I GOTS MAH LENS BACK

[Analogy]

$315 and two weeks later I’ve got my precious tele back. YAY.

According to this sheet they sent back with it, the image stabilizer lens was loose/broken/something. They replaced it and now I’M BACK HAHAHAHA.

[Curious]

so the lens was out of warranty and real expensive in the first place? sorry i don’t remember the original details.

but i am happy for you. having equipment out for any reason is a pain.

if any one knows of a good repair place i need to get my three XD-11 bodies cleaned. for those that don’t know that’s a minolta body. manual focus, auto exposure in either aperture or shutter priority. a prosumer body for it’s day. that day being roughly thirty years ago 🙂

[Analogy]

Yeah, out of warranty because I’m the second owner, and about $1,400 new.

[swampa]

But more importantly – does it work now?? Quick go test it!

[Curious]

Yeah, out of warranty because I’m the second owner, and about $1,400 new.

since my maxxum 7D with kit lens was roughly $800 and an additional 75-300 AF film lens another $175 plus associated shipping for both that may explain why my shots aren’t as sharp as i’d like. i really like the body but knew going in that the lenses could be a stumbling block.

but for now they are what i can afford. and in ten months i’ve shot 24 GB worth of images. i do wish konica/minolta hadn’t got out of the camera lens business.

[Analogy]

Yeah I threw it on my camera and tested it as soon as I got it back. It never was a razor-sharp lens, but it’s definitely back where it should be.

[Claff]

since my maxxum 7D with kit lens was roughly $800 and an additional 75-300 AF film lens another $175 plus associated shipping for both that may explain why my shots aren’t as sharp as i’d like. i really like the body but knew going in that the lenses could be a stumbling block.

I’ll do you one better on the cheaskate sale. I got my D100 with a decent Sigma 28-70 lens second-hand for under $500 a year and a half ago. My other lenses are from a Sigma two-lens combo kit (28-90 and 70-300) that retails for about $229 I think.

I’d like to think I do more with less than most photographers I know, but there’s probably someone else out there who can out-cheap me and probably get better results to boot.

[Analogy]

You’re not a cheapskate unless you shoot with a Holga.

[Analogy]

I shot a baseball game today and looking at the photos I’m almost wondering if the lens is still broken… I know that I shouldn’t be expecting razor sharpness out of this lens, but I’m feeling like it should at least be giving me a little more.

Here’s the pics I shot from today’s game:
http://picasaweb.google.com/stephan.ahonen/20070611Saints

Full res:
http://www.analogy.cupofnoodles.com/2007-06-12_Saints/2007-06-11_Saints.zip (35 MB)

If you’re looking in Picasa, click “more info” to see the focal length I shot each picture at. I’m really noticing the lack of sharpness beyond 200mm. Also click the magnifying glass icon at the upper right of the picture to zoom in to the full res that I uploaded to Picasa at.

[Curious]

i didn’t look at every image but of those i did look at the “problem” seems to happen more on the ISO 1600 ones. the girl in red with the shovel compared to the girl in gray pitching. the two guys in frame two vs the several guys with red hats 6th frame from the end. there isn’t noise in the sense that there are colored dots but the 1600 ones are all soft. i tried to find similar exposure/focal lengths to compare although my examples may not reflect that.

[Analogy]

Softness at high ISOs can also be the result of noise reduction, which tends to remove detail.

[Author]

Posts