richard_ross1

Of course Pentax is doing quality control. The point is it is doubtful that Schneider is doing their own QC verification and controls on the Pentax manufacturing line, in the way that Zeiss claims to in the production of their Sony/Zeiss lenses.

 

Perhaps you should be more thoughtful in your responses, as you were directly asked before posting it if your response would be useful on this forum.

The case of Zeiss/Sony is interesting as they are still designing and ensuring quality in this relationship. That is of course if the following clip from their webpage FAQ is entirely true. Schneider is clearly not designing, and presumably not ensuring manufacturing quality in the Pentax case.

 

####

3. Why are ZEISS lenses for Sony cameras produced in Japan?

Sony produces digital cameras of different types in extremely high numbers in several factories in Japan. The lenses for these cameras have to come from lens factories near the Sony camera manufacturing facilities to ensure reliable deliveries and minimize the economic risk of interrupted supplies.

 

ZEISS lenses for Sony digital cameras are developed by lens designers at the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen, Germany. This includes all required quality assurance measures (test methods, test criteria, test devices, test procedures, lens performance target values, etc.) The lenses are then made in a lens production facility jointly chosen by Sony and Carl Zeiss. Quality assurance specialists from the Carl Zeiss plant in Oberkochen implement the ZEISS quality assurance system in the chosen facility. Many ZEISS optic measuring systems are installed. Carl Zeiss audits the lens production areas on a regular basis.

 

All these measures ensure that ZEISS lenses in Sony digital cameras meet the expectations demanding users associate with ZEISS lenses.

####

Is anyone here active in todays camera marketing world and can explain why

Schneider would lend its venerable name to non-Schneider designed and built

lenses? I refer specifically to the SLR lenses that Samsung is selling with

Schneider markings. As we all know these are just rebadged Pentax lenses (most

of which happen to be quite good lenses btw). I always assumed that when you

purchased a 'better' compact digital camera with a Schneider or Zeiss lens, you

were getting just that, not a rebadged Japanese lens. Perhaps that is not true

either.

 

I'm a big fan of the top German optics (Schneider LF glass, Zeiss/Contax 35mm

and Medium Format) and have found that in many cases these really were better

quality lenses than the competition. I can understand that the revenue stream

provided them by lending their name to things is irresistable, but they must

realize that it cheapens their name significantly. Is the new world of photo

marketing so tough that this is the only way for them to survive?

Well, I just saw it tonight in a vivid demonstration. I have lately been using my Epson 1280 with the Epson supplied (via the PIM package) icc profiles. My prints on Matte Heavyweight have always seemed a bit washed out so I downloaded the single $25 profile from Inkjetmall. The gamut and contrast are significantly improved. Truly night and day in direct comparison. It is also much better than some scanner based profiles that I was trying to make a year or so ago (and have since given up on).

 

I also witnessed this with a 9600 printer last year that I was working with. The Epson supplied generic profiles vs some custom ones. There the difference was not as dramatic but still noticeable.

I found a page on the inkjetmall site early today with the 'mapping':

Photo - 720 ,

Best Photo - 1440 ,

Photo RPM - 2880

 

As for your smart *@@ comment, the reason is that icc profiles are done for specific dpi settings, usually 1440 and 2880 and I need to know which one. The differences between 1440 and 2880 are usually subtle, excepting print speed, but color differences can be somewhat significant if the wrong settings are used for a given profile.

I just set up my 1280 on a new computer using the latest driver from

Epson. The quality settings are now names, not numbers. Is their a

translation laying about somewhere. A quick search yielded no help.

 

Thanks.

I have done some more testing and real world shooting. I think what I am finding is what the guy at B&H mentioned, a slight 'backfocus' problem, that I now find was widely discussed with regards to both the Nikon and Canon DSLRs. Mine is off just slightly so is probably well within manufacturing tolerances. I suspect that exchanging the body is not going to be a wise move. If it really bothers me in the coming months, perhaps I will ask to have Pentax adjust it. Is Pentax service good about this sort of thing, or will they tell me to stop whining?

I am using the Pentax kit lens 18-55, Tokina ATX/Pro (AF) 28-80/2.8 and Pentax A50/1.7 (MF). I have experienced the problem mostly at short distances (but also with portraits at a few feet) and large aperture. Focus locks over a short range of distances, which seems to be skewed on the near side of the subject, and the two AF lenses lock in focus on the near end of that range.

 

This is my first AF camera so I don't know if these are normal tolerances and if I am expecting too much here.

I have been using an *istDs for a week now and have come to the

conclusion that the autofocus is off by 1/2 to 1 inch, locking focus

closer than the subject. I am shooting portraits at wide apertures and

am definitely missing focus. I have since done some testing by

shooting a ruler at an angle and verified that it is not the lens.

 

Have other people had this issue with the Pentax DSLRs (or other

autofocus SLRS for that matter.) B&H will exchange the camera but I do

not want to be without for a week and half and end up with a body with

the same or similar problem.

I'm 35 and having been shooting 4x5 for 3 years. Based on the above

list it looks like we have many 30 somethings here. I'm glad to see it!

I shoot very little black and white, but began developing myself recently to get some control. I have been using HP5 mostly but also some FP4 and Delta3200. I am using Arista F76 (from Freestyle), a reputed D76 equivalent.

 

<p>

 

My main question is about reuse vs one-shot. I typically process 3 or so rolls of 120 at a time. I have been mixing 600ml (2 rolls worth), processing one at a time. My negs look more or less the same between the first and last processed, so I assume I haven't exhausted the developer. How many rolls could one process in this manner, or should I really be using the developer once and dumping it. The spec sheets have some info concerning capacity, but it is not clear to me how to apply this in practice for such small amounts.