Pentax EVIL NC-1 has smaller sensor than APS-C - your opinion?

eddie1960 · 06-14-2011, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Remember that boh APS and 43 were designed when prints were still the dominant output.

Frankly, for photography, aspect ratio at sensor level is not really a factor due to PP cropping.

Video is another matter.

Even with video with the HD output at 1920 x 1080P is easily cropped from pretty much any sensor on the market

Different Story if you are shooting Digital for film business then a camera like the red system makes sense with its crazy resolution)

What makes more sense for Video (and photography for that matter) is the foveon idea of separate colour chips (this was pretty common in Higher end video cams for a while not sure if it still is i left the business 5 years back now). the colour performance on these sensors is greatly improved (unfortunately the Hi iso isn't there with only one small company using the sensor technology it hasn't developed any where near as fast. I was hoping the new sigma would have been a leap forward after that long wait but it only seems to be a leap forward in price for the most part

Art Vandelay II · 06-14-2011, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

with regards to shallow DOF, the 25/1.4 although it has good isolation, it is still not at efficient or as blurry in comparison with something on APS-C. the Nokton seems to be good though, but loses on AF functionality and some enhancements.

I used to think that way, but I really don't anymore. Obviously smaller sensors (including APS-C) can't match 35mm, but I've found both are sufficient for my needs. Take this sample photo of a cat from the new Leica 25mm f/1.4 for example. The cat's nose is in focus and the ears are already soft. I simply don't need more DOF control than that. Furthermore, at 25mm's I wouldn't even use that lens as a neck-up portrait lens. I use a 50mm f/1.4 for that purpose. If Panasonic or Olympus make a 50mm/1.4 that is actually sharp wide open it will be over kill for me. At some point you just have to compose properly instead of using bokeh to blur out everything. I've seen tons of pics with the Canon 85mm f/1.2 where I've thought that would be a much better photo had they shot at f/2.8 instead of 1.2.

One area of concern is if you want shallow DOF in wide angles. I admit that is challenging, but as this photo taken at 14mm @ f/2 shows, it can be achieved. Of course that photographer also used perfect composition along with a nice bokeh effect. Had he not composed that properly the photo would have been crap. I think that's where the difference lies, with full frame you can use blur to cover up mistakes or things that are sometimes out of your control (busy crowds for example), and with smaller sensors you have to work around them.

johnmflores · 06-14-2011, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Art Vandelay II

At some point you just have to compose properly instead of using bokeh to blur out everything.

Agree 1000%. Extreme bokeh and OOF is a fetish.

**.a.t.** · 06-14-2011, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by johnmflores

Extreme bokeh and OOF is a fetish.

Fetish!?! Why, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Fetish!!
(grumble, grumble...)
Bah! At the very least, it's an obsession.

Pentaxor · 06-14-2011, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by all thumbs

Fetish!?! Why, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Fetish!!
(grumble, grumble...)
Bah! At the very least, it's an obsession.

hey fetish is good. otherwise, what's the use of LBA !

johnmflores · 06-14-2011, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by all thumbs

Fetish!?! Why, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Fetish!!
(grumble, grumble...)
Bah! At the very least, it's an obsession.

If I had been drinking milk while I read this it would have surely come out of my nose. LOL!

**Aristophanes** · 06-14-2011, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Winder

It is not as important as it use to be. I used 6x6 and 6x4.5 for years so the 3/2 is just way too wide for what I am use to. Everything I do I crop in post and it just feels like I am wasting pixels. That is why I want a 4/3 with a 24x18 sensor. It would be slightly larger than APS-C, but because of the aspect ratio I would not be throwing out 20% of my image. 4/4 would work or even a 5/4 format.

I have been looking at ordering a new screen for my K-7 with crop marks.

Originally posted by johnmflores

Agree 1000%. Extreme bokeh and OOF is a fetish.

I still want a Pentax tilt-shift lens

Winder · 06-14-2011, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

I still want a Pentax tilt-shift lens

https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=1822
I believe you can order these in K-mount

thibs · 06-14-2011, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

I still want a Pentax tilt-shift lens

Yep, was so fed up with that that I bought (Studio use of course) a view camera.
After all, I can get wide angle (4x5 wide I mean) and put the K7 on the back instead of film. I can play even better than with a TS lens.

Not to be used on holidays though

ogl · 06-14-2011, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

I still want a Pentax tilt-shift lens

For 645D?

Tilt-shift lenses have sense only with MF and LF cameras. or with FF at worst.

At APS-C is pointless.

thibs · 06-14-2011, 11:31 PM

Mmm? why would that be?
Maybe you have no perspective problem with APS-C or m43?
Will you enlighten us on what kind of magic you use? That would be fun.

thibs · 06-15-2011, 12:45 AM

** post deleted since it was in response of a post by Ogl which has been withdrawn.
There was no sense to keep the response to a non existent post **

Thank you for deletion btw, whoever did it (Ogl or admin).

