My life sucks right now

Mike Cash · 12-20-2010, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by clockwork247

one of the thing about sony is cheap lens.

their 50mm f1.7 AF is 70 (maxxum version) or 120 (sony version f/1.8) pentax? 200.

What budget-conscious person is idiot enough to buy new lenses? The great strength of Pentax is backwards compatibility.

$10 lens

$20 lens

$30 lens

JeffJS · 12-20-2010, 12:08 PM

A draw to those lenses though is that they can be put on Any dSLR. You have to buy an adapter to use them on a Pentax dSLR anyway. I do agree that if money is short or you just don't want to spend a lot, the takumars are a great way to go. You lose all Auto function with them though.

clockwork247 · 12-20-2010, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

What budget-conscious person is idiot enough to buy new lenses? The great strength of Pentax is backwards compatibility.

$10 lens

$20 lens

$30 lens

who's stupid enough to compare AF lens to MF lens? there's a reason why they're expensive.

never the less, after trying out both brand today, i prefer the pentax over the sony, aside from the flip out LCD, i think the pentax k-r focus system is much better than the sony (tried out the A33 and the A580)... gonna pick up a pentax and save up money for the stupid prime.

Impartial · 12-20-2010, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by clockwork247

their line up of A560/580 is poping out next year... that's optical DSLR, not sure about later on though. And their flagship (A900/A850) is also optical DSLR... The only SLT are A33, 55 and 77... The A560 is comparable to A33 in term of function ect...

The problem is that the Sony A700 doesn't seem to have an optical replacement coming, nor does the A900/A850 seem to have any replacement whatsoever. And the A560/A580 could well be Sony's last DSLRs . . .

Mike Cash · 12-20-2010, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

You lose all Auto function with them though.

Auto functions are overrated, as is autofocus.

Now I think I know what dobro master Josh Graves meant about being able to play in any key without a capo is what separates the men from the boys. Auto is a crutch.

JeffJS · 12-20-2010, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

Auto functions are overrated, as is autofocus.

Now I think I know what dobro master Josh Graves meant about being able to play in any key without a capo is what separates the men from the boys. Auto is a crutch.

Can't say I've ever seen a capo for a Dobro but if you're talking about a guitar, mandolin, banjo, etc, I agree completely.

clockwork247 · 12-20-2010, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

Auto functions are overrated, as is autofocus.

Now I think I know what dobro master Josh Graves meant about being able to play in any key without a capo is what separates the men from the boys. Auto is a crutch.

I'm not one of those old school shooter, my dad played with film camera, and I never touch it. My 1st camera was an HP digital 3.2MP, that was a POS but i appreciate the tech, if the tech is there to make it more convenient why not use it?

I had enough money to buy DSLR but never bought one (that was a few years ago), the reason was very simple, there was no Live view at the time, and that made the difference for me, I have problems looking through the view finder.

Same thing with auto focus, I thought the K-R was much better than the k-x and the sony... and I need auto focus, I tried doing manual in the store, holy shit it's harder than I thought it was lol, I'm so not doing manual focus unless I have to.

BTW: adorama is stocking the A560, they're the only one so far that I've seen, watching prices on k-r and that one, they're very very closely related in terms of feature and price.

Mike Cash · 12-20-2010, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by clockwork247

who's stupid enough to compare AF lens to MF lens?

Probably only someone stupid enough to think it is possible to tell the difference by looking at photos from the two. But I can't imagine anyone being that stupid.

How on earth did people ever manage to take photos in the bad old days before autofocus was invented? The way that people have become so completely dependent upon this techno-crutch is nothing short of astonishng.

Ira · 12-20-2010, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by clockwork247

I'm not one of those old school shooter, my dad played with film camera, and I never touch it. My 1st camera was an HP digital 3.2MP, that was a POS but i appreciate the tech, if the tech is there to make it more convenient why not use it?

Same thing with auto focus, I thought the K-R was much better than the k-x and the sony... and I need auto focus, I tried doing manual in the store, holy shit it's harder than I thought it was lol, I'm so not doing manual focus unless I have to.

I think you may be mistaken:

Your HP was most probably a rangefinder, and no autofocus.

Do you remember the model #?

clockwork247 · 12-20-2010, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Ira

I think you may be mistaken:

Your HP was most probably a rangefinder, and no autofocus.

Do you remember the model #?

i think so too, i was just refering to the tech (digital tech VS film). I thought i can do manual focus but I tried it, and it's kindda hard.

clockwork247 · 12-20-2010, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

Probably only someone stupid enough to think it is possible to tell the difference by looking at photos from the two. But I can't imagine anyone being that stupid.

How on earth did people ever manage to take photos in the bad old days before autofocus was invented? The way that people have become so completely dependent upon this techno-crutch is nothing short of astonishng.

hey, in the old days where wheels wasn't invented, people was walking to get places... do you walk everywhere like they used to?

