[normhead]

The duck picture is subjectively pleasing, like a watercolour painting. It's nice artwork, but technically flawed. The colours are pastel and the feathers are blurry, even at 2mp resolution. These are the result of the small aperture, elevated ISO and lens diffraction.

Actually that's function of exceeding my stated ISO limit and going to 400 ISO instead of 200.

I am mystified that you limit the K-3 to ISO 640. As I've said a couple of times, you need better NR.

I limit the K-3 to 640 ISO to avoid noise reduction, that is the point at which you can safely shoot and not have to worry about resolution robbing noise reduction. I do shoot up to 1600 ISO depending on circumstances, but after 640 I expect to use noise reduction of some form.
The small sensor makes it possible to keep the whole bird in focus. With very good sharpness. No noise reduction was applied, but it was in in camera jpeg, so who knows?
At 100 ISO, ƒ6.4 1/120 223.6 mm (1248mm )



If you stay at 100 or 200 IOS you get the same image you'd get with aK-5 (or K-1 in crop) and an 800mm lens for a fraction of the size, simply because the lens can be lighter, because it's projecting a much smaller image circle. It is extremely difficult to get images like this with larger sensors, usually shooting a K-1 or K-3, part of the bird will be out of focus. You get the shutter speed of ƒ6.3, without having to worry about the diffraction loss you would get going to ƒ22 or 32 on an APS-c or FF camera. And besides, I don't have a lens that would give me 1248mm equivalence on a K-1 or K-3, and i couldn't carry it if I did. This is the same size sensor as a Q. I think if you are going to go to a Q for telephoto you'd crazy to pass on an XG-1, auto-focus, light weight and small size, and from my small number tests, a better lens. Still way harder than using a DSLR but a fraction the effort of a Q.

---

Last edited by normhead; 11-07-2017 at 02:47 PM.

[MarkJerling]

Tony Northrup posted a video a while back that I hadn't watched until just now. He makes a very reasoned argument against using full-frame lenses on crop sensors (with the exception of wildlife). He only mentions Canikon's but he is correct?

I think his argument is full of holes.

[UncleVanya]

I think his argument is full of holes.

I hope that's a pun. Aperture... holes?
If so nicely done.

[MarkJerling]

I hope that's a pun. Aperture... holes?
If so nicely done.

No. I just needed a way to say what I was thinking without using words for which I'd have to ban myself.

[Digitalis]

I think his argument is full of holes.

His arguments are full of Something.

[MarkJerling]

His arguments are full of Something.

Exactly!

[Kunzite]

Tony's video is full of nonsense, to not use other words. Not advisable to use FF lenses on crop body? Hogwash. As Digitalis said, use whatever gives you the results you want.

The worst offender is the "need" to multiply focal lengths and apertures. Don't forget, this is an advice for APS-C/crop cameras users; they don't know how a lens "behaves" on FF. Nor do they need to.
This nonsense has to go. The question should be: how would those lenses "behave" on APS-C, and the answer is: according to their focal length and aperture (and other characteristics).

So if you'd be getting a 24-70 f/2.8 FF lens, that would "behave" just like a 24-70 f/2.8 APS-C lens, if there was such a thing. You can decide based on your experience with the format you're using, if such a lens is useful or not. You can decide that 24mm is not wide enough without applying any crop factor.
OTOH just these days someone tried to apply "crop factors" to a 70-200, to "compare" it with a 55-300... not his fault, really, but those "equivalence" promoters'. Tony N's video is suggesting such an approach; he's not even trying to avoid this confusion.

Another offender appears when he's getting to the "resolution" comparison. Oh, yeah, you lose all the border detail when you crop the borders out of the picture.

---

Last edited by Kunzite; 11-08-2017 at 01:13 AM.

[Rondec]

Tony's video is full of nonsense, to not use other words. Not advisable to use FF lenses on crop body? Hogwash. As Digitalis said, use whatever gives you the results you want.

