[joele]

Quick recap.

I was having trouble with my new FA31 being very unpredictable, it would be sharp one shot then very soft the next, I just couldn't get consistent results..

Sent it to CRK, they said it was slightly BF and they could adjust my camera. That didn't fit with my experience of using it, and I wanted the lens fixed not my camera adjusted.

They agreed to send to Japan for me but seemed of the opinion there was nothing they could do there as they thought there was nothing really wrong with it. I only saw an error apparently as I used DSLR, in the film days I never would have known. :-/

Update

Well I got a call from CRK today to organize to pick my lens up, it is back from Japan where they tested and decided to replace one of the optical groups. Wouldn't that suggest a little more than a slight BF issue??

[Wheatfield]

Don't be too hard on Kennedy, it's doubtful that they have the resources that Pentax Japan has regarding testing.
When my 60-250 quite autofocusing I sent it to Pentax Canada, who then sent it to Japan because they couldn't complete the repair themselves.

[joele]

Yeah I know, I was just annoyed that they suggested in the film days I never would have even known, like that was a reason not to do anything about it when it turns out it was faulty (I think more than slight BF, as they wouldn't replace an entire optical group just for a slight BF would they?)..

Anyway I get the lens back later today, eager to see if the performance is on par to roentarre's copy, as that is an amazing lens ;-)

[Blue]

I don't understand the "film days" comment either. First off, people are still shooting film. Second, you would check it the same way. The big difference is that the film would have to be developed and either printed or scanned to evaluate it whereas digital you can do it on a monitor.

[Wheatfield]

I don't understand the "film days" comment either. First off, people are still shooting film. Second, you would check it the same way. The big difference is that the film would have to be developed and either printed or scanned to evaluate it whereas digital you can do it on a monitor.

The difference is that now we look at pictures at effectively about 4x6 feet, not 4x6 inches.

[Blue]

The difference is that now we look at pictures at effectively about 4x6 feet, not 4x6 inches.

Even if you are looking at a billboard, you still have to actually image a scale to determine if its back or front focusing was my point.

Edit: So you have a 4' x 6' monitor and/or printer? My largest printer is 13" x19" unless I count the one at work which is 4' wide by however long the pallet is set up.

Edit: Edit: Or to put it another way, I think a lot of the guys that are so new they don't know much about film are kind of like these guys>

[wlachan]

Would love to know if the problem goes away after the repair.

[joele]

I have the lens back, but want to try it out outside during the day and see how it goes.. I think inside the house (we have very low lighting which pentax AF doesn't like) it seems more consistant at least.. Will let you know tomorrow..

[Wheatfield]

Even if you are looking at a billboard, you still have to actually image a scale to determine if its back or front focusing was my point.

Edit: So you have a 4' x 6' monitor and/or printer? :Hysterical: My largest printer is 13" x19" unless I count the one at work which is 4' wide by however long the pallet is set up.

Edit: Edit: Or to put it another way, I think a lot of the guys that are so new they don't know much about film are kind of like these guys> :3stooges:

You're point was very unclear (non existent), and you are pulling a Rupert regarding monitors.

When we look at an image at 100%, we have effectively blown the image up to very large dimensions, which is why you have to scroll around the image to see all of it.
If you want to learn a bit about this, open an image in Photoshop and then open the image properties.
Turn off the resampling option and set the dpi to 72 (screen resolution).
You will note that your image dimensions are several feet on one side.
The K7 makes pictures that are 43.111 inches by 64.889 inches (close to 4x6 feet).
When I wrote the original post I had just looked at some images from a friend's 7D, which are exactly 4x6 feet at screen resolution.
This sort of image scrutiny was never given to film images by most people, generally an 8x10 or 11x14 was as a large as most people went, but now we routinely look at images at dimensions of several feet by several feet and then bork like ducks because we see flaws.

[Blue]

You're point was very unclear (non existent), and you are pulling a Rupert regarding monitors.

When we look at an image at 100%, we have effectively blown the image up to very large dimensions, which is why you have to scroll around the image to see all of it.
If you want to learn a bit about this, open an image in Photoshop and then open the image properties.
Turn off the resampling option and set the dpi to 72 (screen resolution).
You will note that your image dimensions are several feet on one side.
The K7 makes pictures that are 43.111 inches by 64.889 inches (close to 4x6 feet).
When I wrote the original post I had just looked at some images from a friend's 7D, which are exactly 4x6 feet at screen resolution.
This sort of image scrutiny was never given to film images by most people, generally an 8x10 or 11x14 was as a large as most people went, but now we routinely look at images at dimensions of several feet by several feet and then bork like ducks because we see flaws.

