Well PDML'rs, you forced me to break out my DA* 50-135 ƒ2.8 today. I
hadn't used it since I tested it when I bought it almost two years
ago, at least as far as I can recall. I used the DA* 16-50 ƒ2.8 and
the DA* 60-250 ƒ4.0 for all my canine action shooting. The 16-50 only
occasionally.
So I hooked it up to the K-7 figuring after all, it's getting dark
earlier, the AF could use the extra stop & a half. Focused on a few
things around the house. Zip zip. No focus problems. Batteries charged
a few days ago still good. Packed it up and headed off to a sunny late
afternoon of shooting.
Got to the park, set up, (that means sitting on a bench and turning
the camera around to shoot as I carry it upside down on it's strap so
it doesn't bang into doorways and nearby walls) and start shooting.
Couple of shots of dogs playing 5 feet away from me, zip zip - sharp
focus. Took another shot about 25 feet away — that didn't look so
sharp… Another about 6 feet away — ok - that looked sharp didn't it?
Woah. Now there's a pooch running and coming at me… Nothing.
Removed and reset lens on body with power off. Power on. Prefocused
lens so it could follow action. Nothing. Went through everything I
could think of, moving switches on camera body and lens that would
affect focusing. Nada. By the time I got home the batteries were
indicating half charge, both of them. Mounted the DA* 16-50 ƒ2.8 to
see if low voltage was the problem. Nope - it focused fine, and fast,
even in room light after dark. So does the DA* 60-250 ƒ4.0.
I'll finish this paragraph after both batteries are charged. I know
one should do, but if it's sticky, the amps of two might free it. This
could take all night -
On Oct 4, 2010, at 17:01 , John Sessoms wrote:
From: Boris Liberman
On 10/3/2010 6:41 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> The discussion seems to have become about Pentax, or any other
> manufacturer for that matter, unilaterally extending warranty on
product
> with a /very/ large number of defective samples. The contract on
the
> card is no longer in question. Pentax has been honoring that. It's
> really become a question of how much is the customers good will
worth.
> I'd really like to get a DA 17-70mm. But from all accounts that
> particular lens is poorly designed from a manual focusing
standpoint,
> making reliable auto focus a must. The SDM controversy just
becomes one
> more reason for my money to stay in my pocket.
Peter, since you're talking about post-warranty period and
substantial
number of defective units, I wonder, what would have to happen for
Pentax to be legally forced to admit that they "dropped an egg" like
Bill Robb keeps saying???
It varies by jurisdiction depending on consumer protection laws, but
Pentax cannot afford for it to get to that point. Pentax has always
had a reputation for quality and good value for the money. If they
lose that reputation, and that is a real possible consequence of not
adequately addressing perceptions about SDM reliability - doesn't
matter if they're real or imagined - they're in trouble.
If Pentax's customers lose the perception that Pentax offers
superior value, they will no longer be Pentax's customers.
Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
“If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn’t need to lug a camera.”
–Lewis Hine
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
