New Pentax cameras 2013

normhead · 04-09-2013, 07:09 AM

I can't believe how many people translate love of one specific camera into love of a format. I talked to a guy a while ago who loves his 12 MP D700, so much so that if I could find one cheap, I'd probably buy it just to try and find out what he's going on about. But he doesn't consider himself an FF lover. He considers himself a D700 lover. Yet we see a lot of "lovers" both APS-c and FF who seem to have extrapolated their preference for one camera to a whole class of cameras. News flash, I've tried a Nikon 5200, and I didn't like it, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate APS-c.

Maybe these discussions would be a little more focused if we all kept that in mind.

Quote:

I just stop down on FF when I want deeper DOF. There's no problem. When I want shallower DOF I leave it more open. When I'm shooting at infinity it makes no differecne, of course, and I leave it open to get a better image.

Actually many lenses seem to start losing sharpness to diffraction after 5.6, so if your image was optimized for sharpness at say F8 and you had to stop down to F11 to get equivalent DoF, there could be a problem.

Wired · 04-09-2013, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by Ash

I'm sure you know it's merely a crop effect of APS-C and not some inherent ability to get any increase in DoF. With the same sensor properties, a FF sensor just produces a larger image compared with an APS-C sensor.

courtesy of Mark David

The apparent increase in DoF is merely a factor of image resizing, but for all intensive purposes, f/1.8 is f/1.8 and produces the same DoF on whatever format given the same focal length and subject-to-camera distance.

The advantage comes when you have the same aperture in an equivalent FoV between APS-C and FF. Clearly, this means more expensive and perhaps even larger/heavier lenses, but Pentax have the FA Limiteds, which would just shine on FF.

courtesy of Alireza202, Flickr

yes, I am aware of what causes the depth of field "illusion" so to speak. I know it's all part of the crop. But if your using the "full frame" for framing the shot, then the advantages of APS-C for telephoto users, and low light users who shoot wide open is apparent. For me I use both systems, and I love my APS-C.

normhead · 04-09-2013, 08:33 AM

That's not entirely accurate... if you're assuming same FoV then you'd have to use a wider lens on APS-c. I did a test using a 50 mm lens and a 35 mm lens on an object with a ruler beside it. There were a number of issues. one, I couldn't focus close enough with the 50mm lens to even take the same picture. People who discuss equivalency tend to ignore this type of issue. So I had to move my camera back so the 50 mm could focus (which meant I didn't get the framing I wanted in either image, so quite simply stated, I couldn't even get the framing I wanted using the 50 mm on FF.) But I digress.

Using the 35 mm on APS-c and 50 on FF to simulate the same F0V, the 35 mm APS-c produced twice as much DoF, 12mm to 6mm. That's not an illusion, that's a practical observation and measurement. You can always tell the difference between someone who is deriving information from theory from someone who's done this type of testing, because the theory guys always overlook relevant data and deal in absolutes. Things like the different characteristics of the different lenses used to achieve the same FoV etc are never mentioned. They misrepresented the theory, because they didn't realize, theoretical anything has to be verified empirically to have any validity. A theory without practical verification and empirical evaluation is generally called a notion. Most of what passes for theory around here is in fact un-substantiated misrepresentations of known theories that are too narrow in their application to be much use in the real world.

Wired · 04-09-2013, 09:40 AM

thats why I stated "illusion" in quotes. I know the theory, but not the math behind it. I know my findings in use, but don't go through the tests to figure it out. I just know what works for me, and ASPC seems to have the advantages.

normhead · 04-09-2013, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Wired

thats why I stated "illusion" in quotes. I know the theory, but not the math behind it. I know my findings in use, but don't go through the tests to figure it out. I just know what works for me, and ASPC seems to have the advantages.

