Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-24-2014, 03:05 PM   #316
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 804
I don't see why Sony wouldn't be able to manufacture BSI sensors...

12-24-2014, 04:54 PM   #317
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,937
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
What's the difference, if you adjust focus by moving the sensor in relation to the lens or the lens in relation to the sensor?
I wasn't suggesting to move the sensor backwards and forwards -- that would require a new SR mechanism.

I only meant to have forward/backward movement be measured and compensated through focus adjustments.

The difference to AF-C would be the lack of a need to reacquire a focus lock on a particular spot of the subject. That spot may not be under an AF area in the final composition and even if it is, a fresh lock may result in an undesired re-lock on to a nearby object in the foreground or other such mismatches.
12-24-2014, 05:56 PM   #318
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,548
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
If you don't see the camera focussing, you can't check the focus, so what would be the point ?
Trust the cam, cross fingers and push the trigger?
And wha would be the purpose of an OVF if the focus is not done in the OVF but done in camera?

Frankly, I'd get EVF over that, right away.
Well that what the whole AF-C + prediction mode for action/sport is. The camera does all the hard word of focussing for you because the object move too fast (at least that the idea) and you just maintain the subject in the focussing area and click when you want to shoot.

If you have time to accurately focus manually, you don't need all of that anyway. But you have to do the same anticipate the focus in advance because I mean if an object move fast enough and you want to track it if you just try to put the thing in focus by the time you see it on your screen first, then your brain understand the image then finally give the order to move the focus, well several hundred millisecond have passed and the object moved again.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 12-24-2014 at 06:01 PM.
12-24-2014, 07:22 PM   #319
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,476
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Well that what the whole AF-C + prediction mode for action/sport is. The camera does all the hard word of focussing for you because the object move too fast (at least that the idea) and you just maintain the subject in the focussing area and click when you want to shoot.

If you have time to accurately focus manually, you don't need all of that anyway. But you have to do the same anticipate the focus in advance because I mean if an object move fast enough and you want to track it if you just try to put the thing in focus by the time you see it on your screen first, then your brain understand the image then finally give the order to move the focus, well several hundred millisecond have passed and the object moved again.
I'm sure that's all true, but has it been demonstrated that sports/action photographers capture more or better action shots today than when they had to practice and use skill to do the same thing as AF-c does now?

Or does AF-c simply automate a process that formerly was a barrier to entry for average S/A photographers?

12-25-2014, 05:35 AM   #320
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,548
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
I'm sure that's all true, but has it been demonstrated that sports/action photographers capture more or better action shots today than when they had to practice and use skill to do the same thing as AF-c does now?

Or does AF-c simply automate a process that formerly was a barrier to entry for average S/A photographers?
I would say this kind of argument is like automated transmission on cars. Many will argue in europe that manual transmission is necessary to really control the car and almost no car as automatic transmission cars in europe. Joke are many see the gear lever as a virility attribute. My case was simply in europe car with automated transmission are more expensive and so I wasn't willing to pay more. Anyway for formula 1 you have automated transmission because while it may hurt the virility of drivers... Well it seems it help you to win the race.

I would say good AF-C is both a lower barrier to entry and allow the skilled professionnal (or even sometime the beginer) to take shoots that were impossible (or near impossible) before. You may say it is useless and I'am sure back in time color photography was said to be useless, as camera with OVF (or now EVF) and so on. For sure if all your business was around your skill of taking action shoots with MF... You found your skill set as obsolette as horse riding skill is compared to capacity to drive cars in today world.

There some kind of drama around skill and the difficulty to make things. Like it is better if it is difficult and kind of elitism and aristocracy arround it. Before photography only a few painters in the world could approach the realism of what a teenager could get with his phone. Now most painter don't care of realism anymore and focus more on creativity. And because the phone take technically correct picture almost all the time the teenager that is willing to improve can spend more time to learn to catch the good moment and to compose that to spend handless time having the perfect focus or exposure.

More intuitive, advenced tools allow to go next level. That the whole EVF argument. EVF is supposed to be better overall with few drawback that will soon disappear. The OVF is the old outdated thing. Why the argument would have to suddenly change when we speak of better AF were old inferior tools would then become beautiful ?

Last edited by Nicolas06; 12-25-2014 at 06:02 AM.
01-02-2015, 08:09 PM - 3 Likes   #321
Pentaxian
Uluru's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote

More intuitive, advenced tools allow to go next level. That the whole EVF argument. EVF is supposed to be better overall with few drawback that will soon disappear. The OVF is the old outdated thing. Why the argument would have to suddenly change when we speak of better AF were old inferior tools would then become beautiful ?
Because photography is not about AF, AF-C, EVF. It is about being there, and seeing the event. It is about witnessing the moment.

