-all/be-all. Peace out!

I just peaked out of the window and took this photo. You can download the original at http://prowebb.com/IMGP1183.JPG
Note Photo size: 10mb.
Just right click and save it if you want to see it in full quality.

Photo taken with
F5
1/500
ISO200 (Used 200 instead of 100 due to internal highlight correction being on to prevent over exposing the leaves)

[deadwolfbones]

I would have the 16-50 and 50-135 by now if not for the SDM issues. Having seen my Sigma's HSM fail, I'm not ready to jump back on the failboat. I'll stick with proven tech.

[Mike L]

I'd like a 16-50 but I'm a not brave enough to play $600 russian roulette with 1 of those, my second option is a 17-70 but SDM issues (real or imagined) are enough to keep me using the kit lens for a while longer.

[Dan]

I have purchased a lot of Pentax equipment. I really like my Pentax gear. I have no plans to switch back to Nikon, or to switch to any other brand. But given the current high failure rates of SDM, given the ridiculously short warranty period, and given the unwillingness of Pentax to enable the ability to switch to screw-drive focus (for those lenses that support it), I will not not consider purchasing any SDM lens.

For those who say that the problem is blown out of proportion, I disagree. I have studied Statistics at the graduate level, and I can tell you that we would not be seeing the level of self-reported failures if there were not a serious problem. The good news is that the camera bodies, the Limited-series lenses, and the K-, M-, A-, F- and FA-series lenses do not suffer from similar failure rates. Most of my Pentax equipment is rock solid. The SDM lenses are an embarrassment.

Dan

[Jester_rm]

Since all I have is a K100D without SDM, I'd have to say no :P

[pacerr]

All this 'modern' stuff is truly eye-watering, but...I'm still tickled pink with TTL metering. I thought I'd died 'n gone to photo heaven when I could afford a Spotmatic. And I'm absolutely amazed with digital imaging of any sort. (OK, the day I took 400+ images on a $40 chip I wasn't accounting for the cost of the equipment -- but it was a one time cost.)

I might match, but I'm not goin' to better, the images I took on film in my life time no matter what I spend on hardware or computer stuff.

I have camera bodies and lenses that are 40+ years old. Most of the lenses work PERFECTLY WELL on DSLRs -- WOW! It ain't gonna get better 'n that in my life time either.

WHY WOULD I, (OR YOU), SPEND $,$$$ ON NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS PROVEN TO BE FAILURE PRONE IN THE FIRST FEW YEARS OF ITS LIFE?

I'm still enjoying exploring the possibilities of equipment I've had since 1967. Everything except a recent (inexpensive) foray into Mamiya M645 gear and rejuvenating B&W film has been Pentax.

Sorry, but I just can't get excited about failures in new technology when I haven't yet mastered the old.

Y'all go forward an press the boundaries of the possible -- some of us will stay behind an' keep the photo gears turnin' til you get it right.

H2

Listenin' to Brubeck's classic 'Take Five' from the '60's as I type -- on a transistor chip-constructed, digital HiFi system -- hey, I'm not a Ludite.

[paulelescoces]

some statistics... I actually do this for a living but thought that the pentax example was a funny one

2 groups of Pentax SDM users... 1 group has no SDM issues, the 2nd group has "issues". Can we not conclude based on these statistics that its user related

above is tongue in cheek of course... but for some more interesting statistics...

did you know that the murder rate in the US is higher in cities with more hospitals... I will leave you to make your own conclusion.

how is this related to the artical... well, this is the first real SDM pole which for me has any value, understand the effect on the potential buying population... all the previous polls trying to statistically define the failure rates have been less successful.

[Alex00]

............

[asdf]

The calculated percentage of the poll is incorrect.
19 no
58 yes.

That should make the percentage 32% to 68%. It's showing 24% 75%.

19/(19+58) = 0.24... 58/(19+58) = 0.75...

[blind-bat]

The calculated percentage of the poll is incorrect.
19 no
58 yes.

That should make the percentage 32% to 68%. It's showing 24% 75%.

NO IT IS NOT. The 24% to 75% is closer to reality. My 8 year old can even tell you this. Your bias or poor math skills are starting to show.

[LeDave]

NO IT IS NOT. The 24% to 75% is closer to reality. My 8 year old can even tell you this. Your bias or poor math skills are starting to show.

I wouldn't call it bias, but more like fanboyism.

[paulelescoces]

The calculated percentage of the poll is incorrect.
19 no
58 yes.

That should make the percentage 32% to 68%. It's showing 24% 75%.

haha, thats just hilarious... forget the spell check, in this case we need a simple math check. I was always in the belief that people thought before they typed

[Pentaxor]

The calculated percentage of the poll is incorrect.
19 no
58 yes.

That should make the percentage 32% to 68%. It's showing 24% 75%.

you might want to review this first >>> How to Calculate Percentage