Nice tripod action! (exif says 1/15 at wide open!) I indeed find it strange that I'm the only one who doesn't like the DA40. Everyone else would never consider parting with it.
Regardless, that's a very nice shot. What kind of post-processing was involved? On 5/27/07, Fernando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Sorry to hear you had such a bad experience with the DA40, I'm on the > opposite side, I love that lens, I didn't think about selling that > lens even having way too many lenses covering that FL: DA18-55, > DA16-45, FA24-90, FA35, FA50/1.4 and A50/1.7 (yes, I'm a gearhead but > at least I'm no longer proud of it...), not only I like the size > factor (main reason for this lens) but also I like it's rendering > qualities and I've never experienced any focus problem. > In the end there is always a subjective factor involved in keeping a > lens, and that's why it's only you who can decide what works better > for you, right? > > Anyway I would buy that da40 from you if I wouldn't have one already ;-). > > The way things are shapping up, I'm pretty sure you'll end up buying > that 43 and hopefully you'll find the so called 3D effect (comming > from a guy that has an order for a 31Ltd on Henry's). > > This is one of the photos that I like from the DA40, that's my wife > expressing her feelings about my excitement on the K10D purchase ;-) > > http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=369460334&context=set-72157594500202302&size=o > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > On 5/27/07, AlexG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Boris, thanks for taking the time to respond. (same for Godfrey, > > Rob and Bob ;) ) > > > > I know the equipment doesn't make the man, believe me. I'm not a > > better athlete because my bike is nice, I don't lift more because the > > bar is nicely chrome-plated... etc > > > > What bothers me about the 40 is that it's so variable. It will give me > > a super-nice pic once and again, other times the pics will be slightly > > off. Some sligt misfocus (this is with AF, never happens on the 50), > > or slightly strange contrast, slightly faded colors. I think it's more > > aperture dependent than anything else, it has to be because my > > technique doesn't change shot to shot. > > > > In my opinion, the 50 can do no wrong, and it rules for marginal > > lighing. But the 43's pics have a perceptibly different quality to > > them. I just can't tell if it's Photoshop (there are a gazillion > > varibles if so) or the lens itself. I suspect it was much the same in > > the film day. An old photography book I have says you could really > > change the picture in the darkroom if you knew what you were doing. > > > > The whole two eye open thing, I haven't been able to do it with the > > digitals yet, neither with the 40 or the 50. The only camera that has > > allowed comfortable two-eye shooting was the Minolta SRT-201. I don't > > know what vf magnification it had, but it's a big ol' prism. The lens > > was a small 43mm which should be equal to a 28 on a DSLR. I will be > > playing with the kit lens in that range for a bit. > > > > The Engineering side of me really likes Rob's answer. There are simply > > too many variables to tell. And it satisfies the cheapskate side of me > > too.... > > > > I guess I'll be spending a bit more time with my existing gear before > > taking the plunge. It's the smartest thing to do. The 40 was the same > > kind of impulse buy this is shaping up to be and so far..... meh. > > > > Bob, where have the two of you gone for the honeymoon? > > > > Alex > > > > On 5/26/07, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > As for keeper's percentage. I am sorry, but I don't buy your argument. > > > More expensive and theoretically better lens does not make one better > > > photographer, no offense intended here. > > > > > > I do admit that if I was *forced* to choose just one normal lens, I'd go > > > for 43 ltd, but that's my *personal* preference. > > > > > > Notice also, that you may be able to shoot with your FA 50/1.4 with > > > *both* eyes opened, which probably will not be possible with 43 ltd... > > > You seem to like optical experiments ;-), so perhaps it is time you > > > performed some more. > > > > > > Boris > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > [email protected] > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > -- > > Wanna get in shape? > > Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! > > > > http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ > > > > "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Wanna get in shape? Set a goal, snap a pic of youself, and join the PDML Traineo group! http://pdml.groups.traineo.com/ "Because only Nikonians should be fatsos!" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
