Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-07-2016, 08:50 AM - 1 Like   #796
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
the small format (which somehow is now called "full frame", I don't quite get why)
In the waning years of film there were larger formats {such as "120"/"620" and "127"} and smaller formats {such as "110" and "126"}, but "35mm" (actually a 24mm x 36mm frame} was the standard film. When we moved to digital, most of us couldn't afford a sensor of that size, but it has remained the standard against which everything else is measured.

03-07-2016, 08:58 AM   #797
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,976
It was just popular, it never was "the standard"
03-07-2016, 09:02 AM   #798
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,088
Mainly because the ecosystem the first digital slr camera's were based on were full frame. crop has always been a cost decision (except maybe for Olympus).
03-07-2016, 10:53 AM   #799
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
It was just popular, it never was "the standard"
Depends on how you define "standard". When people talk about field-of-view, we still do it in terms of focal-length of 35mm lenses. And, going back to sensors, we still measure "crop" in terms of 35mm frame. So you can use whatever term you want, our thinking is still based on 35mm concepts.

03-07-2016, 11:07 AM   #800
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,976
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.
03-07-2016, 11:11 AM   #801
Veteran Member
disconnekt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 408
Before 35mm came around, people were using 8"x10" film which was the "standard" size for a long time (in some cases 4x5), or medium format (the "more affordable" film size eg. Kodak's Brownie being a 6x6 format, was sold for $1 when released). And when 35mm came out, since it was smaller then even MF, people considered it a "small format" of what was available at the time.
03-07-2016, 11:31 AM   #802
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,049
QuoteOriginally posted by disconnekt Quote
Before 35mm came around, people were using 8"x10" film which was the "standard" size for a long time (in some cases 4x5), or medium format (the "more affordable" film size eg. Kodak's Brownie being a 6x6 format, was sold for $1 when released). And when 35mm came out, since it was smaller then even MF, people considered it a "small format" of what was available at the time.
35mm as a still photograph format came about after Thomas Edison and George Eastman settled on 35mm as a compromise standard for movie film and projectors in 1909. Cine film has half as many pull holes per frame ad still film but otherwise the base product has been nearly identical. Economics drove still camera makers to standardize on 35mm for consumer rangefinders. SLR's camped on the ubiquitous film format afterward.
03-07-2016, 11:42 AM   #803
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,496
Cartier-Bresson in Europe and Capra in the US really gave respectability to the once derided 35mm format.

03-07-2016, 11:55 AM   #804
Site Supporter
acoufap's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 812
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.
I think the crop discussion startet extensively because we can use same lenses with different sized sensors and the easy way to crop digital images extensively in post. After that the discussion brings us to the point where we talk about crop factors in case we want to express "What's the needed focal length to get the same image crop using different sensor sizes". We get there by changing focal length and/or subject distance. Am I right? Hm - when we do latter, we get same image crop but a totally different image because angle of view changes and thus perspective. Then we bring in depth of field. Ah - this has something to do with apertures ... mixing up ideas keeps the threads alive ... just my two cents.

Last edited by acoufap; 03-07-2016 at 12:06 PM. Reason: Got dizzy from my words ;)
03-07-2016, 01:16 PM   #805
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
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   #806
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
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   #807
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 948
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   #808
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 133
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   #809
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 24
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   #810
Pentaxian
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?
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 07:45 PM. | 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