Ya, I know how you feel, I went out and did the tests I did, because I read all the conflicting reports and said to myself "All these opinions make can't be right, they don't even agree with each other." So I went out and did the test that would be relevant to me, and lowand behold, I couldn't even take the shot I wanted using a standard 50 mm lens. Reading the posts on here where FF is the be all and end all, I never would have anticipated that. And one simple little half an hour test would have told anyone else who was truly interested in the subject and not just blowing hot air would have known the same thing. To me , that's just sad. Because what it says to me was there were a lot of people spreading mis-information with pages of documentation and spreadsheets to prove their point, who'd never gone out and taken two shots with a 35 mm lens and an FA 50 form the same distance and F stop to see which gave them more DoF.

So all those posters who've posted that you really get more DoF with FF and the rest of the bogus arguments have absolutely no credibility with me. One practical test that took less than a half hour proved them to be wrong. But they're still spouting the party line. And they definitely won't listen to anything that has to do with the real world. They have theories that prove the real world to be in error.

**Ash** · 04-09-2013, 01:47 PM

The real world example I posted earlier by Alireza202 says it in a couple of pictures. His Flickr page goes through the theory in simple terms. If you want 'more DoF' you can get it with either a wider focal length on APS-C (compared with FF), or stop down. *For the same lens* there is no difference other than one cropped off another. Resolution notwithstanding, this gives the exactly same result when not resized. That's how I've conceptualised it.

ElJamoquio · 04-09-2013, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Ash

the much higher cost of the better glass

Wrong

Billium28 · 04-09-2013, 03:09 PM

If April comes and goes with the same familiar silence will you guys worry?

I just bought a new K5 at $700 because of the price but I am still drawn to this board to see whats next.

Wired · 04-09-2013, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by Billium28

If April comes and goes with the same familiar silence will you guys worry?

I just bought a new K5 at $700 because of the price but I am still drawn to this board to see whats next.

No not really. While I do want more resolution from my K5, and a faster buffer and better low light... I could go get my answer today with the k5iis. but would prefer a more solid upgrade.

I've decided I don't want full frame. And the d600 kit I own will be blown out at bargin pricing once we see the next camera.

I would love to sell my complete Nikon kit for the K3, FA43, DA*60-250 and maybe grip.

:beer:

normhead · 04-09-2013, 04:22 PM

I have one reason to buy a Pentax FF. I have a feeling, based on many comments, that the 31 ltd on FF is much better than the 21 ltd on APS-c, and it's faster.TO take advantage of that it's probably going to cost, $3500. So, in a way, I'm actually dreading it. I just don't want to have to make that decision. I have many FF lenses, but the 31 conceivably is the one that could sell me on FF. It's a lot of money to pay to make maximum use of one lens, that I don't even own. But if an FF was available for K-mount, it would be an agonizing decision, one way or the other, and I'm definitely putting it off for as long as I can.

TogaNY · 04-09-2013, 04:39 PM

Hey guys long time lurker here. Just purchased a K-5ii with 18-135mm lens to get started, after many months without a descent camera. Had a K-7, when it first came out and several lenses, but had to sell. Thought about other brands but there is just something about Pentax cameras I like. I look forward to learning more about Pentax on this forum, not for whats coming necessarily, but for what can be done with Pentax's current lineup.

Quicksand · 04-09-2013, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by TogaNY

I look forward to learning more about Pentax on this forum, not for whats coming necessarily, but for what can be done with Pentax's current lineup.

Welcome! And good call -- you will save yourself a lot of heartburn by avoiding the "what's coming" threads!

**Ash** · 04-09-2013, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Quicksand

Welcome! And good call -- you will save yourself a lot of heartburn by avoiding the "what's coming" threads

Add my +1 to that.
We all should indeed enjoy what is available rather than coveting or hoping for something not likely to come soon.