**Aristophanes** · 06-15-2011, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by ogl

For 645D?

Tilt-shift lenses have sense only with MF and LF cameras. or with FF at worst.

At APS-C is pointless.

Huh?

The majority of perspective control lenses have been made for 135 format and work with lessened, but nevertheless noticeable and creative, results on APS-C.

The dominant manufacturers of tilt-shift lenses are Canon and Nikon, and they do not make MF or FF bodies. Canon offers 4 and Nikon 3. Their markets are architecture, technical, and product shots.

If they did not "make sense" then neither would make them. I guess they do make sense for many pros who pay a lot of $$$ for them.

eddie1960 · 06-15-2011, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Huh?

The majority of perspective control lenses have been made for 135 format and work with lessened, but nevertheless noticeable and creative, results on APS-C.

The dominant manufacturers of tilt-shift lenses are Canon and Nikon, and they do not make MF or FF bodies. Canon offers 4 and Nikon 3. Their markets are architecture, technical, and product shots.

If they did not "make sense" then neither would make them. I guess they do make sense for many pros who pay a lot of $$$ for them.

Exactly, I've met a couple of guys who do architectural work with 35mm based tilt shift lenses (now FF digital). they both will shoot with large format as well, but for a lot of the work (corporate reports etc) 35mm more than suffices and is considerably faster to set up and use

Tilt shift also exists for pretty much all MF mounts mostly for product shots and technical (IE studio based) but also can be used portable (my Super 23 6x7 mamiya has tilt shift back which you use with ground glass and cut film rather than roll film)

Large format of course it's one of the big draws

gazonk · 06-15-2011, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Aristophanes

Huh?

The majority of perspective control lenses have been made for 135 format and work with lessened, but nevertheless noticeable and creative, results on APS-C.

The dominant manufacturers of tilt-shift lenses are Canon and Nikon, and they do not make MF or FF bodies. Canon offers 4 and Nikon 3. Their markets are architecture, technical, and product shots.

If they did not "make sense" then neither would make them. I guess they do make sense for many pros who pay a lot of $$$ for them.

I think you and ogl are using two different meanings of "FF", but otherwise I agree. Why not a shift lens for the tiny-sensor NC-1? (trying desperately to get on-topic again

)

06-14-2011, 01:43 PM	#827
Art Vandelay II Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Charlotte, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 886	Originally posted by Pentaxor with regards to shallow DOF, the 25/1.4 although it has good isolation, it is still not at efficient or as blurry in comparison with something on APS-C. the Nokton seems to be good though, but loses on AF functionality and some enhancements. I used to think that way, but I really don't anymore. Obviously smaller sensors (including APS-C) can't match 35mm, but I've found both are sufficient for my needs. Take this sample photo of a cat from the new Leica 25mm f/1.4 for example. The cat's nose is in focus and the ears are already soft. I simply don't need more DOF control than that. Furthermore, at 25mm's I wouldn't even use that lens as a neck-up portrait lens. I use a 50mm f/1.4 for that purpose. If Panasonic or Olympus make a 50mm/1.4 that is actually sharp wide open it will be over kill for me. At some point you just have to compose properly instead of using bokeh to blur out everything. I've seen tons of pics with the Canon 85mm f/1.2 where I've thought that would be a much better photo had they shot at f/2.8 instead of 1.2. One area of concern is if you want shallow DOF in wide angles. I admit that is challenging, but as this photo taken at 14mm @ f/2 shows, it can be achieved. Of course that photographer also used perfect composition along with a nice bokeh effect. Had he not composed that properly the photo would have been crap. I think that's where the difference lies, with full frame you can use blur to cover up mistakes or things that are sometimes out of your control (busy crowds for example), and with smaller sensors you have to work around them. Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 06-15-2011 at 08:08 AM. Reason: fixed a run on sentence

06-15-2011, 12:45 AM	#837
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	post deleted since it was in response of a post by Ogl which has been withdrawn. There was no sense to keep the response to a non existent post Thank you for deletion btw, whoever did it (Ogl or admin). Last edited by thibs; 06-15-2011 at 06:26 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Canon 120mp APS-H CMOS sensor !	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	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

06-14-2011, 12:01 PM	#826
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Aristophanes Remember that boh APS and 43 were designed when prints were still the dominant output. Frankly, for photography, aspect ratio at sensor level is not really a factor due to PP cropping. Video is another matter. Even with video with the HD output at 1920 x 1080P is easily cropped from pretty much any sensor on the market Different Story if you are shooting Digital for film business then a camera like the red system makes sense with its crazy resolution) What makes more sense for Video (and photography for that matter) is the foveon idea of separate colour chips (this was pretty common in Higher end video cams for a while not sure if it still is i left the business 5 years back now). the colour performance on these sensors is greatly improved (unfortunately the Hi iso isn't there with only one small company using the sensor technology it hasn't developed any where near as fast. I was hoping the new sigma would have been a leap forward after that long wait but it only seems to be a leap forward in price for the most part

06-14-2011, 02:14 PM	#828
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by Art Vandelay II At some point you just have to compose properly instead of using bokeh to blur out everything. Agree 1000%. Extreme bokeh and OOF is a fetish.

