Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-02-2022, 08:59 AM - 1 Like   #76
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,383
This thread is getting far too testy---and in fact ad hominem insulting. Seems to be mainly a couple of people. Due to the holidays I missed the original spark that started this fire, but now I've seen enough. This is the only warning I will post before taking some much more serious actions.

01-02-2022, 11:59 PM   #77
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,528
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I used a DoF calculator to generate the numbers for DoF, and I posted the results and gave you the link so you could try it yourself. You can check the numbers on line if you wish.
ƒ 5.6 compared to FF is ƒ8.4 then you will have the same DOF

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Your determination to believe anything but the truth is rather astounding.
No but you completely ignore this and think that crop will give you more DOF The only way cropped is giving you more dof is when you are limiting how much light the camera will receive.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The basic concept... at the same field of view, distance, shutter speed and ISO a smaller sensor gives you more DoF than a larger sensor.
Yup it is a basic concept and the only way to do this is to reduce how much light your image has thus increasing noise. If you shoot both systems with the same amount of light they will have the same DOF so there is really no increased DOF with cropped Yes very simple

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you change the ISO you aren't talking about the same thing anymore. It's no longer apples to apples. But that's what this discussion always comes down to, I have to ask how many ways can you compare apples to oranges by changing the basic given parameters to avoid the basic truth that every other photographer I've ever met, seems to understand.
How is shooting with the same amount of light an apples to oranges ?

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I have to ask, what would you accept as proof of concept. Obviously what I'm offering is beyond your grasp.
Proof is simple for the same DOF one system is shooting the twice the density of light but half the size of the medium recording that light while the other for the same DOF is shooting with 1/2 the density of light with a medium twice as larger 2x1/2=1/2x2 or 1 is equal to 1 how can you argue with that ? both give 1 while shooting the same DOF so there is no increased benefit proof of concept

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You must feel like Custer.
No its easy as 1=1

I just don't understand the silliness in thinking that one can not just stop down the lens for the same DOF

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 01-03-2022 at 12:31 AM.
01-03-2022, 03:46 AM   #78
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,371
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote

Yup it is a basic concept and the only way to do this is to reduce how much light your image has thus increasing noise. If you shoot both systems with the same amount of light they will have the same DOF so there is really no increased DOF with cropped Yes very simple
No one shot two different formats in order to collect the same amount of light. You will though want the same exposure. A smaller format will have more DOF at same numerical aperture at the same angle of view.
01-03-2022, 06:09 AM - 3 Likes   #79
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Michigan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,155
QuoteOriginally posted by surfar Quote
Its a fact that the flagship Dslr isn't being continued, however the Canon interview said. "Demand for beginner and intermediate SLR cameras is strong overseas, so we plan to continue DEVELOPMENT and PRODUCTION!(for the time being)"
Of course they're not abandoning DSLRs. They're not leaving money on the table. I suspect people tend to forget the sheer dominance of DSLRs among actual users, for the simple reason that, over the years, so many more DSLRs have been sold. Mirrorless cameras mainly appeal to deep pocket male photographers who want the latest tech and who regard DSLRs as old and boring. To such photographers, mirrorless is new and exciting (it's "the future"), and investing in such cameras provides the additional bonus of justifying buying all new lenses. Not everyone can afford to do that, and there are still photographers, particularly that are more artistic and less technical in their orientation, who regard mirrorless cameras as "nerd gadgets." The biggest complaint I hear from photographers, particularly female photographers, is that cameras are too hard to use, and mirrorless doesn't address this issue, it actually makes things worse. The advantages of mirrorless, such as eye-AF, frighten less technically competent photographers, who equate an increase of features with the phrase "harder-to-use." I've run into a lot of female photographers over the years, some of them quite talented, who prefer to use entry-level DSLRs, not only to save money, but because cameras with less features are easier to use. The real problem with DSLR in terms of market economics is that most DSLR users are not buying a new camera every three years. Most DSLRs will last ten years or more, so why should they? The new tech doesn't really have much bearing on "image quality." No camera in the last twelve years has significantly improved on the ISO performance of the Nikon D3s, which was released way back in 2009. So if you've bought a DSLR in the last ten years or so and all you care about is imaging performance, you don't really need to buy a new camera until your current one gives out.

It's hard not to see this move to mirrorless as a scheme by Nikon and Canon, not merely to sell more cameras (with the promise of "new technology" that provides more bells and whistles), but also to convince photographers to buy new lenses. You can, of course, use DSLR lenses with adapters on mirrorless cameras, but how many "normal" people (not counting tech nerds who revel in such stuff) want to use lenses with adapters? There are photographers out there for whom adapters are scary, because they wouldn't know which adapter to get. That's actually a real issue that goes underappreciated by the mirrorless advocates, who are themselves usually very technically advanced and have difficulty empathizing with photographers who just aren't that into technology and who just want to take pictures without all that advanced tech getting in the way.

