sleahy73

<p>I'm with Richard on this. My cameras have all had trouble recognizing 3rd party lenses, especially older ones. Only seems to affect the data, though; the images all came out as expected. </p>

<p>One thing about the Sigma lenses - if you buy it new, you can send it to Sigma Corp to have them sort out any issues with the lens. They do sight "reverse engineering" as a bit of an issue and are willing to match the lens to your camera, so that it functions perfectly. Of course, this means you have to send them your camera, too. <br>

So, if the 4mm on the short end and/or the HSM are big points for you, and you can afford the time w/o your camera, this might be an option (assuming, of course, that the lens you get doesn't function perfectly).</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>I've had 2 lenses and my K20 repaired through CRIS. The turnaround time wasn't great, nor was I terribly impress with the work. Lenses both had been dropped. They bent back in place and reused what they could, and you can see it. So, cosmetically they don't look great. But the optics are restored, so... I kind of expected better for $230 (including return shipping). The camera had the hot shoe mount torn off (tripod tipped over w/ flash attached). It came back looking and working perfect. $260. <br>

By the way, I think these are flat rates for any/all repairs. So CRIS might not be the way you want to go. <br>

Also, Doug, I'll be home for a few days around Aug 30. give me a buzz if you're still w/o a DSLR.</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>Hi Marius, <br>

What are you on the fence about, exactly? What attributes are present and/or missing from either lens that has your attention/concern?<br>

(I should disclose that I do not own the DA 70, but do own the FA 77)</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>Just saw it this morning. Part of a 3 day sale, if anyone is thinking about getting one.</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>Just go out and shoot. Use the camera to try to capture whatever it is you find interesting. Have fun! Be creative! No one is judging you or your photos. When you sit down to look at your pictures later, try to figure out what you like and don't like about your shots. Then go back out and try to do more of what you like and less of what you don't. Later you can take time to answer the questions "why?" and "how?". </p>

<p>Finding one's voice and a passion for photography will inevitably lead to all the technical knowledge and skills one requires.</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>I was just wondering when you became so lactose intolerant, Miz.<br>

(Yeah, I went there. Sometimes I have to do things just to amuse myself!)</p>

<p>Just sent you an e-mail with the link.</p>

<p>Sorry, it had to be done.</p>

<p>Just to be clear, Miz, are you suggesting that MILCs are the root of all EVILs?<br>

:-)</p>

<p>Na, he was real quick on that "no comment" line (re: questions about FF, etc.), but he did mention that Pentax (Japan) is listening. Pleasant to talk to otherwise, though. I discussed with him some of the challenges of some of my recent project and he made some suggestions based on some of his experiences. </p>

<p>For those of you who did not make it to the workshop, that article is pretty much what Kerrick James covered, minus a few comments about some of his other outlets for his photography and the sales pitches for Pentax gear. At least, that's what I recall from the 11am workshop. It may have been different at the later ones. The opportunity to meet Kerrick and Ned Bunnell was worth the trip, though. <br>

Sean</p>

<p>I have found that my Tokina 28-70 ATX-Pro (probably the same one Justin has) handled flair better than the newer Tokina 28-80 ATX-Pro, for what it's worth; but neither of them came close to the IQ of my DA*16-50. I did find, however, that the FA 77mm limited, FA 50 1.4, and several of my other older M series primes held up pretty well. Also, the newer lenses, whether they are APS-C or FF, often have the benefit of newer technology in the coatings and the optical design. <br>

So, I guess that puts me in the "depends" column as well. I'd suggest (modern) "pro" glass from either era will probably be fine, but you'll need to take each lens on a case by case basis. </p>

<p>Hi Jeremiah, </p>

<p>I had the same question myself last Sept. So I tried a little experiment. I used my K20 in RAW+ mode with the JPGs set to B&W (or I converted in camera, I don't recall now), and my FA 77mm Limited. Then I tried a couple of different conversions in PS, as well as in-camera conversions using some of the "digital filters" provided. <br>

Here's a link to my results:<br>

http://picasaweb.google.com/sleahy73/DigitalBWColorFilterComparison?authkey=Gv1sRgCIGgx5u96aWFwwE#</p>

<p>Click on "More Info" in the right hand column to get the file names, which will also tell you what you need to know about filter use and conversions, etc. </p>

<p>Let me know if you have any questions, or if something isn't as obvious as I might think it is...</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>Hmm... ok, they're not perfect in terms of zoom range, but I have have heard good things about them - Have you considered one of the Tamron or Sigma 24mm/28mm-70mm/75mm f/2.8? 75mm would be a bit short for head shots, but it should be able to accomplish the rest. Another option would be the Pentax 17-70 f/4 (wider, but slower). There's a similar Sigma with a f/2.8-4.5 as well. <br>

