[DSims]

If it's not a problem on APS-C, it's not a problem on FF. Yes, the "ISO" goes up, but the larger area of the sensor precisely makes up for the higher ISO.

Uh, sorry, an object in motion doesn't care how big your sensor is, or how many pixels it has! You're going to need a certain shutter speed to 'stop' the motion.

[sapateiro]

But if you want to simulate shooting a 50/1.2 on Pentax APSC, you can get a 85/1.8 for cheap for your 5D You lose a quite a bit of MFD, but I doubt that you'll be using it for close ups that much.

My apologies if what you mean is using the 50/1.2 on Pentax film.

I'm comparing the pentax and canon 50mm lenses on my canon bodies so its a direct comparison. Regardless of 7D crop or 5D its still canon 50mm's v. Pentax 50mm... And pentax are better value, more compact and at least as good quality wise. My pentax 50mm 1.2 was just over $300 used. Compare that to the canon!

[ElJamoquio]

Uh, sorry, an object in motion doesn't care how big your sensor is.

Yes, that's what I said. Thanks, I guess?

[DSims]

Yes, that's what I said. Thanks, I guess?

So you're saying that 200mm f/4 1/640s ISO 2500 on FF is not only the same exposure and FOV as 135mm f/2.8 1/640s ISO 1250 on APS-C, but will also give similar DOF and roughly the same amount of noise? And that since this noise is roughly equivalent, it justifies doubling the ISO in order to use the same shutter speed?

[starbase218]

It sure does when you go long![COLOR="Silver"]
You're not doing "apples to apples" here; you're assuming DOF is the most important factor to the shooter.

Interestingly, you're going to end up with a slower shutter speed (or higher ISO) with that f/4 lens, so if there's motion in the frame this could be a problem. And guess what happens on most Canon cameras if you pump up the ISO? Perhaps the worst noise in the industry. But that's OK, just shoot in Canon's JPEG - it will reduce the noise and kindly smear all the details for you!

I'm not assuming anything. Sensors twice as big will generally have twice the ISO performance, so you should increase the ISO on a fullframe sensor if you want to compare apples to apples. Canon may not have the best high-ISO in the world, but that's quite Canon-specific. Take a D4 and its 16MP sensor and it's a completely different story. Besides, I don't believe the latest Canons are that bad.

[Rondec]

So you're saying that 200mm f/4 1/640s ISO 2500 on FF is not only the same exposure and FOV as 135mm f/2.8 1/640s ISO 1250 on APS-C, but will also give similar DOF and roughly the same amount of noise? And that since this noise is roughly equivalent, it justifies doubling the ISO in order to use the same shutter speed?

Yes, that is what he is saying. It is probably true if you are using Nikon full frame cameras, not so much if you are using Canon, as their sensor tech isn't as good and you are more likely to run into banding/noise issues. In general, full frame is one stop better with regard to noise, but that stop is used up, if you need the same depth of field as APS-C. But equivalency has been beaten to death in multiple threads, hasn't it?

[Andi Lo]

I'm comparing the pentax and canon 50mm lenses on my canon bodies so its a direct comparison. Regardless of 7D crop or 5D its still canon 50mm's v. Pentax 50mm... And pentax are better value, more compact and at least as good quality wise. My pentax 50mm 1.2 was just over $300 used. Compare that to the canon!

For practical (= image taking) purposes you should though, even though they're different (85 and 50), the image of a 85/1.8 on FF and 50/1.2 on APSC is very similar. The price of a used Canon 85mm is only $350 - 400. You also get AF, metering and body-controlled aperture! Of course not everyone values that, but I think it's important to compare it this way since the image is really what matters, not the math. At $400-450 a used Canon 5D is also not very expensive, although I guess you pay in the form of clunky AF, but perhaps better than nothing at all.