01-03-2022, 07:08 AM   #80
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,976
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Mirrorless cameras mainly appeal to deep pocket male photographers who want the latest tech and who regard DSLRs as old and boring.
And interestingly, out of the handful (4 or 5) girls I know who are into photography, only one actually wants a DSLR. The others don't care at all about the tech. They care about the camera doing all the techie stuff so they don't have to, and it's MILCs who make that easier, without having to *know* stuff that DSLRs require you to know.

DSLRs could be easily said to cater to gearhead males who want control over the process just for the enjoyment of the technique, even if the end result is the same. I'd wager the reality is more subtle than either.
01-03-2022, 08:43 AM - 1 Like   #81
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
No but you completely ignore this and think that crop will give you more DOF The only way cropped is giving you more dof is when you are limiting how much light the camera will receive.
At base ISO the amount of light the camera receives is pretty much meaningless, it's not an IQ concern, it's a debating point for some who have nothing else.

QuoteQuote:
How is shooting with the same amount of light an apples to oranges ?
There is a reason total light is not atraditional photographic concept. like aperture, ISO, shutter speed and DoF and noise.
Because it makes no meaningful difference to IQ, especially since the "more" light is spread over a larger sensor.
I generally try and limit myself to discussing things that actually make a difference to the image.
In my experience, total light is only used as a debating point. Beyond that it has little meaning. Especially comparing APS-c and FF.

Bottom line, "total light" does not effect you ability to capture most if not all images. That's why it's only mentioned in debate. That's why you've never seen image comparisons in every day shots that show the advantage of total light. It's photographically meaningless.

Total light , like equivalence, cannot be used to prove the superiority of one system over another. That's what the experts say. However, amateurs tend to get sucked in by the rhetoric of those who try and pass their misunderstandings on to others.

QuoteOriginally posted by Serkevan Quote
without having to *know* stuff that DSLRs require you to know.
We used to joke about people using auto-mode and jpeg... I'm not sure how things could be simpler.
Explain this maybe.. what's easier than looking thorough the viewfinder, focussing on the subject, and pushing the shutter button? How dose it get easier than that?
There's a difference between wanting to take snapshots, and "interested in photography."
An interest in photography would suggest getting to know the different photographic techniques used to achieve different photographic effects.

If you aren't interested in the difference between this


and this


Are you even interested in photography?
I find the idea that you can evaluate out of focus areas etc. through a viewfinder completely wrong on any small format system. Obviously looking at the glass on a 4x5 film camera would be different, but on any system where subject size is reduced no viewfinder, EVF or OVF will do the trick. And I find decisions made looking through the viewfinder are often overturned when viewing multiple images at different f-stops on a full 4k screen.

Even then, when I posted these images, some liked the narrow DoF, others like the wide DoF and I myself can't decide which I like best through the viewfinder or even afterwards sometimes. I take a series, and choose later. Of the above two, I liked both. All I had to do was change the aperture... how is that easier on a mirrorless? This about creating about 4 times as much work, because I take and process 4 images instead of one. It's not easier, but it's photography. Any subject of study is by definition, more than the person who doesn't study the subject is capable of understanding.

It's definitely not easier on my Lumix ZS100, the knob that controls the aperture turns the wrong way and the camera is so small I have to take my eye off the viewfinder and make the adjustment while keeping tabs on everything.

My own suspicion is that people are being sold a bill of goods, not something that's actually much if at all better.
I have never found the fact that people believe something has a whole lot of relationship to whether or not it's true.
The number of people still using their DSLRs is testament to the fact that, despite the hype, there's not much worth switching for.

Last edited by normhead; 01-03-2022 at 09:33 AM.
01-03-2022, 09:04 AM   #82
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jersey's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: 3City agglomeration
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,027
Auto and JPEG are not bad. Anyone who used primarily slides will understand JPEG and some may even like it.


Also Auto is pretty useful if you are shooting in good conditions, just like semi-auto (P, Av, TAv etc) are useful for some scenarios. If settings corerction for artistic value does not matter because of subject and/or conditions then why not? You could as well joke about people using auto(!)focus.

01-03-2022, 09:36 AM   #83
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by jersey Quote
Auto and JPEG are not bad. Anyone who used primarily slides will understand JPEG and some may even like it.


