Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-06-2013, 06:37 AM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
QuoteOriginally posted by kristijan Quote
@Qwntm I'm lurking on youtube waiting for new video maybe you could make some roadmap . Very good stuff indeed, also if requests are permitted (even if they are not ) ... I would like to hear more about techniques, full simple / begginers things from your perspective, I liked one about using flash on weddings; simple but very clear on using brain when you shot. I know ultimately as many stated best school is pressing the trigger .. but still to know what to look at, and think about what you do is necessary.
Thanks! Since January, 2013 has had a rough start. Seems like this is the year for family members to pass on... Spent most of February and March in Texas for that reason. Such is life... and the wheel turns. So have been taking a break.

I want to do a basic photography series, and should be getting started on that pretty soon.

Thanks again!

04-06-2013, 07:03 AM   #17
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,861
Some people hope that they will be able to accomplish with FF what they don't accomplish with APS-c. This man takes away their hope.
04-06-2013, 08:52 AM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 759
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Wide angle with narrow depth of field is also not an option with APS-C.
Rondec, can you please give me a scenario where wide angle/narrow dof is a requirement? I thought for some minutes and could not come up with too many scenarios where one would need that capability.
04-06-2013, 09:50 AM   #19
Site Supporter
vagrant10's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: portland
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,361
Hi Ed,
I really enjoy your videos and how you present things. There's a real world feel to them that isn't overly reliant on measurebation tests. Not all of us have the ability to afford both systems so this does offer some valuable perspectives. And getting your sense of the strengths of different lenses is helpful too.

Anyways, thanks for sharing your views on your camera gear. And sorry to hear your family is going through some difficulties - best wishes to you and your family.

04-06-2013, 09:51 AM - 4 Likes   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,861
You have to put that in perspective, the wide angle narrow depth of field comes from a school of thought in painting, that was championed by a group of painters that believed the subject should be more detailed than the background. It was championed by photographers such as Alfred Stieglitz, until the 1930s. However, it was never adopted by all painters, nor was it adopted by all photographers. With the faster emulsions and smaller film formats that became popular after 1950, the curator of the New York Museum of Art, actually dismissed that style almost completely championing photographers who extended the technical limits of photography rather than limiting them (ie created subject isolation using method other than narrow DoF.. He claimed that in some ways technical photography was more artistic than the some what stylized photography of the 30's. He championed photographers like Diane Arbus who created subject isolation with other techniques besides the somewhat artificial method of blurring the background.

Those who continue to worship narrow depth of field to develop subject isolation, continue to advocate a technical conceit, that was already losing it's importance in the 50's and has continued to do so with the increased ISO of the digital age. From my perspective, narrow DoF stopped being necessary in photography with the release of Tri-X 400, when the possibility of shooting for more DoF in lower light and on 35 mm cameras that dramatically increase DoF over the older view cameras and home made emulsions. After all, if you have to have out of focus areas in your picture, they have to look good. But that's only important to those who haven't realized, you don't have to have out of focus areas in your photograph anymore.

The whole narrow DoF thing is a hold over from a day when wide DoF was really hard to achieve. I won't dispute that some are in love with the effect, just as some are in love with posterized images and digital images turned into "water-colours" in photoshop. It is annoying to see some go on as if it something more than one of the many conceits used to affect subject isolation, or the implication that it is in some way the most important one. Personally, my normal way of viewing an scene is to let my eye go to the subject and then go to the back ground. In real life I pay as much attention to the background as I do to the foreground. Thus I quite often find the technique of using narrow DoF frustrating, in that the photographer has limited the ability of my eye to do it's normal surveillance of the scene.

During the whole of my time at Ryerson Politech, the focus of my imagery has been to try and achieve the maximum possible DoF. Very rarely do I intentionally limit it. And that is a concept with just as much history and just as many advocates as the narrow DoF crowd. In fact the large format guys had a club called the f64 club, a whole group of photogrpahers dedicated to large format and ridiculously long exposure and tiny apertures for maximum DoF. These photographers existed at the same time as Stigletz's champions of narrow DoF and are equally famous. So with the narrow DoF thing keep it in perspective.

As an art concept it was at best one of many competing theories of subject isolation. While it has it's proponents in modern Photography, there are just as many people who promote maximum DoF all the time, or those who go for maximum sharpness all the time and many other scenarios, I'm guessing the number of artists actually favouring limited DoF is probably quite small in the small formats, and FF is a small format.

The guys who go on and on about it on the forum are sort of anomalies, because they are stuck in a niche. They have decided that MF is too big or too expensive and that APS-c isn't good enough. Quite frankly, to me that is a bit of an odd position. IN many ways APS-c is the ultimate compromise between control of DoF, offering much more DoF control than on smaller formats, while producing acceptable DoF areas if so desired. The advantages to FF in this instance are small, and that is reflected in camera ownership.