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

Wrong

Explain?
Generally speaking...
'Better' glass doesn't cost more?
Faster glass isn't larger or doesn't weigh more?
Yes, it doesn't strictly *have* to follow this way (like the FA Limiteds) but photographers have to be prepared to spend more for lenses that are of higher quality.
Caveats of the DA 40 XS, DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8 are more the exception than the rule.
And once you get to FF compatible glass, the cost does go up (like the FA Limiteds, Tamron 70-200, etc.)

jsherman999 · 04-09-2013, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by normhead

...

So all those posters who've posted that you really get more DoF with FF and the rest of the bogus arguments have absolutely no credibility with me. .

More DOF control, not "more DOF." Did you read somebody wrong?

ElJamoquio · 04-09-2013, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Add my +1 to that.
We all should indeed enjoy what is available rather than coveting or hoping for something not likely to come soon.

Explain?
Generally speaking...
'Better' glass doesn't cost more?
Faster glass isn't larger or doesn't weigh more?
Yes, it doesn't strictly *have* to follow this way (like the FA Limiteds) but photographers have to be prepared to spend more for lenses that are of higher quality.
Caveats of the DA 40 XS, DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8 are more the exception than the rule.
And once you get to FF compatible glass, the cost does go up (like the FA Limiteds, Tamron 70-200, etc.)

Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 compared to what? a 50-135 f/2.8 that costs more? a 50-135 f/2 that doesn't exist?

If you want to take picture 'A', a hypothetical lens for a 36MP FF camera will at most cost exactly the same as the same lens on a 16MP APS-C camera. You just crop and use the same lens. I've chosen the MP so you can't really argue, but in practice, in my experience, it's the same for 24MP FF and 16MP APS-C.

On the wide scale, the full-frame lenses are much cheaper for the same functionality... look at 24-35mm f/1.4 costs and compare them to costs of 35-50mm f/1.4. Look at 24-75ish F/4 zoom lenses and compare them to 16-50ish F/2.8 lenses.

The FF lenses in these comparisons are always at least slightly faster, and are almost always some combination of a wider zoom range, smaller lens, and cheaper cost.

I've done this comparison at least five times on this website alone, if you want to search my name.

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

04-09-2013, 07:09 AM	#721
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I can't believe how many people translate love of one specific camera into love of a format. I talked to a guy a while ago who loves his 12 MP D700, so much so that if I could find one cheap, I'd probably buy it just to try and find out what he's going on about. But he doesn't consider himself an FF lover. He considers himself a D700 lover. Yet we see a lot of "lovers" both APS-c and FF who seem to have extrapolated their preference for one camera to a whole class of cameras. News flash, I've tried a Nikon 5200, and I didn't like it, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate APS-c. Maybe these discussions would be a little more focused if we all kept that in mind. Quote: I just stop down on FF when I want deeper DOF. There's no problem. When I want shallower DOF I leave it more open. When I'm shooting at infinity it makes no differecne, of course, and I leave it open to get a better image. Actually many lenses seem to start losing sharpness to diffraction after 5.6, so if your image was optimized for sharpness at say F8 and you had to stop down to F11 to get equivalent DoF, there could be a problem.

04-09-2013, 08:16 AM	#722
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by Ash I'm sure you know it's merely a crop effect of APS-C and not some inherent ability to get any increase in DoF. With the same sensor properties, a FF sensor just produces a larger image compared with an APS-C sensor. courtesy of Mark David The apparent increase in DoF is merely a factor of image resizing, but for all intensive purposes, f/1.8 is f/1.8 and produces the same DoF on whatever format given the same focal length and subject-to-camera distance. The advantage comes when you have the same aperture in an equivalent FoV between APS-C and FF. Clearly, this means more expensive and perhaps even larger/heavier lenses, but Pentax have the FA Limiteds, which would just shine on FF. courtesy of Alireza202, Flickr yes, I am aware of what causes the depth of field "illusion" so to speak. I know it's all part of the crop. But if your using the "full frame" for framing the shot, then the advantages of APS-C for telephoto users, and low light users who shoot wide open is apparent. For me I use both systems, and I love my APS-C.

