Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-26-2011, 11:23 AM   #421
Veteran Member
eurostar's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Albareto, Italy
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 817
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
What current Pentaxian wants the equivalent of Olympus 14-35 f2 zoom only realize that for all its size and expense, it is just a 28-70 f4 because the sensor is compromised?
That's not true. It could be for minimum depth of field, but for exposure it is "really" f/2.

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.

02-26-2011, 01:37 PM   #422
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.
Well, when I talk to m4/3 users, some of the seem obsessed with fast lenses, probably because standard lenses really doesn't give you much in terms of smooth bokeh on m4/3.

When I used a film SLR, f/1.7 was really mostly for the times I needed faster shutter times, I preferred to use f/2.8 whenever I could - to avoid the extremely thin DOF.
02-26-2011, 05:35 PM   #423
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 418
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
That's not true. It could be for minimum depth of field, but for exposure it is "really" f/2.

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.
There's a reason big aperture glass is called "fast" and not "shallow".
02-26-2011, 06:17 PM   #424
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.
I'd be one. Actually, I've found my appreciation of the look I get from a lens has little bearing on its maximum aperture capability. I rarely shoot wide open and it's almost always while I'm in sketchy lighting.

QuoteOriginally posted by junyo Quote
There's a reason big aperture glass is called "fast" and not "shallow".
Nicely said.

QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Well, when I talk to m4/3 users, some of the seem obsessed with fast lenses, probably because standard lenses really doesn't give you much in terms of smooth bokeh on m4/3.
Gazkonk, is bokeh somehow dependent on sensor size?

02-27-2011, 02:38 AM   #425
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
That's not true. It could be for minimum depth of field, but for exposure it is "really" f/2.

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.
That is only true if you expect to use same exposure independent of sensor size. But most users know that you need to use different exposure for same images on different sensor size. F-numbers only say anything if used on same sensor size, just like ISO do.

25mm f/0.95 1/50s ISO100 on mft is equal to 50mm f/1.9 1/50s ISO400 on FF. (equal in FOV, DOF, aperture size and image noise). If anything, a bigger sensor has a speed advantage as it is easier to find lenses with bigger apertures for them.
02-27-2011, 03:51 AM   #426
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
Gazkonk, is bokeh somehow dependent on sensor size?
Of course, if you have infinite DoF, how can you have any bokeh?
My iPhone gives me OOF backgrounds only when at its minimum focus distance.
02-27-2011, 05:00 AM   #427
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Of course, if you have infinite DoF, how can you have any bokeh?
My iPhone gives me OOF backgrounds only when at its minimum focus distance.
Aha! Thank you.
02-27-2011, 06:17 AM   #428
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
That's not true. It could be for minimum depth of field, but for exposure it is "really" f/2.

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.
A long time quest in photographic optics has been shallower DOF since that is more difficult to achieve and allows for greater creative latitude. It's as relevant as the exposure variant though individual buyers have their own preferences. The two traits cannot be isolated.

All the m43 smaller sensor does is move the goalposts further from that dynamic. Yes, exposure is relative between "fast glass" and sensor size. But why should Pentax downgrade on that range of DOF to stay the same with what it has now? It is still a net loss no matter which way you look at it, as are the m43's diminished DR and ISO low-light capabilities.

Back to the OP: it's the sensor size forcing the DOF compromise compared to the current Pentax set-up. Bigger sensors have advantages. m43 is the smallest of the DSLR range: m43, APS-C, APS-H, and FF.

It's a poor tradeoff for Pentax and anyone who currently owns Pentax glass downgrading to m43 and paying Olympus for the right to compete against them. Dumping your installed base and paying your competitor to do so is simply poor business. If Pentax does feel a licensed lens mount to facilitate mirrorless is more economical, then NX or E are far more likely, but I strongly doubt Sony would play. Samsung is a mystery. It may be as cost-effective for Pentax to go a proprietary route. It won't cost them customers like moving to m43 would.

02-27-2011, 08:05 AM   #429
Veteran Member
mattdm's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,964
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
A long time quest in photographic optics has been shallower DOF since that is more difficult to achieve and allows for greater creative latitude.
It's true that many people like that, but it's more a recent fad than a "long time quest". Historically, greater depth of field has been prized.
02-27-2011, 09:25 AM   #430
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Veluwe
Posts: 339
I am so glad it isn't forbidden to use aps-c and m43 both .....
Still sometimes dreaming of a digital spotmatic ..... wished I had one.
Would it not have been wonderful to know how to prepare glass plates and make truly large format glass negatives .....
To use a tool, to delight in using it, to anticipate what it can do for you, how thát tool specifically enables you to do just thát. Yeah, thank you pentax for all you faulty k5's, I now ALSO have a real panasonic gf1. Still waiting for a healthy k5 though.
M43 smaller sensor to me means more different iq than lesser iq.
02-27-2011, 12:48 PM   #431
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by eurostar Quote
That's not true. It could be for minimum depth of field, but for exposure it is "really" f/2.

I bet there are much more people that look at aperture for the shutter-values it allows, than for thin depth of field.
QuoteOriginally posted by mattdm Quote
It's true that many people like that, but it's more a recent fad than a "long time quest". Historically, greater depth of field has been prized.
Granted for the Adams zone theory adherents (and anyone involved in macrphotography) this is true.

Candid, street, low-light, concert, and some portrait photography, no. There's a reason Leica's lenses are what they are on FF, and why they command a premium. And why Pentax FA Ltd's still command a premium and go like snap on this forum.

