[stevebrot]

Yeh... so quickly looking at DA lenses the wide angle option seems to be richer for choices;

I thought you were asking about combined kit with full cross-compatibility. If crop-sensor lenses are in the mix, the answers are simple. Put a walk-around zoom on the crop camera (I suggest the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C)) and flesh out the rest of the kit with FF stuff. I have been doing that for most of the last decade.


Steve

[normhead]

I thought you were asking about combined kit with full cross-compatibility. If crop-sensor lenses are in the mix, the answers are simple. Put a walk-around zoom on the crop camera (I suggest the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4 (C)) and flesh out the rest of the kit with FF stuff. I have been doing that for most of the last decade.


Steve

I'm the opposite... the K-3 gets used with the longer lenses in a mixed kit DA*200, Tamron 300, DA*60-250 and various TCs. . The K-1 with 28-105 is the preferred walk around when carrying two bodies.
The K-3 also gets whatever macro lens I bring. A K-1 completely defeats the whole purpose of macro.. making a small subject large. If you're used to K-3 and macro lenses, the K-1 produces less subject detail in a larger image.

But if just taking one camera, its the 18-135 with the K-3, and possibly the Sigma 8-16 and/of DA*60-250. You get more range with fewer lenses.

When using the K-3 and 300 + 1.7x, if the subject is too tight, I can take the K-3 off and put the K-1 on for aa wider field of view, rather than changing lenses. Anyway, that's what works for me.

[BruceBanner]

I'm the opposite... the K-3 gets used with the longer lenses in a mixed kit DA*200, Tamron 300, DA*60-250 and various TCs. . The K-1 with 28-105 is the preferred walk around when carrying two bodies.
The K-3 also gets whatever macro lens I bring. A K-1 completely defeats the whole purpose of macro.. making a small subject large. If you're used to K-3 and macro lenses, the K-1 produces less subject detail in a larger image.

But if just taking one camera, its the 18-135 with the K-3, and possibly the Sigma 8-16 and/of DA*60-250. You get more range with fewer lenses.

When using the K-3 and 300 + 1.7x, if the subject is too tight, I can take the K-3 off and put the K-1 on for aa wider field of view, rather than changing lenses. Anyway, that's what works for me.

Does it not depend how much macro tho? Like if you're doing a flower shot but not intense macro, the kind where all the petals are in view, then the FF produces a far more dramatic DoF and bokeh to the flower shot? I dunno... some people call these macro shots (indeed they are if cropped as the K-1 can crop massively and hold detail/sharpness).

I've always thought K-1/FF should be shooting wide open, so stuff like flowers, people/portraits etc, and the crop sensor for landscape/narrower aperture stuff...

[bdery]

A K-1 completely defeats the whole purpose of macro.. making a small subject large. If you're used to K-3 and macro lenses, the K-1 produces less subject detail in a larger image.

Does it not depend how much macro tho? Like if you're doing a flower shot but not intense macro, the kind where all the petals are in view, then the FF produces a far more dramatic DoF and bokeh to the flower shot? I dunno... some people call these macro shots (indeed they are if cropped as the K-1 can crop massively and hold detail/sharpness).

I've always thought K-1/FF should be shooting wide open, so stuff like flowers, people/portraits etc, and the crop sensor for landscape/narrower aperture stuff...

I understand what you guys mean, but let's make a few things clear.

Take a K-1 and K-3, the two flagships as of today. Now take a macro lens and set it at 1:1 enlargement on both cameras. The image will be identical on both systems, except that it will be cropped on the K-3.

BUT... the K-3's pixels are smaller. That means all things being equal they are able to resolve smaller objects. So yes, in this case the K-3 will capture more detail.

So in that sense a K-1 is not ideal for macro, IF your purpose is to resolve as much detail as possible.

You still get a crop, however, so if you want a larger FOV while maintaining 1:1 enlargement, the K-1 would be a better choice.

If both cameras had pixels of the same size, their total megapixels count would be different than what it is today, and their images would be completely and fully identical, apart from the crop.

Does that make sense?

[Sandy Hancock]

I think I know what bdery is getting at; a smaller sensor makes intuitive sense for macros. BUT....

I only believed that until I used the A645 120/4.0 macro on the 645Z. Oh. My. God.

[normhead]

Like if you're doing a flower shot but not intense macro, the kind where all the petals are in view, then the FF produces a far more dramatic DoF and bokeh to the flower shot?

For flowers, I usually don't even take the 18-135 off the K-3. The 18-135 and 16-85 both have excellent pseudo macro capability.

This tuft of lichen is smaller than most flowers, The "soft edges in the long end" 135 borders help out with the bokeh... that's something that is beyond the comprehension of the measurebaters. Yes Dorothy, soft edges can be useful. And the centre has excellent sharpness.


For landscape I prefer the K-1


For anything at a distance, the smaller sensor on the K-3 is the best choice.


But I'm still surprised going through my images how often I've used the K-1 for wildlife and the K-3 for landscape. The other way around is what I like to do, not what I have to do,

[Class A]

I think I know what bdery is getting at; a smaller sensor makes intuitive sense for macros.

A smaller sensor is not better for macros and bdery did not state that.

What makes the K-3 a better macro camera is its higher pixel density. It has about a factor of 1.23 better linear resolution. That's not much, but it is better.

On the other hand, the K-1 has a five axes shake reduction system and the two additional axes are precisely useful when taking close up shots by hand. So for tripod usage the K-3 will extract more detail, but when taking hand-held shots, the K-1 could be in front in many shots:

You Tube

You Tube

[mikesbike]

Take a K-1 and K-3, the two flagships as of today. Now take a macro lens and set it at 1:1 enlargement on both cameras. The image will be identical on both systems, except that it will be cropped on the K-3.