I find Pentax is still better value and more compact only for the bodies (K-5, K-3). Unfortunately for lenses I'm not finding this true anymore. In the last few years Fuji has totally leapfrogged pentax in the lens (value + compact) front That's why the sooner FF Pentax comes out, the sooner we can return the FA limiteds to their true worth. As an FF lens they are still one of the best value / compact in class, but not as a APSC lens

Pentax still has WR going for them but... is that enough?

---

Last edited by Andi Lo; 06-26-2014 at 04:13 AM.

[starbase218]

Pentax still has WR going for them but... is that enough?

Pentax's WR is only a unique selling point in their entry-level bodies and lenses. Canon and Nikon's higher-end models also have weather sealing. Of course Pentaxians will claim that Pentax's WR is almost magical when compared to Canon or Nikon, but I'm having a hard time believing that, with thousands of professional photographers using mostly Canon/Nikon their gear in all kinds of conditions.

Still, people say Pentax isn't good on marketing...

[normhead]

Pentax's WR is only a unique selling point in their entry-level bodies and lenses. Canon and Nikon's higher-end models also have weather sealing. Of course Pentaxians will claim that Pentax's WR is almost magical when compared to Canon or Nikon, but I'm having a hard time believing that, with thousands of professional photographers using mostly Canon/Nikon their gear in all kinds of conditions.

Still, people say Pentax isn't good on marketing...

It gets really tiring people talking about Canon and Nikon shooters using systems that cost 4 times what Pentax does, making arguments like this. Everyone on this site knows Canon and Nikon make more expensive, more pro-friendly systems, and sells more cameras than Pentax does. That is not a credible argument in terms of adding something to the conversation... they may or may not-compete with Pentax's level, at their level, but you didn't really add to our knowledge of that, issue.

Have you any idea if you hang around here for a while of hearing lines like

but I'm having a hard time believing that, with thousands of professional photographers using mostly Canon/Nikon their gear in all kinds of conditions.

Not one person here, has into brought that logic in their purchasing preferences, or we'd all own Canons or Nikons. We are a bunch of people who look beyond statistical trends in our purchasing decisions to see what we can get for our money. That is the last argument you should use on this site to make a point. We already know you're wrong. Who sells the most cameras does not indicate who makes the best cameras, on any single given issue, including WR.

[ElJamoquio]

I've never seen any proof that Pentax makes better WR. I've never seen any proof that Pentax makes worse WR.

Who wants to volunteer to test it out?

[starbase218]

It gets really tiring people talking about Canon and Nikon shooters using systems that cost 4 times what Pentax does, making arguments like this. Everyone on this site knows Canon and Nikon make more expensive, more pro-friendly systems, and sells more cameras than Pentax does. That is not a credible argument in terms of adding something to the conversation... they may or may not-compete with Pentax's level, at their level, but you didn't really add to our knowledge of that, issue.

Err... I was talking about the 7D and 6D???

Not one person here, has into brought that logic in their purchasing preferences, or we'd all own Canons or Nikons. We are a bunch of people who look beyond statistical trends in our purchasing decisions to see what we can get for our money. That is the last argument you should use on this site to make a point. We already know you're wrong. Who sells the most cameras does not indicate who makes the best cameras, on any single given issue, including WR.

Whooo... where did that come from? First of all, whatever logic people use when choosing a camera system is their own choice. It doesn't make it right or wrong, and it most certainly doesn't make it factually correct. If it is a person's perception that Pentax WR is better than Canon 7D's WR, good for them, it's their perception. I just don't think it's correct, and that's my perception. Feel free to disagree with that.

Secondly, am I reading you correctly in that you are saying we'd all own Canons or Nikons if we thought the weather sealing was equally good on those brands as it is on Pentax? (not saying it isn't, because that's not my perception, but ok) Isn't that a little presumptuous? I mean, I don't think there's much of a difference in weather sealing, and yes, I do think the perception of Pentax WR being better largely exists because of marketing, but still I own a Pentax K-5 and several Pentax lenses. So whatever reasoning you have is different from mine. So please speak for yourself.

