Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-11-2013, 11:20 AM   #796
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,370
QuoteOriginally posted by Na Horuk Quote
Do you use in-camera HDR mode? Because I find that using that mode it keeps the lens fairly wide open and I don't know why. If you just stop down to f8 the shutter should be considerably better. Also, maybe an ND filter would be a good investment for you. A lot of other brand cameras are slower than 1/8000, at least back when I was comparing these numbers, but sure, faster may shutter speed can be an advantage
No, I use the multi eposure (5 exposure 1 EV apart) mode and then use Photomatix after the fact to post process. I am not a big fan of filters, although certainly that would help, albeit increasing my flare... There is certainly no free lunch.

I should say that I shoot at iso 80, on tripod almost exclusively for landscape photography.


Last edited by Rondec; 04-11-2013 at 12:02 PM.
04-11-2013, 06:58 PM   #797
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 29,965
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
Gosh,
I'm not sure what people are talking about here? You are turning things upside down.
Using the same focal length(*) and the same aperture, and a subject at the same distance, an APS-C camera will produce a thinner DoF than an FF camera.
In fact, using an FF is ways easier for a user to get OoF effects, and focus more accurately, because FF delivers more DoF to see which things are in fact in focus. It allows us to see more clearly.

From the DoF calculator: subject is 10 ft away, focal length is 50mm, aperture is f1.4.

An APS-C camera calculation:
Depth of field
Near limit = 9.67 ft
Far limit = 10.4 ft
Total = 0.68 ft
In front of subject 0.33 ft (48%)
Behind subject 0.35 ft (52%)
An FF camera calculation:
Depth of field
Near limit = 9.52 ft
Far limit = 10.5 ft
Total = 1.02 ft
In front of subject 0.48 ft (47%)
Behind subject 0.54 ft (53%)
1.02/0.68 = (voila!) 1.5

So, the data loudly says: we can focus more easily with an FF because it gives us 1.5 times more DoF!
One critical problem with the DoF calculator is it has no field for pixel size. Another would be the obvious statement, that if an FF and an APS-c have the same pixel width and everything else is the same Focal Length, F-stop, etc, only the image size changes, the DoF will be same in both images. It shouldn't be so easy to discredit anything thrown out there for public consumption.

As I said before, I got so tired with this drivel I did my own test. Same FoV, with the same pixel size, and Aperture, the results , from the same camera position the APS-c system gave me 12 mm DoF, the the FF system ( actually the same camera with a 50 mm lens on it, gave me 6. Twice as much DoF for APS-c. That's real life in the field measurement, not some bogus half thought out hard to understand calculator. But thanks for pointing out where the stats I investigated and found so wanting came from. Next time you want to do DoF calculations, try using a camera, they actually do pretty good and aren't prone to conceptual errors or misleading statements.
04-11-2013, 09:14 PM   #798
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
One critical problem with the DoF calculator is it has no field for pixel size. Another would be the obvious statement, that if an FF and an APS-c have the same pixel width and everything else is the same Focal Length, F-stop, etc, only the image size changes, the DoF will be same in both images.
You're wrong. I haven't checked the website's math but they're probably right. The circle of confusion's area (which relates to magnification and human eye acuity) is generally listed as 10-15x the area of a single pixel area. Pixels are not the limiting factor.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It shouldn't be so easy to discredit anything thrown out there for public consumption.
going.... to... explode.....


QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Same FoV, with the same pixel size, and Aperture, the results , from the same camera position the APS-c system gave me 12 mm DoF, the the FF system ( actually the same camera with a 50 mm lens on it, gave me 6. Twice as much DoF for APS-c. That's real life in the field measurement, not some bogus half thought out hard to understand calculator. But thanks for pointing out where the stats I investigated and found so wanting came from. Next time you want to do DoF calculations, try using a camera, they actually do pretty good and aren't prone to conceptual errors or misleading statements.
The data in the post you quoted was irrelevant to 99% of photographs, but correct. The data you give is irrelevant, IMO, as well - I don't understand why any reasonable, informed photographer would take a DOF-critical picture with a APS-C camera... and then switch to a FF camera and force themselves to use the same aperture (unless the original APS-C camera was at the smallest aperture already).

