K30, K5n, K3 and maybe full-frame at Photokina...

clover · 05-22-2012, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by Emacs

I guess you believe in god and magic too.

Hum...The quote you made does not content my words...

ihasa · 05-22-2012, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

You know that's exactly what he meant, c'mon.

Well said. Drives me nuts the way people pull other people up on the equivalent FL thing.

**Aristophanes** · 05-22-2012, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

You know that's exactly what he meant, c'mon.

I suspected, but getting the math and nomenclature wrong from the start made me wonder if he's mixing it up all the way through. If you're going to start spitting numbers, get the context and nomenclature right or no one will trust the numbers behind your statements.

**maxfield_photo** · 05-22-2012, 06:03 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ihasa

Well said. Drives me nuts the way people pull other people up on the equivalent FL thing.

The thing about equivalency is there are probably 50 ways to say the same thing, and we all understand the concept, yet some folks can't stand the argument being explained in ways other than the terms in which they think of it.

**Ash** · 05-22-2012, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by noser

What I've found is the button spacing and placement was shoved so far to the right - I assume from the larger LCD - that I find some of the controls hard to use now. The ISO button is the most frustrating. I use a handstrap, and find that in comparison to the K20D I have to move my palm further away from the body to get at some of the buttons.

Yeah, it takes getting used to, but as with everything, as long as the features are available and readily accessible, it's just a matter of conditioning. I've become accustomed to the button layout on the K-5, and am happier now that the K-r is more in line with it compared to the K-x. But then, I don't have a hand grip, and find it quite easy to access the top buttons.

Originally posted by noser

I just find the whole mentality of squeezing the physical size at the expense of ergonomics to be wrong-headed. I don't want a cute factor and fun colors, and I don't want the cheapo feel of the 5DmkII either. The K5 feels solid, but it's too fiddly. I miss the door latch on the SD slot, and the left side port cover is ... cheap.

I thought so too when the K-7 came out, but again have gotten used to the SD card door and don't mind it any more. It hasn't broken or loosened on me yet, so I think it's well constructed. As for the 5DMkII, interesting that you consider it 'cheap' in build/feel. I found it quite a solid camera, but just didn't like its clunky operation and button layout (in fact I despise its UI). Anyway, what I'd like to see is the same robust build and solid feel to Pentax cameras, just with a touch more responsiveness (more instant image preview, quicker image deletion process and SAFOX X that has minimal quirks but just does the job)...

Blue · 05-22-2012, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Yeah, it takes getting used to, but as with everything, as long as the features are available and readily accessible, it's just a matter of conditioning. I've become accustomed to the button layout on the K-5, and am happier now that the K-r is more in line with it compared to the K-x. But then, I don't have a hand grip, and find it quite easy to access the top buttons.

I thought so too when the K-7 came out, but again have gotten used to the SD card door and don't mind it any more. It hasn't broken or loosened on me yet, so I think it's well constructed. As for the 5DMkII, interesting that you consider it 'cheap' in build/feel. I found it quite a solid camera, but just didn't like its clunky operation and button layout (in fact I despise its UI). Anyway, what I'd like to see is the same robust build and solid feel to Pentax cameras, just with a touch more responsiveness (more instant image preview, quicker image deletion process and SAFOX X that has minimal quirks but just does the job)...

The card door on the K-5 is like the one on the K200d. I do like the door on the K20d though.

ElJamoquio · 05-22-2012, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by pinholecam

This will be my only reply.
I don't want to add on anymore to this FF/D800/D600 nonsense in a happy Pentax new release thread.

This is again in theory.
Practically, I've not seen 2 or more folks shoot with APS-C and FF cams on a photo outing with the FF one producing obviously better results than the APS-C users.

I was shooting this weekend on APS-C at 2.8. DOF was still way too large and the background was distracting.

Mrs. ElJamoquio had a slower lens. Her pics, which are normally quite good, were even worse than mine.

ElJamoquio · 05-22-2012, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by maxfield_photo

The thing about equivalency is there are probably 50 ways to say the same thing, and we all understand the concept, yet some folks can't stand the argument being explained in ways other than the terms in which they think of it.

I think everyone here understands the focal length equivalency.

I think almost everyone here understands the aperture 'equivalency'.

I think only a few understand&believe the ISO equivalency.

twitch · 05-22-2012, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

I think everyone here understands the focal length equivalency.

I think almost everyone here understands the aperture 'equivalency'.

I think only a few understand&believe the ISO equivalency.

Agree. Outside of this forum there is almost universal ingnorance on it. I've been called a FF fanboi (I don't own one), a troll, an idiot, and a monkey for mentioning it; seems a portion of the m4/3's shooters are particularly against the whole notion.

Anvh · 05-22-2012, 08:34 PM

ISO equivalency?

iso100 is iso100 right,what is there to speculate about?

joe.penn · 05-22-2012, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

I think only a few understand&believe the ISO equivalency.

