I've read here on the list a while ago, and I believe in the instructions for
one of the focus tests, to AF twice, as the first focus tends to overshoot or
undershoot the best possible focus. In designing such a system, there is a
tradeoff between speed of focusing, wear and tear on the motors,
The combo seems to front focus a lot in the studio. In fluorescent it
is hit and miss. Improves in halogen light, but I can't really trust
it. It seem to do ok in daylight. I'm assuming that in house
AF-adjustments is not the way to go. That it will be useless outdoor
if I corrects it for indoor
On 3/20/2011 2:39 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
The combo seems to front focus a lot in the studio. In fluorescent
it is hit and miss. Improves in halogen light, but I can't really
trust it. It seem to do ok in daylight. I'm assuming that in house
AF-adjustments is not the way to go. That it will be
On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:39 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
The combo seems to front focus a lot in the studio. In fluorescent it
is hit and miss. Improves in halogen light, but I can't really trust
it. It seem to do ok in daylight. I'm assuming that in house
AF-adjustments is not the way to go. That it
On 3/20/2011 2:48 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
I'm very intrigued by the 28-75 myself, it's a range that I find
myself needing a lot. How sharp is it? My two zooms are the 18-250
and the 16-50, how would it compare with them?
My copy is very sharp. Easily as sharp as Pentax primes, such as 35/2.8
On Mar 20, 2011, at 5:52 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
On 3/20/2011 2:48 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
I'm very intrigued by the 28-75 myself, it's a range that I find
myself needing a lot. How sharp is it? My two zooms are the 18-250
and the 16-50, how would it compare with them?
My copy is very
Already got a magnifier. And I'm not a fan of split prism. Besides
that I probably will retire the K-20, so spending more money at it
seems a bit like waste.
IMO OOF rendering generally isn't important in the studio. Because it
isn't much to render in the background. What's most important is how
On 3/20/2011 3:06 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
Already got a magnifier. And I'm not a fan of split prism. Besides
that I probably will retire the K-20, so spending more money at it
seems a bit like waste.
Then The Fates (*) have very little work left to be done here.
IMO OOF rendering generally
May be I replied to fast.
For the time being, in the work I do at the moment, the background
rendering isn't critical.
But that might change. So you do have a point.
--
MaritimTim
http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/
2011/3/20 Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com:
Well, it probably depends. I've
On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:06 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
Already got a magnifier. And I'm not a fan of split prism. Besides
that I probably will retire the K-20, so spending more money at it
seems a bit like waste.
Tim, if you are eventually going to upgrade to a K-5, and you can afford to do
it
My significant other would kill me for getting a K-5 now. But I could
smuggle in a lens.
--
MaritimTim
http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/
2011/3/20 Larry Colen l...@red4est.com:
On Mar 20, 2011, at 6:06 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
Already got a magnifier. And I'm not a fan of split prism. Besides
I suspect it's more the camera than the lens, but it's anyone's guess. I would
first try fine focus adjustment in one kind of light, then see if it proves
accurate in another case as well. The focus adjustment procedure is something
that should be performed with all of your lenses in any case.
On 3/20/2011 3:03 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Interesting. That is my biggest complaint with my bigma, that I
don't like the bokeh.
It is my present belief (as in 'loosely proven by minimal personal
experience') that zooms don't have bokeh as good as primes which has to
do with the fact of life
The thing is that I never noticed this before I sended it in for a
locked zoom ring. And I've never noticed it in daylight. In fact, I've
never noticed it at all.
What kind of light would you try first?
--
MaritimTim
http://maritimtim.blogspot.com/
2011/3/20 Paul Stenquist
On Mar 20, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote:
The thing is that I never noticed this before I sended it in for a
locked zoom ring. And I've never noticed it in daylight. In fact, I've
never noticed it at all.
What kind of light would you try first?
It doesn't matter which test comes
Just did a formal test using the AF-assist light.
It did OK at the long end, but front focuses heavily at 16mm.
Hm.
I'll redo the test, and include the mid range. But it does not look
good so far.
Will test it in the studio later. Right now it is occupied by a college.
--
MaritimTim
Shit. Redid the test. On tripod, focused at a remote control (don't
have a proper test chart).
This time it back focused a bit at 16mm, back focus a lot at 28mm, and
spot on at 50mm. Same result in tungsten light.
Am I doing something wrong, or is the lens a wreck? Or is it the camera?
--
You really need a fine line scale to determine focus. Do you have a meter
stick? Focus on a number midway down the stick, with it lying on the floor.
Come at it from a 45 degree angle. If you're getting inconsistent results, I
suspect your test method is askew.
Paul
On Mar 20, 2011, at 2:28
Tim, how about a K-r - costs about as much as a good lens
Cheers
Ecke
2011/3/20 Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net:
You really need a fine line scale to determine focus. Do you have a meter
stick? Focus on a number midway down the stick, with it lying on the floor.
Come at it from a 45
A counter-point to Larry's suggestion: camera bodies come and go, but
good glass is forever. That truism varies in validity of course
(thinking of the random SDM death-spiral here), but it's mostly true. I
bought my first two decent lenses for my K100D Super rather than
upgrading to a K10D or
I have callibrated it now, with the AF-assist lamp on. It was far off +10.
It's much better now, but I don't know how it performs in the studio
light. But for the time being I prefer thinking of it as solved.
(Thanks Paul for pushing me).
The results where consistent. But I did run into one
21 matches
Mail list logo