People don't do things doesn't means they can't do it, maybe they just don't want to because they're lazy?

Mike Cash · 12-20-2010, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by clockwork247

i think so too, i was just refering to the tech (digital tech VS film). I thought i can do manual focus but I tried it, and it's kindda hard.

It sounds like you tried it precisely one time in your life, probably with the focus ring on an autofocus lens while looking through a viewfinder with a stock focus screen optimized for autofocus. Is that the case? Because if it is you were trying it under the worst possible combination of factors.

clockwork247 · 12-20-2010, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

It sounds like you tried it precisely one time in your life, probably with the focus ring on an autofocus lens while looking through a viewfinder with a stock focus screen optimized for autofocus. Is that the case? Because if it is you were trying it under the worst possible combination of factors.

the lens was AF, but I had it on MF... honestly I'm one of those junk shooter (aka shoot shit load in the shortest amount of time and pick a good one), I just find MF to be slower than AF (obviously), if possible I like to have AF. and you're right the MF is made to be MF so it's a tad easier to work with those.

JeffJS · 12-20-2010, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by clockwork247

the lens was AF, but I had it on MF... honestly I'm one of those junk shooter (aka shoot shit load in the shortest amount of time and pick a good one), I just find MF to be slower than AF (obviously), if possible I like to have AF. and you're right the MF is made to be MF so it's a tad easier to work with those.

Practice and learn to manual focus and that will change.

tibbitts · 12-20-2010, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

How on earth did people ever manage to take photos in the bad old days before autofocus was invented? The way that people have become so completely dependent upon this techno-crutch is nothing short of astonishng.

It's not really that astonishing. Regarding autofocus, cameras used to have better viewfinders. But having said that, most people can probably obtain a higher percentage of in-focus pictures with autofocus, no matter how good or bad their finder or focusing screen might be. In the same sense, most people can take sharper pictures with SR than without it. Most of us can get better results by using better technology.

Paul

12-20-2010, 02:02 PM	#33
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	Originally posted by Mike Cash What budget-conscious person is idiot enough to buy new lenses? The great strength of Pentax is backwards compatibility. $10 lens $20 lens $30 lens who's stupid enough to compare AF lens to MF lens? there's a reason why they're expensive. never the less, after trying out both brand today, i prefer the pentax over the sony, aside from the flip out LCD, i think the pentax k-r focus system is much better than the sony (tried out the A33 and the A580)... gonna pick up a pentax and save up money for the stupid prime. Last edited by clockwork247; 12-20-2010 at 02:08 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Abstract Coz life sucks !~	tthana50	Post Your Photos!	3	10-11-2010 04:09 PM
BP sucks at Photoshop	johnmflores	General Talk	15	07-23-2010 10:44 AM
Why Dpreview sucks on the k-7.	vitalsax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	27	05-26-2009 04:06 AM
Sometimes, life just sucks.	JMS	Photographic Technique	9	05-29-2008 12:14 PM
Tonight sucks!	Buddha Jones	General Talk	8	12-01-2007 03:39 AM

12-20-2010, 11:54 AM	#31
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by clockwork247 one of the thing about sony is cheap lens. their 50mm f1.7 AF is 70 (maxxum version) or 120 (sony version f/1.8) pentax? 200. What budget-conscious person is idiot enough to buy new lenses? The great strength of Pentax is backwards compatibility. $10 lens $20 lens $30 lens

12-20-2010, 12:08 PM	#32
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	A draw to those lenses though is that they can be put on Any dSLR. You have to buy an adapter to use them on a Pentax dSLR anyway. I do agree that if money is short or you just don't want to spend a lot, the takumars are a great way to go. You lose all Auto function with them though.

12-20-2010, 03:01 PM	#34
Impartial Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 208	Originally posted by clockwork247 their line up of A560/580 is poping out next year... that's optical DSLR, not sure about later on though. And their flagship (A900/A850) is also optical DSLR... The only SLT are A33, 55 and 77... The A560 is comparable to A33 in term of function ect... The problem is that the Sony A700 doesn't seem to have an optical replacement coming, nor does the A900/A850 seem to have any replacement whatsoever. And the A560/A580 could well be Sony's last DSLRs . . .

12-20-2010, 03:35 PM	#35
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by JeffJS You lose all Auto function with them though. Auto functions are overrated, as is autofocus. Now I think I know what dobro master Josh Graves meant about being able to play in any key without a capo is what separates the men from the boys. Auto is a crutch.

12-20-2010, 03:51 PM	#36
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by Mike Cash Auto functions are overrated, as is autofocus. Now I think I know what dobro master Josh Graves meant about being able to play in any key without a capo is what separates the men from the boys. Auto is a crutch. Can't say I've ever seen a capo for a Dobro but if you're talking about a guitar, mandolin, banjo, etc, I agree completely.

