|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
04-05-2024, 03:04 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-05-2024, 12:45 PM
|
| |
I almost bought another one but I'm just going to wait until I can afford the 70-200. I can't risk more SDM failures, especially since Pentax hasn't been clear about how the motors in the later 50-135 lenses were revised. My current 50-135 sees very little use now. I think the multiple trips across the country to the service depot knocked some elements around as it's just not as good wide open as it used to be. It's basically an f4 now :(
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-05-2024, 12:00 PM
|
| |
I'm sure those who designed the 16-50PLM and the 55-300PLM are still hanging around somewhere :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-05-2024, 10:59 AM
|
| |
I'd be happy with 50% faster focusing. I don't really care if it's DC or newer SDM (I've got lenses with both) but I want it to not break 3 times. I've spent nearly the value of the lens on repairs before finally converting it to the less accurate screw-drive.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-04-2024, 07:59 PM
|
| |
I have a 50-135 and while it's had 3 focus motor failures, I'd buy a revised version in a heartbeat. It's an excellent focal range, and aperture aside it produces beautiful images.
I also have the 16-50, also with dead SDM and bought the PLM version as soon as I could.
At this point I'm just ready to not have to put up with the screw-drive noise.
Anyway, you do you - I don't see there being any less demand for a 50-135 2.8 PLM than there is for the 16-50 PLM. In fact, I'd say there's likely to be more demand for it as you're more likely to be taking action photos with it than the 16-50.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
04-04-2024, 02:26 PM
|
| |
Here's the thing though - the K3-iii and K1-ii are priced in the professional camera space. Your argument may be quite valid for folks buying the KF.
To get the results that I want I need a fast tele. I also need a fast focusing lens - have you tried taking dog photos with a screw-drive or older SDM type lens? Then again I also want mirrorless-grade eye AF for my subjects but for now I'll settle for a PLM version of the 50-135.
Yes, I have the 55-300 PLM and while great for well lit spaces, it does have its limitations.
|
|
Forum: Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories
03-30-2024, 06:24 PM
|
| |
As long as my subject is still and the lens is stopped down a bit, my 50-135 is still capable of getting some nice shots. Here's my friend's dog, Teddy, on a nice spring day
 IMGP1350 by SebblesVic, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-26-2024, 12:51 PM
|
| |
Ah yes, of course.
Silly Pentax - here's a K3-3 with vastly improved AF speed/tracking (allegedly) but we're not going to give you any fast aperture lenses that will keep up with it...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-24-2024, 04:46 PM
|
| |
I've had SDM fail on my 50-135 three times. The last time I gave up sending it across the country to be repaired as the shipping and repair tally was finally nearing the replacement price of the lens. I'm sure sometime during shipping it was mishandled as the lens has lost some IQ. There's too much slop in the screw-drive AF to be reliable, so it rarely gets used.
I see Amazon is still showing these available. I'd buy one but I'm not risking dodgy SDM again.
Too bad Pentax doesn't team up with Tamron to port over the 35-150 2-2.8.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
03-15-2024, 01:41 PM
|
| |
I just want something speedy enough to track a moving dog with reasonable accuracy. My current 50-135 can't track a person walking. What's the big 70-200 2.8 like in this regard?
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-13-2024, 07:30 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the business idea: Lens caps with spots to write down the different AF correction values depending on the light source and focal length of zooms... :)
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-13-2024, 04:39 PM
|
| |
Accurate focus is impossible. Good to know.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-13-2024, 04:14 PM
|
| |
Except nobody wants a photo with the nose, not the eye, in focus...
---------- Post added 03-13-24 at 04:19 PM ----------
About 1.5-2 meters? Not typical shooting distances, that's for sure.
I was playing around a little more today. Odd results using off-center focus points. For my 16-50 @ 50mm, using points to the left of center resulted in considerable back-focus. Not so with the DFA* 50. The right side points were equally as perplexingly inconsistent between the lenses.
I think I've resigned myself to just stopping the lens down and not shooting in anything but natural light. So much for the expense of the gold ring 1.4.
