Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-01-2012, 07:00 PM   #226
Veteran Member
maxfield_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,215
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
You keep repeating this but it is wrong. These lenses are not equivalent because DOF is not equivalent between formats. No one buy lenses for various format in order to have exactly the same DOF, say, three stops from wide open. Photographer compare lenses in order to get the same exposure at a certain magnification and aperture.
I do. But just as often I buy lenses to be used at maximum aperture, because yes, I am a bokeh whore. The problem with APS-C is if I want to frame my subject with my nifty fifty at f/1.4, I have to back up which means less BOKEH! I don't care about the exposure, high ISO has leveled that playing field. ISO 400 is nothing these days. And of course I carry about 600ws of light in my bag. It's all about bokeh and wider angles for me. Even the added DR and sharpness are just fringe benefits to me.

03-01-2012, 08:20 PM   #227
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by maxfield_photo Quote
I do. But just as often I buy lenses to be used at maximum aperture, because yes, I am a bokeh whore. The problem with APS-C is if I want to frame my subject with my nifty fifty at f/1.4, I have to back up which means less BOKEH! I don't care about the exposure, high ISO has leveled that playing field. ISO 400 is nothing these days. And of course I carry about 600ws of light in my bag. It's all about bokeh and wider angles for me. Even the added DR and sharpness are just fringe benefits to me.
You are just one of many Bokeh Whores out there. it's something Pal fails to see i think

a quick search on flickr groups comes up with pages of them

Flickr: Search for a group

and one for you specifically

http://www.flickr.com/groups/bokehwhores/
03-01-2012, 11:08 PM   #228
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,254
QuoteOriginally posted by maxfield_photo Quote
The hotshoe is the key to comparison. I'd estimate the 5D3 to be about 131.5mm wide, only 2 mm wider than the K-5.
Mark III is a bit bigger and heavier than Mark II.
152 x 116 x 76 mm vs 152 x 114 x 75 mm

Weight (inc. batteries) 950 g (2.09 lb / 33.51 oz) vs Weight (inc. batteries) 850 g (1.87 lb / 29.98 oz)



K-5 - 131 x 97 x 73 mm
03-01-2012, 11:38 PM   #229
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
QuoteOriginally posted by stanleyk Quote
Looks like the new 5D is going to start out at $3499........
All right, I'll ask again: where is that downwards spiral?

03-02-2012, 01:09 AM   #230
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
All right, I'll ask again: where is that downwards spiral?
That's what I was thinking too. Doomsday prophets here have been repeating over and over again that the FF prices will come down and eat at the APSC DSLR market from above. But nobody can really bring any arguments to support that, other then: technology is always improving and becomming cheaper. A false argument of course. Yes, old tech becomes cheaper, because it's being replaced by the expensive newest full featured versions.

So I still think it's a big oppurtunity for Pentax to issue a FF body that is more affordable then any of the competition. Possibly even by giving up some features. Or by not improving on others. (Sorry for going back on topic again.)
03-02-2012, 01:14 AM   #231
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
Now that I have seen the 5D MkIII specs it's clear that Canon again chose to cripple a product to protect its other camera lines (1Dx). It's even worse than the 5D MkII in some aspects, for instance the focusing screen is now fixed and not user replaceable! That's a bad thing for users wanting to shoot with MF lenses...

In a way the 5D MkIII is good indeed because there are still lots of opportunities for Pentax left. I've said it often and I'll say it again: Pentax does not have any camera lines to protect. There's lots of room in the $1,500-$8,000-bracket (I forgot how much the 645D costs but it should be around that, right?).
03-02-2012, 01:47 AM   #232
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 488
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
Now that I have seen the 5D MkIII specs it's clear that Canon again chose to cripple a product to protect its other camera lines (1Dx). It's even worse than the 5D MkII in some aspects, for instance the focusing screen is now fixed and not user replaceable! That's a bad thing for users wanting to shoot with MF lenses...

