[ChrisA]

Endless sarcasm can be as tiring as extreme rightfulness, in my view.:ugh:

Well, if this means what I think it means, then I suppose I'd better say no more on this subject. I guess some people just prefer having the slanging matches, regardless of whether they actually achieve anything.

Well, if this means what I think it means, then I suppose I'd better say no more on this subject. I guess some people just prefer having the slanging matches, regardless of whether they actually achieve anything.

I keep falling in the same mistake over and over. Pm sent

[volosong]

Don't know about you guys, but I've discovered that any pictures I take with the lens cap in place are not very good, aren't very interesting, and not worth more than that initial, casual glance. Seems I get better pictures when I take the cap off. So...this pseudo-scientific test is worthless, irreverent, and not worthy the electrons we are sending into cyberspace by talking about it.

RiceHigh has been throughly disgraced, over and over. He is a 'non-person' to me. I will never visit his website nor his blog. Well...maybe...if I'm feeling really down and need a good laugh to pick me up.

[lol101]

I found this experiment to be quite interesting and the results and conclusion are rather disappointing though:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Lack of Speed of the SDM

As this experiment or the recorded video has not been reported or quoted before here, I opt to share this information with all you guys, especially for those who has planned to acquire the new SDM lens(es) to be used on the K10D or the K100D Super. Anyway, I hope newer version of the Pentax SDM lenses can have improved faster and stronger SDM some days later, hopefully. Or, at least for new lens model(s) which are to be equipped with the SDM, this problem shall be eliminated.

Well RiceHigh,

I just looked at your blog and it seems (from the comments) that even the original author of the tests does NOT agree with your conclusions and what you tried to make out of his original post :ugh:

The amazing thing is that, even after being told by the very person that did the test, you STILL persist in your error and go as far as asking him to fuel your little vendetta with appropriate "evidence".

I sincerely hope he does put you back in your place for this.

Oh and by the way, do you intend to make a new entry in your blog based on his (and many more who tried the lens, including me) comment that the SDM focusing of the 16-50 is quite fast? That would be a real encouragement for Pentax I think, and since this blog was created for helping Pentax, I would see this as particularly fit.

---

Last edited by lol101; 11-01-2007 at 03:04 PM. Reason: spell check

[Peter Zack]

I lied, I'm lurking and watching the fun. After Lol101's post I had to have a look and see. Well he's right. Rh is practically begging Ritchie to conduct another test to find some flaw in the SDM system. Of course RH doesn't own any of this gear so he can't do it himself. It's like teaching someone how to drive cause you've seen enough people driving as you walk to work. You may have observed it but you haven't a clue how to do it cause you don't own the car.

Ritchie it would appear, was not impressed. Here's the copy of the post by Ritchie and RH's response:

Richie said...

If I'd known the test would wind up here [RH's Blog], I'd have saved me an hour of my life and shot some pictures instead... Yes, the DA* 50-135's SDM motor is slower than the K10D's screw-drive motor. Then again, the screw-drive is also very slow on this particular lens model. Only the much lighter 50-200 is in the same league. So, it's not an indictment of SDM per se, it's just a comparison for that particular lens. The DA* 16-50 focuses much faster by all accounts (although I don't know if it's SDM is faster than it's screw-drive). SDM is fast, but not really fastER. SDM does focus differently from the screw-drive; it doesn't overshoot and correct quite as much as the screw-drive.

November 01, 2007 4:07 AM
RiceHigh said...

Richie, just wish to say thank you to you for your test and sharing. But as you should have known before you measurbated, measurbations are always a waste of our (valuable) time especially when you're comparing to use our time for picture taking! :-)

Well, btw, why not repeat your test for focusing a real target to see the difference(s) between the SDM and the screw drive body motor? Of course, I suggest you should let the lens to travel for enough span in order to see more the difference and to get more accurate and reliable results.

Nonetheless, I still consider that your test method is clever (with very simple setup and quick to conduct), correct and scientific. So, just looking forward to see your another true test on the actual AF speeds. But then you will waste another hour or even hours to measurbate and to publish your results (and for the discussion time wasted in the cyber space as well)! ;-D LOL

November 01, 2007 10:41 PM

[krs]

Sorry - but I forgot my popcorn....

All I can say is as an amateur wanna be, I am thrilled with my K100d, from some fairly fast action shots (soccer, softball, Tae Kwon Do), as well as night shots in Moscow, Russia a couple weeks ago.

[philmorley]

Don't know about you guys, but I've discovered that any pictures I take with the lens cap in place are not very good, aren't very interesting, and not worth more than that initial, casual glance. Seems I get better pictures when I take the cap off. So...this pseudo-scientific test is worthless, irreverent, and not worthy the electrons we are sending into cyberspace by talking about it.

