Forum posts deleted

News about new material on photoclubalpha
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6248
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Forum posts deleted

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:19 pm

In attempting to move and delete a topic about activation which is no longer valid, under which two new members had incorrectly posted questions or said hello, the moved posts involved don't seem to have survived. So if you have recently posted in this topic 'User Activation' - now deleted as a topic - my apologies.

David

User avatar
Dr. Harout
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5833
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby Dr. Harout » Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:35 pm

No problem DK
A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:16 pm

There is a mysterious place somewhere, that contains stuff that go missing from databases...it's like magic one moment it's there, a simple file transfer or such and "poof" it's gone...never too be seen again. :lol:
Tell me about it DK, been there done that...someday someone will figure out just where all that stuff is....it'll be the equivalent of finding the computer version of the Bermuda Triangle. :wink:
Greg

User avatar
bakubo
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 5632
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Hawaii
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby bakubo » Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:13 pm

Greg, I am pretty sure it is in the same place where a single missing sock and toothpaste caps go to. :D

User avatar
Dr. Harout
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5833
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby Dr. Harout » Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:23 am

As far as I remember and noticed there were just 2 topics which were deleted from the "User Activation" section. All other topics which seem to be deleted are posted/transferred to other sections to be more appropriate. That IMHO and whatever I noticed. Tell me if I missed something.
Moreover, some posts which addressed DK badly were not deleted (and that speaks in favor of DK).
A99 + a7rII + Sony, Zeiss, Minolta, Rokinon and M42 lenses

Flickr

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:56 am

Hey Henry,
I had a nifty idea, what if we were too take a pickie of our single socks and post them on the web, saying, has anyone seen the matching sock too this one?
I wonder what would turn up? :lol:
Greg

01af
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 504
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby 01af » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:14 am

bakubo wrote:I am pretty sure it is in the same place where a single missing sock and toothpaste caps go to.

I also have the occasional missing sock---but the concept of missing toothpaste caps is new to me. Maybe I should give it a try (or maybe not). :mrgreen:

-- Olaf

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:17 am

Dr. Harout wrote:As far as I remember and noticed there were just 2 topics which were deleted from the "User Activation" section. All other topics which seem to be deleted are posted/transferred to other sections to be more appropriate. That IMHO and whatever I noticed. Tell me if I missed something.
Moreover, some posts which addressed DK badly were not deleted (and that speaks in favor of DK).


And,
Speaking of addressing David badly, Don owes David an apology as far as I'm concerned...I've looked at the post's that he made concerning the lenses that Sonolta was so upset about and I could find nothing but straight reporting of the facts....no bias, as claimed...at all.
Greg

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:28 am

Maybe if they made socks in threes instead if pairs, then one could vanish and we would still have a complete pair... :lol:
Greg
ps They have fixed the toothpaste cap problem here, they have little hingey caps instead of the screw on ones, now the whole toothpast tube disappears instead.

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6248
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:37 pm

Don's last post here was deleted because of the language used.

David

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6248
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:19 pm

For the record, this thread did not refer to anything connected with Sonolta, and there was no reason for him to reply on it. It referred to a question asked by a new member, which was wrongly posted in a Welcome thread, and got lost during an attempt to move it to a relevant forum, and to delete the posting in the Welcome area. That was all.

David

Javelin
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby Javelin » Fri Sep 05, 2008 7:46 pm

Doesn't your research here basically disprove your bias argument? I mean you posted DK's own words below where he had a lot to say about the quality issues on that CZ lens ? that thread where you started this was specifically about the Sigma so you seriously beleive that if he's got a criticizm about a competing lens he should also include a criticism of a sony lens even if it's not relavent to the thread?. I think your argument for defending that lens is weak anyway, DPR has examples from 20+ people who have had that problem with that one single lens on the A700 alone. and now theres evedence that the Nikon mounts are doing it too and the A100, 200 and more recently the A350 I saw a post about. Another post was made today here about the lens failure and on DPR there was another post from a user of a diferent Sigma lens that my have the broken sector gear as well on an A350. I say go back to the HDMI/HD thing


[quote="Sonolta"]DK said this about the 70-300 APO DG macro
:
"The Sigma is optically excellent and the chances of the gears stripping may be 1 in 100 units or less"

"Putting it very simply, if even two or three individuals have had issues, it is reason enough to advice against the Sigma."