Actually, you are the one pulling "a Rupert" by being and old Curmudgeon. Now you are trying to shift the discussion how to use a monitor. So I'm going to redirect your Alzheimers here. Its about doing a test for back-front focus. You do it the same way for a film camera and a digital other than you have to develop film. Unless you have a large monitor (which I actually do), you can't see the whole image at once, and if you are looking at certain kinds of images such as a serious macro, it matters.

Go here and exercise your brain . . .

LensAlign® Focus Calibration System


The FA 31mm, FA 43mm and FA 77mm lenses for example will back/front focus etc. on digital and film if they are whacked and will require repair. It doesn't show up as obviously during "chimping" or printing 4x6 on the photo printer either. The guy that at CRK was therefore incorrect about his film comment. Just because we can see a problem doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. That would be a lot like misdiagnosing someone with Ekbom syndrome when they in fact had an outbreak of bed bugs. In other words, just because there are some delusional people out there doesn't mean that everyone is.

[brecklundin]

You're point was very unclear (non existent), and you are pulling a Rupert regarding monitors.

When we look at an image at 100%, we have effectively blown the image up to very large dimensions, which is why you have to scroll around the image to see all of it.
If you want to learn a bit about this, open an image in Photoshop and then open the image properties.
Turn off the resampling option and set the dpi to 72 (screen resolution).
You will note that your image dimensions are several feet on one side.
The K7 makes pictures that are 43.111 inches by 64.889 inches (close to 4x6 feet).
When I wrote the original post I had just looked at some images from a friend's 7D, which are exactly 4x6 feet at screen resolution.
This sort of image scrutiny was never given to film images by most people, generally an 8x10 or 11x14 was as a large as most people went, but now we routinely look at images at dimensions of several feet by several feet and then bork like ducks because we see flaws.

Actually, you are the one pulling "a Rupert" by being and old Curmudgeon. Now you are trying to shift the discussion how to use a monitor. So I'm going to redirect your Alzheimers here. Its about doing a test for back-front focus. You do it the same way for a film camera and a digital other than you have to develop film. Unless you have a large monitor (which I actually do), you can't see the whole image at once, and if you are looking at certain kinds of images such as a serious macro, it matters.

Go here and exercise your brain . . .

LensAlign® Focus Calibration System

fun....you two are reminding me of the "old married couple" nextdoor, after 60yrs together they don't even listen to each other when bickering...

Anyone making the popcorn?

[Blue]

fun....you two are reminding me of the "old married couple" nextdoor, after 60yrs together they don't even listen to each other when bickering...

Anyone making the popcorn?

The only thing is, he is more like my grandpa.

[brecklundin]

The only thing is, he is more like my grandpa.

hehehehe....stop it!! I have work to do...but it's hard not to watch...

[Wheatfield]

I don't understand the "film days" comment either. First off, people are still shooting film. Second, you would check it the same way. The big difference is that the film would have to be developed and either printed or scanned to evaluate it whereas digital you can do it on a monitor.

OK, just what were you getting at with the above quote?
My read was that with film you'd make a (generally fairly small) print and determine image quality from that whereas with digital we are blowing the image up to relatively gargantuan proportions (100%) and then making image quality decisions.

If you were saying something else, perhaps you could have been a bit more clear about whatever point you were getting at.

Now I've only been shooting pictures for about 4 decades so I'm a relative newcomer to this stuff, but I've noticed that the bigger you magnify an image the easier it is to pick out technical flaws, be they focus issues or lens aberrations or whatever.
Perhaps things aren't quite the same in your world as they are in mine.
And perhaps this is a good thing.

[Blue]

The point is that if the lens is out of whack, its out of whack. The attitude that people never notice problems with lenses or lack of sharpness etc. before digital is silly and you know it.

OK, just what were you getting at with the above quote?
My read was that with film you'd make a (generally fairly small) print and determine image quality from that whereas with digital we are blowing the image up to relatively gargantuan proportions (100%) and then making image quality decisions.

If you were saying something else, perhaps you could have been a bit more clear about whatever point you were getting at.

Now I've only been shooting pictures for about 4 decades so I'm a relative newcomer to this stuff, but I've noticed that the bigger you magnify an image the easier it is to pick out technical flaws, be they focus issues or lens aberrations or whatever.
Perhaps things aren't quite the same in your world as they are in mine.
And perhaps this is a good thing.

Hence the grandpa comment . . .