It makes as much sense as taking a F/11 picture with the APS-C and then taking a F/1.4 picture with the FF and complaining that the FF has too small a DOF.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 04-11-2013 at 09:23 PM.
04-12-2013, 10:40 PM   #799
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,966
Original Poster
It will be 3 new DSLR this year. No FF.
The main APS-c camera will be on September.IMO.

Small low-end cheap DSLR - lower than K-30 and the new camera higher K-30, but a bit lower than K-5II will be soon...


Last edited by ogl; 04-14-2013 at 09:26 AM.
04-13-2013, 04:19 AM - 1 Like   #800
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,370
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote

The data in the post you quoted was irrelevant to 99% of photographs, but correct. The data you give is irrelevant, IMO, as well - I don't understand why any reasonable, informed photographer would take a DOF-critical picture with a APS-C camera... and then switch to a FF camera and force themselves to use the same aperture (unless the original APS-C camera was at the smallest aperture already).

It makes as much sense as taking a F/11 picture with the APS-C and then taking a F/1.4 picture with the FF and complaining that the FF has too small a DOF.
You are assuming that the only reason for using a wider aperture is because artistically you need less depth of field. The reality, more often, is that you need a faster shutter speed, particularly if you are shooting with a prime that doesn't have image stabilization on a camera body that doesn't have it built in. Traditionally, photographers wanted more depth of field and struggled to get it, even while they were using slow films and large format cameras. Hence the Group f64. Narrow depth of field was a side effect of using a wider aperture necessary to get a faster shutter speed, not the goal in and of itself.
04-13-2013, 10:14 AM   #801
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
You are assuming that the only reason for using a wider aperture is because artistically you need less depth of field.
No, I'm assuming that, for example, a DOF and SNR range of F/2 to F/16 (an F/2.8 lens on FF) is more useful than a DOF/SNR range of F/2.8 to F/22. In either case, if you want to be at the DOF given by an APS-C camera at F/2.8, or F/8, or F/16, you can. If you want to have the DOF of an APS-C camera at F/22, on FF, you can crop.

In all cases your SNR of the FF is either the same or one stop better.
In all cases the resolution of the FF is better.

The downside is initial cost on the FF camera, having to crop some pics, slower processing/FPS, and sometimes, a couple of years-old sensor tech. The upside is lower costs on some lenses, better viewfinder, and the points above.
05-07-2013, 07:08 AM   #802
New Member
pentaxianpaul's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: North Carolina
Photos: Albums
Posts: 20
Yummy machines in our future!
05-07-2013, 07:49 AM   #803
Veteran Member
Caat's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Photos: Albums
Posts: 921
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
It will be 3 new DSLR this year. No FF.
The main APS-c camera will be on September.IMO.

Small low-end cheap DSLR - lower than K-30 and the new camera higher K-30, but a bit lower than K-5II will be soon...
There really isn't much space between the K-30 and the K-5 II specs wise. At all.

There's a price gap I guess but what do you give the K-30 that the K-5 II doesn't have?

05-07-2013, 08:30 AM   #804
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,531
QuoteOriginally posted by Caat Quote
There's a price gap I guess but what do you give the K-30 that the K-5 II doesn't have?
The K-30 needs some video beef-up (at least a mic input) and it may also "need" a 24mp sensor to look better in the market.
05-07-2013, 09:33 AM   #805
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,966
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Caat Quote
There really isn't much space between the K-30 and the K-5 II specs wise. At all.

