On Oct 19, 2006, at 8:19 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: > No, Godfrey, I've never expressed disappointment with the DA 14 even > once, let alone a dozen times. In fact I like it very much. I have > said > that my copy of the DA 16-45 performs better at 16 mm than my copy of > the DA 14 does. That is not an expression of disappointment with > the DA 14.
That's not how it reads to my eyes. >> "and then said how you didn't like the rendering of the DA16-45 as >> well." > > I think you've got me confused with someone else. I have never, and I > repeat this as emphatically as I can without using caps, I have never > said that I don't like the rendering of the DA 16-45. I actually like > the image quality of this lens very much, and have never said anything > otherwise. > > I may have reported that a prime or two outperforms the DA 16-45 at > comparable focal lengths. So what? Don't primes often outperform > zooms? > One really has to twist hard to get from this to saying that I don't > like the rendering of the DA 16-45. Again, not how it reads to me. Sorry, but can only report how I perceive your comments. Perhaps you don't see them from the standpoint of a reader who doesn't know what you intend and is uninterested in listening to constant worrying and complaint without good reason. > Do you generally object whenever I compare my lenses according to the > results I get from them? Do you object when anyone compares lenses, or > is it only results that differ from yours? I will always point out that presenting opinions of lens performance without presenting the test photographs on which they're based as evidence for others to evaluate for themselves lacks sufficient credibility to be of any real merit. That's what you did on the DA21 vs FA20 lens report you posted here and to DPReview, and that's what you have done in the case of the DA14 and DA16-45 as well, in my view. When I present a lens report without posting the test data, I always call it an informal impressions of the lenses in use, not cast it as some sort of real lens test comparison report. As I said, I look forward to reading your comments on the DA70. I have the FA77, am torn between just keep using it and moving to the DA70. The DA focusing mount's QuickShift clutch is a worthwhile addition to the lens for my use; without it, I keep flipping the AF/ MF switch on the camera a lot as I can see how far off the AF system is from what *I* want it to focus on with an f/1.8, 77mm lens very easily. AS to the comment that triggered my response ... "I'm more excited about that lens than I am about the K10D." ... well, that might be true but why post a comment like that? It's fatuous whining to grate on other people's nerves, like JCO and his ridiculous whining about the mechanical aperture position sensor. It's stuff like that which leads me to expect that you will find something to complain about no matter how good or bad the DA70 turns out to be. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
