I am Curious (again)...

**UncleVanya** · 09-20-2016, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by reh321

The article is irrelevant. My point is that nearly every player in nearly every (*) gym {most without strobe} has at least one relative with a camera. High ISO makes a lot more sense than does $$$$ lens - and that is the direction camera makers, including Pentax with the K-70, seem to be going in.

(*) and there are a lot of gyms just in Indiana, to say nothing of the rest of the U.S., to say nothing of the rest of the world

I think it is quite relevant. There were other articles from smaller papers showing how they use strobes as well. It puts in perspective that sometimes a fast lens and high ISO combined don't give you the look you want despite the advances.

**darylk** · 09-20-2016, 09:33 AM

Without a doubt, the advances in sensor technology has changed the way one can approach lens acquisition. My own example of this is my pending acquisition of the F4 DA*60-250 with intended usage indoors on full frame K-1 (as well as not too heavy lens to take on hikes/walks). I think it should do as well as my old F2.8 DA*50-135 did on my K-3.

If you're mostly interested in landscape photography, there is little need for buying fast glass, anyway if your slow glass performs well (such as the DFA 28-105 on FF or the DA 16-85 on APSC).

That said, one thing that won't change (anyway in the foreseeable future) is the need for wide apertures for artistic shallow depth of field purposes, portraits, etc.
Those are my thoughts...
Daryl

Originally posted by AggieDad

How important is lens speed with the great improvement image quality at higher ISOs? Won't these higher ISO capabilities render some of the faster lens speeds moot?

I ask as I am getting prepared (pending okay from the exchequer) to do some equipment shopping.

Thanks for all thoughts.

**AggieDad** · 09-20-2016, 11:08 AM

This has become a very interesting discussion with, obviously, some divergent opinions. If I am understanding it correctly, for those of us with average needs, ISO will do the trick; for those whose needs are demanding (e.g. printing large), the speed becomes critical.

Originally posted by darylk

That said, one thing that won't change (anyway in the foreseeable future) is the need for wide apertures for artistic shallow depth of field purposes, portraits, etc.
Those are my thoughts...
Daryl

And yet there are some programs such as MacPhun's Focus2 Pro which allows doing somewhat e simulation of shallow DOF in post processing. It won't necessarily give you the exact result you would like, but it "ain't" bad.

Perhaps what I am reading is that the technology could be changing the conventional wisdom about lenses. Perhaps alternate tools are starting to replace the concern for speed?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Recent threads mention AF Fine Adjustment and I am curious how to use it	SteveD	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	2	06-28-2016 09:20 PM
I Am Curious...	AggieDad	General Talk	34	05-11-2016 11:09 PM
HI,I am with K5ii, I am just new here	fuenqing	Welcomes and Introductions	14	03-30-2015 08:24 AM
I am curious.. why so many people is selling their FA 77mm	henryjing	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	65	05-01-2010 11:25 AM
Pentax K7 Price Watch? Or I am waiting because I am a cheap, errr, frugal SOB thread	brecklundin	Pentax DSLR Discussion	240	03-26-2010 10:01 AM

09-20-2016, 08:01 AM	#16
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,445	Originally posted by reh321 The article is irrelevant. My point is that nearly every player in nearly every () gym {most without strobe} has at least one relative with a camera. High ISO makes a lot more sense than does $$$$ lens - and that is the direction camera makers, including Pentax with the K-70, seem to be going in. () and there are a lot of gyms just in Indiana, to say nothing of the rest of the U.S., to say nothing of the rest of the world I think it is quite relevant. There were other articles from smaller papers showing how they use strobes as well. It puts in perspective that sometimes a fast lens and high ISO combined don't give you the look you want despite the advances.

09-20-2016, 09:33 AM	#17
darylk Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Blue Hill, Nebraska Photos: Gallery Posts: 494	Without a doubt, the advances in sensor technology has changed the way one can approach lens acquisition. My own example of this is my pending acquisition of the F4 DA60-250 with intended usage indoors on full frame K-1 (as well as not too heavy lens to take on hikes/walks). I think it should do as well as my old F2.8 DA50-135 did on my K-3. If you're mostly interested in landscape photography, there is little need for buying fast glass, anyway if your slow glass performs well (such as the DFA 28-105 on FF or the DA 16-85 on APSC). That said, one thing that won't change (anyway in the foreseeable future) is the need for wide apertures for artistic shallow depth of field purposes, portraits, etc. Those are my thoughts... Daryl Originally posted by AggieDad How important is lens speed with the great improvement image quality at higher ISOs? Won't these higher ISO capabilities render some of the faster lens speeds moot? I ask as I am getting prepared (pending okay from the exchequer) to do some equipment shopping. Thanks for all thoughts.

09-20-2016, 11:08 AM	#18
AggieDad Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,455 Original Poster	This has become a very interesting discussion with, obviously, some divergent opinions. If I am understanding it correctly, for those of us with average needs, ISO will do the trick; for those whose needs are demanding (e.g. printing large), the speed becomes critical. Originally posted by darylk That said, one thing that won't change (anyway in the foreseeable future) is the need for wide apertures for artistic shallow depth of field purposes, portraits, etc. Those are my thoughts... Daryl And yet there are some programs such as MacPhun's Focus2 Pro which allows doing somewhat e simulation of shallow DOF in post processing. It won't necessarily give you the exact result you would like, but it "ain't" bad. Perhaps what I am reading is that the technology could be changing the conventional wisdom about lenses. Perhaps alternate tools are starting to replace the concern for speed?