Also Auto is pretty useful if you are shooting in good conditions, just like semi-auto (P, Av, TAv etc) are useful for some scenarios. If settings corerction for artistic value does not matter because of subject and/or conditions then why not? You could as well joke about people using auto(!)focus.
Or as I do, moan when my AF missed by a couple inches because I just snapped off a shot. But with AF you can do everything right, and it can still guess wrong. Especially multi-point AF. I make up for this with birds and wildlife by shooting 800 images, instead of just the 10 actually might keep. The joys of digital.
01-03-2022, 10:26 AM   #84
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,976
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Explain this maybe.. what's easier than looking thorough the viewfinder, focussing on the subject, and pushing the shutter button? How dose it get easier than that?
Looking through the viewfinder, seeing exactly how the photo is gonna turn out in the end exposure-wise, focusing on the subject while zooming in and seeing the exact in-focus plane (which a DSLR does not do for a wide open shot, because of the focusing screen), and pushing the shutter button .

One could argue (and it is true, of course) that everything an EVF brings to the table is also present on a DSLR, through the use of LV on the back LCD. However, frankly, that's much worse than a proper viewfinder unless you're using it as a waist-level finder when the screen is tilted up, which is not optimal or comfortable all the time (and the MILC still has that option).

The ZS100 has a tiny tiny finder which is great for a camera of that class, but we ought to be comparing to stuff in the range of our nice Pentax pentaprisms, not to a compact. So, let's say an X-T4 or a Nikon Z6.

And no, *I* don't want to use an EVF and *I* know that using a MILC only adds a couple crutches that can easily backfire on the user, but that's not the point I'm making; it's exclusively that MILCs can be perceived as being less techy/nerdy/complicated compared to DSLRs (which is ironic, though technically a MILC is just a stripped down DSLR with another screen). I'm as nerdy and gearhead-y as anyone and I'd rather be decades behind the current tech than use an EVF . I absolutely agree that changing from one system to another isn't going to actually turn out better images.
01-03-2022, 12:27 PM   #85
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: mid nth coast,nsw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,129
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I suspect people tend to forget the sheer dominance of DSLRs among actual users, for the simple reason that, over the years, so many more DSLRs have been sold.
Yes, at this point in time "more" have been sold.However,as far as sheer dominance goes due to numbers,I dont see that at all.Ymmv.

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Mirrorless cameras mainly appeal to deep pocket male photographers who want the latest tech and who regard DSLRs as old and boring.
I'm not sure how accurate these words are?Are you discriminating against the female gender?I know cargo pants pockets are deep,so males can have the deep pockets!Some Dslrs ARE old,yes,boring?Ive never seen a Dslr which was boring.
01-03-2022, 12:45 PM   #86
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteQuote:
Looking through the viewfinder, seeing exactly how the photo is gonna turn out in the end exposure-wise, focusing on the subject while seeing the exact in-focus plane (which a DSLR does not do for a wide open shot, because of the focusing screen), and pushing the shutter button
Already answered.
QuoteQuote:
I find the idea that you can evaluate out of focus areas etc. through a viewfinder completely wrong on any small format system. Obviously looking at the glass on a 4x5 film camera would be different, but on any system where subject size is reduced no viewfinder, EVF or OVF will do the trick.
Should I flesh that out a bit? I can elaborate.

Last edited by normhead; 01-03-2022 at 12:50 PM.
01-03-2022, 12:51 PM - 1 Like   #87
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,172
QuoteOriginally posted by Serkevan Quote
Looking through the viewfinder, seeing exactly how the photo is gonna turn out in the end exposure-wise, focusing on the subject while zooming in and seeing the exact in-focus plane (which a DSLR does not do for a wide open shot, because of the focusing screen), and pushing the shutter button
I'm also on the nerdy side. I had an opportunity to use my son's then-new Fuji XT-3 and a couple of XF lenses for a week. I thought it was a neat little camera with useful features, albeit with some weaknesses compared to my Pentax. The EVF looked fairly good to me, although I didn't think I'd be comfortable using it for an extended period. The ability to nail focus with manual lenses was eye-opening (hehe). What, I don't need to calibrate the AF of any lenses...? Magic.

Funny, when I take an occasional picture with my smartphone, I just hold it up and snap -- no thought to exposure settings, and only sometimes think about a focus point. Face/eye detection? Check. Silent mode? Yup.

- Craig
01-03-2022, 01:19 PM   #88
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,976
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Already answered.


Should I flesh that out a bit? I can elaborate.
No, there's obviously no need.

---------- Post added 01-03-22 at 01:29 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by c.a.m Quote
I'm also on the nerdy side. I had an opportunity to use my son's then-new Fuji XT-3 and a couple of XF lenses for a week. I thought it was a neat little camera with useful features, albeit with some weaknesses compared to my Pentax. The EVF looked fairly good to me, although I didn't think I'd be comfortable using it for an extended period. The ability to nail focus with manual lenses was eye-opening (hehe). What, I don't need to calibrate the AF of any lenses...? Magic.

Funny, when I take an occasional picture with my smartphone, I just hold it up and snap -- no thought to exposure settings, and only sometimes think about a focus point. Face/eye detection? Check. Silent mode? Yup.

