Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-31-2013, 05:22 AM   #1846
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Regarding the GXR:
I believe that within 10 years you'll be buying, not just lenses, but lenses with the camera built into them.
I keep saying this for years, but I disagree on time scale.

For one thing, it doesn't make sense to assume lenses to bring their own sensor covering their respective image circle. And at the same time, to ignore the fact that each optical quality has its own sweet spot for sensor size, including full frame and beyond and below.

I would assume that such sweet spot is around the lens' entrance pupil diameter, or maybe half of it, as image circle diamater.

Actually, such a lens would scream for a "retina sensor" with very high resolution in the center (suitable for cropping and exploiting the lens' center resoving power) and lower resolution towards the outer limits of the lens image circle (which can become *very* large for long lenses, but with lower lens resolution). Much like what our eye does.

And for another thing, it assumes sensor cost to be marginalized. Which will happen but hasn't happened yet and won't happen over the next 10 years either. The GXR is too early.


Last edited by falconeye; 05-31-2013 at 05:33 AM.
05-31-2013, 05:29 AM   #1847
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,197
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Yeah, right. Pentax (and only Pentax) should only make "landmark" cameras, completely reinventing the wheel each time and scraping every good idea they had because it's no longer "new".
Yes there are differences between the K-30 and the K-5II. But the gap isnt really that big and there is plenty of room above and below that Pentax needs to fill,
05-31-2013, 05:36 AM   #1848
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
Photography has a hands-on, tactile element. If you set out a tube with a lens and an iPhone side by side and ask people which one is easier to use for taking pictures, the phone will win. It's easier to hold for both reviewing and taking. I can see someone making a camera where the phone is simply attached as the main review, edit, and share mechanism while the camera is optics and some dedicated processing and AF. I doubt we'll see cameras as an optical tube, and certainly not the K-3!!
05-31-2013, 05:49 AM   #1849
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
The problem with the equivalence argument is that it is based on setting a standard or "sweet spot" of 135 or FF.
Aristophanes, I keep you in high regard, but why can't you understand such a trivial thing? Again ...

1. Equivalence is no argument. And it is setting no standard. It is nothing but a tool (for the discussion of engineers or photographers) which allows to compare two cameras which do not have the same image circle.

By normalizing optical properties to an arbitry sensor size (could be 1 meter diameter to be more in line with iso norms ), discussions are simplified and can become conclusive.

Equivalence is a tool and no argument. Please refrain from quoting it as such. It is driving me angry if a person as intelligent as you can't get it.

2. Because no one except nerds really cares (or wants to care) about the inner workings of their camera (which includes the size of a particular electronic component called sensor), it has become common habit to express a camera's properties in 35mm-equivalent terms. Such as the focal length of a mobile phone's camera. Equivalence now tells us that if focal length is expressed this way, aperture and ISO must be as well. Again not an argument, just a tool.

You may be sorry that 135mm is used as the arbitrary reference point. I agree, but such is history. The Meter is 1/10000000 of the earth's quarter circumference and just as arbitrary. But so what ...

Thank You for listening,
Falk

P.S.
I do not argue (within this thread) if the market is going full frame or not. That's an entirely separate question. The market may go 1" format and equivalence would remain strong as a tool, if not stronger.

If you read my paper, I actually derive in a rigorous way that each optical quality at each moment in time has its "sweet spot" wrt sensor size. And that will in general not be 135. Only sometimes it will.


Last edited by falconeye; 05-31-2013 at 05:57 AM.
05-31-2013, 06:44 AM   #1850
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,423
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
Yes there are differences between the K-30 and the K-5II. But the gap isnt really that big and there is plenty of room above and below that Pentax needs to fill,
That's an entirely different thing; and who knows, maybe they'll start filling that empty room sometimes this year
05-31-2013, 07:32 AM   #1851
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
That's an entirely different thing; and who knows, maybe they'll start filling that empty room sometimes this year
It's time to replace a lot of Ricoh and Pentax cameras...Replace + filling - I doubt...
05-31-2013, 08:59 AM   #1852
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
You may be sorry that 135mm is used as the arbitrary reference point. I agree, but such is history.
I am not so sure that 135 as a reference is really being used as much as we think it is. A huge chunk of the market (consumers and even many prosumers) now has no practical reference point for that standard any more. It's ancient history. We may use it, but I suspect the marketing gurus do not. This is particularly true with mirrorles (m43, CX/1", APS-C, and now EOS-M) but also with smartphones.

135 only became a reference because of popularity brought about by cost and portability, not optimum optics or IQ. Older (much older) roll film handily beat the IQ of 135.

So the basis that 135 continues as a historical standard is not set in stone largely because there are so many new formats that the standard itself is obsolete. It's being obviated by popular ignorance.

It's now like a floating currency with no fixed exchange rate. If anything, FF only represents the top model, and 1/2.3 is now the lower end. The real "standard" probably lies somewhere in between, and I argue it will, for economic reasons, lie closer to APS than the Q with consumer sentiment leaning towards buying up in size being the norm for any given transaction.

Of course I am setting this as a sensor size issue, and not optics. If you emphasize optical performance and especially DOF control for aesthetic reasons, you'll also edge up because those add value that can only be achieved by a proper increase both in sensor size and optical "sweet spots" as your articles demonstrate. We have yet to see affordable sensors play along.
05-31-2013, 10:58 AM   #1853
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,423
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
It's time to replace a lot of Ricoh and Pentax cameras...Replace + filling - I doubt...
We'll see about that...
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Equivalence is a tool and no argument. Please refrain from quoting it as such. It is driving me angry if a person as intelligent as you can't get it.

