Ricoh files a patent for a Pentax 35-80mm f/4 full frame lens

Sliver-Surfer · 06-03-2016, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Simen1

@Silver-Surfer: I'm just happy to help. If you still wonder about something, just ask.

Im not biting..do some research please!!

Simen1 · 06-03-2016, 01:43 PM

About what?

Sliver-Surfer · 06-03-2016, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Simen1

About what?

Photography.

Simen1 · 06-03-2016, 02:01 PM

Can you just tell me what you disagree with and explain? We are not making progress with this unspecific nonsense.

enoeske · 06-03-2016, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Simen1

Can you just tell me what you disagree with and explain? We are not making progress with this unspecific nonsense.

For one thing, the K-1 has more than 1 stop better noise control than the K-3. So, just shooting at f/2.8 vs f/4 isn't going to make them equal.

Sliver-Surfer · 06-03-2016, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Simen1

Can you just tell me what you disagree with and explain? We are not making progress with this unspecific nonsense.

Nope I wont.

**monochrome** · 06-03-2016, 03:38 PM - **2 Likes**

This thread seems to have gone off the rails.

Simen1 · 06-04-2016, 12:34 AM

I think we might have talked about slightly different things. Looking back, johnmflores talked about K-3II vs K-1. I was talking about APS-C vs FF in general, like in K-1 crop mode vs FF mode. I'm not sure if there is a noise difference or how large it would be between the the K-3II and K-1 crop mode, but if we take sensor differences out of the equation, like K-1 crop mode vs FF mode, then f/4 on FF should equal f/2,8 in crop mode in terms of noise. Of course except when the ISO levels hit their extreme limits and cant be changed accordingly or comparing apples to oranges scenes. In this context there is no noise benefit from using f/4 on FF compared to f/2,8 in crop mode.

In my vocabulary sharpness and resolution are synonyms, and thus mentioned twice.

The claim of less perspective distortion (more telephoto compression) is a clear misunderstanding of the concept from Silver-Surfer. This is entirely a property that depends on field of view. Sensor size and focal length is just underlying factors to what FoV you get. Please don't roll eyes and tell others to do more research when you should have done that yourself. Please look up telephoto compression and what influences it.

As for CA, I said I don't know if there is a general advantage to having larger sensors. You can compare vastly different sensor sizes with a selection of lenses that was designed for their size and see that CA can be well controlled with all sizes. And badly controlled with all sizes. Its a lens design choice for the intended quality and price.

In other words, 5 advantages condensed down to 1 advantage, 1 uncertain, 1 redundant and 2 wrongs.

Please try to discuss this in a good manner in the context of the topic. If you think I need some explanation, please explain. I'm here to socialize around my main interests, and hopefully learn more, not to get comments like I should do more research on photography in general before posting, without any explanation.

Kunzite · 06-04-2016, 01:14 AM

I expect the K-1 will offer a significant noise advantage compared to my K-5IIs, despite theories claiming that it shouldn't

farmerDavid · 06-04-2016, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

This thread seems to have gone off the rails.

Now I can't get that stupid Ozzy song out of my head

David

Simen1 · 06-04-2016, 02:27 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

I expect the K-1 will offer a significant noise advantage compared to my K-5IIs, despite theories claiming that it shouldn't

In crop mode? Well, we should start a new thread about that.

Real world comparison between K-1 crop mode and various Pentax APS-C models with the same lenses. It would be an interesting investigation and read. Before testing I would assume that K-5IIs and K-1 crop mode perform quite close and slightly better then K-3/K-3II on noise.

Kunzite · 06-04-2016, 02:28 AM

No, not in crop mode. You were talking about something... I was continuing with that.
But it's not really worth discussing, that theory

It rarely ends up well.

Sliver-Surfer · 06-04-2016, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Simen1

Please try to discuss this in a good manner in the context of the topic. If you think I need some explanation, please explain. I'm here to socialize around my main interests, and hopefully learn more, not to get comments like I should do more research on photography in general before posting, without any explanation.

To make it clear. Crop mode is not part of this discussion.
-resolution pertains to pixel quantity
-Sharpness or (micro contrast) 1.5x sharper in scale on K1
-Chromatic aberrations are 1.5x smaller in scale on K1 therefore narrower

Youtu.be

Simen1 · 06-04-2016, 09:27 AM

The basis was johnmflores quote:

Originally posted by johnmflores

What benefits would the K-1 with a bag of F4 zooms have (if any) over a K-3 II with a bag of F2.8 zooms?

K-1 crop mode was not mentioned, but this obviously hints about exposure differences between APS-C and FF in general. The theory is clear, FF have about 1 stop lower noise then APS-C if you use the same aperture number. Now, if you set the FF system back with 1 stop smaller aperture, that noise advantage is lost. Turning theory into practice, we talk about the DA* 16-50mm f/2,8 zoom on K-3II versus the patented 35-80 f/4 zoom on K-1. Its not an exact match but close enough that large parts of the zoom ranges gives equal field of view. The DA* are designed for APS-C and does not work well on K-1 in FF mode. The 35-80 f/4 patent states FF image circle. We are not talking about a bag of f/2,8 FF lenses used on a crop camera and comparing it to f/4 FF lenses on a FF camera. We are comparing lenses that are designed for the sensor they are used on. Lenses are designed to have a micro contrast suitable for the sensor size its supposed to be used on. The same goes for CA.

