Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-31-2011, 09:35 PM   #196
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
How did the A4 focus chart compare to the SmegAlign?
BTW, using "real world stuff" is what I did for my own calibration and I've been very happy with my results since then.
I ended up using a combination of the two

QuoteQuote:
Your notion of "proof" and my notion of "proof" are very different.
My notion of proof is getting real world pictures sharp. That's all that matters

QuoteQuote:
Doesn't the "inconsistency" issue you reported bother you?
If a K-5 only gives me 7 out of 10 shots in focus independently of light levels, I'd be downgrading if I exchanged my K100D with a K-5.
Yes it bothers me. I think Pentax need to sort this out in 1.04

However there's an easy workaround for 99% of shots I take.

You really oughta get a K-5. You'll love it

04-01-2011, 04:32 AM   #197
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
QuoteOriginally posted by Ray Pulley Quote
Tommo,

There are many versions of this lens, but I have one (f2.8) and it isn't very sharp wide open.

It is pretty good stopped down a bit though.

Of course, if I had my druthers (whatever a druther is), I would have the legendary FA 80-200 f2.8.

I swear that it seems like I have been drooling over that lens for so long that bell bottoms and tie-dye have come and gone twice in the meantime...

Ray
LMAO..your a funny bugger Ray..cheers for that post dude...its put a smile on my dial.

QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Mate, that'd be the inherent softness of the lens by design.
My own copy was not sharp until f/5.6, and even then it was not sharp throughout the frame.
So I'm afraid if you're looking for better performance, the Tamron 70-200 and Pentax 80-200 may be able to offer this. Otherwise it'll have to be fast telephoto primes.
yes mate, I think, as the old man used to say, " Im pushing shit up hill without a wheelbarrow" in trying to get my copy sharp at F2.8... Ive just done some lens testing with the new OS version, back to back with the Sigma 50-500 and the 120-400, the results were quite suprising to say the least..more on that later!!!
04-01-2011, 06:26 AM   #198
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,799
So here's my question - how did the camera perform out of the box without calibration? I typically shoot zooms, though the 100mm FA Macro is my major exception. Perhaps that's a candidate for calibration. I just ordered a K-5, hoping for some increased performance this year.
04-01-2011, 06:38 AM   #199
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by TER-OR Quote
So here's my question - how did the camera perform out of the box without calibration? I typically shoot zooms, though the 100mm FA Macro is my major exception. Perhaps that's a candidate for calibration. I just ordered a K-5, hoping for some increased performance this year.
For my K-5s ..... Some lenses did and some didn't.

04-01-2011, 10:44 PM   #200
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,691
QuoteOriginally posted by Tommot1965 Quote
yes mate, I think, as the old man used to say, " Im pushing shit up hill without a wheelbarrow" in trying to get my copy sharp at F2.8... Ive just done some lens testing with the new OS version, back to back with the Sigma 50-500 and the 120-400, the results were quite suprising to say the least..more on that later!!!
Great. Look forward to your account of these Sigma telezooms. I'm personally disappointed with their 70-200s of late.
04-04-2011, 03:37 PM   #201
Veteran Member
Squier's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxfordshire UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 707
Well at least this page is easier to read than the 1st page.

Fascinating thread, but having to keep scrolling about 6" to the right at every sentence to read it, then back again for the next sentence, then 6" to right to read it, then back again is a tad tedious..

There appears to be slightly more sensible size photos this time
04-04-2011, 05:19 PM   #202
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,176
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
I'm personally disappointed with their 70-200s of late.
The shots from a 70-200 HSM II on the Marketplace look great to my eyes. I decided my next lens should be a portrait lens, otherwise, I'd jump at it.

Or is that not a recent one?
04-04-2011, 07:08 PM   #203
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Squier Quote
Well at least this page is easier to read than the 1st page.

Fascinating thread, but having to keep scrolling about 6" to the right at every sentence to read it, then back again for the next sentence, then 6" to right to read it, then back again is a tad tedious..

There appears to be slightly more sensible size photos this time
Good point and that's why I kept my pics in the1st page at 800px wide. To allow users of tiny monitors not to have to scroll.

04-04-2011, 07:27 PM   #204
Veteran Member
Squier's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxfordshire UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 707
But page 2 800?

Try 1400 / 1100

I got a 22" monitor and the text runs way off the screen. Page 3 is much better
04-04-2011, 07:35 PM   #205
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,691
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The shots from a 70-200 HSM II on the Marketplace look great to my eyes. I decided my next lens should be a portrait lens, otherwise, I'd jump at it.

Or is that not a recent one?
Yep, real recent, and definitely nicely rendered images there, but I doubt these were challenging the lens's IQ capabilities (i.e. these would not have been at f/2.8-4 and resized for web - not useful for judging IQ).

Last edited by Ash; 04-04-2011 at 07:44 PM.
04-04-2011, 07:41 PM   #206
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
Those shots were at f5.6 and cropped to about 50%. , from f 4 it's good, f2.8 is soft
04-05-2011, 02:24 PM   #207
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,176
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Yep, real recent, and definitely nicely rendered images there, but I doubt these were challenging the lens's IQ capabilities (i.e. these would not have been at f/2.8-4 and resized for web - not useful for judging IQ).
Even at this size I can see whether a lens performs or doesn't. I've never seen any larger images from the Pentax 55-300 and still was able to form an opinion that this lens punches well above its price class.

Falconeye once did a little back-of-the-envelope calculation and it turns out that you cannot readily dismiss the hypothesis that critical sharpness can be inferred from downsized images.

Of course there is more opportunity for a poster to fool you with clever output sharpening but when that's overdone it shows.

I understand that the lens isn't great at its MFD wide open. AFAIC, Sigma should not call it "Macro". But it appears that there are copies that do a stunning job in all other situations. You've seen samples of sharp f/2.8 images in the thread you once started about your copy which apparently wasn't quite up to scratch.

QuoteOriginally posted by Tommot1965 Quote
Those shots were at f5.6 and cropped to about 50%. , from f 4 it's good, f2.8 is soft
Maybe your copy wasn't in ideal shape either? Let me know if you want to see the thread Ash once started with the sharp f/2.8 samples and I'll search for it.
04-05-2011, 03:45 PM   #208
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Squier Quote
But page 2 800?

Try 1400 / 1100

I got a 22" monitor and the text runs way off the screen. Page 3 is much better
I can't see any pics on page 2

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!
camera, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k20d, k5, lens, light, pentax k-5, sigma, test, tungsten
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K20D versus K10D Mapleleaf-Mick Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 12-24-2010 10:58 AM
gx20 versus k20d! kositoes Pentax DSLR Discussion 22 09-25-2009 03:00 PM
Tests to determine if a new K20D is faulty eman Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 07-05-2008 10:30 PM
gx-20 versus k20d anyone? davieFL Photographic Technique 1 06-18-2008 12:23 PM
Some K20D Vs K10D ISO noise tests (100 to 6400) RiceHigh Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 02-25-2008 04:00 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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