[NZ_Ross]

Damn, had to uncross the eyes as it was too hard to use the K200D like that...

very funny - gave me a chuckle

Ross

[GUB]

Our NZ distributor woes have officially been noted by Pentax at Photokina!

Thanks heaps to Adam for forwarding my report!

Interesting reading the threads on the above links. Internationally people seem frustrated at the low profile of pentax in shops. I thought it was a NZ thing.

[GUB]

That is, enough knowledge to get me into trouble. How is the old glass going to perform on a full frame format. Yes I know they will throw an image like we were used to in 35mm. But have we had a bonus from the smaller format in that we are not using the edges of the image which is often where a lens weakness shows? There is an argument that the sensor is already capable of more than the lens can deliver. I am a little confused about depth of field differences between the two format. I was surprised to see that the Nikon D800 had a .03mm circle of confusion dedicated to it compared to .02mm for K-30 on this depth of field calculator.Online Depth of Field Calculator. This seems the wrong way round, You would think the higher resolution camera would utilize a sharper point than the K-30.
I am guessing any FF camera is going to require its own super expensive glass to achieve a result better than what we have now. A cost which is way beyond this poor farm boy.
It would be like the fabulous 6x7 pentax--- something to dream about but never to own.

[Arpe]

Thanks, mates. Let's keep your Pentaxian fingers crossed that things will improve one way or the other.

I'll wear my Pentax cap in your honour this weekend, while using my Nikon camera with Sigma lens.

[Transit]

That is, enough knowledge to get me into trouble. How is the old glass going to perform on a full frame format. Yes I know they will throw an image like we were used to in 35mm. But have we had a bonus from the smaller format in that we are not using the edges of the image which is often where a lens weakness shows?

yeah I floated that argument recently somewhere, got shot down. I don't think we credit how much of the sweet spot we are currently restricted to using on the FF glass. Will vary of course.

There is an argument that the sensor is already capable of more than the lens can deliver. I am a little confused about depth of field differences between the two format. I was surprised to see that the Nikon D800 had a .03mm circle of confusion dedicated to it compared to .02mm for K-30 on this depth of field calculator.Online Depth of Field Calculator. This seems the wrong way round, You would think the higher resolution camera would utilize a sharper point than the K-30.
I am guessing any FF camera is going to require its own super expensive glass to achieve a result better than what we have now. A cost which is way beyond this poor farm boy.
It would be like the fabulous 6x7 pentax--- something to dream about but never to own.

some brainy bugger will be along to clarify that lot

[Transit]

Thanks, mates. Let's keep your Pentaxian fingers crossed that things will improve one way or the other.

Nice surgical strike with your well constructed missive !

Blow the whistle on yer crap distributor ?...bloody legend

[Transit]

And meanwhile over at Littles
another hot sales week is nearly over with 2 coffee machines sold.
Little do they know, the phone is about to ring.
I has to be the phone as they don't really do email.
The curt instructions to pack everything Pentax up and ship it to Kennedys nz seemed unduly harsh.
They hadn't seen this coming...what on earth was behind it ?
Must be the new owners gone crazy.
8 coffee machines/month was never going to be enough...
This might be the end !

---

Last edited by Transit; 09-20-2012 at 05:31 AM.

[pixelsaurus]

Before we carried away with Littles, I should like to point out there is a Crown Research Institute in Wellington called Industrial Research Ltd, or IRL to its supporters. I believe this commercial entity used to be the DSIR. My belief is that Littles should be referred to by name so as not to tarnish the reputation of the real IRL.
Industrial Research Ltd

[pixelsaurus]

I am guessing any FF camera is going to require its own super expensive glass to achieve a result better than what we have now. A cost which is way beyond this poor farm boy.
It would be like the fabulous 6x7 pentax--- something to dream about but never to own.

So long as I remember to get an adapter, my 645 glass should do just fine, and some.

[Class A]

How is the old glass going to perform on a full frame format.

Fine.

But have we had a bonus from the smaller format in that we are not using the edges of the image which is often where a lens weakness shows?

This "sweet spot" argument is actually a myth.
The small but high resolution APS-C sensors stress test the centres of lenses quite a bit. An APS-C lens and AF system have to be 1.5x more precise than an equivalent FF system.

All lenses get worse towards the corners but the advantage of using a lower enlargement factor for an FF system outweighs the problems introduced by FF lens corners. If you are interested in this, Falk Lumo (falconeye) has an article on the matter. I'd be happy to dig up the link.

