Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-15-2013, 02:01 PM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 2,141
That is not a very good comparison, You are comparing a pro zoom to a (quite good) kit lens. The D7100 will produce much sharper images, also due to the lack of an AA filter.

12-15-2013, 02:28 PM   #17
Veteran Member
DavidSKAF3's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Tompkins County, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 542
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Equivalence makes it easy to compare two camera systems and determine which is going to give you the capability you need.

For instance, you'd have approximately the same image noise level with a Nikon D7100 + 17-55 f/2.8 (or whatever that Nikon lens is) and a Nikon D600 + 24-85 f/3.5-4.5.

It's not a perfect comparison of course as the larger format will generally give you better colors and in practice will always give you sharper images.

All Pentax DSLR's have the same sensor size so it's not really a big concern in the Pentax world.

What exactly are you trying to take pictures of... where is your current camera 'failing' right now?

Thanks for taking an interest and for your comment!


I just bought the very last brand new K-5 recently, and I am trying to pick a few used lenses to go with it. Hopefully I can give myself some choices that will make it more interesting to use. And I guess I am trying to familiarize myself with the Pentax line. And I guess I am trying to pick people's brains who already know stuff I don't!


Anyway, I saw a chart recently that seemed to say f/2.8 on the Panasonic FZ200 is really f/15.5, because of the sensor size or something, and that by comparison the f/5.6 on the Canon 18-135 lens is really much brighter than f/5.6, and that it's not really a 18-135 zoom but actually reaches much longer, because of its sensor size or mount whatever. And so I felt confused.


And I wanted to know what the lens numbers mean to my K-5, like if a 50mm reach is actually 75 or something on the K-5, or the F/2.8 is actually bigger or smaller. Confused? I know I am!


The link to the chart is in one of the posts above.


Thanks!
12-15-2013, 04:37 PM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by davids8560 Quote
Anyway, I saw a chart recently that seemed to say f/2.8 on the Panasonic FZ200 is really f/15.5, because of the sensor size or something, and that by comparison the f/5.6 on the Canon 18-135 lens is really much brighter than f/5.6, and that it's not really a 18-135 zoom but actually reaches much longer, because of its sensor size or mount whatever. And so I felt confused.


And I wanted to know what the lens numbers mean to my K-5, like if a 50mm reach is actually 75 or something on the K-5, or the F/2.8 is actually bigger or smaller.
There's a few things to consider.

When you're trying to compare cameras with different sensor sizes, specifically...

1) Field of View (FOV - what's in the picture)
2) Signal to noise ratio (SNR - how noisy the picture is... and usually fidelity of colors scale with this as well)
3) Depth of field (DOF - how far in front and behind the focal point is actually 'in focus')

Those ^ things scale with equivalent f-stop, equivalent focal length, and equivalent ISO.



When you're trying to figure out the actual ISO, you can either convert from 'equivalent ISO' (in practice no one does this) or you can use the

A) actual f-stop
B) actual shutter speed
C) actual ISO.


You've already chosen a sensor (in your K-5) with a crop factor of about 1.53. So, let's say you wanted to take an 'average' picture - in 35mm/full-frame terms, that's generally defined as 50mm. Let's say you were used to a 50mm F/1.8 lens... thirty years ago this would've been a standard lens that most consumers would own.

If you wanted to replicate this lens on your camera, you would take

1) Equivalent focal length = 50mm/1.53... approximately 35mm
2) Equivalent aperture: = 1.8/1.53... approximately F/1.2.


A 18-135mm, on an 'average' DSLR (crop factor of 1.53) would have a much, much larger equivalent aperture than any point-and-shoot camera, where the crop factors are generally in the 4x to 7x variety, which is what your author was actually speaking to.

In practice, if you don't already have a baseline of what a '35mm' or P&S camera does with aperture/dof/noise, you're probably better off delaying learning about equivalence unless/until you think about switching to a camera with a different sized sensor.
12-15-2013, 04:46 PM   #19
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Giklab Quote
That is not a very good comparison, You are comparing a pro zoom to a (quite good) kit lens. The D7100 will produce much sharper images, also due to the lack of an AA filter.
I should've compared the D7000 or the D800e, then, and it would still hold.

I haven't seen any scientific analysis of the increase in resolving power allowed in moderate lenses/20ish MP sensors by removing the AA filter.

The increase in resolving power from the D7000 to a D800 is ~1.5 with any level lens.

I don't think this is particularly relevant in this thread though, if you'd like me to comment further please start a new thread.

12-15-2013, 05:03 PM   #20
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,165
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Lots of members here like the rubber hood because it has adjustable depth.
Some have adjustable depth, some don't. Mine doesn't. The main advantage is that it collapses down for easy stowage.


Steve
12-15-2013, 05:05 PM   #21
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,165
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
For instance, you'd have approximately the same image noise level with a Nikon D7100 + 17-55 f/2.8 (or whatever that Nikon lens is) and a Nikon D600 + 24-85 f/3.5-4.5.
Huh? What does noise have to do with focal length equivalence (crop factor)?

Or does this have something to do with the current trend of expressing everything from shake reduction to noise in terms of "stops"?


Steve
12-15-2013, 09:43 PM   #22
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Huh? What does noise have to do with focal length equivalence (crop factor)?

Or does this have something to do with the current trend of expressing everything from shake reduction to noise in terms of "stops"?


Steve
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eAu2f_kDB1U/UXgs0gqlHeI/AAAAAAAAABw/HczXkU0KNaQ/s1...Hyperfocal.tif

Anyway, probably not relevant to the thread.
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!
camera, equivalent, f/2.8, k-mount, length, lenses, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is Focal Length of Fotodiox Q to K adapter? SonDa5 Pentax Q 4 12-25-2012 03:11 PM
What is the Best Focal Length for a Portrait Lens? Drom Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 94 04-22-2012 02:00 PM
What is the True Focal Length of your IF lens? Lowell Goudge Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 28 03-22-2011 04:04 PM
What is the focal length of our eye? raider Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 16 12-02-2009 02:43 PM
What is Focal Length Ole Photography Articles 2 05-15-2009 12:20 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:31 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