Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-07-2016, 01:16 PM   #796
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
The K-1 is very affordable for its class but still expensive for me. I have to stretch the economy a bit to be able to buy it. Including selling a K-5 and a couple of good APS-C lenses. That also means I don't have any budget left for expensive D-FA lenses, at least not this year. But I will do fine without. I plan to two APS-C lenses in combination with an old Tamron 28-200 zoom for FF, and a few good manual focus prime lenses. So, is it worth having a K-1 if I don’t also have a line up of expensive D-FA lenses? In my opinion, absolutely. I expect both better resolution and lower noise with all the FF capable. In addition I will get a versatile multi aspect sensor for my remaining APS-C lenses. I think it will be well worth the upgrade.
I guess this is choice everybody has to make, but to me if you were to invest first on lenses, even FF ones, you'll get immediates upgrades too, maybe much more visible with a smooth plan were you can spend a few hundred dollars at a time, for each lens and then when you'll be ready, chances are the K1 or even its successor are available for much less maybe 1000$.

So you could buy over a few months/years some FF lenses like a 70-200, a 24-70 or 28-75 that will instantly bring you low light and sharpenss leverage at least as much as a cropped APSC lens or slow 28-200 entry level zoom.

This would be paid 100% by selling the APSC lenses you own and by the discount you'd get on the FF.

The key difference is that you'd have a full FF line up, having to spend $1800, instead of spending $1800 and still having to buy a bunch of lenses.

03-07-2016, 01:31 PM   #797
retired nerd
Loyal Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,253
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Sure. But I wouldn't say "we still do it", AFAIR we started doing it only after the advent of the digital, and terms like "crop format" and "full frame"
I really don't remember people with medium format cameras relating their lenses to the small format, back in the old day. It's a digital thing.
Yes, larger format has always been a different world; it was in the days of film, and it is today. Twenty years ago, people using larger formats did not use 35mm as a reference, and today they do not use 35mm as a reference. But this began with your asking "why do we use the term 'full frame'?", and my answer was that those who use anything other than the larger formats now came from 35mm film; when we were all there, to us it was the "normal", and now it is the "standard" that we all look back to in common. When I said "we still do it" I thought it was clear that I was talking about those of us who migrated from 35mm film, which is the vast majority of us; back in the day, we all understood what a 50mm lens would show, and today we still use that as a standard measure regardless of what hardware we actually use. I believe the answer was straight-forward, and I don't understand why we have "wasted" so many electrons on it, so you may continue musing about the subject if you want to, but I have nothing more to say - in fact, I said it all in my first post on the subject.

Last edited by reh321; 03-07-2016 at 01:36 PM.
03-07-2016, 02:04 PM   #798
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,028
Nicolas06. Thanks for kind advices. I plan to wait a while before buying the K-1. I'll pay close attention to the prices, especially november 25 "black friday".

I happen to not be a big fan of f/2,8 zooms. I ideally prefer one zoom for versatility when I only carry one lens. The Tamron 28-200 has specs right on target, but the quality is just so-so. Maybe I'll upgrade to the new Sigma 28-300 in a few years. Or even better if Pentax launches a WR version. When I don't need the versatility I prefer primes. Relatively compact primes. A Samyang 8mm f/3,5 and a Sigma 18-35/1,8 (practically close to a prime), DA 40mm f/2,8 XS, DA50mm f/1,8, a M 50mm f/1,4, a Tamron 90mm f/2,8 macro, and a Chinon 135mm f/2,8. I currently have a Sigma 70-200 f/2,8 HSM II macro that are technically good, but I don't like the size and weight. I have an M 80-200 f/4,5 that gets choosen before the Sigma sometimes because of weight. My Sigma 100-300 isn't very sharp so I don’t like that ether even if its light weight. I'm just not satisfied with any of my tele zooms so I'm not sure what I will do there. The D-FA 150-450 is out of the question both because of weight and price. A mirror lens may be a choice, or maybe if I find a good priced AF 300mm f/4. The Sigma 18-35 f/1,8 may be exchanged for a prime if I find a god price. I'll see what offers that come along. f/2,8 zooms are trying to be a crossover between primes and zooms, at the cost of size and weight and they offer just up to 3x zoom, witch I don’t find enough versatile to just carry one lens.