06-14-2011, 06:55 PM	#829
.a.t. Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: yesterday Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,261	Originally posted by johnmflores Extreme bokeh and OOF is a fetish. Fetish!?! Why, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Fetish!! (grumble, grumble...) Bah! At the very least, it's an obsession.

06-14-2011, 07:07 PM	#830
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by all thumbs Fetish!?! Why, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Fetish!! (grumble, grumble...) Bah! At the very least, it's an obsession. hey fetish is good. otherwise, what's the use of LBA !

06-14-2011, 07:47 PM	#831
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by all thumbs Fetish!?! Why, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Fetish!! (grumble, grumble...) Bah! At the very least, it's an obsession. If I had been drinking milk while I read this it would have surely come out of my nose. LOL!

06-14-2011, 08:15 PM	#832
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by Winder It is not as important as it use to be. I used 6x6 and 6x4.5 for years so the 3/2 is just way too wide for what I am use to. Everything I do I crop in post and it just feels like I am wasting pixels. That is why I want a 4/3 with a 24x18 sensor. It would be slightly larger than APS-C, but because of the aspect ratio I would not be throwing out 20% of my image. 4/4 would work or even a 5/4 format. I have been looking at ordering a new screen for my K-7 with crop marks. Originally posted by johnmflores Agree 1000%. Extreme bokeh and OOF is a fetish. I still want a Pentax tilt-shift lens

06-14-2011, 08:57 PM	#833
Winder Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 6,617	Originally posted by Aristophanes I still want a Pentax tilt-shift lens https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=1822 I believe you can order these in K-mount

06-14-2011, 10:01 PM	#834
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Aristophanes I still want a Pentax tilt-shift lens Yep, was so fed up with that that I bought (Studio use of course) a view camera. After all, I can get wide angle (4x5 wide I mean) and put the K7 on the back instead of film. I can play even better than with a TS lens. Not to be used on holidays though

06-14-2011, 10:45 PM	#835
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	Originally posted by Aristophanes I still want a Pentax tilt-shift lens For 645D? Tilt-shift lenses have sense only with MF and LF cameras. or with FF at worst. At APS-C is pointless.

06-14-2011, 11:31 PM	#836
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Mmm? why would that be? Maybe you have no perspective problem with APS-C or m43? Will you enlighten us on what kind of magic you use? That would be fun.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-15-2011, 05:22 AM	#838
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by ogl For 645D? Tilt-shift lenses have sense only with MF and LF cameras. or with FF at worst. At APS-C is pointless. Huh? The majority of perspective control lenses have been made for 135 format and work with lessened, but nevertheless noticeable and creative, results on APS-C. The dominant manufacturers of tilt-shift lenses are Canon and Nikon, and they do not make MF or FF bodies. Canon offers 4 and Nikon 3. Their markets are architecture, technical, and product shots. If they did not "make sense" then neither would make them. I guess they do make sense for many pros who pay a lot of $$$ for them.

06-15-2011, 05:44 AM	#839
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Aristophanes Huh? The majority of perspective control lenses have been made for 135 format and work with lessened, but nevertheless noticeable and creative, results on APS-C. The dominant manufacturers of tilt-shift lenses are Canon and Nikon, and they do not make MF or FF bodies. Canon offers 4 and Nikon 3. Their markets are architecture, technical, and product shots. If they did not "make sense" then neither would make them. I guess they do make sense for many pros who pay a lot of $$$ for them. Exactly, I've met a couple of guys who do architectural work with 35mm based tilt shift lenses (now FF digital). they both will shoot with large format as well, but for a lot of the work (corporate reports etc) 35mm more than suffices and is considerably faster to set up and use Tilt shift also exists for pretty much all MF mounts mostly for product shots and technical (IE studio based) but also can be used portable (my Super 23 6x7 mamiya has tilt shift back which you use with ground glass and cut film rather than roll film) Large format of course it's one of the big draws

06-15-2011, 12:10 PM	#840
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Aristophanes Huh? The majority of perspective control lenses have been made for 135 format and work with lessened, but nevertheless noticeable and creative, results on APS-C. The dominant manufacturers of tilt-shift lenses are Canon and Nikon, and they do not make MF or FF bodies. Canon offers 4 and Nikon 3. Their markets are architecture, technical, and product shots. If they did not "make sense" then neither would make them. I guess they do make sense for many pros who pay a lot of $$$ for them. I think you and ogl are using two different meanings of "FF", but otherwise I agree. Why not a shift lens for the tiny-sensor NC-1? (trying desperately to get on-topic again )