The worst offender is the "need" to multiply focal lengths and apertures. Don't forget, this is an advice for APS-C/crop cameras users; they don't know how a lens "behaves" on FF. Nor do they need to.
This nonsense has to go. The question should be: how would those lenses "behave" on APS-C, and the answer is: according to their focal length and aperture (and other characteristics).

So if you'd be getting a 24-70 f/2.8 FF lens, that would "behave" just like a 24-70 f/2.8 APS-C lens, if there was such a thing. You can decide based on your experience with the format you're using, if such a lens is useful or not. You can decide that 24mm is not wide enough without applying any crop factor.
OTOH just these days someone tried to apply "crop factors" to a 70-200, to "compare" it with a 55-300... not his fault, really, but those "equivalence" promoters'. Tony N's video is suggesting such an approach; he's not even trying to avoid this confusion.

Another offender appears when he's getting to the "resolution" comparison. Oh, yeah, you lose all the border detail when you crop the borders out of the picture.

I'm fine with not talking about equivalence at all.

The biggest problem that I have is when folks who are shooting a smaller format -- say micro four thirds -- start talking about their 200mm f2.8 lens and about how much smaller it is than a 400mm f2.8 lens would be for full frame. Of course it is smaller. It probably is similar in size to a 200mm f2.8 lens for full frame. To do true equivalence, you do have adjust the aperture to match 200mm f1.4 on four thirds would be the same as 400mm f2.8 on full frame and probably pretty close in size (if it was possible to make such a lens). Lenses on crop sensors are smaller due to the fact that they have slower apertures. The DA * 50-135 is really close in size to most full frame 70-200mm f4 lenses.

For most folks shooting a crop camera, it doesn't make any difference at all to think about equivalent focal lengths -- better to think about what those mean for your format -- ultra wide, wide, normal, telephoto and so on. I think the equivalence stuff may be helpful for people shooting more than one format and certainly was started when people were converting from film and getting digital gear, which in the beginning was all crop gear.

[Kunzite]

Each brand wants to misuse "equivalence" to their advantage: Canon when they were the only ones with 35m-format digital cameras was telling us that FF is superior (you're getting the "full" thing, not just a part/crop of it, right?). Now the cropped format manufacturers want to tell us how you can get "the same" but without the bulk and price.
This "equivalence" thing is just a tool to mislead people.

[normhead]

Each brand wants to misuse "equivalence" to their advantage: Canon when they were the only ones with 35m-format digital cameras was telling us that FF is superior (you're getting the "full" thing, not just a part/crop of it, right?). Now the cropped format manufacturers want to tell us how you can get "the same" but without the bulk and price.
This "equivalence" thing is just a tool to mislead people.

I went to school in the 60s and hung around with photographer my whole life, and never heard of it until digital. It's not that it sin't a thing. It's that it shouldn't be. It has no practical application. It's a theory that's just complicated enough that ignorant people (like Mr. Northrup ) can draw all kinds of inaccurate conclusions and justify them because they don't actually understand them.

Those of us who were photography geeks growing up have stuck everything on every thing. My film Penetax;s had enlarger lenses and all kind of makeshift lens type devices attached to the front, made possible by Pentax's through the lens metering. You didn't have to know what the ƒ-stop was, you could calculate your exposure from inside the camera.

My approach to this day, is stick the lens on the camera, see what it does. I have never used equivalence. IN fact the only reason I learned anything about it was because so many people using equivalence (like jsherman and Tony Northrup ) were wrong, I knew they were wrong from photographic training and I wanted to be able to show them they were wrong in the the only language they'd speak. Apart from that it's totally useless.

Equivalence gets you thinking about things there is absolutely no practical value in thinking about. If you put a lens on your camera, see what the field of view is and take a few images at different apertures, you've learned what equivalence means, without doing any math, or opening yourself to bad information based on mathematical errors or misunderstanding what the theory is and what it means.

From one of the scientific papers I read, " Equivalence is not a theory that promotes the superiority of one system over another." Anyone who tries to use it for that is either confused themselves or is punking you.