To be honest, I don't think there is a lens for Pentax that's going to quite nail it for you. You're going to have to zoom with your feet to some degree. In fact, the only lens I can think of that might do what you want is the Canon 24-105 f/4 on an APS-C sensor. I don't know of anything quite like that for Pentax. </p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>Hi Javier, </p>

<p>The only thing missing on the infrared remotes in the ability to shoot in Bulb mode (though I haven't tried it myself, but it would be at least very inconvenient). <br>

As for cable releases, you can pick up cheap 3rd party models that work just the same as Pentax releases. I have one that was designed for Canon EOS Rebel series cameras. Works great on both my K10 and K20. I think it cost me $15 at the local camera shop. </p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>Hi Jemal, </p>

<p>It seems you're working in 2 different directions here. I don't think one lens is going to satisfy what you're looking for.<br>

For starters, you seem to be toying with zooms and primes. These are really 2 different styles of shooting. I suppose you could coble together some mishmash of a kit that suits your needs, though. <br>

Personally, I'm blown away by the DA* 16-50. It's 24mm FF equivalent at its widest, quite sharp, contrasty, great color - almost never leaves my camera. You should be able to get a new one for around $750. If you're looking for a nice, wide AF lens for street, something similar to your 28mm, you might try the Sigma 24mm f/1.8. Should cost around $450. <br>

For your model shots, I've heard nothing but great things about the DA* 50-135. I picked up a Sigma 70-200 2.8, though. In my quick test shots in the camera store, I thought the Sigma handled some PF a little better. It should run about $700ish, as well. </p>

<p>Hope that helps.</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>All valid points Wayne. We are a long way off from finalizing our plans, but it looks it will be mostly, if not entirely, a tea-house trek. So, a 60lbs sack is not really in my plans - no tent, cooking gear, minimal food and water. We're trying to avoid organized tours. We're not into the larger groups, and prefer to have a bit more freedom to move about/revisit places as we see fit. My friend, whom I will be traveling with, has done similar trips before; so I'm sure my pack will guided largely by his experience. But we are both quite different people and photographers, though. <br>

Also, the point of this trip IS the photography. I don't believe either of us would consider this journey without our cameras (not that it wouldn't be worthwhile). </p>

<p>Again, thanks to you all for your input. You have provided me with much to consider.</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>Very interesting and informative responses! Thank you all!</p>

<p>Doug: I'll check out that book; Thanks! I'm sure I'll be in touch with you when I go home before the trip. </p>

<p>It's interesting to see what each person would take, especially the references to the film. I've been teetering on the film question. I do love the look of Velvia! Is the weight of the extra gear (film body or 2, maybe a dedicated lens or 2, the film itself) and the trouble worth it? Maybe as a back-up? (I was considering my ME Super and/or my MZ-S and a couple of small fast primes.)<br>

For the record, I wasn't actually thinking I'd bring all of that gear - it's more of a starting point from which to shave things down, and included DSLRs and film bodies, and high quality zooms and primes for low light. I don't believe in protecting my best gear in situations like this. Why buy it if you're not going to use it? </p>

<p>Miz: Yeah, I got the DA*16-50 back just yesterday, but my 2nd DA* 16-50 in now in the shop, along with my K20D... If I haven't already, I'll tell you about it later...</p>

<p>I hadn't considered a good P&S... I'll have to throw that into the mix as I sort out my gear. I'll most likely be taking my Sigma 70-200mm, though. I don't intend to pick up the DA* 50-135 any time soon. </p>

<p>John Shriver detailed some of the gear by the ounce... While I guess ounces can add up, does a couple of ounces really make that much difference?</p>

<p>The trip is not until this fall, so I've got lots of time to sort out the details. I am just curious how others more experienced than I would approach this. </p>

<p>Again, thank you to you all!</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>Seems there's not much happening here these days... I suppose I'm a part of the problem, due to my inactivity... so, maybe this will spark a little discussion:</p>

<p>I'm looking at a 'once-in-a-lifetime' type trip to Nepal this year. I'll have to carry everything I bring on my back, though, for about 3 weeks. I have a really bad habit of over-packing. Seems my travels wouldn't be complete without 200lbs of clothes, gear, appurtenance, etc. <br>

Now, I know we all have different styles, and different collections of gear, but... </p>

<p>Given the chance of a once-in-a-lifetime trip where you will need to carry all that you bring on your back for about 3 weeks (including clothes, etc.), what would you bring? What camera(s), lenses, tripods, appurtenance? And why; what's the rational?</p>

