Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-07-2014, 04:54 AM - 2 Likes   #481
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,083
I like AF noise. It gives feedback when the camera is focusing and when it has found it.....

08-07-2014, 05:50 AM   #482
Veteran Member
wullemaha's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 503
QuoteOriginally posted by IchabodCrane Quote
Good for you but my wife has banned me from using a screw-drive lens again when attending a wedding.
That gave me a chuckle.

QuoteOriginally posted by Black_Wizards Quote
Get another wife
That gave me a laugh!

QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
What has your wife against screw-driven photographers?
That almost made me spit out my drink ^^
08-07-2014, 06:00 AM   #483
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 365
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Few years ago, this was digital that was not good enough for pro... Now film is used by fews. How many years for electronic view finder to replace most reflex? 10 years? 20 years?

The reflex system cannot show what the camera really see. it cannot really insert information like focus peaking, histogram or just show the actual exposure not with just a number but with actual content. It cannot reframe. The view finder can't neither show the real deph of field without loosing most of it's light. The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality. Overall it is an expensive thing that can fail and limit the shooting rate.

Said like that I wonder why anybody would even want an optical viewfinder.
Understand your viewpoint and comment. I agree with your general comment. Mine is based in the loss of detail available to the focuser (particularly if they use QF or "goosing" AF to ensure proper DOF in the field. All of the settings cannot guarantee crisp. So, unless the EVF is able to be immediately toggled at 1% of screen (takes a ton of time), we would be consigned to blindly accepting AF results. Can't live with that here, for example birds in flight (ie: gull billed tern) or small macros where a breeze messes with you... MF can be a lifesaver or good add to AF, and the resolving power of EVF for detail work like that seems difficult to be enthusiastic about. 100% agree on technology/ Dig vs. film though...

Last edited by GlassJunkie; 08-07-2014 at 07:24 AM.
08-07-2014, 09:08 AM   #484
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,801
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
That is because 99% of those that switch platforms are Canikon DSLR users that switch to Canikon DSLR, and for them there are no adapters that fully support old lenses, so they need to do a complete switch. But I would say that a majority of DSLR users that get a mirrorless system will use adapters, and they are not usually switching platform, but getting a second platform.

Having fully supporting adapters is a way to ensure that existing DSLR users get mirrorless cameras of the same brand.
The adapter market is a fleabay market of off-brand, low volume products that have about 0% impact on the overall dedicated camera market.

Majority? Hardly 1% I would venture.

Adapters are a marketing kludge for a very few. They flatline system acceptability, not increase it.

08-07-2014, 09:31 AM   #485
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by GlassJunkie Quote
Understand your viewpoint and comment. I agree with your general comment. Mine is based in the loss of detail available to the focuser (particularly if they use QF or "goosing" AF to ensure proper DOF in the field. All of the settings cannot guarantee crisp. So, unless the EVF is able to be immediately toggled at 1% of screen (takes a ton of time), we would be consigned to blindly accepting AF results. Can't live with that here, for example birds in flight (ie: gull billed tern) or small macros where a breeze messes with you... MF can be a lifesaver or good add to AF, and the resolving power of EVF for detail work like that seems difficult to be enthusiastic about. 100% agree on technology/ Dig vs. film though...
Yeah i agree that why i say 10-20 years. For now it is good for some usages but it not quite here yet. That why I have a K3 and not a Fuji (among other reasons).
08-07-2014, 10:51 AM   #486
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,674
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The mirror make design of wide angle lenses more bulky, expensive and of lesser quality.
Nowadays, that is rather an ironic statement.

I assume you're trying to say that retrofocus wide-angle lenses,
designed to clear the mirror of an SLR,
are bulky, expensive, and of lesser quality
when compared to a symmetric (Gauss) wide-angle lens for a rangefinder camera.

The bulky accusation is still true.

Expensive is less true, now that the Gauss type rangefinder lenses
have become almost exclusively the domain
of high-end manufacturers like Voigtlaender and Leitz.

But in the digital age, symmetrical wide-angle (and even standard) lenses
actually give lower quality than retrofocus designs,
due to the color shifts and other problems
caused by the sharp incidence angles
of the rays at the edge of the image
hitting the sensel wells of the sensor.

So top-quality mirrorless lenses are now retrofocus-style:

Touit 2.8/12 | ZEISS United States

"When the angle of view becomes extreme, the retrofocus design of the Distagon lens can also be the ideal choice when the camera is not an SLR. Distagon lens types possess the low, image-sided, raypath angles that are particularly favourable for use with digital image sensors and also guarantee an extremely homogeneous distribution of brightness across the image field."
08-07-2014, 10:52 AM   #487
Loyal Site Supporter
GlassJunkie's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: St Petersburg
Photos: Albums
Posts: 365
I'm with you... Heck of a body....
08-07-2014, 11:25 AM   #488
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by Black_Wizards Quote
Get another wife
A D810 with full set of lenses would be much less expensive.

