Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 3, 2006, 12:49 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

Just used my FA 24-90 on my K100D for shooting in the last weekend and there was a big surprise.

I have not used my once beloved 24-90 for a long time on my *ist D and *ist DS bodies just because it performs not quite satisfactory on them. The major problem is the image blur off-centre of the images, especially when the lens is wider opened and/or at the wider side of the zoom range. Also, the colour is a bit off and fade on the *ists when compared with other lenses. Well, I mean outdoor shots under daylight for the colour problems.

Now that the 24-90 has been found to be very good on my K100D and all the above mentioned problems have gone! Even the colour accuracy has been vastly improved. What a miracle! It becomes back to be a great lens then!

To quote one more example for a better image corner performance, my DA 16-45 used to have very obvious purple fringing on my *ist D (especially when stopped down at the wide side, and problem still persists with my *ist DS) and now that those purple fringing are much less obvious, you can go to see some of the pics at my K100D picture sample gallery below (all taken with DA 16-45):-

http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/K1..._Pictures.html

I guess the improved (image) corner performance is the result of an improved CCD sensor or the result of a weaker AA (Anti-Aliasing) filter used, so that light rays which are not hitting straightly for the light paths but from a certain angle still are now received properly by the CCD. And/or, the image processor of the K100D *may* probably be more intelligent so that it gets rid of the purple fringing more effectively, if it actually caters for the problem. Of course, the better colour accuracy with less obvious colour cast must be the result of better image processing (maybe also plus an improved sensor hardware as well).

But the problem of a very weak AA filter is only one word: Moire, see this:-

http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh/K1..._IMGP0128.html

Nonetheless, with a much better image corner performance with much less blur and purple fringing plus a sharper image with a higher resolution, I think the compromise of a weaker AA filter is much worth for, if it really contributes to the improved performance.

Now, I learn once again about the importance of the digital body in this digital era! Optics are important but then the DSLR body and technology is even more important!

At last, I must thank Pentax for making a K100D which rescues and saves many of my existing Pentax lenses! (but damn that their *ist Dx bodes are not working quite satisfactory, especially with quite some of my original Pentax lenses, so that I need to replace them all one by one and try another Pentax body to see if miracle would happen! Well, should Pentax thank me instead since I have wasted and spent so much money in buying all their major DSLR bodies?)

p.s. I still don't like the shade and colour response of my D-FA 100 macro even on my K100D under quite some of the shooting conditions, so I bet there is a lens (design) problem/characteristics then. The lens is extremely sharp but it is not of a good taste and no taste of the excellent Pentax optics at all. Sometimes, I just wonder if it is actually not a Pentax lens each time I saw the unsatisfactory pictures.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 4, 2006, 3:24 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

I gotta say, it is nice to see you excited and happy about something Pentax. I never had a Pentax (or any other) slr 35mm film camera so I really have nothing to compare my lens performance to, I just know I have fallen in love with taking pictures with this camera. If you are looking for a macro that DOES do well on the K100, try one of the Vivitar/Kiron 105mm 2.8 manual focus lenses. I find it very difficult to use (since I always want to have it at 1:1 and I always handhold it) but when I do my part I get awesome shots and I have no complaints about the color rendition.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2006, 1:02 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
rfortson's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 349
Default

Nice post, RiceHigh. Good info, and nice to see an overall positive tone.



Russ
rfortson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2006, 3:23 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

Positive or negative? That all depends where you stand! :-) If you see from an *ist user's position, they might see my this post again to be "very negative".

I don't think any of my posts should be regarded as neither "negative" nor "positive", frankly, as I always tried and try my best to report my observations and the facts I know.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 7, 2006, 6:47 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

RiceHigh wrote:
Quote:
Positive or negative? That all depends where you stand! :-) If you see from an *ist user's position, they might see my this post again to be "very negative".

I don't think any of my posts should be regarded as neither "negative" nor "positive", frankly, as I always tried and try my best to report my observations and the facts I know.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
Perhaps. But, unlike mathmatics, it is very easy using language to change the meaning of a message, even when reporting exactly the same facts. As part of my job I have to do performance evaluations. If I write "Suzy had almost perfect attendance at work this past evaluation period, only missing two days," I would deliver a different message than "During the last evaluation period Suzylet the agency down by callingin sick twice, forcing her coworkers to shoulder her share of the burden on those days." The fact that Suzy missed two days is the same, but the message I deliver to the reader is entirely different.

I am actually not trying to start a debate or argument. I guess what I am saying is that the tone of your post was that, despite some weaknesses, you had found areas where the K100 excelled and you were happy with it. This differed from the message I have often taken from other posts, and I was honestly happy to see you happy.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2006, 3:04 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 344
Default

NonEntity1 wrote: [align=left]
[/align]
Quote:
Perhaps. But, unlike mathmatics, it is very easy using language to change the meaning of a message, even when reporting exactly the same facts. As part of my job I have to do performance evaluations. If I write "Suzy had almost perfect attendance at work this past evaluation period, only missing two days," I would deliver a different message than "During the last evaluation period Suzylet the agency down by callingin sick twice, forcing her coworkers to shoulder her share of the burden on those days." The fact that Suzy missed two days is the same, but the message I deliver to the reader is entirely different.

I am actually not trying to start a debate or argument. I guess what I am saying is that the tone of your post was that, despite some weaknesses, you had found areas where the K100 excelled and you were happy with it. This differed from the message I have often taken from other posts, and I was honestly happy to see you happy.

Tim
I see your point made, but underneath are just two key things which will affect how a piece of message will be interpreted. They are the intention of the writer and the original mind of the reader which shall make up of the final perception the reader which he/she would receive.

Your above example may be somehow on the extreme side. In a few words, there is simply a "hidden agenda" of the writer in commenting his sub-ordinate in both ways, but do it exactly the opposite. But then, the hidden message can be clearly seen. For the reader, different persons can think in different ways if the readers already have a pre-defined thinking on a certain subject matter or even about the writer.

For me, I would say, I shall still try to report my observations and findings as objective as possible and then my comments will follow, based on the presented facts first. Of course, my comments will be subjective as these are comments of my own.

Again, taking the corner performance report in this thread, some *istDx users may see my post as very "negative" just because they may love their *ist Dx and/or they do not see any problem yet. But for those K100D users, they will feel that my report is positive. However, what I say is only about the observation I see which is neither positive or negative, I think, but my comments made about the improvement is of course positive, just because I have observed some improvements (which I tried to present it in a neutral way) with the newer generation of Pentax DSLR.

RiceHigh
http://www.geocities.com/ricehigh
RiceHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:14 AM.