Oh, and if non-natural light sources are such a problem, why are so many new studio lights switching to LED? Makes no sense.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-12-2024, 04:26 PM
|
| |
Had some better natural light through the window the other day so I set the camera on the tripod and used the focus depth chart (identical chart to what BigMackCam is using) and took several test shots. I was finally able to get repeatedly consistent focus at +4 on the DFA* 1.4, so I suppose we could say 'case closed'.?
However, when relocating further indoors away from the natural light into what is commonly found in homes - LED lighting, I noticed a strong tendency to front-focus. I was actually going to play with my new flash but the FF really stood out so I started playing with focus again. (I'm well aware flash doesn't affect focus...) under the LED lighting, it seems the lens performed better with a fine adjustment of about -3 - -4.
So, I'll ask again - with a 1.4 being the better option for indoors/low light use, how do I get reasonably reliable results from this thing where I don't get to control the lighting type? Imagine gathering a family around for a photo - how long should I keep them standing around while I grumble with the focus? Ever seen a wedding photographer fiddle with FF/BF adjustments?
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-28-2024, 01:32 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the test shots, BigMackCam. It seems your consistency between shots is better than mine. The video I posted was in response to the other video (now missing or maybe I saw it in another thread but it's this here
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aAiGyl5CKlQ?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
) with the line on the paper, rulers and the camera at a 45* angle to it. I realize the focal plane slices through the test at an angle and can be problematic, but should produce good results.
I have the identical lens DOF calibration that you do. I'll try it again and will post results later.
What throws me off is that even when I can get somewhat consistent close focusing results (think 5-6 feet), further distances will be way off. Example: I was able to get sharp photos of a figurine sitting on my deck railing, but the photo of a sign on a business across the road was clearly OOF.
Anyway, will post more pics later to show my setup and why I'm dealing with.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-27-2024, 07:02 PM
|
| |
I just re-tested using my Lumecube LED light and it's the same result as 'natural' light. Most indoor shooting would be with LED room lighting now anyway.
Having AF tuning and applying a FF/BF correction of a fixed amount makes sense IF the amount it's off by is always the same. But it's not.
I'd really appreciate a video from someone who claims to not have this issue showing what I showed above, but with the camera nailing focus 9/10 times.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-27-2024, 03:47 PM
|
| |
I'm not sure how I've not been willing to engage?
Anyway, here's a quick, albeit crappy, video from my iPhone showing the back of the camera running a quick test here.
First shot was in LV which, as expected (except on my 50-135), produced a sharp photo. Subsequent photos were hit/miss. Sorry about the phone video adjusting exposure, but you can clearly see when the line is in/out of focus. When I scroll over to the ruler, you can see where the front/back focus isn't consistent. For the last few shots, I manually de-focused the lens both near and far. Lighting could be better through the window but it's a cloudy day.
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-6UfMqc-9cw?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-27-2024, 03:32 PM
|
| |
At this point it's a little over a year old.
Again, as mentioned in a previous post, this happens with several lenses and both bodies. IMO, at this point it's poor AF design.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-27-2024, 01:42 PM
|
| |
Someone posted a video earlier that seems to be gone now - it was of a photographer placing a line on a sheet of paper, then setting two rulers down and calibrating from that.
Yes, I have attempted this several times, which is how I've come to the conclusion that I've been repeatedly trying to share and that is front and back focus is consistently an inconsistent problem for my DFA* 50 1.4, my DA* 16-50 PLM, my DA* 50-135 on both my K3-3 and K5. I'll have to try my other lenses again too.
The results are so inconsistent that sometimes I can't tell if the AF adjustment far/near scale is pushing focus away or bringing it closer as it doesn't seem to matter what I do - it randomly decides to either hit too close or too far.
I think the real solution here is to get the Monster adapter and a Sony body with PDAF on the sensor and be done spending money on this unreliable system. It's too frustrating and upsetting when every single piece of Pentax gear has failed me.
---------- Post added 02-27-24 at 12:52 PM ----------
I had three SDM failures in my 50-135, each costing a few hundred $$ to fix. Each time I swear the lens would come back a little less sharp too. I'm really not happy about the thought of sending my whole kit across the country, expose it to harsh handling and have it come back even worse than it is now.
