[mstahulak]

Not much I've done lately with the 560mm that is both interesting and excellent. But at least this sequence is interesting. From the dark, gloomy day that was New Year's Eve 2019: Rough-legged Hawk at the Bear River Refuge:









by Michael Stahulak, on Flickr

Braced on the top of my car…

[redpit]

Great series!!

[luftfluss]

Not much I've done lately with the 560mm that is both interesting and excellent. But at least this sequence is interesting. From the dark, gloomy day that was New Year's Eve 2019: Rough-legged Hawk at the Bear River Refuge:

Really nice work! I partiularly like how the background is identifiable enough to give a sense of place but smooth enough to not be distracting.

[mstahulak]

Really nice work! I partiularly like how the background is identifiable enough to give a sense of place but smooth enough to not be distracting.

I totally did that on purpose.

After the fiasco reported in another thread (Pentax Lenses Falling Apart - Stripped Internal Screws - PentaxForums.com), and having the second bad copy of this lens repaired by Precision (at my expense due to Ricoh's failure to honor the warranty), I've started actually using the thing.

The pictures below were taken with the 560 coupled with a 1.7x Pentax TC, giving an effective focal length of 952mm. The house is probably about twelve or fifteen miles away, I reckon; as is the bend in Gooney Run. The more expansive view, well, you can't see that house at all, and it gives perspective as to that same bend in the run. That one was made with the 70-200 at 70mm; although that's still a mild telephoto, I think it gives some idea of how far away that bend in the river is. (For those who know the local area, the pictures were taken from the Gooney Run Overlook on Skyline Drive, not far from the Front Royal entrance, and I figure that bend in the run is halfway across the Shenandoah Valley.)

[Mikesul]

Those look pretty good, allowing for the inevitable atmospheric conditions. 15 miles? Wow

[angerdan]

After the fiasco reported in another thread, I've started actually using the thing.
The pictures below were taken with the 560 coupled with a 1.7x Pentax TC, giving an effective focal length of 952mm.
The house is probably about twelve or fifteen miles away, I reckon; as is the bend in Gooney Run.

Good news!
What idea do you have for the 1200mm inside the EXIF-Data instead of the mathematical 952mm?
13.18 miles (21,21 km to 646 Seekford Ln, Rileyville

---

Last edited by angerdan; 06-28-2020 at 11:56 AM.

Good news!
What idea do you have for the 1200mm inside the EXIF-Data instead of the mathematical 952mm?
13.18 miles (21,21 km to 646 Seekford Ln, Rileyville

That 1200mm number was my top-of-the-head response when the camera asked me what the focal length was for the purpose of calculation of metering for contrast evaluation in support of autofocus function. The tc I was using takes over autofocus, so the 560 was on manual. 952 is the correct number, but, well, I often tell folks that if I could do arithmetic, I wouldn't have had to have become a lawyer.

The google maps cite was pretty impressive. I've looked at all the other pictures I took with the 70-200, but can't find that same house. All I can really remember of its position from the observation point on the overlook, was that it was somewhat to my right and about where the Northeastern-most of the three points you identified was. I note that the distances marked are hiking distances, not bee-line distances. So my estimate of 15 mi. may be exaggerated. Ah don' rightly know. But 13.18 seems like, "close enough for Government work."

Next time, I'll take my rangefinder with me, though I'm not sure it'll work at that distance.

[angerdan]

The google maps cite was pretty impressive.
I note that the distances marked are hiking distances, not bee-line distances.
But 13.18 seems like, "close enough for Government work."

Thanks
Distance marked in the route is just for connecting the two points together. Measurement of course is done as the crow flies.
Well spoken, my measurement would be even precise enough for military work

[Chris Mak]

After the fiasco reported in another thread (Pentax Lenses Falling Apart - Stripped Internal Screws - PentaxForums.com), and having the second bad copy of this lens repaired by Precision (at my expense due to Ricoh's failure to honor the warranty), I've started actually using the thing.

The pictures below were taken with the 560 coupled with a 1.7x Pentax TC, giving an effective focal length of 952mm. The house is probably about twelve or fifteen miles away, I reckon; as is the bend in Gooney Run. The more expansive view, well, you can't see that house at all, and it gives perspective as to that same bend in the run. That one was made with the 70-200 at 70mm; although that's still a mild telephoto, I think it gives some idea of how far away that bend in the river is. (For those who know the local area, the pictures were taken from the Gooney Run Overlook on Skyline Drive, not far from the Front Royal entrance, and I figure that bend in the run is halfway across the Shenandoah Valley.)

I just read about you trials with the DA560, and was stumped!
I used the DA560 for almost five years and was under the impression that it was actually a well built lens, made in Japan after all. But taking a look at the connection between the front lens tube and the lens body where the tripod collar is, it does not look well designed and put together at all. If the screws can be clean pulled out without the lens even having suffered a heavy fall or blow, then there is something seriously lacking with the build quality of the lens. I read about a few failings of the DC AF motor also, and at the (original) price of this lens, this all should not happen.

