Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-28-2011, 01:16 PM   #886
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
Oh dear. This discussion has yet again turned into a "nerdy" semantic discussion based on numbers, rather than photography.
Obviously.

I only wanted to give you as much freedom as possible to play with the term DoF. More freedom than the average DoF calculator offers. But it wasn't enough

Beyond this point, I can't help your argument any further.

07-28-2011, 04:10 PM - 2 Likes   #887
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 158
i run into my CoC every time i try to figure out where i've left my wallet.

i'm not sure i ever pay much attention to DoF when i'm in the Zone using the camera. It's all done unconsciously and i'm conscious just of looking at what i'm taking a photo of, and waiting for the right moment to release the shutter, trying to think backwards and forwards in time to predict how things will flow before i even bring the camera up to look in the viewfinder. i can't even see the line of info under the image in the K-7 viewfinder, and with the LCD's on compacts i find the info overlaid on the image just distractions and usually can'[t see them either.

But the numbers are needed. i test my lenses a lot, and read up on all of the things talked abt here with some attention. It's all to feed that unconscious piece of my head so it can do the right things while i'm concentrating elsewhere. i guess it's a common attitude with someone who started off as street shooter.

edit: and for me that's how i judge my lens preferences: whether they'll disappear into the background when i use them and still provide good IQ, or whether i have to use a bit of my conscious brain to adapt to their qualities as i'm taking shots.

Last edited by conradj; 07-28-2011 at 04:19 PM.
07-28-2011, 06:03 PM   #888
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by conradj Quote
edit: and for me that's how i judge my lens preferences: whether they'll disappear into the background when i use them and still provide good IQ, or whether i have to use a bit of my conscious brain to adapt to their qualities as i'm taking shots.
I think that is the best way to describe the difference between high quality lenses and lower quality ones.
07-28-2011, 07:34 PM   #889
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,009
Hey, did you folks here that Pentax introduced a new camera?




[trying to bring it back on point...]

07-28-2011, 11:49 PM   #890
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Hey, did you folks here that Pentax introduced a new camera?



[trying to bring it back on point...]
For about 10 long seconds I had no idea what I was looking at...

.

Last edited by jsherman999; 07-29-2011 at 06:12 AM.
07-29-2011, 12:09 AM   #891
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Foe about 10 whole seconds I had no idea what I was looking at...

.
That WG-1 does look nice, but the other cute camera prevents pressing the shutter of the large white one!
07-29-2011, 02:12 AM   #892
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 118
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
That WG-1 does look nice, but the other cute camera prevents pressing the shutter of the large white one!
Weren't you supposed to press its shutter with your fingernail anyways?

Just kidding, love the Q
07-29-2011, 07:08 AM   #893
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Hey, did you folks here that Pentax introduced a new camera?




[trying to bring it back on point...]
The WG1 and Q have the same CoC.

07-29-2011, 12:20 PM   #894
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
The problem with using the Spyder Lenscal to calculate DOF is that you would endup making estimations on near and far focus. One of those would be needed to solve for H in order to use the hyperfocal formula to solve for CoC.
But that's all DOF is - it's not an objective measurement, it is based on the individual's perception of apparent depth of field.

And you don't need to solve for "H" in order to solve for CoC. I have the DOF formula programmed in my calculator - it can solve for CoC without H because I have eliminated/substituted H from the formula. If you don't know how to do that, revisit high school maths.

All I can suggest is once you have empirically deterined CoC for your own circumstances, you don't have to rely to lists published on the Internet. And you'll realise how inaccurate those lists are - they are based on one individual's perception of DOF - that person's eyesight, that person's viewing conditions.

[Edit: the "calculator" I refer to above is an HP calculator, not the spreadsheet I linked to earlier. Yes, I am nerdy enough to own a calculator. In defense, it was supplied to me by the company I worked for over 20 years ago when I was doing currency options hedging - and I discovered that was all about solving differential equations!]

Last edited by Christine Tham; 07-29-2011 at 12:56 PM.
07-29-2011, 12:25 PM   #895
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Oh dear. IIRC, you brought up the CoC issue initially in an attempt to imagine more DOF control potential in that tiny Q sensor.
Oh dear. IIRC, I thought all I was saying was wild speculations on the DOF of the Q based on fudge factors like the Zeiss formula may perhaps not be accurate.