FF High ISO (12,800) Juicy'ness here -> Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS Review Preview | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Doesn't get any better than that, a somewhat noiseless photo at 12,800 ISO...

twitch · 05-22-2012, 08:41 PM

f/2.8 is f/2.8 and 50mm is 50mm too.

But

f/2.8 on APS-C results in the same DOF as f/4.2 on FF
50mm on APS-C has the same FOV as 75mm on FF
ISO100 has the same SNR as ISO200 on FF

So an image taken as 50mm, f/2.8, ISO100 on APS-C is equivalent to taking it at 75mm, f/4.2, ISO200 on FF.

This is something that, for example, Steve Huff does not get at all. All the comparisions he does between different format cameras shows he doesn't understand this concept. (However he takes great pictures and has a great blog).

Anvh · 05-22-2012, 09:07 PM

Shouldn't you then name it noise equivalent?

You seem to suggest that ISO100 with FF sensor has a different sensitivity as ISO100 with APS-C, at least that was what i was thinking about. but i get it now.

Nice you show it like that now under each other actually
50mm f/2.8 1/60 ISO100 (aps-c) is of course very close to 75mm f/4.2 1/60 ISO200 (FF)

So both side dont seem to have an obvious advantage.

ps. dont forget that APS-C sensors are sometimes 1 generation ahead of FF sensors so that should take care if the little ISO change you have to do, to get it right.

ElJamoquio · 05-22-2012, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

Shouldn't you then name it noise equivalent?

That's probably a better name.

ElJamoquio · 05-22-2012, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Anvh

50mm f/2.8 1/60 ISO100 (aps-c) is of course very close to 75mm f/4.2 1/60 ISO200 (FF)

So both side dont seem to have an obvious advantage.

1) most lenses are better at f/4.2 than 2.8
2) if you'd like better quality, you can go down to ISO 100, etc., and get the benefit of better quality on FF
3) if you'd like a narrower field of view, you can crop the FF with less loss in quality compared to a APS-C
4) on the other hand, if you'd prefer smaller lenses, you can use small and inexpensive lenses on FF and still have adequate DOF control

05-22-2012, 09:07 PM	#283
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Shouldn't you then name it noise equivalent? You seem to suggest that ISO100 with FF sensor has a different sensitivity as ISO100 with APS-C, at least that was what i was thinking about. but i get it now. Nice you show it like that now under each other actually 50mm f/2.8 1/60 ISO100 (aps-c) is of course very close to 75mm f/4.2 1/60 ISO200 (FF) So both side dont seem to have an obvious advantage. ps. dont forget that APS-C sensors are sometimes 1 generation ahead of FF sensors so that should take care if the little ISO change you have to do, to get it right. Last edited by Anvh; 05-22-2012 at 09:12 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why full frame?	VoiceOfReason	Pentax DSLR Discussion	208	07-28-2012 08:09 AM
K5 vs Full Frame	KALAIS	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	21	09-24-2011 11:25 AM
Pentax and Full Frame...	Shutter-bug	Photographic Technique	60	11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame	aegisphan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	10-28-2010 04:16 PM
Photokina 2010, Pentax and the full frame mystery	falconeye	Pentax News and Rumors	727	09-03-2010 11:11 AM

05-22-2012, 04:51 PM	#271
clover Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Near Paris Posts: 141	Originally posted by Emacs I guess you believe in god and magic too. Hum...The quote you made does not content my words...

05-22-2012, 04:57 PM	#272
ihasa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: West Midlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,066	Originally posted by jsherman999 You know that's exactly what he meant, c'mon. Well said. Drives me nuts the way people pull other people up on the equivalent FL thing.

05-22-2012, 05:53 PM	#273
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by jsherman999 You know that's exactly what he meant, c'mon. I suspected, but getting the math and nomenclature wrong from the start made me wonder if he's mixing it up all the way through. If you're going to start spitting numbers, get the context and nomenclature right or no one will trust the numbers behind your statements.

05-22-2012, 06:03 PM - 1 Like	#274
maxfield_photo Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 1,216	Originally posted by ihasa Well said. Drives me nuts the way people pull other people up on the equivalent FL thing. The thing about equivalency is there are probably 50 ways to say the same thing, and we all understand the concept, yet some folks can't stand the argument being explained in ways other than the terms in which they think of it.