12-20-2010, 05:02 PM	#37
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	Originally posted by Mike Cash Auto functions are overrated, as is autofocus. Now I think I know what dobro master Josh Graves meant about being able to play in any key without a capo is what separates the men from the boys. Auto is a crutch. I'm not one of those old school shooter, my dad played with film camera, and I never touch it. My 1st camera was an HP digital 3.2MP, that was a POS but i appreciate the tech, if the tech is there to make it more convenient why not use it? I had enough money to buy DSLR but never bought one (that was a few years ago), the reason was very simple, there was no Live view at the time, and that made the difference for me, I have problems looking through the view finder. Same thing with auto focus, I thought the K-R was much better than the k-x and the sony... and I need auto focus, I tried doing manual in the store, holy shit it's harder than I thought it was lol, I'm so not doing manual focus unless I have to. BTW: adorama is stocking the A560, they're the only one so far that I've seen, watching prices on k-r and that one, they're very very closely related in terms of feature and price.

12-20-2010, 05:07 PM	#38
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by clockwork247 who's stupid enough to compare AF lens to MF lens? Probably only someone stupid enough to think it is possible to tell the difference by looking at photos from the two. But I can't imagine anyone being that stupid. How on earth did people ever manage to take photos in the bad old days before autofocus was invented? The way that people have become so completely dependent upon this techno-crutch is nothing short of astonishng.

12-20-2010, 05:36 PM	#39
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by clockwork247 I'm not one of those old school shooter, my dad played with film camera, and I never touch it. My 1st camera was an HP digital 3.2MP, that was a POS but i appreciate the tech, if the tech is there to make it more convenient why not use it? Same thing with auto focus, I thought the K-R was much better than the k-x and the sony... and I need auto focus, I tried doing manual in the store, holy shit it's harder than I thought it was lol, I'm so not doing manual focus unless I have to. I think you may be mistaken: Your HP was most probably a rangefinder, and no autofocus. Do you remember the model #?

12-20-2010, 06:22 PM	#40
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	Originally posted by Ira I think you may be mistaken: Your HP was most probably a rangefinder, and no autofocus. Do you remember the model #? i think so too, i was just refering to the tech (digital tech VS film). I thought i can do manual focus but I tried it, and it's kindda hard.

12-20-2010, 06:24 PM	#41
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	Originally posted by Mike Cash Probably only someone stupid enough to think it is possible to tell the difference by looking at photos from the two. But I can't imagine anyone being that stupid. How on earth did people ever manage to take photos in the bad old days before autofocus was invented? The way that people have become so completely dependent upon this techno-crutch is nothing short of astonishng. hey, in the old days where wheels wasn't invented, people was walking to get places... do you walk everywhere like they used to? People don't do things doesn't means they can't do it, maybe they just don't want to because they're lazy?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2010, 06:32 PM	#42
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by clockwork247 i think so too, i was just refering to the tech (digital tech VS film). I thought i can do manual focus but I tried it, and it's kindda hard. It sounds like you tried it precisely one time in your life, probably with the focus ring on an autofocus lens while looking through a viewfinder with a stock focus screen optimized for autofocus. Is that the case? Because if it is you were trying it under the worst possible combination of factors.

12-20-2010, 09:36 PM	#43
clockwork247 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 360	Originally posted by Mike Cash It sounds like you tried it precisely one time in your life, probably with the focus ring on an autofocus lens while looking through a viewfinder with a stock focus screen optimized for autofocus. Is that the case? Because if it is you were trying it under the worst possible combination of factors. the lens was AF, but I had it on MF... honestly I'm one of those junk shooter (aka shoot shit load in the shortest amount of time and pick a good one), I just find MF to be slower than AF (obviously), if possible I like to have AF. and you're right the MF is made to be MF so it's a tad easier to work with those.

12-20-2010, 09:48 PM	#44
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	Originally posted by clockwork247 the lens was AF, but I had it on MF... honestly I'm one of those junk shooter (aka shoot shit load in the shortest amount of time and pick a good one), I just find MF to be slower than AF (obviously), if possible I like to have AF. and you're right the MF is made to be MF so it's a tad easier to work with those. Practice and learn to manual focus and that will change.

12-20-2010, 10:15 PM	#45
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	Originally posted by Mike Cash How on earth did people ever manage to take photos in the bad old days before autofocus was invented? The way that people have become so completely dependent upon this techno-crutch is nothing short of astonishng. It's not really that astonishing. Regarding autofocus, cameras used to have better viewfinders. But having said that, most people can probably obtain a higher percentage of in-focus pictures with autofocus, no matter how good or bad their finder or focusing screen might be. In the same sense, most people can take sharper pictures with SR than without it. Most of us can get better results by using better technology. Paul