In a way the 5D MkIII is good indeed because there are still lots of opportunities for Pentax left. I've said it often and I'll say it again: Pentax does not have any camera lines to protect. There's lots of room in the $1,500-$8,000-bracket (I forgot how much the 645D costs but it should be around that, right?).
Yea, I really feel sorry for Canon shooters. With a crummy 61 point AF system inherited from the IDx. FF with class leading ISO. And those poor canon guys that have to shoot with the inferior glass canon makes... Really Canon. What a joke.
I'm buying another K-5.
03-02-2012, 02:03 AM   #233
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by garyk Quote
Yea, I really feel sorry for Canon shooters. With a crummy 61 point AF system inherited from the IDx. FF with class leading ISO. And those poor canon guys that have to shoot with the inferior glass canon makes... Really Canon. What a joke.
I'm buying another K-5.


Of course, it's definitely a good camera (I wouldn't mind owning it!). But really, the MkIII is the camera the MkII should have been. I think current MkII shooters don't have a compelling reason to upgrade to the MkIII.

03-02-2012, 02:05 AM   #234
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 488
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote


Of course, it's definitely a good camera (I wouldn't mind owning it!). But really, the MkIII is the camera the MkII should have been. I think current MkII shooters don't have a compelling reason to upgrade to the MkIII.
That is a valid point.
03-02-2012, 03:09 AM   #235
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by viggen Quote
Uuhhhh, considering the weak presence of Pentax in South-East Asia, that would be a VERY tall order...
Finding them in Thailand is tough. Singapore? Not there. Same in KL. Cambodia was the first country I saw a shop carrying Pentax... China? No one cares for Pentax there, I've seen 2 guys with a Pentax in 4 months there, compared to bazillions with Canikon.
Problem is, distribution in Asia is way more problematic: there are few big shops as Fnac (in Europe), or Adorama (in the US). So you have to cater to A LOT of very small shops, and that's no easy task.
It wouldn't surprise me that Pentax is 5 or 6th in Asia, behind Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony and/or Panasonic. When you see their presence on the shelves, it's no surprise. Pentax is nowhere to be seen.
Come to the Philippines, where there are around 14 malls in Manila alone that sell Pentax. And perhaps some more in Cebu and other major cities. (all owned by the same distributor, I think)

Considering the number of distributors thorugh, you're right. A lone legit seller in one country makes for monopoly and ridiculously high prices.
Even for the country where the Pentax bodies are made....
03-02-2012, 05:54 AM   #236
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: outer eastern melbourne, australia
Posts: 359
i would love it if Pentax produced something in FF around the 5d3 MP range, kept the impressive noise and sensor technology of the k5 and ditched the fancy (or even all) video capability to keep costs down. just build us a dedicated stills camera with top-shelf IQ and low-light ability to make use of all the prime lenses. It'd be an outstanding wedding and street camera, especially if it can be kept smallish. And if the D800 is $3k and the 5d3 in the next segment above, then anything below the D800 will be enticing. which would be possible imo. they can certainly get this done, we know pentax would produce a great photographic tool, but whether they want to is another matter.

those already in nikon or canon won't change, but there just might be a market for non-FF and P&S users who want to become FF shooters in the low $2k price range.

