Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-30-2011, 04:43 PM   #76
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
You were the one who claimed they *needed* f/1.4 or whatever.
Actually, you're confusing me with Docrwm:

QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
Sorry but I disagree. I've used my FA50/1.4 in a number of applications where the 2.8 just was not up to it.
I was agreeing with him that there are situations where 1.4 is useful.

To put things in perspective, what I am disagreeing with you on is the bold part below:

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I disagree that f/1.4 is necessary or even all that helpful in low light.
I agree with you that f/1.4 is not necessary, and I said so before, I just don't agree that it is not helpful in low light - that statement has no meat in it.



That aside, here are some answers to your other points:


QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Yes, but every DSLR made in the last 6-7 years does well enough for the context being discussed here.
K10D only goes to 1600, K-7 only goes to 3200. The light conditions that I mentioned were requiring ISO 6400 with a 2.8 aperture. Can't do that with a K10D or K-7 and both were built in the last 6-7 years.

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
There is no way you can convince me that f/2.8 isn't good enough, because as someone who successfully uses it, I know for an absolutely incontrovertible fact that it is.
I am not trying to convince you that. I am just pointing out that what is good enough for you is not necessarily good enough for others.

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Perhaps not in some situations, but low light shooting is the subject of this thread, and it's something a lot of people are interested in.
Yes, but my point was that it is not something that 99% of the users are interested in, so you cannot claim it is a topic for the "average person". 99% of users use a P&S and its builtin flash - their "average person" topic is red-eye, not low light shooting.

07-31-2011, 07:50 AM   #77
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Actually, you're confusing me with Docrwm:



I was agreeing with him that there are situations where 1.4 is useful.

To put things in perspective, what I am disagreeing with you on is the bold part below:



I agree with you that f/1.4 is not necessary, and I said so before, I just don't agree that it is not helpful in low light - that statement has no meat in it.



That aside, here are some answers to your other points:

K10D only goes to 1600, K-7 only goes to 3200. The light conditions that I mentioned were requiring ISO 6400 with a 2.8 aperture. Can't do that with a K10D or K-7 and both were built in the last 6-7 years.

I am not trying to convince you that. I am just pointing out that what is good enough for you is not necessarily good enough for others.

Yes, but my point was that it is not something that 99% of the users are interested in, so you cannot claim it is a topic for the "average person". 99% of users use a P&S and its builtin flash - their "average person" topic is red-eye, not low light shooting.
I find quibbling with Marc fatiguing at best, don't you? There are absolutely situations where a 2.8 can not do the job, couldn't care less about pronouncements from others to the contrary. If those that believe to the contrary would try shooting something other than stationary musicians in low light - like 10 year old boys playing basketball in horrible rec center indoor light and they'd come to realize that I'm right that high ISO is not good enough by itself for good photos. Done quibbling.
07-31-2011, 09:36 AM   #78
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 206
I agree with those that recommend the DA35mm f24.I have used it on both the Kr and K5 and it is a very good to great lens for the price. Very close to limited quality rendering at less than half the price. I bought a screw on rubber lens hood for $7:00 and was good to go
Thanks,
Joe
07-31-2011, 10:25 AM   #79
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
I find quibbling with Marc fatiguing at best, don't you? There are absolutely situations where a 2.8 can not do the job, couldn't care less about pronouncements from others to the contrary. If those that believe to the contrary would try shooting something other than stationary musicians in low light - like 10 year old boys playing basketball in horrible rec center indoor light and they'd come to realize that I'm right that high ISO is not good enough by itself for good photos. Done quibbling.
It's nice to at least have the option.

I almost never use f1.4. But when I do, I'm very happy that I have it.

07-31-2011, 09:19 PM   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
I find quibbling with Marc fatiguing at best, don't you? There are absolutely situations where a 2.8 can not do the job, couldn't care less about pronouncements from others to the contrary. If those that believe to the contrary would try shooting something other than stationary musicians in low light - like 10 year old boys playing basketball in horrible rec center indoor light and they'd come to realize that I'm right that high ISO is not good enough by itself for good photos. Done quibbling.

Yes for me , f2.8 does not cut it quite often.

speaking of ME only and the way I use equipment, I need F1.4 , f1.2 many times.

Marc's basic premise is that one can always bump up the ISO value. With this premise I disagree.

WHY?
The reason is that high iso images does not look like base ISO images from any camera. If he can name just ONE camera that can give me same DR, same resolution and same level of noise as base ISO level, I would agree with him. But no. There exists no such camera and hence bumping up iso is NOT an option, at least for me.

I use K-x and my heart cringe even if I have to go to ISO 400. I would rather use faster lens than to bump ISO. Domp like NRed images from camera.
07-31-2011, 10:13 PM   #81
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
I agree with you that f/1.4 is not necessary, and I said so before, I just don't agree that it is not helpful in low light - that statement has no meat in it.
It's true it was a slight exaggeration.It can indeed be helpful, but so can turning up ISO.

QuoteQuote:
K10D only goes to 1600, K-7 only goes to 3200. The light conditions that I mentioned were requiring ISO 6400 with a 2.8 aperture. Can't do that with a K10D or K-7 and both were built in the last 6-7 years.
Sure you can. Not using an in camera setting, but through push processing. I do this all the time on my K200D.