04-09-2013, 08:33 AM	#723
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	That's not entirely accurate... if you're assuming same FoV then you'd have to use a wider lens on APS-c. I did a test using a 50 mm lens and a 35 mm lens on an object with a ruler beside it. There were a number of issues. one, I couldn't focus close enough with the 50mm lens to even take the same picture. People who discuss equivalency tend to ignore this type of issue. So I had to move my camera back so the 50 mm could focus (which meant I didn't get the framing I wanted in either image, so quite simply stated, I couldn't even get the framing I wanted using the 50 mm on FF.) But I digress. Using the 35 mm on APS-c and 50 on FF to simulate the same F0V, the 35 mm APS-c produced twice as much DoF, 12mm to 6mm. That's not an illusion, that's a practical observation and measurement. You can always tell the difference between someone who is deriving information from theory from someone who's done this type of testing, because the theory guys always overlook relevant data and deal in absolutes. Things like the different characteristics of the different lenses used to achieve the same FoV etc are never mentioned. They misrepresented the theory, because they didn't realize, theoretical anything has to be verified empirically to have any validity. A theory without practical verification and empirical evaluation is generally called a notion. Most of what passes for theory around here is in fact un-substantiated misrepresentations of known theories that are too narrow in their application to be much use in the real world.

04-09-2013, 09:40 AM	#724
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	thats why I stated "illusion" in quotes. I know the theory, but not the math behind it. I know my findings in use, but don't go through the tests to figure it out. I just know what works for me, and ASPC seems to have the advantages.

04-09-2013, 10:02 AM	#725
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Wired thats why I stated "illusion" in quotes. I know the theory, but not the math behind it. I know my findings in use, but don't go through the tests to figure it out. I just know what works for me, and ASPC seems to have the advantages. Ya, I know how you feel, I went out and did the tests I did, because I read all the conflicting reports and said to myself "All these opinions make can't be right, they don't even agree with each other." So I went out and did the test that would be relevant to me, and lowand behold, I couldn't even take the shot I wanted using a standard 50 mm lens. Reading the posts on here where FF is the be all and end all, I never would have anticipated that. And one simple little half an hour test would have told anyone else who was truly interested in the subject and not just blowing hot air would have known the same thing. To me , that's just sad. Because what it says to me was there were a lot of people spreading mis-information with pages of documentation and spreadsheets to prove their point, who'd never gone out and taken two shots with a 35 mm lens and an FA 50 form the same distance and F stop to see which gave them more DoF. So all those posters who've posted that you really get more DoF with FF and the rest of the bogus arguments have absolutely no credibility with me. One practical test that took less than a half hour proved them to be wrong. But they're still spouting the party line. And they definitely won't listen to anything that has to do with the real world. They have theories that prove the real world to be in error.

04-09-2013, 01:47 PM	#726
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	The real world example I posted earlier by Alireza202 says it in a couple of pictures. His Flickr page goes through the theory in simple terms. If you want 'more DoF' you can get it with either a wider focal length on APS-C (compared with FF), or stop down. For the same lens there is no difference other than one cropped off another. Resolution notwithstanding, this gives the exactly same result when not resized. That's how I've conceptualised it.

04-09-2013, 02:28 PM	#727
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Ash the much higher cost of the better glass Wrong

04-09-2013, 03:09 PM	#728
Billium28 Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Albany, NY, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 58	If April comes and goes with the same familiar silence will you guys worry? I just bought a new K5 at $700 because of the price but I am still drawn to this board to see whats next.