Sport photographers are present in the competitions, but they enjoy nothing of the spectacle -- they are too busy chasing their focus points.

Got it?

1. For some people, they need to deliver certain results, and that means not quite being there, nor experiencing the moment. They leave that to the photographs, and finding out a right millisecond from a continuous bust of images. Human consciousness cannot record such tiny fractions of time, and thus sports photographers leave much to their cameras to deliver to them.

2. The others, do not care about all that. They want to gather impressions, be there in person, immerse in the event, and take just some pictures that serve as memories later on. Their main SD card or film roll is their bran. A photograph, even very imperfect, is just a reminder that ignites the perfect feelings inside.

3. There are third kinds; who are worse off than both of those above. They stare at the reality through the artificial reality.

EVF will always be inferior experience because it interprets the reality and augments it / changes it / and then delivers to your brain. OVF on the other end, delivers that what happens without interpretation.

When using the EVF, you actually are not there and not experiencing it directly because you have blocked your vision with an interpreter. When using the OVF, you actually are there and experience the moment very directly, the way you see it.

Last edited by Uluru; 01-02-2015 at 08:17 PM.
01-03-2015, 02:43 AM   #322
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,548
Uluru, your argument to me seems similar to say that taking photos should be as automatic and unobtrusive as possible. Better if somebody else does it for you or if the camera can figure out more by itself. It is the exact opposite finally on how many passionnante photographers tend to work with lot of control on technical parameters, changing lenses and so own. There even some condescending arguments that if you let your camera choose for you, if you don't manually change the focus and so on, post process your raws you are not really taking photos!

To me it is obvious you don't experience life the same with or without a camera. OVF might be a bit better than EVF but removing the camera altogether and just experiencing the moment without taking photos change the experience much more.

In some occasion where I have to go for say "political" reasons to an event I can use the camera as an acceped way to evade like other send messages on their phones. I can be present without being really here.

When I visit a place that I enjoy and where I take photos, that why I like to be slow and really experience it, maybe taking some photos but not only.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-03-2015 at 02:48 AM.
01-03-2015, 03:34 AM   #323
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,781
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
(...)

EVF will always be inferior experience because it interprets the reality and augments it / changes it / and then delivers to your brain. OVF on the other end, delivers that what happens without interpretation.

When using the EVF, you actually are not there and not experiencing it directly because you have blocked your vision with an interpreter. When using the OVF, you actually are there and experience the moment very directly, the way you see it.
You could write the same thing to state the superiority of a rangefinder's OVF over an SLR's OVF (your vision is not limited to / blocked by the lens's angle of view) or that of a sportsfinder over both (direct experience, no interpretation / augmentation of the reality by any piece of glass).

Yet there are many more SLRs than rangefinder cameras nowadays and almost nobody uses a sportsfinder anymore.

So?

01-03-2015, 04:30 AM   #324
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,423
Quite the opposite IMO. Showing a different framing than the one intended (and eventually captured), as well as having parallax errors can be seen as "interpretation" - both solved by the single lens reflex viewfinder system.
01-03-2015, 04:38 AM   #325
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,781
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Quite the opposite IMO. Showing a different framing than the one intended (and eventually captured), as well as having parallax errors can be seen as "interpretation" - both solved by the single lens reflex viewfinder system.
If so, what about showing a different depth of field than the one intended and eventually captured, which problem (common to sportsfinder, rangefinder and SLR OVF) is solved by EVF? Same with dynamic range, white balance and so on?
01-03-2015, 05:01 AM   #326
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,548
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
If so, what about showing a different depth of field than the one intended and eventually captured, which problem (common to sportsfinder, rangefinder and SLR OVF) is solved by EVF? Same with dynamic range, white balance and so on?
Solved is maybe a bit too optimist. Nobody is going to look at the picture the way one look at an EVF or OVF. The time to look at it is also very different. One may look for a second to a picture that needed hours of preparation and stare one minute on a shoot took in one second.

There no issue to preview instantly depth of field up to f/5.6-8 with OFV and this is more the kind of apperture that can be problematic anyway. But to be review really the depth of field entirely and the bokeh may need some time and involve to view it on the final intended media for quit some time.