<p>I'd start with my list, but at the moment it includes some 3-4 cameras, 8 lenses, film, tripod, filters... uh... maybe I need to rethink this a little...</p>

<p>(and a side note: I don't always have access to internet, so I'll be checking in as often as I can, but maybe not everyday.)</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>I've had a search going on that afore mentioned popular web auction site for more than a year now and have not had one come up. (I would have bought it, had I seen one). Great camera, just wish it fit my big hands better. I guess I'll have to start looking over at Pentax Forums myself. Good luck in the hunt!</p>

<p>As I was driving around today, running errands, my thoughts returned to this thread and this question. </p>

<p>I, too, was troubled by Miserere's comment that any photography qualified as art, simply because it is a photograph. It reminded me of trying to come up with a definition for "Music". The only definition that can apply to all forms of music is: Organized Sounds. But, by this definition, my alarm clock and the sound of my car engine, on their own merits, would qualify as music. </p>

<p>There has also been a fair amount of discussion about emotion - being moved by [art] or [art] conveying some kind and/or amount of emotion. This can't be the only measure of art, as, often, the function of art within society is to challenge people to think, to take a second look at one's own society from another perspective. Or, maybe, simply to present a different view. </p>

<p>There has also been some discussion about the intentions of the author of, in this case, the photograph (though it has branched into other arenas). The problem with this is the assumption that one can perceive the intentions of another. Especially in non-verbal forms of art, this is a big assumption. As was pointed out, the author's intention for the photograph (or sketch) may be simply to document, but may later be considered art. Even more challenging is the fact that there is no way to prove we all agree on what the color red actually is. Perception from one person to another largely cannot be measured. </p>

<p>All of this gets even more confusing in the face of Dadaism, Pop Art, and the work of Cooper the Cat. At least in the case of the afore mentioned art movements, the point was to dismantle "Art", to poke fun at it, to be anti-art. There are similar movements in other forms, as well, often embracing the surreal, or, at least challenging what was traditionally the limits. Steve Martin and Andy Kaufman were both pioneers of what was often described as the "anti-comedy" movement. </p>

<p>Clearly, art requires communication; art <strong>IS</strong> communication. How do we know what the artist means to communicate to us? How do we, as "artists", know that what we intend to say will be heard and understood by our intended audience? Why is it that my favorite of my photos are often not among the favorites of my friends? I often don't see what they find so moving in some of my images. </p>

<p>Art is subjective. Any attempt to give anything more than the most broad stoke definition will be met with protest, and many fine examples that fall outside of that rule. As the observer of art, I look to be moved and/or challenged. I can accept that there is a great deal of art that falls outside of that rule, so I don't mean this to exclude. Perhaps that's my definition of "good art". Back to trying to communicate through art, I stand by my earlier statement. The details within his/her work are the tools the artist uses to communicate, thus the use and control (or not) of those details are his/her best chance of getting the point across.</p>

<p>Perhaps, the problem here, or at least part of it, is the perceived arrogance of calling one's self an "artist". If you create art, you must be an artist, right? I choke on this, too. I would never describe myself as an "artist", though I am a working professional musician, composer and arranger, and an avid photographer. I would, and do, say that I use all of these avenues, and a few others, to relate to, and communicate with the world around me. I am happy when something I produce finds meaning in and for someone else. </p>

<p>Well... that's my brilliantly articulate, glowing masterpiece tome (so well crafted, I might add, that it should be considered art in and of itself) about the definition of art. I hope you all feel smarter now. (just kidding... take it or leave it as you will)</p>

<p>Sean</p>

<p>Hi all, <br>

First I have to admit I've really only skimmed the responses here (limited time today), but what I have caught shows you have all put some thought into this question at one point or another. All intelligent and thought provoking answers. <br>

Speaking as a musician and photographer, I have always felt art was about the details - the choices the artist makes. Therein lies the intentions of the artist. The details you control or choose not to control to make your statement and the content (which is the art's choice) are what makes it art. It may not speak to everyone. "Chance" music, when the composer leaves certain elements of the musical composition to random chance, is no less art than Mozart or Bach, but I'd venture to say the latter have more broad appeal. How successful you or your work is is a matter of how well it communicates your intentions to your audience. <br>

That's my take on it; I suppose it's a rather loose and generous definition of the term. <br>

Good topic, though, Javier!<br>

Sean</p>

<p>This last one was taken near Moab, UT</p><div></div>

<p>Now one from Canyonlands NP</p><div></div>

<p>Well, I'm still on vacation, so I'll throw these in...<br /> This Cow was at a ranch me and my Nikonian friend, Eric, visited on Wednesday.</p><div></div>