[mattt]

We want to see pics 🤣🤣🤣🤣👌

Here's a private album..... --> Right Here <--

[RobA_Oz]

Here's a private album..... --> Right Here <--

So far, so good. Thanks, Matt.

[normhead]

Here's a private album..... --> Right Here <--

Nice books....

[Wheatfield]

All that pro support that Nikon and Canon (and I guess Sony, now) provide is as much about advertising to the people who never use it as anything...

Anything to keep that gear in view of the people who buy it when they don't have to...

Actually, that is about serving their pro customers. However, pro customers represent a rather small percentage of pro grade camera sales. It's those wealthy amateurs buying more camera than they will ever use that allow for things like pro services to exist.

[mattt]

Nice books....

A poor stand in for focus charts... and a fine distraction from forum bickering...

[mee]

Actually, that is about serving their pro customers. However, pro customers represent a rather small percentage of pro grade camera sales. It's those wealthy amateurs buying more camera than they will ever use that allow for things like pro services to exist.

I have to think the rich amateur or hobbyist portion of the market is the largest portion of sales for a lot of companies that sell tech related artistic products to consumers.

I see this in the 'pro audio' field with respect to music production and recording. Especially true of the software side.. I've done/do a bit of sound design and testing for companies that have an interesting trove of well known, well respected producers and composers as clients. But the bulk of their money comes from bedroom producers and hobbyists. They wouldn't stay afloat if it wasn't for the sheer number of 'little guys' buying in.


On some occasions the big names are dropped in marketing promotions, which then likely picks up more hobbyist buyer's sales.

It seems that tactic is also used on camera buyers too.. Have pros use your gear, make some videos or have them show up to the forums and chat it up, and give people the sense they are going to get the same results by buying the same gear as these professionals.

[mattt]

So nice to have a lens that doesnt creep when you're out for a walk, and the silent focusing is a huge upgrade from the HD P-DA 55-300mm ƒ4.0-5.8 ED WR - no hunting, and I've not even had a chance to test out the focus limiter. I am anticipating this will be a treat on my upcoming trip to FL.

Here are a few noisey cows for you (added a few more pics to the folder from the walk around the farm this morning)

[disconnekt]

Didnt know it's in Sigma's SA mount lol

---------- Post added 02-09-20 at 07:38 PM ----------

Aslo, I found under the "Compatibility" tab its showing a "Pentax KZ992", which I dont know if its a typo or a placeholder for the upcoming K-?? apsc camera

[BROO]

Aslo, I found under the "Compatibility" tab its showing a "Pentax KZ992", which I dont know if its a typo or a placeholder for the upcoming K-?? apsc camera

Then it's probably not too far away then?

[mee]

So nice to have a lens that doesnt creep when you're out for a walk, and the silent focusing is a huge upgrade from the HD P-DA 55-300mm ƒ4.0-5.8 ED WR - no hunting, and I've not even had a chance to test out the focus limiter. I am anticipating this will be a treat on my upcoming trip to FL.

Here are a few noisey cows for you (added a few more pics to the folder from the walk around the farm this morning)

Still seeing a little fringing in the snow, as one might with the Tamron variant, but its minor and likely easily correctable in post. Extreme case however.



What is that place? It looks like a public farm of some sorts on Google Maps.

[Mistral75]

Adorama listed 'Pentax KZ922' in August 2018:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/373930-new-pent...e-adorama.html

Unknown Pentax KZ922 camera listed at Adorama (now removed) - Pentax Rumors

[sbh]

Here is a little handy table to put this focus breathing stuff into perspective (sorted by max. magnification, which usually is the thing photographers care about, because usually you use the long focal length to get something into the frame in a large way):

How did you get the "longest real focal length at minimum distance"? Is it possible to calculate it? The DFA 70-210 looks very good by these data.

[mattt]

What is that place? It looks like a public farm of some sorts on Google Maps.

It’s a conservation area, converted from a historic farm property. There are a couple of old houses and barns with a few farm animals. They run tours for kids to show what Victorian farm living was like. Next big event there is the Maple Syrup festival.

[beholder3]

How did you get the "longest real focal length at minimum distance"? Is it possible to calculate it? The DFA 70-210 looks very good by these data.

Effective focal length (at minimum focus distance) = Minimum focus distance [mm] / (Maximum reproduction ratio + (1/(Maximum reproduction ratio)) + 2)

As with each and every calculation in photography this is an approximation only. But I have yet to see proof of any significant deviation for lots of real world lenses.

[biz-engineer]

Here's a private album..... --> Right Here <--

I have pixel peeped these image samples at 400% and corners don't look tack sharp even with the lens stopped down to f8, even at the long end. Damn , I think I'm going to hold on my purchase order until we have more test charts available. From memory I think my DFA*70-200 is sharper in corners. Was the camera / lens 100% at a 90 degre angle with the book shelf? (DoF can have an out of focus effect at the edges of the frame).