I was surprised to see that the Nikon D800 had a .03mm circle of confusion dedicated to it compared to .02mm for K-30 on this depth of field calculator.

Makes sense since the FF sensor requires less enlargement to achieve the same output size compared to the APS-C sensor.

BTW, you could argue that the Nikon D800's sensor does not really have more resolution. In terms of pixel-pitch it is pretty much the same as the K-30. It has its pixels packed with the same density, but just has more of them.

I am guessing any FF camera is going to require its own super expensive glass to achieve a result better than what we have now.

Curiously, FF glass is cheaper than equivalent APS-C glass. Ever wondered why the Olympus f/2 lenses are so expensive? They have to be marvels of precision. An FF lens can have higher tolerances than an APS-C lens and still outperform the latter.

Again, Falk's article explains why FF is the cheaper technology overall given a particular image quality. Below that IQ threshold, APS-C is cheaper, then even smaller sensors.

I'll wear my Pentax cap in your honour this weekend, while using my Nikon camera with Sigma lens.

Let me know if that Pentax cap starts bouncing of your head in search of a new (good) home.

[GUB]

BTW, you could argue that the Nikon D800's sensor does not really have more resolution. In terms of pixel-pitch it is pretty much the same as the K-30. It has its pixels packed with the same density, but just has more of them.

That is kind of my point. If you think of the circle of confusion as a unit of light there is just short of a million dots on both sensors ( D800 at .03mm and k-30 at .02mm). That would indicate that the d800 has 36 pixels sharing one blurred point while the k-30 has 16.
The depth of field is something I am trying to get my head around to get the best out of the 50mm f1.4. Looking at some of my results on dog portraits (obedient model !!) at around 2 metres at f1.4 I think I can perceive a depth of field of about 50mm. This would suggest I could utilize a coc of .01mm.
I would appreciate a link to Falks article.
It is not just about pixel peeping - I believe in trying to get the best out of what I have.

[NZ_Ross]

I have just purchased a Voigtlander 58/1.4 off the PF Marketplace. Review here Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 Lens Reviews - Voigtlander Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

It should be here in a few weeks - I am really looking forward to receiving this lens and seeing what can seen with it.

I will post some results once I have the lens.

There is a very long thread on PF about this lens https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/18979-voigtlan...-4-review.html, and some of the shots, and in particular bokeh is stunning.

Another good day

Ross

[CWyatt]

Finally got the K-7 yesterday, and - in about as close to a religious experience I've had - found it actually works perfectly. So far.
Had brief mildly warm feelings (perhaps a 'mild thaw' is a better description) towards IR Little before reading the repair job sheet.

As background, last time I received the camera I was a bit shocked to find it packaged in a box with only a couple of pieces of screwed up newspaper to cushion it. I'd sent it to them swathed in bubble-wrap. And, as I said in an earlier post, within about a minute the AF switch was clearly totally screwed. I made it very clear that it was either not fixed properly (again...) or damaged in transit.

So for the fifth time IR had sent (or tried to send and recalled my camera back), over a 10-month repair odyssey, this was noted in capitals on the job sheet:

REMOVED AND REPAIRED DAMAGED FRONT COVER.
THIS CAMERA HAS SUFFERED FURTHER IMPACT DAMAGE WHICH CAUSED THE FAILURE OF AF MODE SWITCH. AS A GESTURE OF GOOD WILL AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE WE HAVE REPAIRED THE CAMERA AT NO CHARGE.

You can't make this stuff up.

Maybe this was for the benefit of the insurance company, or from the technicians trying to cover up ineptitude, or just the usual level of IR Little service thinking, I'm not sure.

If I have any camera issues in the future I'm going to utterly refuse to have anything to do with this company.

Well done Class A for getting the issue raised with Ricoh. Here's hoping CR Kennedy perhaps pick it up. They have always been great to deal with in my experience...

[NZ_Ross]

Finally got the K-7 yesterday, and - in about as close to a religious experience I've had - found it actually works perfectly. So far.

That is very good news Camus. We will look forward to seeing some of your images as you start using your K7 again.

Ross

[CWyatt]

And I just realised the reason I hadn't got it back from the courier and had to go get it from the depot after I contacted IR Little to find out where it was - they put my address on backwards. You could make this into a film.