05-22-2012, 07:16 PM	#275
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by noser What I've found is the button spacing and placement was shoved so far to the right - I assume from the larger LCD - that I find some of the controls hard to use now. The ISO button is the most frustrating. I use a handstrap, and find that in comparison to the K20D I have to move my palm further away from the body to get at some of the buttons. Yeah, it takes getting used to, but as with everything, as long as the features are available and readily accessible, it's just a matter of conditioning. I've become accustomed to the button layout on the K-5, and am happier now that the K-r is more in line with it compared to the K-x. But then, I don't have a hand grip, and find it quite easy to access the top buttons. Originally posted by noser I just find the whole mentality of squeezing the physical size at the expense of ergonomics to be wrong-headed. I don't want a cute factor and fun colors, and I don't want the cheapo feel of the 5DmkII either. The K5 feels solid, but it's too fiddly. I miss the door latch on the SD slot, and the left side port cover is ... cheap. I thought so too when the K-7 came out, but again have gotten used to the SD card door and don't mind it any more. It hasn't broken or loosened on me yet, so I think it's well constructed. As for the 5DMkII, interesting that you consider it 'cheap' in build/feel. I found it quite a solid camera, but just didn't like its clunky operation and button layout (in fact I despise its UI). Anyway, what I'd like to see is the same robust build and solid feel to Pentax cameras, just with a touch more responsiveness (more instant image preview, quicker image deletion process and SAFOX X that has minimal quirks but just does the job)...

05-22-2012, 07:40 PM	#276
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Ash Yeah, it takes getting used to, but as with everything, as long as the features are available and readily accessible, it's just a matter of conditioning. I've become accustomed to the button layout on the K-5, and am happier now that the K-r is more in line with it compared to the K-x. But then, I don't have a hand grip, and find it quite easy to access the top buttons. I thought so too when the K-7 came out, but again have gotten used to the SD card door and don't mind it any more. It hasn't broken or loosened on me yet, so I think it's well constructed. As for the 5DMkII, interesting that you consider it 'cheap' in build/feel. I found it quite a solid camera, but just didn't like its clunky operation and button layout (in fact I despise its UI). Anyway, what I'd like to see is the same robust build and solid feel to Pentax cameras, just with a touch more responsiveness (more instant image preview, quicker image deletion process and SAFOX X that has minimal quirks but just does the job)... The card door on the K-5 is like the one on the K200d. I do like the door on the K20d though.

05-22-2012, 08:04 PM	#277
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by pinholecam This will be my only reply. I don't want to add on anymore to this FF/D800/D600 nonsense in a happy Pentax new release thread. This is again in theory. Practically, I've not seen 2 or more folks shoot with APS-C and FF cams on a photo outing with the FF one producing obviously better results than the APS-C users. I was shooting this weekend on APS-C at 2.8. DOF was still way too large and the background was distracting. Mrs. ElJamoquio had a slower lens. Her pics, which are normally quite good, were even worse than mine.

05-22-2012, 08:07 PM	#278
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by maxfield_photo The thing about equivalency is there are probably 50 ways to say the same thing, and we all understand the concept, yet some folks can't stand the argument being explained in ways other than the terms in which they think of it. I think everyone here understands the focal length equivalency. I think almost everyone here understands the aperture 'equivalency'. I think only a few understand&believe the ISO equivalency.

05-22-2012, 08:13 PM	#279
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by ElJamoquio I think everyone here understands the focal length equivalency. I think almost everyone here understands the aperture 'equivalency'. I think only a few understand&believe the ISO equivalency. Agree. Outside of this forum there is almost universal ingnorance on it. I've been called a FF fanboi (I don't own one), a troll, an idiot, and a monkey for mentioning it; seems a portion of the m4/3's shooters are particularly against the whole notion.

05-22-2012, 08:34 PM	#280
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	ISO equivalency? iso100 is iso100 right,what is there to speculate about?

05-22-2012, 08:39 PM	#281
joe.penn Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Maryland (Right Outside Washington DC) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,902	Originally posted by ElJamoquio I think only a few understand&believe the ISO equivalency. FF High ISO (12,800) Juicy'ness here -> Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS Review Preview \| Flickr - Photo Sharing! Doesn't get any better than that, a somewhat noiseless photo at 12,800 ISO...

05-22-2012, 08:41 PM	#282
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	f/2.8 is f/2.8 and 50mm is 50mm too. But f/2.8 on APS-C results in the same DOF as f/4.2 on FF 50mm on APS-C has the same FOV as 75mm on FF ISO100 has the same SNR as ISO200 on FF So an image taken as 50mm, f/2.8, ISO100 on APS-C is equivalent to taking it at 75mm, f/4.2, ISO200 on FF. This is something that, for example, Steve Huff does not get at all. All the comparisions he does between different format cameras shows he doesn't understand this concept. (However he takes great pictures and has a great blog).

05-22-2012, 09:21 PM	#284
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Anvh Shouldn't you then name it noise equivalent? That's probably a better name.

05-22-2012, 09:24 PM	#285
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Anvh 50mm f/2.8 1/60 ISO100 (aps-c) is of course very close to 75mm f/4.2 1/60 ISO200 (FF) So both side dont seem to have an obvious advantage. 1) most lenses are better at f/4.2 than 2.8 2) if you'd like better quality, you can go down to ISO 100, etc., and get the benefit of better quality on FF 3) if you'd like a narrower field of view, you can crop the FF with less loss in quality compared to a APS-C 4) on the other hand, if you'd prefer smaller lenses, you can use small and inexpensive lenses on FF and still have adequate DOF control