2. Because no one except nerds really cares (or wants to care) about the inner workings of their camera (which includes the size of a particular electronic component called sensor), it has become common habit to express a camera's properties in 35mm-equivalent terms. Such as the focal length of a mobile phone's camera. Equivalence now tells us that if focal length is expressed this way, aperture and ISO must be as well. Again not an argument, just a tool.
Equivalence is a tool often misused and misunderstood. It doesn't help much, except in very few situations; but many times it will needlessly complicate a simple problem.

I'm hearing ridiculous things, like the focal length depending on the camera, or aperture being changed. People are computing the "real" focal length using this equivalence, when they're using only APS-C. At least, we should not perpetuate this madness.

05-31-2013, 11:39 AM   #1854
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,124
I know I fell into the "Is this 50mm lens REALLY 50mm when used on my camera?" and the "Since this 30mm lens is designed for ASPC is is really 30mm or is it actually 20mm?" thing at first. Yeah, get the equivalency out and simply say here's how wide FOV and how shallow the DOF is when using it on whatever format. That would be better. That way no one gets confused about if the lens is really the lens that they think they have.
05-31-2013, 11:49 AM   #1855
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
I know I fell into the "Is this 50mm lens REALLY 50mm when used on my camera?" and the "Since this 30mm lens is designed for ASPC is is really 30mm or is it actually 20mm?" thing at first. Yeah, get the equivalency out and simply say here's how wide FOV and how shallow the DOF is when using it on whatever format. That would be better. That way no one gets confused about if the lens is really the lens that they think they have.
I wonder how many people really don't care about this (like myself). I have a nice set off lenses and choose the one I think will bring me what I'm looking for. I look true my viewfinder or the screen on my K-01 to see if I have to zoom with my feet or not.
05-31-2013, 01:31 PM   #1856
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,511
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
What features do you find clearly different between the K-30 and K-5II?
The K-30 has a cut rate sensor in it... 2 whole stops less dynamic range vs the K-5!

At first glance they look pretty similar, but just in terms of the sensor, are worlds apart.
05-31-2013, 01:42 PM   #1857
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by WerTicus Quote
The K-30 has a cut rate sensor in it... 2 whole stops less dynamic range vs the K-5!

At first glance they look pretty similar, but just in terms of the sensor, are worlds apart.
I never knew that the 14 bit, or something else, actually made a difference. It isn't 2 stops, it's 0.7 EV, but that's still at least measureable.

DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side
05-31-2013, 01:44 PM   #1858
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
We'll see about that...

Equivalence is a tool often misused and misunderstood. It doesn't help much, except in very few situations; but many times it will needlessly complicate a simple problem.

I'm hearing ridiculous things, like the focal length depending on the camera, or aperture being changed. People are computing the "real" focal length using this equivalence, when they're using only APS-C. At least, we should not perpetuate this madness.
Equivalency makes it very easy to compare systems with differing sensor sizes. Equivalency simplifies comparison. You don't have to worry about calculating any FOV or DOF's.

Calculate the equivalency - which is as simple as multiplying aperture and focal length by crop factor - and you'll know that you're comparing two cameras taking the same picture.
05-31-2013, 02:12 PM   #1859
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,423
You don't have to explain equivalency to me; but since you already did it, I hope you realize it's useless if you don't want/have to compare formats.
I also disagree that "you don't have to worry about calculating any FOV or DOF's". On the contrary, trying to relate to a foreign (one that you're not using) system's FOVs instead of simply looking through viewfinder is an unnecessary complication; and if you need to precisely know the DOF, you'd have to compute it anyway - again, better done for the format you're actually using.
05-31-2013, 02:33 PM   #1860
Pentaxian
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,123
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
You don't have to explain equivalency to me; but since you already did it, I hope you realize it's useless if you don't want/have to compare formats.
I also disagree that "you don't have to worry about calculating any FOV or DOF's". On the contrary, trying to relate to a foreign (one that you're not using) system's FOVs instead of simply looking through viewfinder is an unnecessary complication; and if you need to precisely know the DOF, you'd have to compute it anyway - again, better done for the format you're actually using.
Nicely put, because you've just defined the difference in approaches in this discussion as being the emphasis placed on science or art, both of course being essential to developing photography as a practical art form. My interest in optics began in a physics laboratory, but my interest in photography arose when I picked up my first SLR (a Pentax S3, as it turned out) and looked at the world through the viewfinder.

There's only one thing wrong with your argument, though: depth of field depiction on a ground glass screen is often misleading, even if field of view is fairly accurate (and it isn't precise with many SLRs).
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, body, k-5, k-7, k-7/k-5, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, reason, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Speculation: What if Pentax did not go FF but rather a 1.3x? brecklundin Pentax DSLR Discussion 36 08-13-2013 10:36 PM
Any speculation on how long... Tom S. Pentax K-5 10 12-16-2010 09:19 PM
K-x price speculation SylBer Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 10-13-2010 12:29 PM
Small rant + speculation ilya80 Pentax News and Rumors 35 04-20-2010 11:42 PM
speculation about FA lenses on FF DSLR lpfonseca Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 11-05-2009 10:34 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:45 AM. | 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