I am still debating whether to re-purchase the DA560 with the coming K-X, or save up for a Nikon 500F4E, but reading about the issues with the build quality of the DA560, I will likely opt for the Nikon, as I might not be so lucky again.

[siva.ss.kumar]

I just read about you trials with the DA560, and was stumped!
I used the DA560 for almost five years and was under the impression that it was actually a well built lens, made in Japan after all. But taking a look at the connection between the front lens tube and the lens body where the tripod collar is, it does not look well designed and put together at all. If the screws can be clean pulled out without the lens even having suffered a heavy fall or blow, then there is something seriously lacking with the build quality of the lens. I read about a few failings of the DC AF motor also, and at the (original) price of this lens, this all should not happen.

I am still debating whether to re-purchase the DA560 with the coming K-X, or save up for a Nikon 500F4E, but reading about the issues with the build quality of the DA560, I will likely opt for the Nikon, as I might not be so lucky again.

You can buy an used one (560). That way you may not pay the full price and know that it won't break in half when picking up :-)

...
I am still debating whether to re-purchase the DA560 with the coming K-X, or save up for a Nikon 500F4E, but reading about the issues with the build quality of the DA560, I will likely opt for the Nikon, as I might not be so lucky again.

The kicker for me was the lack of any real customer support, and especially their refusal to honor their warranties. The first couple of times, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I even wrote something somewhere about how it's not really a problem because Pentax's lower purchase prices are due to a reduction of the "advertising tax", the extra that manufacturers charge to pay their advertising budget overhead. But now I've come to the conclusion that it's an intentional fraud, and it's not about the advertising budget - the cheap (impolite characterization of the people involved omitted) just don't want to have to pay for customer support. When I decided I'm not buying anything marked "Pentax" ever again, I went out and bought a Canon EOS 5ds R, the sensor of which doubles the resolution of the K-1, though development of raw data files bogs down the (older, relatively slow) computer.

(Note that "fraud" is a technical term for me, and in this case relies on the concept that one makes a representation of fact when he issues a warranty that he has the present intention to honor that warranty; he commits fraud when that representation is not factually truthful because he never did intend to honor the warranty. I feel I have sufficient evidence at this point to support my opinion that Ricoh/Pentax is civilly liable.)

[Chris Mak]

The kicker for me was the lack of any real customer support, and especially their refusal to honor their warranties. The first couple of times, I gave them the benefit of the doubt. I even wrote something somewhere about how it's not really a problem because Pentax's lower purchase prices are due to a reduction of the "advertising tax", the extra that manufacturers charge to pay their advertising budget overhead. But now I've come to the conclusion that it's an intentional fraud, and it's not about the advertising budget - the cheap (impolite characterization of the people involved omitted) just don't want to have to pay for customer support. When I decided I'm not buying anything marked "Pentax" ever again, I went out and bought a Canon EOS 5ds R, the sensor of which doubles the resolution of the K-1, though development of raw data files bogs down the (older, relatively slow) computer.

(Note that "fraud" is a technical term for me, and in this case relies on the concept that one makes a representation of fact when he issues a warranty that he has the present intention to honor that warranty; he commits fraud when that representation is not factually truthful because he never did intend to honor the warranty. I feel I have sufficient evidence at this point to support my opinion that Ricoh/Pentax is civilly liable.)

It's simple, If you bought a new lens (certainly in that that price range) that simply fell apart when unpacking the box, then it is totally inexcusable that they had you pay for repair. I would have taken this, if at all possible, as far to Pentax headquarters as possible, and certainly never buy anything Pentax again. But also the shop and precision repair facility are to blame. It comes across as if all parties were ducking their responsabilities. This type of behavior suits a company in decline that has no plans to continue for very long...
Your story in short is shocking if things went exactly as you described...

[darylk]

Fledgling barn swallows react upon seeing a parent flying nearby. Still very needy.

K1-II, 1/400 sec, f/9, ISO 4000. Shot through an open window with window sill as a steady rest.

It's simple, If you bought a new lens (certainly in that that price range) that simply fell apart when unpacking the box, then it is totally inexcusable that they had you pay for repair. I would have taken this, if at all possible, as far to Pentax headquarters as possible, and certainly never buy anything Pentax again. But also the shop and precision repair facility are to blame. It comes across as if all parties were ducking their responsabilities. This type of behavior suits a company in decline that has no plans to continue for very long...
Your story in short is shocking if things went exactly as you described...

Facts exactly as described; I did not communicate with Pentax directly on this, having gotten burned previously in dealing with them. I figured the store would have more pull. And all the parties were clearly ducking responsibilities, but I want the store on my side when the case comes to trial. I am really not sure about Precision - it may be they did their job, they may have told Pentax "this lens was defective and you ought to replace it for free", but they have to do what Pentax tells them as to warranty work, and may not have been given the option of doing the repair on Ricoh's dime.

Once I put a seller on my "do not buy from these guys ever again" list (as I have with Ricoh/Pentax), it's almost impossible to take it off; I'm one of those people who doesn't re-think decisions unless it's necessary. I've already been fooled more than once dealing with them, and there won't be any further opportunities for Pentax to rip me off again.