But the distance of the shot definitely will change. The problems I have with taking macro shots on film bodies (FF) is the more macro- the less DOF, and the touchier the focus, especially at closer distances. I have found a good APS-C DSLR using the same macro lens to be more useful for my needs.

And I am completely in accord with Norm in his use of tele shooting with an APS-C body, and using shorter FLs with a FF body. Makes practical sense for me also. And yes, the DA 18-135mm WR is a wonderfully useful lens, greatly under-rated it seems, and well-built, great AF, and so compact!

[BruceBanner]

Well, I'm thinking (preliminary) something perhaps like this;

DA 16-50 2.8 or 16-85 3.5-5.6 (on KP)
85mm 1.4 or 135mm f2 (on K-1)
D FA 70-200 (on K-1)

And prolly keep my DFA 100 for Macro.

Or... I could run;

DA 12-24mm f4 or DA 20-40mm f2.8 (for kp)
D FA 24-70 2.8 (for K-1)
85mm 1.4 or 135mm f2 (for K-1)
DA 60-250mm f4 (for KP)

[angerdan]

I'm considering future prime-zoom combos, I was wondering if there exists a few obvious choices for a FF and ASP-C set up to cover a wide array of shooting instances.
...you had that combo of camera bodies what lenses might you consider?

The camera/lens combo depends on the surpose of the shooting/day.
I'd make a list with all combinations sorted by their (eqivalent) focal length and choose for each occasion the two most useful combinations.
Depending on focal length/aperture of the lens and features of the camera (GPS, AF, BG, weight, resolution).

[BruceBanner]

The camera/lens combo depends on the surpose of the shooting/day.
I'd make a list with all combinations sorted by their (eqivalent) focal length and choose for each occasion the two most useful combinations.
Depending on focal length/aperture of the lens and features of the camera (GPS, AF, BG, weight, resolution).

Of course, I mean yeah if I was a wildlife photographer then the lens discussion changes wildly.

I'm coming from a 'generic' coverage for a wide variety of shooting scenarios. A wedding for example actually commands the use of quite a few different lenses and focal distances. You want plenty of portrait shots, but then also wider angle group shots, and then of course also some venue and landscape shots (ultra wide even), but then also macro for rings and details (cake etc), and then also very shallow DoF shots (f1.4 etc) for certain stuff (dresses, shoes etc). A longer focal range is great for capturing those 'fly on the wall' moments when a group of people are not even aware you are snapping at them.

But yeh, I'm not meaning what lenses would you collect for a FF and APS-C body solely for weddings, this was more about collecting 2-4 lenses that across the two bodies covers a good deal of the focal ranges possible, and then what/how would you approach that, aim for the wide angle stuff for the FF body or for the APS-C body, etc. What lens would you fit on what body etc.

It's been an interesting topic for me because people are coming at it from different views.

[angerdan]

For a wedding a prime lens for indoors and a zoom on the second body for outdoors could fit the needs. I'd use thre lenses with one camera.
Since the preferences of most people are different, only recommendations can be given here.
Like some prefer details/overview sceneries, large/small depth of field or small/lightweight gear. Doing a wedding just with Limiteds is also possible.

[aslyfox]

well, as I previously mentioned and at least according to the " In Depth Review "

the a 70-200mm F2.8 is a desirable " jack of all trades " for professional photographers

and Pentax makes a good one:

" HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW

Introduction

In order to cater to professional photographers, a manufacturer must meet several requirements. In addition to a full frame body, a 70-200mm F2.8 telephoto lens is very high on the list. It is thus not very surprising that Pentax released its own version of that lens just prior to the launch of the Pentax K-1 itself.

A 70-200mm lens serves many purposes, especially on full frame. It can be used for portraits (both outside and in a studio), sports, weddings, photojournalism, wildlife, concerts and shows. Such a lens also comes with high expectations. Photographers will expect a high level of optical performance, fast AF, and high reliability. "

Read more at: HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

[bdery]

But the distance of the shot definitely will change.

No it will not.

You are thinking about composition. I am talking about enlargement. Enlargement is not related to the sensor size, but to the subject distance and lens. Only that.

The problems I have with taking macro shots on film bodies (FF) is the more macro- the less DOF, and the touchier the focus, especially at closer distances.

Again, only if you are trying to create the same image on the two systems. That's not the same.

And I am completely in accord with Norm in his use of tele shooting with an APS-C body, and using shorter FLs with a FF body.

Given that for the moment APS-C sensors have a higher pixel density than FF, there is a lot of sense in this. You sacrifice dynamic range but in many cases it's a fair trade.

However, it's not a hard rule. If someone ever made a FF sensor with the same pixel density as current APS-C cameras, that advantage would vanish.

[bdery]

But the distance of the shot definitely will change.

No it will not.

You are thinking about composition. I am talking about enlargement. Enlargement is not related to the sensor size, but to the subject distance and lens. Only that.

The problems I have with taking macro shots on film bodies (FF) is the more macro- the less DOF, and the touchier the focus, especially at closer distances.

Again, only if you are trying to create the same image on the two systems. That's not the same.

And I am completely in accord with Norm in his use of tele shooting with an APS-C body, and using shorter FLs with a FF body.

Given that for the moment APS-C sensors have a higher pixel density than FF, there is a lot of sense in this. You sacrifice dynamic range but in many cases it's a fair trade.

However, it's not a hard rule. If someone ever made a FF sensor with the same pixel density as current APS-C cameras, that advantage would vanish.