Remember "f11"? :-)

Those sample pictures don't seem like f11 to me. They seem more like f8, which if you recall was my prediction (see, I like engaging in wild speculations too).

So, what were you saying again about who was imaging what? :-)
07-29-2011, 12:39 PM   #896
Veteran Member
Christine Tham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by conradj Quote
i run into my CoC every time i try to figure out where i've left my wallet.
LOL.

And we seem to have a few misguided males (I'm assuming they are males) trying to argue with a woman how big their CoC is. It's the "apparent" size that counts, not the formula that indicates how big it oughtta be :-)
07-29-2011, 02:15 PM   #897
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
But that's all DOF is - it's not an objective measurement, it is based on the individual's perception of apparent depth of field.

And you don't need to solve for "H" in order to solve for CoC. I have the DOF formula programmed in my calculator - it can solve for CoC without H because I have eliminated/substituted H from the formula. If you don't know how to do that, revisit high school maths.

All I can suggest is once you have empirically deterined CoC for your own circumstances, you don't have to rely to lists published on the Internet. And you'll realise how inaccurate those lists are - they are based on one individual's perception of DOF - that person's eyesight, that person's viewing conditions.

[Edit: the "calculator" I refer to above is an HP calculator, not the spreadsheet I linked to earlier. Yes, I am nerdy enough to own a calculator. In defense, it was supplied to me by the company I worked for over 20 years ago when I was doing currency options hedging - and I discovered that was all about solving differential equations!]
That is the whole point I was making. You were going to the trouble to attempt to calculate and exact CoC for your self and were/are using estimations of DOF in the process.


Again, that wasn't the point. Furthermore, I don't have the dof plugged in a calculator, I use my droid. Furthermore, I suggest you go take some freshmen physics courses. Currency hedging and options don't have jack to do with optics etc.

QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
LOL.

And we seem to have a few misguided males (I'm assuming they are males) trying to argue with a woman how big their CoC is. It's the "apparent" size that counts, not the formula that indicates how big it oughtta be :-)
Seriously, you are dragging reverse bigotry into this discussion?

:sarcasm:

Last edited by Blue; 07-29-2011 at 03:26 PM.
07-29-2011, 02:36 PM   #898
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area)
Posts: 1,464
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Seriously, you are dragging reverse bigotry into this discussion?
Um . . . I do believe that was intended as humor.
07-29-2011, 02:39 PM   #899
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Quicksand Quote
Um . . . I do believe that was intended as humor.
After the snide comment about brushing up on high school math, humor seems to be fleeting.

:sarcasm:

Last edited by Blue; 07-29-2011 at 03:28 PM.
07-29-2011, 03:40 PM   #900
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Photos: Albums
Posts: 158
QuoteOriginally posted by Christine Tham Quote
LOL.

And we seem to have a few misguided males (I'm assuming they are males) trying to argue with a woman how big their CoC is. It's the "apparent" size that counts, not the formula that indicates how big it oughtta be :-)
myself i never argue with a woman; i know i'll lose. Where it hurts.

i quite like this thread, it has everything in it including very lovely and generally very informative contributions by many of the people worth reading on these forums, and even long explanations from our resident scientific brain falconeye which always deepens my knowledge.

Fine with me it drifts off the specific topic here and there, it's still very much a good read abt photography.

i can save up enough for either a K-5 or the Q with a couple of the extra lenses, not both. And i'm torn. Espesh after spending a few nights downtown grabbing people shots.

i did finally score an FA 50mm f1.4. Still testing that and trying to decide whether i should adjust its microfocus specifically for tungsten. The thing'll certainly add to my speed and cut down on blurry shots from bad MF.

i find that under very low light conditions my eye front focuses just like the K-5 AF is known to do.

i guess we'll have to see what the Q contrast detect AF is like in low light. My A650 and Sony DSC-R1 (both contrast detect AF) remain quite accurate in those conditions, but are very slow. And both producing large amounts of very unsightly night time image noise.

The A650IS handheld SR is useful for me to abt 1/10s, that of the K-7 mebbe 1/20s. Hoping the Q will be closer to the former. As far as DoF, with my type of shooting more is better.
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, mirrorless, pentax, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Spotmatic motordrive...in the flesh! pickles Pentax Film SLR Discussion 8 08-09-2010 01:00 PM
Of Flesh and Clay dantuyhoa Post Your Photos! 9 11-11-2008 11:57 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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