Whenever I think of the arguments about FF, the thing you have to realize is, it's a compromise. When you're picking your compromises, some people are going to fall every where on the scale. People are going to prefer everything from tiny really portable sensors to huge scanning backs on view cameras that need more than a minute for an exposure. The FF advantage for narrow DoF seems to be the refrain of a very small subset of APS-c users. Users who have somehow managed to miss out assimilating trends of the last half of the last century and the first half of this one. Users who champion a method of subject isolation that was never fully accepted in any medium. And while I applaud their efforts through some of the most amazing pieces of propaganda available to promote their vision, it's important to also realize, many great photographers and painters ignored what they promote. For the most part, good shallow DoF photographs were produced because of the limitations of the equipment, not by choice. Somehow, that became a "style." At least that's one way of looking at it.

The line that you have more control with and FF only makes sense only if you intend to make use of the extra control. And that tends more and more to be nothing more than an artistic conceit, one that becomes less and less important as technology continues to increase wide DoF capabilities. To many of us, subject isolation through contrast, texture, colour or pattern, produce more pleasing images than subject isolation through DoF. We'll use the DoF thing if we have to, and APS-c is fine for that, but it's an option of last resort.
04-06-2013, 11:33 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,378
Hi Ed,

Your (as some have put it) rambling is how most of us would present something like this. Keep up the good work and I'm sorry to hear about your family. That is really tough in any one's book.

John

PS,
Your "don't be a slave" argument was great. Don't be a slave to the bill collector so that you can enjoy life...very true.

Last edited by john5100; 04-06-2013 at 11:39 AM.
04-06-2013, 01:47 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,344
[deleted]

Last edited by beholder3; 08-11-2013 at 07:10 AM. Reason: [deleted]
04-06-2013, 02:58 PM   #23
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,247
QuoteOriginally posted by GlennG Quote
Rondec, can you please give me a scenario where wide angle/narrow dof is a requirement? I thought for some minutes and could not come up with too many scenarios where one would need that capability.
There have been a number of answers already. I guess the issue is getting the equivalent angle of view (and depth of field) to lenses like the FA 31 limited f1.8, or FA *24 f2. These aren't super wide angles by any means, but currently on APS-C, you have trouble getting within a couple of stops of these type of lenses. The closest lens to the FA 31 on full frame with regard to field of view and depth of field would be the Sigma 20mm f1.8, which has a stop more depth of field, the closest to the FA *24 would be the 16-50 f2.8 at 16mm and it loses two stops of depth of field (and isn't decent really till you get to f4).

Basically, this use usually involves portrait photography, where you want to include background, but want to blur the background somewhat, so that the subject stands out from the back ground. It is possible with APS-C cameras, but a little tougher and requires more skill on the part of the photographer.

04-06-2013, 08:44 PM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 759
Thank you for the responses as I understand better now.
04-06-2013, 11:23 PM   #25
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 691
D800e makes more sense if you are not sport shooters. But then K5iis suffices my needs
04-07-2013, 09:08 AM   #26
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 27
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
Seriously... You would think they had to pay to watch it!

Stay tuned for the upcoming "I sold all the Canon gear because after careful scrutiny, it didn't add anything meaningful to the party considering the size/weight/cost penalties..." video.

Or another title could be: "The Pentax K-5 IIs just really is THAT good." (For what I need/do.)
A few tidbits, my apparent southernly neighbor. Since yesterday, I confirmed that you are who I suspected you are. Few can YouTube Pentax and not run across your vids. I've watched and enjoyed several. I have no real criticisms-don't forget the huge contingent of "photographers" (both pro and AM) who view camera as fashion accessory. OMG, Becky....Look....at....the....V2's butt......
Like totally. What's the old saying....don't bitc* unless you have a solution to offer.......
I'm not being random. We don't know what kind of person is going to level criticism our way. Blow it off, walk away.

I noted with (wait! Tangent alert!) some more- than- passing- interest your vid on debt slavery. Right in line, Baby! Don't care about Ramsey. Don't need a guru telling me it isn't polite to fart in church.
The wake-up to the concept of slavery is a real face slapper, huh? See, I'm out of the woods, too. I just went through the decision bracket to see if I would benefit from going over (more) to the Dark Side, but ....... /.......and the point is that this auto mechanic can afford a D800 if'n he so chooses. Yeah, having the money as a result of personal awareness and discipline is the way to shake it. I consider my possibilities 'cuz I can. I worked hard to get here, too. I'm 41. I did it, and can buy hard into my hobbie. Sweet Lord, I may just travel!
As for a D800 (or others). No. I agree with your approach to needs and benefits of what the K5/ii/iis hold. Pentax may not offer 10 camera lines, but they don't seem to hold back on what they put into what IS offered.
I'm a horrible typist. You've no idea how long it took to write this somewhat incoherent post.

