How much do you want for your DA 40? I might buy if the price is right. Paul On May 27, 2007, at 12:54 PM, AlexG wrote:
> 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 >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> 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 >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/ferand/ >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> 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 > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