RiceHigh has been throughly disgraced, over and over. He is a 'non-person' to me. I will never visit his website nor his blog. Well...maybe...if I'm feeling really down and need a good laugh to pick me up.

Well, I have concerns about your claims about photos with the lens cap. I agree that pics are better than without it but I have found and believe that

1. it actually is an exact replication of my back yard at night when there is no moon (and stars are not in the picture.) This is important cause if I want to show someone what my backyard looks like under these conditions, I can produce it anywhere and at anytime
2. if the lens cap isn't quite 100% on, and especially if you use a long exposure you can end up with a rather interesting abstract at least some possibly interesting noise patterns (especially if point 3 applies or you are into very advanced mathematics etc (oh, sh*t someone is going to bring up vpn ).
3. I also have a theory that the amount of interest in the said 'the lens cap picture' is inversely proportional to the quantity of alcohol drunk. ie this image gets more interesting as you drink more. However this is only theory and I think I will have to test this further.

Finally I feel that these points are all more valid that Ricehigh's efforts to generate web traffic to his blog.

Phil

I think GWP's comments are possibly the most amusing and valid response to ricehigh that I have seen (the popcorn / cola etc)

Personally I honestly thought grouso calling Ricehigh a 'twit' was being very polite (I honestly did) especially considering in one of his post someone asked him just 'die' and also considering to what some people call him

A letter to the CEO of Pentax Corporation

---

Last edited by philmorley; 11-02-2007 at 02:05 AM.

Well, I have concerns about your claims about photos with the lens cap. I agree that pics are better than without it but I have found and believe that

1. it actually is an exact replication of my back yard at night when there is no moon (and stars are not in the picture.) This is important cause if I want to show someone what my backyard looks like under these conditions, I can produce it anywhere and at anytime
2. if the lens cap isn't quite 100% on, and especially if you use a long exposure you can end up with a rather interesting abstract at least some possibly interesting noise patterns (especially if point 3 applies or you are into very advanced mathematics etc (oh, sh*t someone is going to bring up vpn ).
3. I also have a theory that the amount of interest in the said 'the lens cap picture' is inversely proportional to the quantity of alcohol drunk. ie this image gets more interesting as you drink more. However this is only theory and I think I will have to test this further.

Finally I feel that these points are all more valid that Ricehigh's efforts to generate web traffic to his blog.

Phil

I think GWP's comments are possibly the most amusing and valid response to ricehigh that I have seen (the popcorn / cola etc)

Personally I honestly thought grouso calling Ricehigh a 'twit' was being very polite (I honestly did) especially considering in one of his post someone asked him just 'die' and also considering to what some people call him

A letter to the CEO of Pentax Corporation

Maaaaaaaan!!!! now you tell me that I have to remove the cap to take pictures?

BTW I didnt call Ricehigh twit, I call him "forum institution".

[dave kitson]

3. I also have a theory that the amount of interest in the said 'the lens cap picture' is inversely proportional to the quantity of alcohol drunk. ie this image gets more interesting as you drink more. However this is only theory and I think I will have to test this further.

Since posts in this thread have stressed the need for absolute scientific rigour, I feel constrained to point out that the dependancy of interest v 'alcohol consumed' in your hypothesis is a proportional relationship, not one of inverse proportionality.

dave

[philmorley]

Hi,

yep sorry my mistake about the inverse thing.

Well testing is well under way, the pic aint more interesting yet (after plenty of vodka), but it is getting dam hard to type, every word wrong. Oh well keep on testing

Phil

[Oldschool]

Being a relative newbie to DSLR's, I don't understand half of what is being claimed in this thread. However, I do find it relatively amusing. I think RH should post at least once a month. I need a good laugh every once in a while. Thanks everyone.

Ten pages of pure entertainment, who could ask for more.
Ira

[volosong]

From ephotozine:

Pentax SMC-DA 50-135mm f/2.8 ED (IF) SDM Interchangeable Lens Review

"It offers a new SDM focussing system (Sonic Drive Motor) that is the equivalent to USM and AF-S in its main competitors. It is just as quick and quiet as those predecessors." (bold emphasis mine, not in the original article)

This organization has a lot more credibility than RiceHigh.

[roentarre]

Thanks for that thread. Now this is almost confirmed that this lens is a reliable zoom with consistent excellant performance across the focal range.

Still waiting for this lens arrival

[lol101]

From ephotozine:

Pentax SMC-DA 50-135mm f/2.8 ED (IF) SDM Interchangeable Lens Review

"It offers a new SDM focussing system (Sonic Drive Motor) that is the equivalent to USM and AF-S in its main competitors. It is just as quick and quiet as those predecessors." (bold emphasis mine, not in the original article)

This organization has a lot more credibility than RiceHigh.

Not quite sure about that!

The first picture in this test is one of the DA16-50: ouch!

Pentax has only 2 SDM lenses and they didn't pick the right one!