Artur:
Almost everybody seems to be agreeing with you that there is something
wrong with your friend's Minolta lens. But you have not provided enough
information to be able to draw that conclusion with certainty. You have
to recognize that there is a strong bias in this group -- for some
members, all other lenses are viewed as inferior to Pentax by
definition, and they thing everybody should use Pentax. But lots of
people do fine work with Minolta so I would not immediately jump to the
conclusion that the brand is the problem..
Before your friend switches systems, which can be a quite expensive
proposition, better try to make sure that the right problem has been
identified. The symptoms you describe -- lower saturation and less
sharpness than you are getting -- can be due to lots of things. (And
least likely to be causing the difficulty, I think, is the type of
filter, unless he is using a no-name cheap one made from the bottom of a
beer bottle.) I will mention a few things to consider, both operator
errors and hardware things to check before junking the system.
In short: 1) Could be problems with the specific lens rather than all
Minolta lenses, 2) could be a problem with the body rather than the
lens, 3) it could be sloppy technique, or 4) could be a combination.
How is his technique? A little sloppiness in holding the camera or
jerkiness in pressing the shutter button can cause a little camera
shake, which will show up as lack of sharpness. Even if holding the
camera properly, etc., camera shake can occur if the shutter speed is
too slow for hand holding with a specific lens -- e.g., trying to hand
hold and shoot at 1/15 second with a 100 mm lens. Check this by doing
some work with the camera on a good tripod using a cable release, see if
he gets sharper results.
Also, could be a focusing problem. If focusing manually, he may need
new glasses or the mirror may be misaligned. If it is autofocus there
may be a problem with the AF mechanism in the body, not necessarily a
lens problem, or he could be using the AF system in such a way that he
is not focusing on the main elements of interest. (Some AF systems can
make that pretty easy.)
Lack of saturation can mean poor exposure. E.g., a stop or so
underexposure can cause some colors to wash out quite a bit. If he is
metering manually, does he do it properly? If using the camera to meter
automatically, is he giving proper compensation for non-average scenes?
One way to check this is for you and him to separately meter the same
scene with the same camera to see if you wind up with the same exposure,
since you seem to be doing all right. Also, meter the same scene the
same way using your camera and his to see if his meter is working
properly, since yours seems ok. May need to recalibrate the meter, or
simply compensate for any systematic error it has by changing film
rating.
Do these problems appear with all Minolta lenses, or just one? If it is
just one, try to have him get hold of another Minolta lens, or a few,
and try them. See if the same defects appear or if there is a
difference. Every camera system has some lenses that are not very good
because of design, etc., and specific samples of well-designed lenses
sometimes have flaws from manufacturing or handling. If he has a Minolta
dog it may not do as well as your first-rate Pentaxes, but a different
Minolta lens may be fine.
Oh, another thing. Are you using the same lab? A sloppy lab can produce
what he is seeing. Possible that your lab is good and his is not.
I suggest some systematic testing of these things, and others that
others may think of, before junking the Minolta system.
Bob
Artur Ledóchowski wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> Many thanks to you for your replies, guys:)
> This issue is equally important for my friend and for me. I suppose the best
> solution for him would be to change the system to Pentax, but it's a hard
> decision (both psychologically and financially:)) to be made... So getting
> an adapter is also a good way. For now, as he uses either the Hoya UV
> filter, or none, we'll try to mount some SMC UV on his lens and we'll see
> the results. I'm afraid, however, that you're completely right about the
> thing, that filters can't improve the bad lens. But we'll try and I'll give
> you the report:))
> The effects of our shooting are comparable, as we both use color films of
> Kodak, usually of the same kind.
> As for me, I wonder how good those SMC filters are in comparison to the
> filters of Hama, Hoya, B&W, Cokin and so on... Perhaps some types are better
> than the other(for example, one producer makes better polars, while the
> other ND's..)? What do you usually use? And what do you think of the Tamron
> filters?
> Greetz to all
> Artur
> ===========================================
> "There are signs on the ring,
> Which make me feel so down.
> There's one to enslave all rings,
> To find them all in time
> And drive them into darkness.
> Forever they'll be bound."
> Blind Guardian "Lord of the Ring"
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
--
____________________________________________________
Robert Harris, Economic and Public Policy Consultant
30 River Road, #17J, Roosevelt Island, NY 10044
Tel. 212-753-4951
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