There's a price gap I guess but what do you give the K-30 that the K-5 II doesn't have?
K-30 will be discontinued soon. K-5II will be discontinued close to September.
05-07-2013, 10:24 AM   #806
Veteran Member
RonakG's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 603
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
K-30 will be discontinued soon.
And get replaced with a better alternative at same price point? I've been wanting upgrade from my K-x to K-30 but haven't managed to make up my mind yet.
05-07-2013, 11:00 AM   #807
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,347
QuoteOriginally posted by RonakG Quote
And get replaced with a better alternative at same price point? I've been wanting upgrade from my K-x to K-30 but haven't managed to make up my mind yet.
Do you have a lot of MF glass? If you do, i say it is a no brainer. I have considered selling my K-5 for a K-30 for focus peaking alone.
05-07-2013, 11:08 AM   #808
Veteran Member
RonakG's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 603
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
Do you have a lot of MF glass? If you do, i say it is a no brainer. I have considered selling my K-5 for a K-30 for focus peaking alone.
I don't. I have the DA L 18-55mm and DA L 55-300mm. The 18-135 WR that comes with K-30 is really tempting. I still feel that I've not outgrown my K-x yet and there's lot to learn before I upgrade.
05-07-2013, 11:54 AM   #809
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,929
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
You are assuming that the only reason for using a wider aperture is because artistically you need less depth of field. The reality, more often, is that you need a faster shutter speed, particularly if you are shooting with a prime that doesn't have image stabilization on a camera body that doesn't have it built in. Traditionally, photographers wanted more depth of field and struggled to get it, even while they were using slow films and large format cameras. Hence the Group f64. Narrow depth of field was a side effect of using a wider aperture necessary to get a faster shutter speed, not the goal in and of itself.
Thin or narrow DOF came into vogue because it was realized it is an aesthetic, while not unique to photography, easily come by in photography and accessible to the common shooter.

It all depends on the subject in the frame. The quest for greater DOF was because most shots were of people and it is more desirable that all of the depth of the face and body be in acceptable focus, or of objects, where the same applied, though often on a much larger scale, such as buildings. Few people want a portrait where only part of the face is in focus.

When optics became more refined and acute at 'drawing' lines, it was also realized that glass could be "fast" meaning that with decent film, a shallower DOF (and other refinements like autofocus helping) could make for lower light shooting with near acceptable quality. Up went the shutter speeds. High ISO films coming out also helped a lot here.

The blunt reality is that the shallow DOF aesthetic is often much overused and abused, and high-ISO digital cameras with super-accurate AF have rendered the need for faster glass less compelling, especially when the cost and mass of the optics are factored in. That is why most major manufacturers have ceased widespread design and production of very fast glass. The majority of the market has very little need for the aesthetic and more need for sharpness at about f/4 on up (APS-C) so they can get the whole face in focus and f/11 so the edges of the building are as sharp as you remember.

Also, the need for fast glass diminished once flash systems became automated with camera function and got substantially better. In fact, one can see a huge subset of strobists now where once fast glass aficionados used to tread.
05-07-2013, 06:46 PM   #810
Pentaxian
jeffshaddix's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,373
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
Do you have a lot of MF glass? If you do, i say it is a no brainer. I have considered selling my K-5 for a K-30 for focus peaking alone.
Really? I'd rather stick with my K-5 with Ee-s focusing screen and 14-bit raw files (which makes a noticeable difference in raw conversion).

Pentaxianpaul, do you have any new info?
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!
pentax cameras, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Minikina 2013 vsl 01/02.06.2013 in Wiesbaden veraikon General Talk 9 05-27-2013 10:37 AM
Weekly Challenge POTW #251 27 Jan 2013 through 10 Feb 2013 Dr Orloff Weekly Photo Challenges 54 02-10-2013 11:59 AM
Weekly Challenge POTW #250 20 Jan 2013 through 3 Feb 2013 Douge Weekly Photo Challenges 43 02-03-2013 09:45 PM
PENTAX Introduces New K-5 II & K-5 IIs DSLR Cameras Versatile cameras feature newly d Adam Homepage & Official Pentax News 18 09-13-2012 07:14 AM
NEW Pentax Lens Roadmap 2012/2013 oddesy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 331 04-07-2012 02:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:32 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