Back on topic- the decision flow chart leads to Pentax. Simple logic, but a person needs to know and understand RESOLUTION. "Meh- it's all relative!" Once the average Jose "gets" resolution, the rest of the decision falls into place. Super simple Simon. Hey, I gotta go. We got up late from catting about at the opera last night. Now the gurlz iz hammering me with the BAD kind of techno. I like it better when they sleep. Besides, I suppose I should get to canning some meatballs.
Oh, that IS relevant. Home Economics is tied at the hip to debt slavery.....its that slavery that keeps the haters complaining about the cost of gear. mmmmmmmm. canning meatballs.

Got a 50-500 OS coming this week. Wish me luck. It's rabbit season. It's duck season. It's airshow season. Oh, baby!




http://www.flickr.com/photos/hypervel/

Last edited by hypervel; 04-07-2013 at 09:11 AM. Reason: may as well put up or shut up
04-07-2013, 09:22 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote

The biggest differences are improvement in high iso (about a stop), resolution, and viewfinder. Wide angle with narrow depth of field is also not an option with APS-C.

High ISO, yup. FF is smother no doubt. Resolution... not so much. We are getting lens limited and aperture limited before any other considerations in practice. Or to put it another way: if you print to 20x30 and there's no discernible difference between lets say K-5iis print and a 5D mark iii print, resolution is moot. Viewfinder? I like the K-5 better than the 5D II/III, but that's personal. (I can see the corners better. )

Wide angle? The Sigma 8-16 is a 12(!) to 24 FF equal. How much wider do you need?

DOF? On paper yes, in practice not really. For the one shot every 2000 you want to selective focus, just photoshop it. And that's assuming the 2.8 doesn't do it for you in the first place.
04-07-2013, 09:22 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
QuoteOriginally posted by vagrant10 Quote
Hi Ed,
I really enjoy your videos and how you present things. There's a real world feel to them that isn't overly reliant on measurebation tests. Not all of us have the ability to afford both systems so this does offer some valuable perspectives. And getting your sense of the strengths of different lenses is helpful too.

Anyways, thanks for sharing your views on your camera gear. And sorry to hear your family is going through some difficulties - best wishes to you and your family.
Thank you!
04-07-2013, 09:26 PM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
QuoteOriginally posted by john5100 Quote
Hi Ed,

Your (as some have put it) rambling is how most of us would present something like this. Keep up the good work and I'm sorry to hear about your family. That is really tough in any one's book.

John

PS,
Your "don't be a slave" argument was great. Don't be a slave to the bill collector so that you can enjoy life...very true.
Thanks, my wife says I'm worse in person... not sure what she means...
04-07-2013, 09:30 PM - 1 Like   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
There have been a number of answers already. I guess the issue is getting the equivalent angle of view (and depth of field) to lenses like the FA 31 limited f1.8, or FA *24 f2. These aren't super wide angles by any means, but currently on APS-C, you have trouble getting within a couple of stops of these type of lenses. The closest lens to the FA 31 on full frame with regard to field of view and depth of field would be the Sigma 20mm f1.8, which has a stop more depth of field, the closest to the FA *24 would be the 16-50 f2.8 at 16mm and it loses two stops of depth of field (and isn't decent really till you get to f4).

Basically, this use usually involves portrait photography, where you want to include background, but want to blur the background somewhat, so that the subject stands out from the back ground. It is possible with APS-C cameras, but a little tougher and requires more skill on the part of the photographer.
IF and this is a BIG IF you find that you would normally shoot your 24mm at F2 A LOT, or 31 at 1.8 A LOT, then you would have already bought a 5D or D700 and 24 1.4, or 35 1.4 and go your merry way.

But, to say that the APS-C cameras are not good (and I'm not saying your saying that) because they can't do 24mm 2.0, is a big jump. FF cameras can't reach to 300mm with a 200mm, so are they "handicapped?" Or 600mm with a 400mm etc... As the Bristish would say "horses for courses..."
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, canon, dslr, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k-5iis, k5, pentax, pentax k-5, prints, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--" Jean Poitiers Pentax Q 52 11-10-2013 06:25 AM
Suggestion Add subsections to the "Nature" option in "Post Your Photos" jpzk Site Suggestions and Help 2 07-22-2012 12:04 PM
"Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs" (NYT op-ed/Greg Smith) jolepp General Talk 8 03-15-2012 09:20 AM
Now I Understand Why Venues Ban "Pro" Gear Mike Cash Photographic Industry and Professionals 55 12-06-2011 05:13 AM
Why I don't like the "if you want a full-frame camera, switch to Canikon" argument. fuent104 Pentax DSLR Discussion 362 07-18-2011 03:23 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:49 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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