- Craig
Yeah, manual focus while being able to zoom in to 100% view with focus peaking in the EVF is certainly useful. Having the histogram in sight all the time is also a very good feature that I'd love to have in my DSLR*. I always end up underexposing a bit in high contrast situations when spot metering is giving me trouble.

For me, that does not do nearly enough to offset the myriad inconveniences of using an electronic finder, but I can certainly see why, for many, they might seem like a better option, at least at first glance.
Regarding smartphones, they are probably the most tech-heavy cameras out there, and yet they feel decidedly... less techy, in actual use. Pedestrian, even. Just point in the general direction of the subject and fire away.

*I think the new RGBir sensor, coupled with the lovely OVF overlay tech they have in newer cameras, would be able to manage that quite nicely. And could I maybe get some blinkies for overexposure, Pentax?

Last edited by Serkevan; 01-03-2022 at 01:29 PM.
01-03-2022, 01:35 PM   #89
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Serkevan Quote
Regarding smartphones, they are probably the most tech-heavy cameras out there, and yet they feel decidedly... less techy, in actual use.
Because good tech is as invisible as possible. If you know it's there, it still needs work.
01-03-2022, 01:41 PM   #90
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 12,275
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Of course they're not abandoning DSLRs. They're not leaving money on the table. I suspect people tend to forget the sheer dominance of DSLRs among actual users, for the simple reason that, over the years, so many more DSLRs have been sold. Mirrorless cameras mainly appeal to deep pocket male photographers who want the latest tech and who regard DSLRs as old and boring. To such photographers, mirrorless is new and exciting (it's "the future"), and investing in such cameras provides the additional bonus of justifying buying all new lenses. Not everyone can afford to do that, and there are still photographers, particularly that are more artistic and less technical in their orientation, who regard mirrorless cameras as "nerd gadgets." The biggest complaint I hear from photographers, particularly female photographers, is that cameras are too hard to use, and mirrorless doesn't address this issue, it actually makes things worse. The advantages of mirrorless, such as eye-AF, frighten less technically competent photographers, who equate an increase of features with the phrase "harder-to-use." I've run into a lot of female photographers over the years, some of them quite talented, who prefer to use entry-level DSLRs, not only to save money, but because cameras with less features are easier to use. The real problem with DSLR in terms of market economics is that most DSLR users are not buying a new camera every three years. Most DSLRs will last ten years or more, so why should they? The new tech doesn't really have much bearing on "image quality." No camera in the last twelve years has significantly improved on the ISO performance of the Nikon D3s, which was released way back in 2009. So if you've bought a DSLR in the last ten years or so and all you care about is imaging performance, you don't really need to buy a new camera until your current one gives out.

It's hard not to see this move to mirrorless as a scheme by Nikon and Canon, not merely to sell more cameras (with the promise of "new technology" that provides more bells and whistles), but also to convince photographers to buy new lenses. You can, of course, use DSLR lenses with adapters on mirrorless cameras, but how many "normal" people (not counting tech nerds who revel in such stuff) want to use lenses with adapters? There are photographers out there for whom adapters are scary, because they wouldn't know which adapter to get. That's actually a real issue that goes underappreciated by the mirrorless advocates, who are themselves usually very technically advanced and have difficulty empathizing with photographers who just aren't that into technology and who just want to take pictures without all that advanced tech getting in the way.
Agree with your take. I belonged to a photo club for a time, about a decade ago.

There were about three guys in the club, who had lots of bucks. Jay Leno would say they belonged to the more money than common sense club.

One year they would have the latest and greatest Canon stuff...but they would moan that for some reason their photos didn't seem to improve.

So the next year they would trade all their Canon stuff in, on the latest and greatest Nikon equipment. But still moan, geez, what's wrong with this Nikon equipment...no improvement in my photos.

And so it went on...

Never once did they consider the nut behind the wheel...or in this case, the nut behind the viewfinder.
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!
ability, af, aps-c, camera, canon, ceo, dslr, dslrs, evf, features, ff, iii, images, lens, lenses, m43, mark, mf, milcs, mirrorless, nikon, ovf, pentax, photo industry, photography, sensor, system, viewfinder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax President's Photo Competition - UK Competition steephill Pentax News and Rumors 12 01-25-2019 07:20 AM
When less is less, more is more, and the Q is the Q! 6BQ5 Pentax Q 12 07-13-2015 10:35 AM
Cityscape Less and less people like it ZeljkoS Post Your Photos! 4 02-09-2015 08:15 AM
Question May 2011 Competition Entries - Competition before Black and white entries PentaxExpression Site Suggestions and Help 5 08-08-2011 07:43 AM
Less and less film stuff at my favorite store... KungPOW Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras 11 09-05-2009 11:15 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:09 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