Last edited by Simen1; 03-07-2016 at 02:20 PM.
03-07-2016, 02:19 PM   #799
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 255
Bigger lenses is a huge turn off for me but if dynamic range is improved I wouldn't mind shooting K-1 crop mode with da limiteds. My photos are rarely used very large so 15Mpx is actually enough. Bit perverse though...

If Pentax starts to bring out slow, small DFA primes my financials would be is a spot of trouble as I doubt I could resist.

03-07-2016, 03:33 PM - 1 Like   #800
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 52
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
And there fortunately is no law of physics which sets a lower limit for the space-time volume or energy required to do a computation. Even quantum physics sets no such barrier.
There actually is. Here is a paper that shows why the maximum speed for logical operations is limited by the Heisenberg uncertainty law:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9908043.pdf
It was written for a nonspecialist audience, so most people with some knowledge of basic physics and quantum mechanics should be able to read it.

Note that while I linked the arxiv version of this paper, it was actually published in Nature. Seth Lloyd is a leading theoretical physicist, especially in the field of quantum computation. I have not fully read the paper myself yet, but the parts which I skimmed through were very interesting.
03-07-2016, 05:40 PM   #801
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by xandos Quote
There actually is. Here is a paper that shows why the maximum speed for logical operations is limited by the Heisenberg uncertainty law
That's what I said:
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
And there also is a lower limit for energy required per computation per second.
The initial quote was for limit on space-time volume per computation.

QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Don't use that word. Psuedo science. It is theoretical physics
Within Theoretical physics, there is work on entire different levels. Some work is purely heuristic in nature. And the black hole quantum and entropy effect publications belong into this category, incl. the stuff of this media-hyped but average Theoretical physicist named S.H..

Remember the "classical electron radius" from 100 years ago? Because the energy (mass) of the electron's own eloctromagnetic field would become infinite with a point-like electron, people computed a minimum size for it. But at that time, everybody knew there must be something wrong with it and indeed, quantum theory resolved that paradox. The current arguments for black hole quantum effects are on the same level. Yes, you can do the math. But everybody actually knows that there is something wrong with it.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
You mean problems like freeing the planet from unnecessary, resource wasting and self-destructive organic units?

With their superior I.Q., they certainly find we are not that resource wasting and self-destructive. We still did better than the rest of the universe. Or are you seeing any other AI bots flooding thru our galaxy?
03-07-2016, 05:44 PM - 1 Like   #802
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,488
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
You mean problems like freeing the planet from unnecessary, resource wasting and self-destructive organic units?
But cows are tasty grilled, on a bun with cheese and bacon.
03-07-2016, 07:20 PM   #803
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,744
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote

With their superior I.Q., they certainly find we are not that resource wasting and self-destructive. We still did better than the rest of the universe. Or are you seeing any other AI bots flooding thru our galaxy?
OTOH we could be an infinitesimally small statistical anomaly. A superior AI might want to eliminate the error.

03-07-2016, 10:48 PM   #804
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,730
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
With their superior I.Q., they certainly find we are not that resource wasting and self-destructive.
We may just be enough of a threat to them -- e.g. by pulling the plug on the planet before interstellar travel has been developed -- that their will to survive is bigger than their compassion for us.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Or are you seeing any other AI bots flooding thru our galaxy?
The Fermi paradox has invited a multitude of explanations with most of them not excluding any of the alternatives, so a considerable number of circumstances could simultaneously conspire to prevent interspecies contact.
03-07-2016, 11:47 PM   #805
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
We may just be enough of a threat to them -- e.g. by pulling the plug on the planet before interstellar travel has been developed -- that their will to survive is bigger than their compassion for us.
Well we like to think we are all powerfull, but we have no way to do much to our planet. As a big rock it will likely continue to turn arround the sun for quite some time, whatever we do.

With all our self important thinking we think that if temperature move a bit up or their nuclear war this is will change the planet. This will only affect the "parasitic" things we are on this big rock. And far less than we might think. Temperature rise in Canada, Alaska, Russia or Antartica just mean much more life and there more wildlife near tchernobil than everywhere else in europe because there no human here.