David


I got your two or three issues right here, DK. DK's own words on the Zeiss 16-80...


Mechanically, it sucks

It took three samples to get one which I was happy to keep


So… I’m not living with a Zeiss lens that doesn’t feel as if it will be perfect in a month’s time.
I expect a Zeiss lens to feel perfect in ten years’ time. I don’t expect it to feel like the first one did when new. I am a little worried that even my ‘good’ lens may slacken up, develop inaccuracies with use and wear.

That’s not a wonderful experience to have with a lens which is supposed to bring the world to Sony’s marketstall.

Sorry to say it, but the feel and handling of this lens are far below the expectations held by anyone who has used the Sony R-1 or pretty much any other Zeiss labelled SLR lens ever made. It is made of plastic, and when you operate the zoom you feel plastic on plastic.

My problem and its resolution

Even in the best samples, early buyers report that the image will jump to the side during some focusing actions, and that using the manual focus ring has the same effect. The front unit does not feel secure, and if you walk along, the lens emits a slightly clunking noise as if the barrels are able to move a bit. At least, this was the case with my first TWO samples. I returned the first lens to Warehousexpress – see below – and they sent my two replacements in error. This was fortunate, because the first one I opened had the same symptoms as the original. Since going to press with this report, I have been able to make some reassessment, on the basis of the third sample, which I opened after explaining the situation to Warehousexpress. This one proved totally different. The zoom mechanism was not lumpy in any way – dead smooth – and the AF actuation did not make the image twitch sideways in the finder. The zoom did not ‘lump into place’ at 80mm (my only way to describe this) and then resist zooming out without first requiring a millimetre of slack to be taken up, during which it put the image out of focus. This was what happened with both the first two lenses tried. The third one was perfect.

Since my purchase had taken a slight knock in transit, I suspected it was damaged initially. But a week of corresponding with other new buyers on Internet confirmed that varying levels of slop, focus shift when the zoom ring is touched, image position shift during focusing and poor response to manual focus occur with this rather expensive lens (RRP well over £500).

Two weeks into shooting, and the tolerances had got worse
. It became impossible to zoom back from 80mm without the image going out of focus and needing a new AF-initiation, and the biting crispness I had observed in the first images was replaced at random by a visibly poor centering of the groups. This gives even a sharp image a slight directional quality. Warehouseexpress agreed immediately to take the lens back and provide a new replacement, also taking on board my comments about the packaging used, which surprised their operator. With six lenses due in and six on backorder, mine was not going to be immediate. I did not opt for a repair under warranty as I don’t believe any repair service is capable of returning a lens of this quality in precisely the same state as a perfect new one. These optics are too complex to centre, collimate and test in a repair environment.

This was the point at which I wrote this original article, and I don’t have the ability to hold a magazine back from the press for an indefinite time to recap my comments. The web, in truth, is a far superior medium for reviews because we can update findings and perhaps even change an opinion (sacrilege!). The printed article is fair to our Photoworld readers because it warns that a lens proved unsatisfactory and had to be sent back. What’s unfair is that it does not go on to record that one out of two replacements offered had identical faults. Of course, I am now happy. I have a lens which feels (and sounds when gently agitated like a developing tank!) perfect. Sony should not be happy; I reviewed a real purchased lens, not a loan sample. Had I been sent a loan sample, and found the fault, I would probably have reported it immediately and discussed the problem. But my readers don’t get that opportunity. Like me, they have recourse to their dealer first, and persuading some dealers over the counter that the faults I found were significant could be surprisingly hard. Warehouseexpress behaved explemplarily, and it only took them three days to send my replacement, despite the back order situation; also, they used just the same packaging method. As for their despatch system, I hope they use a good audit trail. Would you have kept the second lens and said nothing?