08-07-2014, 11:31 AM   #489
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,297
QuoteOriginally posted by IchabodCrane Quote
A D810 with full set of lenses would be much less expensive.
Marriage is grand...
Divorce is a hundred grand
08-07-2014, 11:47 AM - 2 Likes   #490
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,497
regarding EVF's, I'm sold on the advantages of it, no question there. seeing a pretty good estimation of your exposure is wonderful. However there are many draw backs that I'm unsure can be solved, which is why I no longer own any EVF equipped cameras (A7, XT1, EM5)

I still find the lag and rolling shutter effect, especially when tracking motion/sports is just nauseating and headache inducing. It's really painful to operate and just not enjoyable. That is my biggest gripe.

For studio work and working with flash photography if you use the active exposure preview modes your often seeing blackness. Turn this off and your negating the benifit of that feature. Then your camera is turning the EVF gain up so high to see in the dim conditions that your getting a lot of grain in the preview image which once again creates a nauseating and headache inducing feeling.

The final article is low light photography in general, for doing music photography for example your now dealing with a dim scene where the camera is upping the gain of the EVF creating grain, and your trying to track fast moving musicians (in theory) which gives you the bad lagging and rolling shutter effect...this equals me throwing up and getting a nasty headache.

I'll stick to OVF for now. But I do appreciate what EVF brings to the table. the tech is just not there for me yet...almost.
08-07-2014, 12:09 PM - 1 Like   #491
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,001
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
I'll stick to OVF for now. But I do appreciate what EVF brings to the table. the tech is just not there for me yet...almost.
As I understand it, your observations are precisely what Pentax believes - the technology isn't there yet, and they doubt LED will ever get there. OLED is another matter.

Using an OVF, a passive viewfinder, just requires practice. With practice one learns how the passively viewed scene will appear digitally; how to adjust settings to preemptively alter the digital capture; how to shoot without histogram and without chimping, just like film; etc.

We suffer from equipment churn - we don't keep a camera body long enough to learn how to use it. We want an electronic crutch so we don't have to invest time in learning - or so we can be perfect immediately.

IMHO that's what drives the desire to use an EVF or an OVF overlay instead of our own eyes.
08-07-2014, 12:35 PM - 1 Like   #492
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,497
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
We suffer from equipment churn - we don't keep a camera body long enough to learn how to use it. We want an electronic crutch so we don't have to invest time in learning - or so we can be perfect immediately.

IMHO that's what drives the desire to use an EVF or an OVF overlay instead of our own eyes.
There is a disconnect there for sure that you don't get with OVF. I think thats another problem I feel with EVF, I don't feel as connected to the process as I do with OVF.

Its like the transition from film to Digital. The magic of waiting to see how the image turned out was lost. it became more instant gratification. Now with EVF its the same thing, but now really instant gratifcation taking the skillwork of exposure balancing out of the equation to get it right the first time.
08-07-2014, 01:00 PM - 1 Like   #493
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,738
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Nowadays, that is rather an ironic statement.

I assume you're trying to say that retrofocus wide-angle lenses,
designed to clear the mirror of an SLR,
are bulky, expensive, and of lesser quality
when compared to a symmetric (Gauss) wide-angle lens for a rangefinder camera.

The bulky accusation is still true.

Expensive is less true, now that the Gauss type rangefinder lenses
have become almost exclusively the domain
of high-end manufacturers like Voigtlaender and Leitz.

But in the digital age, symmetrical wide-angle (and even standard) lenses
actually give lower quality than retrofocus designs,
due to the color shifts and other problems
caused by the sharp incidence angles
of the rays at the edge of the image
hitting the sensel wells of the sensor.

So top-quality mirrorless lenses are now retrofocus-style:

Touit 2.8/12 | ZEISS United States

"When the angle of view becomes extreme, the retrofocus design of the Distagon lens can also be the ideal choice when the camera is not an SLR. Distagon lens types possess the low, image-sided, raypath angles that are particularly favourable for use with digital image sensors and also guarantee an extremely homogeneous distribution of brightness across the image field."
The advantage of mirrorless it that the retrofocus design get less extreme with shorter register distance, so they require less glass than comparable DSLR lenses. So for mirrorless it's possible to design wider and faster wide angle lenses without them requiring extreme amount of glass. DSLR with APS-C sensor have the biggest disadvantage as it use the same register distance as FF DSLR.

I really doubt that we will ever see a lens like the upcoming Fuji X 16/1.4 for a APS-C DSLR.
08-07-2014, 02:22 PM   #494
Site Supporter
SpecialK's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,701
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
I like AF noise. It gives feedback when the camera is focusing and when it has found it.....
It's true. It took a little time to adjustment to my first HSM lens.
08-07-2014, 02:30 PM   #495
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,497
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote

I really doubt that we will ever see a lens like the upcoming Fuji X 16/1.4 for a APS-C DSLR.
And if we did it would probably be massive, heavy, and expensive
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!
645z, anniversary, body, canon, cif, dslr, ff, focus, hood, hoya, jp, lens, lenses, line, market, mf, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, photokina, post, pre-orders, release, ricoh, rumors, stock, train
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Photokina 2014 - FF Tesla Pentax Full Frame 797 11-14-2014 11:14 PM
Official PF Photokina Meetup Adam Travel, Events, and Groups 42 09-26-2012 11:33 AM
Photokina interview larkis Pentax Medium Format 5 09-22-2012 04:36 PM
Photokina price drop? Dynasty Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 08-21-2012 04:27 PM
Predict Pentax Photokina Announcements selar Photographic Industry and Professionals 72 08-20-2012 04:04 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:00 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