But if you "know" I am wrong, then you have shut the door on this conversation. I haven't, you have. I mentioned time and again that what I post are my thoughts and perceptions, not facts. But now you claim that your perception is factual and effectively killed of any conversation on this topic.

But, if you want to make this factual, ok: where are the statistical tests that have been done to show e.g. Pentax K-3 weather sealing is better than Canon 7D weather sealing? And please don't bother with anecdotal stories. You need enough test runs to rule out coincidence, and they need to be executed in controlled conditions. Then you may have evidence.

And nowhere do I claim that whoever sells the most cameras must make the best cameras. But even if I did, that would be my perception of things. And you know what? I may be wrong. But I have found that my perception serves a purpose. I have let go of "Pentax must be better than the other brands" thoughts, and found that it allows me to focus on the photography instead of the brand. Which is why I got a camera and became a member of several forums, including this one, in the first place.

[normhead]

Whooo... where did that come from?

You can tell where it came from because I quoted the text I was responding to. How can I make that more clear to you?

I thought I was clear, you aren't reading me correctly, I said what I said, and that's all that I said. You can speculate about what I might be saying all you want.

I have let go of "Pentax must be better than the other brands" thoughts,

Ya, well , just for those of who never entertained those thoughts it just seems kind of odd. Almost 50 years ago I was sitting at lunch at Ryerson Polytech with a friend , me with his Canon, me with his Pentax. We played with each others cameras and we both thought, "I could get used to this" about each others cameras. ( But neither of us switched brands.) My question has always been what does this camera do that I might like. The idea of one brand being better in every aspect ? I never seriously entertained that idea.

[starbase218]

You can tell where it came from because I quoted the text I was responding to. How can I make that more clear to you?

I thought I was clear, you aren't reading me correctly, I said what I said, and that's all that I said. You can speculate about what I might be saying all you want.

I may not have read you correctly, but I think the same is true for you as well. I said I'm having a hard time believing that Pentax WR is significantly better than Canon/Nikon's, with thousands of professional photographers using mostly Canon/Nikon their gear in all kinds of conditions. By the way, I also know of at least one photographer who had a K-5 and now has a Nikon body (D700 or something like that) who also thinks there's not much between the brands in terms of WR. I posted this as a comment on Andi Lo's post in which he wrote that Pentax still has WR going for them. Pentax does have an advantage when it comes to WR - on their entry-level bodies. But Canon/Nikon also has WR, just not on their entry-level bodies. That was the point I was trying to make. Maybe I should have stopped there, but I know from experience there are certain people on forums such as this who will claim Pentax WR is better than Canon/Nikon WR, and I just wanted to be ahead of that. I thought that was pretty obvious from the way I stated things.

But I think all you read is "Canon and Nikon are better because they sell more bodies".

The point I want to make to you is that the 7D and D7100 also have weather sealing and do not cost 4 times more than a K-3.

Ya, well , just for those of who never entertained those thoughts it just seems kind of odd. Almost 50 years ago I was sitting at lunch at Ryerson Polytech with a friend , me with his Canon, me with his Pentax. We played with each others cameras and we both thought, "I could get used to this" about each others cameras. ( But neither of us switched brands.) My question has always been what does this camera do that I might like. The idea of one brand being better in every aspect ? I never seriously entertained that idea.

Good. Same goes for me.

[Andi Lo]

What I forgot to say in regards to Pentax body being a good deal in terms of quality for price, is that the lenses are really married to the body. Regardless of whether fuji or canikon has a "better value" lens or not, as long as pentax lens prices are acceptable, Pentax would still be an attractive option. After all the body is the usually the gateway drug to a camera system, it is rarely the lens.

I agree with starbase that Pentax and Canikon have pretty good weathersealing options, but only pentax has it on the entry level, and lighter / smaller lenses

[ChristianRock]

Who ever said that the Pentax WR is better than Canon's WR in their higher end cameras? Or is this just a strawman?