It's been more of a technical challenge including economics. Finding a lens without f/22 is easy. Finding one with f/1.2 is extremely difficult. Why the extreme market demand for the latter? It's largely illuminance, and partly that DOF headroom. Move to a smaller sensor and you irrevocably lose that latter option and the market share that goes with it. If they have the $$$ they go or have already gone FF. In any case, it's moot for Pentax...it's a downgrade for current Pentaxians to go to m43. There is no business case to do so both finaincially and technically. It's a lose/lose option.
02-27-2011, 01:18 PM   #432
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 175
What would really make it, in my opinion, would be pentax k-3 mount and design so that the sensor is in the very back of the camera body allowing use of APS-C lens without an adapter; preferrably APS-C sensor size. Then everyone with a pentax DSLR would get one when minimal size is a must.
02-27-2011, 02:05 PM   #433
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by PentaxMom Felua Quote
I am so glad it isn't forbidden to use aps-c and m43 both .....
Not yet, anyway. Well said! 8^)

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
If they have the $$$ they go or have already gone FF. In any case, it's moot for Pentax...it's a downgrade for current Pentaxians to go to m43.
What I see among the photog's I speak to is an exhaustion with bulky/heavy and complex cameras. Some, like me, have largely returned to film. The majority are moving to smaller cameras. I've got two long-time SLR-using friends who have ditched Nikon and Olympus SLR's for their iPhones. Time and again people have told me that the µ43 cameras have made them re-evaluate what they want to accomplish and how much they're willing to carry. It's not even a question of "good enough", it's "those things do everything I want and the size and shape are exciting". Not a lot of people seem to think about how they'll preserve the use of their current lenses; they just trade in whatever they've got. I don't think anyone's treating it as logically as you're making it seem.

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
There is no business case to do so both financially and technically. It's a lose/lose option.
Well, all right. With the exception of the MF products, Pentax is a small player operating in fields heavily dominated by their competitors. If this were purely a logical decision, I'd have to wonder how much longer Hoya could imagine they'd continue with the imaging division.
02-27-2011, 03:58 PM   #434
juu
Veteran Member
juu's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 680
QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
Not a lot of people seem to think about how they'll preserve the use of their current lenses; they just trade in whatever they've got. I don't think anyone's treating it as logically as you're making it seem.
I think there certainly are people who would say "Pentax, either you fully support my existing lenses in your upcoming EVIL or I will boycott your products from now on". However, they are a distinct minority and not all will actually follow through on this.

This forum also isn't quite representative of the average Pentax user, as there are way more advanced users, pros and serious enthusiasts here, with extensive lens collections, for whom the issue of backwards compatibility is very important.

Which means that despite some here presenting it as a matter of utmost importance, Pentax may not necessarily view it that way and might view attracting new users to the brand as more important (hence doing a less-than-APSC sensored EVIL).
02-27-2011, 04:21 PM   #435
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
Not yet, anyway. Well said! 8^)



What I see among the photog's I speak to is an exhaustion with bulky/heavy and complex cameras.
Prove it. DSLR sales are still an increasing market in sales volumes, including m43, but DSLR's in aggregate have sold increasing #'s year YOY.

Anecdotally there is little evidence to back this up. My own local camera store disputes this. Everyone makes it sound like smaller always wins and even the historical record is against that. Olympus went all small in the 1970's did quite well, but never above #5. In fact, large-body Minolta became the star with the X700. There are boundaries for personal preferences, but as a general statement, your theory is simply not borne out by sales data. The "big" DSLR's have both gotten more compact, lighter, and have sold extremely well. The last 5 years have been a total Golden Age of the SLR despite this "size" impediment. It's a very large, competitive market and at no time has a single body size or type ever come to dominate. Ever. We'll probably see Fuji X100 knock-offs sub-$300 in 5 years sold to the same guy who owns a pellicle and an iPhone 8. The hope is Pentax can get some of those sales.

QuoteQuote:
from juu, Which means that despite some here presenting it as a matter of utmost importance, Pentax may not necessarily view it that way and might view attracting new users to the brand as more important (hence doing a less-than-APSC sensored EVIL).
If Sony (Pentax's prime supplier for sensors) and Samsung have gone APS-C for mirrorless, and with Nikon and Canon also likely to go APS-C at some point for mirrorless, then Pentax will not offers its loyal, installed base a chance to jump to those brands. Pentax can get all it needs from APS-C without forcing brand loyalists into downgrading.

Keep the loyal Limited buyers or pay Olympus for its inferior sensor technology? Not a tough business decision at all.

P.S. I do not discard the notion that an EVIL small sensor system like Auto 110 is also a possibility for Pentax and/or Nikon. Neither compete well in the high-end compact market, nor superzooms, and an EVIL here may kill 2 birds with 1 stone, like Auto 100 tried to do. These could very well be the "pocket" 2nd system for many.
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!
aps-c, camera, cameras, mm, nc-1, offer, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon 120mp APS-H CMOS sensor ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 16 08-22-2013 10:48 PM
Arguably the worlds best sensor, and it's way smaller than full frame. 500+ MP Clinton Photographic Technique 25 03-04-2011 09:10 PM
New Samsung APS-C sensor with 10.7 fps ogl Pentax News and Rumors 84 06-29-2010 12:52 AM
Would you buy a Pentax P&S with APS-C sensor? NorthPentax Pentax News and Rumors 20 04-01-2009 10:47 AM
My only gripe about aps-c sensor pasipasi Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 03-13-2009 06:17 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:23 PM. | 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