What's it going to cost to have everything serviced, lenses adjusted and all re-calibrated? Only the 16-50PLM is under warranty now as it's all just 1 year in Canada.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-25-2024, 11:56 PM
|
| |
Here's 6 quick shots from a test tonight. Handheld, about 5-6 feet away. Spot focus on the cookie jar's nose. Click through to Flickr for full size images to zoom in on.
I currently have +2 applied for AF fine tuning on this lens which seems to be the sweet spot with a focus depth chart.
How would one go about dialing in accurate AF correction when 50% of the test shots are BF by a few inches? How do I know in a series of test shots using a depth focus chart what my true baseline is if 50% are BF?
I've repeated this test with Spot and SEL XS focus points, both on the noise of the cookie jar and where the black and white bands meet in the X pattern with similar results for focus consistency. About as high-contrast as one will get....
Using AF-C with SEL center point in an attempt to compensate for my movement yielded the same 50% hit rate.
I really can't believe this is considered acceptable.
 IMGP8805 by SebblesVic, on Flickr
 IMGP8806 by SebblesVic, on Flickr
 IMGP8807 by SebblesVic, on Flickr
 IMGP8808 by SebblesVic, on Flickr
 IMGP8809 by SebblesVic, on Flickr
 IMGP8810 by SebblesVic, on Flickr
---------- Post added 02-25-24 at 11:04 PM ----------
It's related to the above comment that nobody shoots portraits at 1.4, which goes along with the other comments that I need to shoot everything on a tripod, or that lighting conditions need to be exactly the same as what the lens was calibrated under. Basically all I hear about my concerns is that I'm shooting incorrectly. If I can't aim at a subject, focus and take a photo with reasonable confidence that my photos are in-focus, then perhaps the K3-3 + DFA* 50 1.4 is strictly a controlled studio/static subject setup?
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-25-2024, 11:10 PM
|
| |
Humor me and give this review a watch :) I don't think I'm being unreasonable by wanting to handhold a 50 @ 1.4 on a static subject.
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nMyQfcoUj-k?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
---------- Post added 02-25-24 at 10:13 PM ----------
Have you ever seen an event or portrait photographer setting up a tripod and a focus chart to re-calibrate their lens every time they change lighting conditions? Can you imagine a wedding photographer having to recalibrate their gear every time they go inside/outside?
Essentially what I'm reading here is that the calibration process needs to be undertaken in almost clinical conditions, and that when it's dialed in I shouldn't expect it to function equally as well unless in the exact same conditions.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-24-2024, 10:14 PM
|
| |
It sat there running through the whole range of focus as it always does in LV...
---------- Post added 02-24-24 at 09:14 PM ----------
Kinda hard to do that with a fixed screen...
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-24-2024, 10:10 PM
|
| |
Any tips for when one end of the focal range focuses properly, but the other doesn't and requires tuning? Pentax only offers one FF/BF adjustment option for the entire focal range. And let's not talk about the differences for when the subject is closer/further... :)
and sorry, I don't see your comments showing on Flickr :(
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-24-2024, 09:59 PM
|
| |
Single point.
I don't know what else to say - The consistency in AF accuracy varies too greatly shot-to-shot (using tripod) to do anything meaningful with AF fine adjustment.
If my expectations are unrealistic - please tell me what I should be happy with, otherwise I don't know where else to go.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
02-24-2024, 05:23 PM
|
| |
Sorry - you're saying that paying a premium for a f/1.4 DA* lens means the DoF is too shallow to get a suitably consistent result from shot to shot?
Not that I'm a pro photographer, but imagine doing a studio session with a model and 50% of the shots have the model's nose or earlobe in focus when it should have been the iris. When I take photos at family events or quiet Sunday dinners and they tell me they're excited to see the photos, and half the photos have the wrong body part in focus, it's frustrating.
I know in the mirrorless world they get to complain when focus is off by a few mm (iris vs eyelash), but come on, it should be reliable enough to get a dog's eye, not its nose inches closer, in focus.
---------- Post added 02-24-24 at 04:24 PM ----------
Because the things we take photos of in the real world are high-contrast focus charts?
|