EFV might help a bit but the key aspect here seems to be experience.
01-03-2015, 05:15 AM   #327
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,781
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Solved is maybe a bit too optimist. Nobody is going to look at the picture the way one look at an EVF or OVF. The time to look at it is also very different. One may look for a second to a picture that needed hours of preparation and stare one minute on a shoot took in one second.

There no issue to preview instantly depth of field up to f/5.6-8 with OFV and this is more the kind of aperture that can be problematic anyway. But to be review really the depth of field entirely and the bokeh may need some time and involve to view it on the final intended media for quit some time.

EFV might help a bit but the key aspect here seems to be experience.
There is an issue to even figure the depth of field between f/1.4 and f/2-2.8 with an OVF. At these apertures, the viewfinder shows a depth of field that is bigger than the actual one in your picture. And obtaining an adequate depth of field at these apertures (in the sense of getting what one wants) is definitely problematic as long as your intent is not to blur everything.

Last edited by Mistral75; 01-03-2015 at 05:21 AM.
01-03-2015, 05:27 AM   #328
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,423
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
If so, what about showing a different depth of field than the one intended and eventually captured, which problem (common to sportsfinder, rangefinder and SLR OVF) is solved by EVF? Same with dynamic range, white balance and so on?
You are going way too far, that's no longer my reasoning
Why do you have the camera to your eyes? Because you decided to take interest in a specific part of what's before your eyes, and eventually transpose it in a 2D image. So framing is important; perspective is important; focus is important. Indeed, a reflex viewfinder will "interpret" the scenery as well, by framing it and presenting you a (partially) real image, due to its matte screen. That's useful.
However, besides that the OVF is still showing you the real scenery. A DR which might surpass what your sensor can capture, and very often what an EVF can display; real colors instead of a WB preset, and so on. You can make choices based on reality, not a lousy interpretation of what might be captured. And you'll still be there - using an EVF, you could as well play a Youtube video on it

The EVF is unable to show the DR of what a modern, 14-bit output sensor can capture; its uncalibrated display cannot show the precise white balance, and more importantly, it cannot show the colors you'll want - hours later, in front of your PC and your calibrated display, and you can't actually see the "true" DOF due to its limited resolution. It cannot even attempt to show exposure times different than its very limited range. And so on.
WYSIWYG is a lie.
01-03-2015, 05:51 AM   #329
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 2,781
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
You are going way too far, that's no longer my reasoning
Why do you have the camera to your eyes? Because you decided to take interest in a specific part of what's before your eyes, and eventually transpose it in a 2D image. So framing is important; perspective is important; focus is important. Indeed, a reflex viewfinder will "interpret" the scenery as well, by framing it and presenting you a (partially) real image, due to its matte screen. That's useful.
However, besides that the OVF is still showing you the real scenery. A DR which might surpass what your sensor can capture, and very often what an EVF can display; real colors instead of a WB preset, and so on. You can make choices based on reality, not a lousy interpretation of what might be captured. And you'll still be there - using an EVF, you could as well play a Youtube video on it

The EVF is unable to show the DR of what a modern, 14-bit output sensor can capture; its uncalibrated display cannot show the precise white balance, and more importantly, it cannot show the colors you'll want - hours later, in front of your PC and your calibrated display, and you can't actually see the "true" DOF due to its limited resolution. It cannot even attempt to show exposure times different than its very limited range. And so on.
WYSIWYG is a lie.
You are right in what you wrote but I think current performances just give us a flavour of what future EVFs will be capable of.

Since "Good things are coming to those who wait a lot" , just wait the few years needed for the EVF to perfectly suit your needs. In the meantime, enjoy your Pentax 645D/Z / LX / MX / Sony Alpha 900 / whatever SLR with a splendid OVF you are using .
01-03-2015, 06:07 AM   #330
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,423
A flavour of what future EVFs will be capable of... I can't agree more, and that's what makes me reticent to adopt them

One way or another, I'll "upgrade" from the K-5IIs' optical viewfinder, in an year or two.
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, bsi, camera, dealer, feb, ff, field of view, format, fov, grip, heaven, inventory, k-3, k3, length, lens, mf, nikon, panasonic, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, price, ricoh, sensors, sony, time, times
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will you replace your K5 series with the new flagship? Wired Pentax K-5 51 10-10-2013 06:18 PM
Should I wait? lewvanbommel Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 08-10-2013 08:55 PM
What Do You Really Need On The New Flagship? tabl10s Pentax K-5 21 03-15-2013 07:02 AM
should I or wait? varyabol Pentax K-5 27 01-11-2012 05:40 PM
should i wait dafiryde Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 05-08-2008 06:24 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:48 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