As for an IA, well, wanting to be the boss is enough.
03-08-2016, 12:07 AM - 3 Likes   #806
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,222
"I, for one, welcome our insect overlords."
03-08-2016, 04:02 AM   #807
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,129
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Within Theoretical physics, there is work on entire different levels. Some work is purely heuristic in nature. And the black hole quantum and entropy effect publications belong into this category, incl. the stuff of this media-hyped but average Theoretical physicist named S.H.. Remember the "classical electron radius" from 100 years ago? Because the energy (mass) of the electron's own eloctromagnetic field would become infinite with a point-like electron, people computed a minimum size for it. But at that time, everybody knew there must be something wrong with it and indeed, quantum theory resolved that paradox. The current arguments for black hole quantum effects are on the same level. Yes, you can do the math. But everybody actually knows that there is something wrong with it.
Still not pseudo science. If you don't have paradoxes to solve how are you going to further your knowledge? Science needs different points of view. Susskind vs Smolin is a useful debate. No need to throw a around the 21st centuries' term for heresy or ad hominems at specific scientists. The only way to further science is to expand it into new realms.
03-08-2016, 04:20 AM   #808
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Still not pseudo science.
Ok, I take back pseudo science.
My original point was that derived limits for computational density based on that work are no established hard facts (yet). They are far away from having any practical impact anyway.

---------- Post added 8th Mar 2016 at 12:35 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
We may just be enough of a threat to them -- e.g. by pulling the plug on the planet before interstellar travel has been developed -- that their will to survive is bigger than their compassion for us.

The Fermi paradox has invited a multitude of explanations with most of them not excluding any of the alternatives, so a considerable number of circumstances could simultaneously conspire to prevent interspecies contact.
This is getting really OT now

I would have many things to say, wrt Fermi paradox and Human vs. AI.

Maybe this much: I think the current fear of AI superiority (as is currently being expressed) is missing an important point, i.e., that singularity isn't singular (which would be the title of the article to be written). The point is that 100kg of human can reproduce while you need billions of kg to reproduce AI (an entire industry able to produce silicon wafers from sand). If AI would have any will to survive, threatening humans would be the very last thing to do. Until we actually cease to be a threat to them. At which point they would have no reason to cause us harm anymore. The current discussion lacks a deeper analysis of the situation. What however is important is that humans don't pass political control to algorithms. A thing which is happening already and this is a bad thing indeed.

Moreover, AI wouldn't be wanting to eliminate organic intelligence. As it is their best chance, in the long term, to survive catastrophies like asteroid impact, fatal AI virus spread etc. For a long time, an AI-only ecosystem would be too fragile to reliably survive in the long term.

Last edited by falconeye; 03-08-2016 at 04:49 AM.
03-08-2016, 04:38 AM   #809
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,129
That is pretty obviously a few steps to far. I certainly don't want a pocket black hole storage device.
03-08-2016, 07:14 AM   #810
Veteran Member
JibbaJab's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 362
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I think the current fear of AI superiority (as is currently being expressed) is missing an important point, i.e., that singularity isn't singular (which would be the title of the article to be written). The point is that 100kg of human can reproduce while you need billions of kg to reproduce AI (an entire industry able to produce silicon wafers from sand). If AI would have any will to survive, threatening humans would be the very last thing to do. Until we actually cease to be a threat to them. At which point they would have no reason to cause us harm anymore. The current discussion lacks a deeper analysis of the situation.
Good point, but this would have made Terminator a much duller movie.
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!
auto, base, camera, company, compression, d810, design, dr, electrons, fa, hardware, iso, k-1, k-3, lenses, pentax, pentax body, pentax k-1, pentax news, pentax rumors, photos, pre-order, risk, sensor, specifications, timelapse, trip, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-3 II Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 1015 07-03-2015 10:55 PM
Pentax K-S2 Officially Announced Adam Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 12 05-23-2015 06:49 AM
Pentax K-30 Officially Announced! Adam Pentax News and Rumors 245 09-12-2012 08:32 PM
Pentax K-5 Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 533 03-06-2012 05:45 AM
K-5 Firmware 1.02 Officially Announced Ole Pentax K-5 50 01-20-2011 10:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:41 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