My final example lens, after further experience, turns out to have focusing issues which are clearly connected to the way the Alpha 100 autofocus works. It pays to focus at 80mm, lock the AF, and zoom back to 16mm rather than attempt AF at 16mm most of the time. Generally any error is masked by depth of field in normal shooting conditions. Indoors, in low light, 16mm focusing is very unreliable and errors depend on the particular sensor in use and the colour or illuminaton of the target.

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:47 pm

No user reviews at dyxum reporting broken Sigmas Don?
I didn't have to look far too find these.
http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/rev ... IDLens=221

comment:
I bought this lens new from OneStop Digital on recommendation. Good choice in terms of lens and company used. Definately one for the camera bag. Excellent value for money lens. Great Bokeh. works fine on A100. My copy stripped it's AF gears withion 2 hours of first use on A700.

Be warned.

comment:
To look at and handle the lens is great, the lens hood attaches easily and quickly, images are clean, clear and sharp and IMHO the lens compare very well against the Alpha's kit lens, colours are excellent, on the down side, i did find it a bit slow at focussing (hunting issues) and a bit noisey, for me though the worst thing is the build quality, the zoom barrel on mine is stiff between 200 & 300mm and after trying to ease the play, (by simply rotating the zoom) the lens broke, If you can get one that's not stiff you'll have a good lens, if on the other hand you get a sticky one; be careful

comment:
Nice upgrade from the DL Macro I owned. It's a good lens for the money and is very capable.

Update: 8/27/08

This update was long overdue. I have changed my opinion of this lens, I am downgrading the build rating to a 2 now. The Scale Ring has failed/ broke three times since my intial purchase. I am not a tech guy but, the scale ring is part of the AF system of the lens. it mates up with the AF Drive Motor of the camera. So when it fails there is no AF operation, just a very bad sounding humming noise. Sigma has repaired this lens twice. It is currently (8/27/08) in their service dept. for evaluation.

I have made it clear to Sigma I have no interest or confidence in this lens now. Sigma does not offer refunds, so the best I can do at this point is a new copy of this lens. Which I believe will lead me back to the same place I am at now. I say that because to my knowledge Sigma has not done anything to upgrade or correct the scale ring issue in its current production lines.

So I say buyer beware if you are mating this lens to a Sony Alpha body. You may get a copy that is reliable but then again you may not!

comment:
beautiful lens for the pricing. Was my first lens together with the kit. pefect combo to start with, not as cost worthy and good learning. Macro is very useful, but don't expect 100 2.8 levels
Update: AF is malfunctioning, seems there is a geartooth missing.
Brought it to Sigma BeNeLux, now we wait! ( 11-03-08 )
Got it back two weeks ago from Sigma Benelux (4-4-08), what a service from these guys, repaired it under warranty, although it was 5 outside the warranty period. Good service!


Greg

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:43 pm

Not funny today Don,
I never claimed the CZ16-80 was perfect, but what I didn't realize was the QC was so bad, in any case i'm not trying too defend the CZ.

The point is, you claimed that you had too set the record straight, that we hate Sigmas, David has a bias against Sigma and badmouthed the APO 70-300 DG in particular, then you made the claim that there were no user reports at Dyxum of broken Sigma's.....THIS IS INCORRECT.
Greg
ps. For your info I happen to actually like the optics in that lens very much.

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6248
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Forum posts deleted

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:39 am

Don, there is a difference between a lens which functions roughly, but takes perfect pictures, and just annoys people who think a £600 lens should be much better - and one which breaks and ceases to AF at all.

If you can't tell that difference, you should not be wasting acres of space here putting up specious arguments about nothing at all. The two issues are not even remotely connected. I do not know of a single 16-80mm CZ which has failed or broken in use. Also, you do not own or use a CZ 16-80mm, so you have no idea at all why people are prepared to put up with poor build quality to get exceptional optical quality - because you have never experienced that optical quality.

I don't believe you own a single CZ lens for Sony or that you ever have done, out of all the lenses you have bought and sold.

David


Return to “Web Content Announcements”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron