Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-02-2014, 11:39 AM   #361
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 402
"" M "You are too rushing and even our teas havenít been served yet lol" ""

LOL like this guy.

01-02-2014, 11:44 AM   #362
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,782
QuoteOriginally posted by OldNoob Quote
"" M "You are too rushing and even our teas havenít been served yet lol" ""

LOL like this guy.
Ya, I liked that one too...
01-02-2014, 11:46 AM   #363
Pentaxian
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 990
We'll serve no tea (or camera) before its time... ?
01-02-2014, 02:04 PM   #364
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,952
Well, Tea time should be around september if analogy is made with year 2014...

My penny

01-02-2014, 08:45 PM   #365
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by MJSfoto1956 Quote
Just to be sure: what my quick tests demonstrated was that a K-3 + 60-250mm produced roughly similar IQ as a D800 + AF-S 80-400mm. One should note that the D800 used with other (better) lenses would produce quite different results (e.g. D800 + 14-24mm would be no contest. This combination cannot be beat by any camera on the market).

My take on my test: Nikon has deliberately not delivered a "killer" 80-400mm lens most likely because they are protecting their 200-400mm cash cow @ $7000 a pop. Pentax does't have anything to lose and thus the 60-250mm can be (and demonstrably is) a much superior lens in comparison. My tests bear this out. As such, the Pentax combination (better lens, less capable sensor) produces roughly equivalent IQ as the Nikon combination (less capable lens, better sensor).

That being said, one should NOT come to the conclusion that a K-3 is "equivalent" to a D800. I would never say that. That was not the intention of my test. Sorry if there was any confusion.

Michae
The 80-400 is a 5:1 zoom ratio lens, and thus introduces significant compromises as compared with the ultra-conservative 200-400 at a mere 2:1 zoom ratio. Anything beyond 3:1, which is the ideal balance between range and optical quality, as a "rule of thumb," is going to suffer in performance (distortion most typically). The 60-250 is just over 4:1, still a wider range than ideal but more conservative than the 80-400.
01-02-2014, 09:07 PM - 2 Likes   #366
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CT, USA
Posts: 499
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I think much of the turnover rate for the Sony FF cameras results from the fact that many people bought it with unrealistic expectations. Compact FF mirrorless sounds good in theory. But in practice there are huge challenges, many of which have not well met by Sony, which is an engineer-centric, rather than a photographer-centric, company. As with the original NEX system, Sony inexplicably believes that all you have to do to make a compact system camera is to make the camera as small as possible. The lenses, meanwhile, have to fend for themselves. So you end up getting a small camera paired with large lenses. The promised 70-200 f4 weighs over 800 grams! Even the primes are rather large, considering their apertures.
I think Sony's choice of relatively small maximum aperture lenses is a cynical attempt to perpetrate the myth that "mirrorless" cameras hold a huge advantage in size/weight. The 70-200 f4 isn't all that much smaller (or lighter) than a more typical FF 70-200 f2.8, and there's not that many outside of the mirrorless fanatic base that can't see that a "mirrorless FF" means "thin body with big lens," which in turn means an awkward, front-heavy package that is poor in terms of handling.

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I find the Sony A7r to be a particularly cynical product. Instead of pursuing photocentric values, the camera plays on the prejudices propagated by the gearhead crowd. In some quarters, the words "mirrorless," "full-frame," "EVF," "compact," "high-resolotion," "megapixels" take upon the glow of holiness. In the historicist fantasy propagated by the gearhead crowd, mirrorless and full-frame are The Future. Old school photographers who stubbornly prefer DSLRs are pathetic reactionaries who are standing in the way of "progress" and who deserve the humiliation of a force march into the brave new world of the All Digital Camera. The A7r is sort of the ultimate gearhead camera. It checks on the gearhead boxes: mirrorless, FF, EVF, high megapixel. It features impressive technology and is capable of achieving gaudy numerical specs in tests. But as an actual tool for photographic ends, it's deeply flawed. Sony never really did the math on the photographer's experience with the camera, on issues revolving around handling the camera in the field. A 36 MP FF camera is often seen as a landscape photographer's camera. The problem is, most landscape photographers shoot with zoom lenses on tripods. You need the highest quality FF zoom lenses to take full advantage of that 36 MP camera, and those lenses tended to be quite large. The Nikkor and Canon FF standard f2.8 zooms weigh around 900 grams and don't feature a tripod mount. Try mounting one of those lenses, via an adapter, on an A7r, and then mounting that tiny camera on a tripod. That will prove a very cumbersome combination. Nor will it be saving you that much weight, since you still have to carry the lenses and tripod.
I don't know if I'd describe the group you're talking about as the "gearhead crowd," since that's probably a bit bigger than what you're describing, which is what I'd call the "mirrorless fanatics" or "mirrorless cheerleaders" or "mirrorless fanboys." My favorite description of mirrorless cameras is that they are "A solution looking for a problem." Maybe since they are so strident about their view that mirrorless is "the future" into which all cameras will be assimilated, I should call this bunch the "Mirrorless Nazis."

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
Some photographers get conned into buying the Sony A7r because, on paper at least, it's a stunning camera. But once they get a chance to use it they quickly learn that, due to the size of FF glass coupled with poor design decisions, the camera doesn't handle well in the field, that it's really a camera best fit for those who like using old glass via adapters and who are, ipso facto, more open to working around handling issues, then a reevaluation becomes necessary. Add the slow AF and the misplaced shutter button, and you're bound to have a higher turnover rate with this camera than with other, better designed, more photographer-centric cameras.
I think what you're saying makes sense. Mirrorless Nazis love to wax eloquent about the "technology" of mirrorless cameras, but their tired analogies of film vs. digital (typically) simply don't ring true. A mirrorless camera is not a better tool than an DSLR, and in fact is in significant ways a worse tool by far. THAT is why mirrorless won't be "taking over," unless it's a push from camera manufacturers (as in they decide to eliminate other choices for photographers for reasons that have nothing to do with what photographers prefer and everything to do with cost cutting and simplification of production). Mirrorless isn't a "better mousetrap," the way digital is compared with film. It's that simple. It doesn't solve any problem a DSLR presents, and introduces new ones. Maybe the A7/A7r, instead of being the beginning of increased market penetration for mirrorless, will be the camera that shows a lot of photographers just how poor a tool for photography mirrorless cameras are compared with a DSLR, and reaffirms the DSLR as the best tool for photography.
01-02-2014, 09:23 PM   #367
Pentaxian
MJSfoto1956's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,285
QuoteOriginally posted by 24X36NOW Quote
The 80-400 is a 5:1 zoom ratio lens, and thus introduces significant compromises as compared with the ultra-conservative 200-400 at a mere 2:1 zoom ratio. Anything beyond 3:1, which is the ideal balance between range and optical quality, as a "rule of thumb," is going to suffer in performance (distortion most typically). The 60-250 is just over 4:1, still a wider range than ideal but more conservative than the 80-400.
I stand by my premise that Nikon could have made the 80-400mm better than they did. As a minor example, The Sony 70-400mm is an overall sharper lens than (especially at 400mm) the Nikkor AF-S 80-400mm. Trouble is, Sony bodies aren't competitive (yet) with Nikon so it does't really matter how good their lenses are (or aren't). I agree with your assessment that Pentax acted conservatively when choosing the params for the 60-250mm. While delivering almost the same reach, they made it much lighter, smaller, with a constant f/4 aperture -- and more importantly sharp at all apertures. And whether this has anything to do with the lens design or not (I suspect it has more to do with the lack of mirror slap actually), I got more "keepers" with the Pentax SR when deliberately handholding the lens together with slow exposure times than I did with the Nikon VR. Kudos to Pentax for building a system that delivers great handheld results at long tele focal lengths.

Michael
01-02-2014, 09:44 PM   #368
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by MJSfoto1956 Quote
Just to be sure: what my quick tests demonstrated was that a K-3 + 60-250mm produced roughly similar IQ as a D800 + AF-S 80-400mm. One should note that the D800 used with other (better) lenses would produce quite different results (e.g. D800 + 14-24mm would be no contest. This combination cannot be beat by any camera on the market).

My take on my test: Nikon has deliberately not delivered a "killer" 80-400mm lens most likely because they are protecting their 200-400mm cash cow @ $7000 a pop. Pentax does't have anything to lose and thus the 60-250mm can be (and demonstrably is) a much superior lens in comparison. My tests bear this out. As such, the Pentax combination (better lens, less capable sensor) produces roughly equivalent IQ as the Nikon combination (less capable lens, better sensor).

That being said, one should NOT come to the conclusion that a K-3 is "equivalent" to a D800. I would never say that. That was not the intention of my test. Sorry if there was any confusion.

Michae
You should try a good copy of the Sigma 100-300 F4 HSM on the D800. It lacks the range of an 80-400 but in the opinion of many is a superior optic, and focuses very fast, albeit sans VR - and can be had for under $1200.

01-03-2014, 12:37 AM   #369
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
I am afraid I have to disagree with you. Shot from the same point, a 28mm on APS-C and a 43mm on 24x36 or a 55mm on APS-C and a 85mm on 24x36 produce the same image with the same perspective (what you call "distortion/compression") -to be exact, almost the same image since the equivalence is only approximative.

The perspective depends on the distance only, not on the focal length nor on the size of the image sensor.

Another example: take from the same point a picture with a 200mm and another one with a 24mm. The first one and the centre of the second one will exactly coincide.
QuoteOriginally posted by TedH42 Quote
I recall an article in a 1971 (or maybe 1972) issue of Petersen's PHOTOgraphic magazine that conclusively demonstrated that a 200, 100, 50, and 24 mm lens all produced the same perspective from the same distance from the subject, as Mistral75 says. It is only when you move so as to get the same image framing (width of field) at the subject (think flower) location (not the background), with the 200 at twice the distance as the 100, 100 twice as far as the 50, etc., that the perspective/distortion/compression changes. Those early Petersen's ("Think of us as equipment") were very instructive to me, and made many photographic concepts very clear.

Yes, yes... I know that and that's exactly my point for my own usage, hence why i say that i think i'm in the wrong brand since my main style of photography is environmental portraiture and portraiture.

I'm not liking how shooting with a 28mm compresses my background because i have to move forward to get the same image framing so as to get the similar composition as with shooting with a 50mm with the larger format...

Nor with a 50mm on APSC that i can't "expand" the background to appear naturally bigger than my subject as with an 85mm on the larger format...

Yes, i can move backwards, but no, it's always harder to move backwards than forward.

Hence, with the stated reasoning above, Pentax is indeed leaning much towards landscape photographer, as with the 645D (dismal flash ecosystem across the board).
01-03-2014, 02:46 AM   #370
Pentaxian
Uluru's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,400
QuoteOriginally posted by SyncGuy Quote
I believe so.. But with that as the company's philosophy, that's why i think they are not too keen:

1) on producing many lenses with wide apertures - this would help in subject : background separation, which is not important in landscape

2) FF - which brings about the benefit of background : subject separation and also minimizes distortion/compression due to using a wider FL to obtain a similar and wider view when compared with larger format. (think 50mm vs 85mm with exact same composition or 28mm vs 50mm)

PS: Please don't mistake my post/points as bashing Pentax.. I'm just listing my own opinion for objective discussions which leads to my own decision in my photographic journey and discovery.
I do agree with you, but with a caveat. With digital cameras, Pentax has almost forgotten wide apertures, so it seems.
However, I see two major reasons for that, and I think they are quite valid. Not that I'm trying to defend their choices, but this is based on my experience during all this time of use of Pentax digital equipment.

1. SR technology. Wide apertures make lenses big, and IS inside of them makes them even bigger and heavier. To have a different value proposition than Canon and Nikon and clearly differentiate from them — from two major DSLR manufacturers — Pentax invested in the SR technology, to gain shutter speeds lost when using 1-2 stops slower glass. But, a camera + SR + smaller (albeit slower glass) = increased portability and reduced overall size of the system, shutter speeds retained. This is why Pentax is still in the game and makes DSLR photography interesting.

2. Focusing. On an APS-C camera, available DoF is 50% thinner than on an FF camera using the lens of same aperture and focal length. That makes focusing, using wide aperture lenses, even harder than on an FF camera. By 'slowing down' APS-C lenses, the focusing game evens up and the DoF increases, which yields in better keepers score. So it is technically wise decision that, for starts, allows more people get more focused-in shots with a Pentax APS-C camera.

Isolation of a subject you talk about, however, is very dependable on the quality of the background in the image, not the aperture per se. If a photographer knows how to compose a good photograph, Pentax APS-C lenses can isolate subject well and OoF area can look delicious. I base my experience on the use of DA40 and DA70 lenses, which may be described as 'slow' but which are of great optical quality. Isolating a subject is a special type of photography, not something every person should do every day and in every occasion, as it often yields in boring photographs with subjects totally isolated from any reality around them. A good quality photograph makes a connection between the subject and its background, as the narrative aspect of the photograph should always be first in mind and transcend any technical 'prerogative' or a visual stereotype.

Last edited by Uluru; 01-03-2014 at 04:55 AM.
01-03-2014, 06:25 AM   #371
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,782
QuoteOriginally posted by SyncGuy Quote
(...)

I'm not liking how shooting with a 28mm compresses my background because i have to move forward to get the same image framing so as to get the similar composition as with shooting with a 50mm with the larger format...

(...).
Use a 35mm instead of a 28mm on your APS-C camera and, with the same composition, you will also obtain the same perspective as with shooting with a 50mm on a 24x36 camera.

FWIW: using a shorter focal length and moving forward dilates the perspective, it doesn't "compress" it.

QuoteOriginally posted by SyncGuy Quote
(...)

Nor with a 50mm on APSC that i can't "expand" the background to appear naturally bigger than my subject as with an 85mm on the larger format...

(...)
Same as above: use a 55mm on your APS-C camera and you will get the same perspective as with an 85mm on a 24x36 camera.
01-03-2014, 09:45 AM   #372
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
Use a 35mm instead of a 28mm on your APS-C camera and, with the same composition, you will also obtain the same perspective as with shooting with a 50mm on a 24x36 camera.

FWIW: using a shorter focal length and moving forward dilates the perspective, it doesn't "compress" it.



Same as above: use a 55mm on your APS-C camera and you will get the same perspective as with an 85mm on a 24x36 camera.
Hmm... Good points.. Will try it out and test!

Don't mind me, what do you mean dilate? You mean the subject or the background? I'm thinking since we have to us a wider focal length on APSC for equiv. FF FL, doesn't it mean that we would have to move closer and therefore the background would actually be compressed, hence making the subject "larger"?
01-03-2014, 09:52 AM   #373
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
I do agree with you, but with a caveat. With digital cameras, Pentax has almost forgotten wide apertures, so it seems.
However, I see two major reasons for that, and I think they are quite valid. Not that I'm trying to defend their choices, but this is based on my experience during all this time of use of Pentax digital equipment.

1. SR technology. Wide apertures make lenses big, and IS inside of them makes them even bigger and heavier. To have a different value proposition than Canon and Nikon and clearly differentiate from them ó from two major DSLR manufacturers ó Pentax invested in the SR technology, to gain shutter speeds lost when using 1-2 stops slower glass. But, a camera + SR + smaller (albeit slower glass) = increased portability and reduced overall size of the system, shutter speeds retained. This is why Pentax is still in the game and makes DSLR photography interesting.

2. Focusing. On an APS-C camera, available DoF is 50% thinner than on an FF camera using the lens of same aperture and focal length. That makes focusing, using wide aperture lenses, even harder than on an FF camera. By 'slowing down' APS-C lenses, the focusing game evens up and the DoF increases, which yields in better keepers score. So it is technically wise decision that, for starts, allows more people get more focused-in shots with a Pentax APS-C camera.

Isolation of a subject you talk about, however, is very dependable on the quality of the background in the image, not the aperture per se. If a photographer knows how to compose a good photograph, Pentax APS-C lenses can isolate subject well and OoF area can look delicious. I base my experience on the use of DA40 and DA70 lenses, which may be described as 'slow' but which are of great optical quality. Isolating a subject is a special type of photography, not something every person should do every day and in every occasion, as it often yields in boring photographs with subjects totally isolated from any reality around them. A good quality photograph makes a connection between the subject and its background, as the narrative aspect of the photograph should always be first in mind and transcend any technical 'prerogative' or a visual stereotype.
Hmm.... Makes senses and that's why i state that the Pentax brand is mostly targeted to landscape photography, as was stated in the interview, due to the want of larger DoF.
And yes, separation is the quality of the background but when you're stuck within a 5m by 5m space and wanting to shoot full body length portrait, then what? ;P

PS: Once again, i am NOT bashing Pentax.. I still love using my Pentax but sometimes i would like more flexibility in DoF control.
01-03-2014, 09:53 AM   #374
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,497
Play with DOFMaster online. It is all about distances between camera, subject and background but equivalence is possible.
01-03-2014, 09:53 AM   #375
Site Supporter
Cynog Ap Brychan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucester
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,090
QuoteOriginally posted by SyncGuy Quote
I'm thinking since we have to us a wider focal length on APSC for equiv. FF FL, doesn't it mean that we would have to move closer and therefore the background would actually be compressed, hence making the subject "larger"?

If one uses an "equivalent" focal length (e.g., 55mm on APS-C and 82.5mm on FF) then the field of view would be the same, so one wouldn't need to move closer. The depth of field would be shallower at the same aperture with full-frame, though.
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, camera, challenge, ff, full format, full frame, image, industry, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, power, quality, slr, sound
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ricoh announces company name change - no more Pentax Ricoh Imaging, just Ricoh. rawr Pentax News and Rumors 528 10-28-2013 04:39 PM
2012 Japan sales of mirrorless & SLRs philbaum Pentax News and Rumors 541 06-26-2013 02:21 AM
Imaging-Resource Pentax/Ricoh interview ogl Pentax News and Rumors 44 09-24-2012 08:32 AM
Imaging Resource Interview with PENTAX US VP Marketing Gareth.Ig Pentax News and Rumors 8 01-28-2012 10:42 AM
Interview with Pentax Japan Executive Noisychip Pentax News and Rumors 255 01-24-2012 08:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:49 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