And to anyone who says don't use this lens on that camera, my teenage self says "Sit on this and rotate buddy. I put whatever lens I want on whatever camera i want, and I don't need your guidance as to what i should try and what i shouldn't. It's not your business."

Someone should send that to Mr. Northrup.

[audiobomber]

Northrup sometimes words his explanations in clumsy or inflammatory ways (click-bait), but everything he says in the video is fundamentally correct. Some of you do not consider equivalence theory useful, but no one is forcing you to convert anything. I use it all the time in comparing performance across systems. I think in APS-C though, and have no interest in buying a FF body.

[normhead]

Northrup sometimes words his explanations in clumsy or inflammatory ways (click-bait), but everything he says in the video is fundamentally correct.

You and I differ here. HIs basic math is fundamentally correct. His interpretation and application of theory is fundamentally flawed.

I use it all the time in comparing performance across systems.

Why do you do that? Is it something practical or just curiosity?

To me equivalence is a theory looking for an application. I've never needed more than "A larger sensor means more resolution and better low light performance. If you need more reach, buy longer than what you have." What would you need equivalence for? Especially if you are just shooting with one system.

[audiobomber]

You and I differ here. HIs basic math is fundamentally correct. His interpretation and application of theory is fundamentally flawed.

Why do you do that? Is it something practical or just curiosity?

What does he say that you consider flawed? I've heard you use the same arguments in advising people between FF and crop.

I read DPR news daily. They report on new lenses and across all systems, 1", m4/3, FF, MF. In order to understand a lens' operating parameters, I need to convert.

BTW, here's the program I recommend for NR with your K-3. It is free and full-function, but only allows you to process single images, not batch. You should be able to go to ISO 3200 with great detail and acceptably low noise.
https://noiseware-community-edition.en.softonic.com/

[normhead]

What does he say that you consider flawed? I've heard you use the same arguments in advising people between FF and crop.

You mean before or after he changed his pages to take into account some of my criticisms? Honestly, people have told me he's made changes, but I'm not checking his pages for accuracy unless paid. It's work. But take "Don't use full fare lenses on APS-c" if you must, It's a ridiculous argument. Go through the video and follow his logic. You tell me how he ends up with such a conclusion. Personally, I don't care, He's wasted enough of my time. I just tune him out, and advise others to, that's the best Tony Northrup strategy IMHO, unless of course you are shopping for gear, and want actual use reviews in video form. He's good at a evaluating gear, if you can avoid his biases.

I read DPR news daily. They report on new lenses and across all systems, 1", m4/3, FF, MF. In order to understand a lens' operating parameters, I need to convert.

Say no more, I get it, it's personal interest kind of thing. But, good for you...it's not something I'd have the patience for, but that doesn't mean it's not worth while. Whatever you find interesting is good for you, and keeps you alive and engaged.

[Rondec]

You mean before or after he changed his pages to take into account some of my criticisms? Honestly, people have told me he's made changes, but I'm not checking his pages for accuracy unless paid. It's work. But take "Don't use full fare lenses on APS-c" if you must, It's a ridiculous argument. Go through the video and follow his logic. You tell me how he ends up with such a conclusion. Personally, I don't care, He's wasted enough of my time. I just tune him out, and advise others to, that's the best Tony Northrup strategy IMHO, unless of course you are shopping for gear, and want actual use reviews in video form. He's good at a evading gear, if you can avoid his biases.



Say no more, I get it, it's personal interest kind of thing. But, good for you...it's not something I'd have the patience for, but that doesn't mean it's not worth while. Whatever you find interesting is good for you, and keeps you alive and engaged.

I mentioned above, but a lot of people have the perception that a 200mm f2.8 lens on micro 4/3 is the same as a 400mm f2.8 lens on a K-1. It is nice to be able to explain why they aren't exactly the same lens. Because based on apertures and angle of view, micro four thirds kills cameras with bigger sensors. Except it doesn't really.