QuoteQuote:
I am not trying to convince you that. I am just pointing out that what is good enough for you is not necessarily good enough for others.
True, but I think it self-evident the numbers agree with me. It's fine that some people feel the need for more speed often enough to mention, but that still doesn't mean it's necessary.

QuoteQuote:
but my point was that it is not something that 99% of the users are interested in, so you cannot claim it is a topic for the "average person".
OK, fine, average DSLR owner. I'd have thoight the context obvious.
07-31-2011, 10:20 PM   #82
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by zxaar Quote
Marc's basic premise is that one can always bump up the ISO value. With this premise I disagree.

WHY?
The reason is that high iso images does not look like base ISO images from any camera. If he can name just ONE camera that can give me same DR, same resolution and same level of noise as base ISO level, I would agree with him.
Obvioisly, you give up a little something turning up ISO. Just as you give up a little something shooting f/1.4. Or do you know a lens that produces the same DPF at f/1.4 that it does at f/2.8.

QuoteQuote:
I use K-x and my heart cringe even if I have to go to ISO 400.
And that's precisely the attitude that puts you in a small minority. Which is fine, but it does mean it is important for others to add a little more perspective. There are some who can't stand ISO 400, just as there are some who can't bear to drive anything less than a Lamborghini. That still doesn't mean a Honda won't get the job done for 99% of people.
07-31-2011, 10:25 PM   #83
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Docrwm Quote
IThere are absolutely situations where a 2.8 can not do the job, couldn't care less about pronouncements from others to the contrary
Similarly, there are situations where are Honda Accord won't get the job done. Doesn't mean the average driver needs a Ferrari.

QuoteQuote:
those that believe to the contrary would try shooting something other than stationary musicians in low light
Been there, done that. And believe it or not, most professional sports shooters use f/2.8 zooms. They really do work.

07-31-2011, 11:37 PM - 1 Like   #84
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
True, but I think it self-evident the numbers agree with me. It's fine that some people feel the need for more speed often enough to mention, but that still doesn't mean it's necessary.
Marc, let's clarify one thing: you are the only one who mentioned f/1.4 as necessary, just so you can have a strawman argument to argue with. Go read this thread again - nobody said 1.4 is necessary until you started arguing it's not. You've been fighting your own shadow from the first page of this thread.
07-31-2011, 11:42 PM   #85
Veteran Member
TOUGEFC's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brisbane
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,561
This thread have gone way off topic!
Well said Laurentiu! +1
07-31-2011, 11:45 PM   #86
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Obvioisly, you give up a little something turning up ISO. Just as you give up a little something shooting f/1.4. Or do you know a lens that produces the same DPF at f/1.4 that it does at f/2.8.



And that's precisely the attitude that puts you in a small minority. Which is fine, but it does mean it is important for others to add a little more perspective. There are some who can't stand ISO 400, just as there are some who can't bear to drive anything less than a Lamborghini. That still doesn't mean a Honda won't get the job done for 99% of people.
you are only half correct. You are correct about the part that i belong to minority of people. But you are wrong if you say that 99% of people use high iso because it is better than using fast lens. If both lenses faster f1.2 and f2.8 costed the same money (or f1.2 lenses were cheap), i am pretty sure I would not be in minority of people who use faster lens and base isos. For the 99% of people you are talking about they have no choice but to bump isos. So in other words using faster lenses may very well be important for good amount of people (out of 99%) but they can not use that option because of being unaffordable.
08-01-2011, 08:57 AM   #87
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
Most of the responses prior to my first post in this thread were recommendIng the OP give up AF so he could get a "fast" lens, and furthermore, they suggested settling for an awkward focal length like 50mm rather than a "normal" lens. Even if no one (yet) was saying it was absolutely required, there was a clear implication that the DA35/2.4 was somehow not good enough. And that it was I was responding to. It isn't my fault if someone then decided to argue about corner cases where that lens wouldn't do the job. But you're right, the thread kind of got derailed in the nitpicking.

Bottom line, and I completely stand behind this: the answer to the OP's question is and remains, DA35/2.4. It's the best choice for most people looking for an inexpensive AF prime for low light photography, even if some occasionally find the need to for faster lenses and are willing to compromise on AF, focal length, or price in order to achieve that.
08-01-2011, 09:21 AM   #88
Veteran Member
joe.penn's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,902
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
Bottom line, and I completely stand behind this: the answer to the OP's question is and remains, DA35/2.4. It's the best choice for most people looking for an inexpensive AF prime for low light photography, even if some occasionally find the need to for faster lenses and are willing to compromise on AF, focal length, or price in order to achieve that.
+1

As the 1st one to reply to this thread, my recommendation was and still is the 35mm 2.4...





---
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
af lenses, k-mount, lenses, low-light, pentax lens, photography, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
low light photography r00t_b33r Photographic Technique 9 12-11-2010 09:34 PM
Low light telephoto candid photography auto210035 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 26 03-02-2010 07:06 AM
Tamron 70-200 f2.8 vs Sigma 70-200 f2.8 In Low Light Christopher M.W.T Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 11-23-2009 03:57 PM
Low Light Photography Iann Cannon Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 37 10-22-2009 11:51 AM
good low light zooms? goldfishin Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 06-14-2007 10:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:33 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top