04-09-2013, 04:11 PM	#729
Wired Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Edmonton, AB Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,519	Originally posted by Billium28 If April comes and goes with the same familiar silence will you guys worry? I just bought a new K5 at $700 because of the price but I am still drawn to this board to see whats next. No not really. While I do want more resolution from my K5, and a faster buffer and better low light... I could go get my answer today with the k5iis. but would prefer a more solid upgrade. I've decided I don't want full frame. And the d600 kit I own will be blown out at bargin pricing once we see the next camera. I would love to sell my complete Nikon kit for the K3, FA43, DA*60-250 and maybe grip. :beer:

04-09-2013, 04:22 PM	#730
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I have one reason to buy a Pentax FF. I have a feeling, based on many comments, that the 31 ltd on FF is much better than the 21 ltd on APS-c, and it's faster.TO take advantage of that it's probably going to cost, $3500. So, in a way, I'm actually dreading it. I just don't want to have to make that decision. I have many FF lenses, but the 31 conceivably is the one that could sell me on FF. It's a lot of money to pay to make maximum use of one lens, that I don't even own. But if an FF was available for K-mount, it would be an agonizing decision, one way or the other, and I'm definitely putting it off for as long as I can.

04-09-2013, 04:39 PM	#731
TogaNY New Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1	Hey guys long time lurker here. Just purchased a K-5ii with 18-135mm lens to get started, after many months without a descent camera. Had a K-7, when it first came out and several lenses, but had to sell. Thought about other brands but there is just something about Pentax cameras I like. I look forward to learning more about Pentax on this forum, not for whats coming necessarily, but for what can be done with Pentax's current lineup.

04-09-2013, 04:54 PM	#732
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Originally posted by TogaNY I look forward to learning more about Pentax on this forum, not for whats coming necessarily, but for what can be done with Pentax's current lineup. Welcome! And good call -- you will save yourself a lot of heartburn by avoiding the "what's coming" threads!

04-09-2013, 06:29 PM	#733
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Quicksand Welcome! And good call -- you will save yourself a lot of heartburn by avoiding the "what's coming" threads Add my +1 to that. We all should indeed enjoy what is available rather than coveting or hoping for something not likely to come soon. Originally posted by ElJamoquio Wrong Explain? Generally speaking... 'Better' glass doesn't cost more? Faster glass isn't larger or doesn't weigh more? Yes, it doesn't strictly have to follow this way (like the FA Limiteds) but photographers have to be prepared to spend more for lenses that are of higher quality. Caveats of the DA 40 XS, DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8 are more the exception than the rule. And once you get to FF compatible glass, the cost does go up (like the FA Limiteds, Tamron 70-200, etc.)

04-09-2013, 07:43 PM	#734
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by normhead ... So all those posters who've posted that you really get more DoF with FF and the rest of the bogus arguments have absolutely no credibility with me. . More DOF control, not "more DOF." Did you read somebody wrong?

04-09-2013, 07:52 PM	#735
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Ash Add my +1 to that. We all should indeed enjoy what is available rather than coveting or hoping for something not likely to come soon. Explain? Generally speaking... 'Better' glass doesn't cost more? Faster glass isn't larger or doesn't weigh more? Yes, it doesn't strictly have to follow this way (like the FA Limiteds) but photographers have to be prepared to spend more for lenses that are of higher quality. Caveats of the DA 40 XS, DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8 are more the exception than the rule. And once you get to FF compatible glass, the cost does go up (like the FA Limiteds, Tamron 70-200, etc.) Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 compared to what? a 50-135 f/2.8 that costs more? a 50-135 f/2 that doesn't exist? If you want to take picture 'A', a hypothetical lens for a 36MP FF camera will at most cost exactly the same as the same lens on a 16MP APS-C camera. You just crop and use the same lens. I've chosen the MP so you can't really argue, but in practice, in my experience, it's the same for 24MP FF and 16MP APS-C. On the wide scale, the full-frame lenses are much cheaper for the same functionality... look at 24-35mm f/1.4 costs and compare them to costs of 35-50mm f/1.4. Look at 24-75ish F/4 zoom lenses and compare them to 16-50ish F/2.8 lenses. The FF lenses in these comparisons are always at least slightly faster, and are almost always some combination of a wider zoom range, smaller lens, and cheaper cost. I've done this comparison at least five times on this website alone, if you want to search my name.