Last edited by saladin; 03-02-2012 at 06:03 AM.
03-02-2012, 05:59 AM - 1 Like   #237
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 83
The Canon 5D Mark III seems like a bit of a yawn. Mostly just an enhanced 5D Mark II really. This still leaves Pentax a spot to make a small (K20D sized) affordable enthusiast FF DSLR. Yep Sony might have failed with it's A900/A850 combo, but there were valid reasons for that and it hasn't diminished Sony's intention to stay in the FF market, with several new models expected. Unfortunately it seems like none of those models will be a real DSLR. The beautiful viewfinder of the A900 will likely be replaced by an EVF.
03-02-2012, 06:43 AM   #238
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by maxfield_photo Quote
I do. But just as often I buy lenses to be used at maximum aperture, because yes, I am a bokeh whore. The problem with APS-C is if I want to frame my subject with my nifty fifty at f/1.4, I have to back up which means less BOKEH! .
But you don't use the same lens for the same magnification between various formats; you won't get the same picture that way. You use a lens with a different focal lenght. The fact that you want your 50mm to give images with the same magnification as on the 35mm format is really nothing to do with this discussion. Bokeh is all well and good but a 50/1.4 wide open on APS give so shallow DOF that hardly any three dimentional subjects can be rendered in focus. The 77 Limited has so shallow DOF on APS that anything shallower is virtually useless and/or academic.
Anyway, only a tiny fraction of all images rely on very thin DOF and even a tinyer, if any, rely on DOF thinner than what is available with APS. The DOF argument have less merit than generalization about tilt/shift lenses consequences for various system; an issue without relevance for the vast majority of users. One get the impression that APS have endless DOF but difference between APS and FF is one stop which is hardly distingushable without close side by side comparison, and rarely if ever has much artistic relevance.
03-02-2012, 07:18 AM   #239
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,250
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
But you don't use the same lens for the same magnification between various formats; you won't get the same picture that way. You use a lens with a different focal lenght. The fact that you want your 50mm to give images with the same magnification as on the 35mm format is really nothing to do with this discussion. Bokeh is all well and good but a 50/1.4 wide open on APS give so shallow DOF that hardly any three dimentional subjects can be rendered in focus. The 77 Limited has so shallow DOF on APS that anything shallower is virtually useless and/or academic.
Anyway, only a tiny fraction of all images rely on very thin DOF and even a tinyer, if any, rely on DOF thinner than what is available with APS. The DOF argument have less merit than generalization about tilt/shift lenses consequences for various system; an issue without relevance for the vast majority of users. One get the impression that APS have endless DOF but difference between APS and FF is one stop which is hardly distingushable without close side by side comparison, and rarely if ever has much artistic relevance.
I think you are correct. I have had more photos spoiled by too narrow depth of field than by too much depth of field (eg taking photos of my wife and daughter and having my wife in focus, daughter not).

Where full frame does have most benefit is to get subject isolation with wide angle lenses. There just isn't really anything truly equivalent of a 35mm f1.4 lens on full frame with APS-C. With 50mm on up on full frame, I don't think there really is any difference with APS-C.
03-02-2012, 07:29 AM   #240
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Fowlmere, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 704
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
But you don't use the same lens for the same magnification between various formats; you won't get the same picture that way. You use a lens with a different focal lenght. The fact that you want your 50mm to give images with the same magnification as on the 35mm format is really nothing to do with this discussion. Bokeh is all well and good but a 50/1.4 wide open on APS give so shallow DOF that hardly any three dimentional subjects can be rendered in focus. The 77 Limited has so shallow DOF on APS that anything shallower is virtually useless and/or academic.
Anyway, only a tiny fraction of all images rely on very thin DOF and even a tinyer, if any, rely on DOF thinner than what is available with APS. The DOF argument have less merit than generalization about tilt/shift lenses consequences for various system; an issue without relevance for the vast majority of users. One get the impression that APS have endless DOF but difference between APS and FF is one stop which is hardly distingushable without close side by side comparison, and rarely if ever has much artistic relevance.
Hm, I disagree. I have seen quite a few photos which would have been better with a narrower DOF, but obviously that depends on subject matter.
But I also disagree that 1.4 is useless on APS-C. The smaller the size of sensor or film, the larger DOF, so there is no argument against 1.4 on APS-C I'd say. I like my Takumar 1.4/50mm on APS-C a lot wide open.

Just the other day I used a 645 200mm lens on film (645) and was astounded by the isolation it produced—which was very, very useful for people on the street. The equivalent, roughly, of 120mm on FF (roughly because the ratio differs). By the same token, it can make life difficult when shooting landscapes where you might prefer a large DOF.
There can be no argument against shallow DOF per se, it all depends on the subject and context.
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!
nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Picture of the Week POTW #181 Sept. 11, 2011-Sept 25, 2011 lukulele Weekly Photo Challenges 49 09-24-2011 01:00 AM
Picture of the Week POTW #180 Sept. 4, 2011-Sept 18, 2011 lukulele Weekly Photo Challenges 57 09-18-2011 06:30 AM
Pentax Q price rumor - $699 Adam Pentax News and Rumors 50 07-05-2011 07:08 AM
Rumor of Pentax D FA 645 25mm f/4 Noisychip Pentax News and Rumors 94 04-24-2011 02:41 PM
Rumor: One SLR, one prime plus two compacts on Sept. 9th Noisychip Pentax News and Rumors 75 09-09-2010 02:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 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