The video shows that telephoto compression changes with field of view. Just like I said. But he doesnt change the field of view wit

Simen1 · 06-04-2016, 09:39 AM

The basis was johnmflores quote:

Originally posted by johnmflores

What benefits would the K-1 with a bag of F4 zooms have (if any) over a K-3 II with a bag of F2.8 zooms?

K-1 crop mode was not mentioned, but this obviously hints about exposure differences between APS-C and FF in general. The theory is clear, FF have about 1 stop lower noise then APS-C if you use the same aperture number. Now, if you set the FF system back with 1 stop smaller aperture, that noise advantage is lost. Turning theory into practice, we talk about the DA* 16-50mm f/2,8 zoom on K-3II versus the patented 35-80 f/4 zoom on K-1. Its not an exact match but close enough that large parts of the zoom ranges gives equal field of view. The DA* are designed for APS-C and does not work well on K-1 in FF mode. The 35-80 f/4 patent states FF image circle. We are not talking about a bag of f/2,8 FF lenses used on a crop camera and comparing it to f/4 FF lenses on a FF camera. We are comparing lenses that are designed for the sensor they are used on. Lenses are designed to have a micro contrast suitable for the sensor size its supposed to be used on. The same goes for CA.

The video shows that telephoto compression changes with field of view. Just like I said. But he only changes field of view in one of the two ways possible. By changing the focal length and not by changing sensor size. In post #60 you claimed that the bag of f/4 zooms would give more telephoto compression. Maybe I misunderstood you. There is two possibilities:

1. You claim that FF shooters choose narrower FoV (different composition) then APS-C shooters in the same situation. That would be absolutely ridiculous. OR
2. You claim that telephoto compression depends solely on focal length, not FoV or sensor size. That is absolutely wrong.

So, given my possible misinterpretation, was your claim 1. absolutely ridiculous or 2. absolutely wrong?

06-04-2016, 12:34 AM	#98
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	I think we might have talked about slightly different things. Looking back, johnmflores talked about K-3II vs K-1. I was talking about APS-C vs FF in general, like in K-1 crop mode vs FF mode. I'm not sure if there is a noise difference or how large it would be between the the K-3II and K-1 crop mode, but if we take sensor differences out of the equation, like K-1 crop mode vs FF mode, then f/4 on FF should equal f/2,8 in crop mode in terms of noise. Of course except when the ISO levels hit their extreme limits and cant be changed accordingly or comparing apples to oranges scenes. In this context there is no noise benefit from using f/4 on FF compared to f/2,8 in crop mode. In my vocabulary sharpness and resolution are synonyms, and thus mentioned twice. The claim of less perspective distortion (more telephoto compression) is a clear misunderstanding of the concept from Silver-Surfer. This is entirely a property that depends on field of view. Sensor size and focal length is just underlying factors to what FoV you get. Please don't roll eyes and tell others to do more research when you should have done that yourself. Please look up telephoto compression and what influences it. As for CA, I said I don't know if there is a general advantage to having larger sensors. You can compare vastly different sensor sizes with a selection of lenses that was designed for their size and see that CA can be well controlled with all sizes. And badly controlled with all sizes. Its a lens design choice for the intended quality and price. In other words, 5 advantages condensed down to 1 advantage, 1 uncertain, 1 redundant and 2 wrongs. Please try to discuss this in a good manner in the context of the topic. If you think I need some explanation, please explain. I'm here to socialize around my main interests, and hopefully learn more, not to get comments like I should do more research on photography in general before posting, without any explanation. Last edited by Simen1; 06-04-2016 at 05:22 AM. Reason: Expletive removed.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Nikon files patent for mirrorless full frame lens	neostyles	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	2	12-18-2014 07:21 PM
Nikon Patent for Full Frame Mirrorless Lens	Winder	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	12-16-2014 06:49 PM
ricoh files patent on 2 Q lens designs and on 4/3 design!	shaolen	Pentax News and Rumors	20	08-21-2014 12:03 AM
Tamron patent for a 15-50mm f/1.4 lens?	Phil A	Pentax Q	2	04-17-2014 08:07 PM
Pentax files a patent for a DA*25-350mm F3.3-5.6ED [IF] SDM lens	grandnax	Pentax News and Rumors	50	01-25-2011 08:57 AM

06-03-2016, 01:31 PM	#91
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by Simen1 @Silver-Surfer: I'm just happy to help. If you still wonder about something, just ask. Im not biting..do some research please!!

06-03-2016, 01:43 PM	#92
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	About what?

06-03-2016, 01:47 PM	#93
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by Simen1 About what? Photography.

06-03-2016, 02:01 PM	#94
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	Can you just tell me what you disagree with and explain? We are not making progress with this unspecific nonsense.

06-03-2016, 02:40 PM	#95
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	Originally posted by Simen1 Can you just tell me what you disagree with and explain? We are not making progress with this unspecific nonsense. For one thing, the K-1 has more than 1 stop better noise control than the K-3. So, just shooting at f/2.8 vs f/4 isn't going to make them equal.

06-03-2016, 02:41 PM	#96
Sliver-Surfer Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 1,558	Originally posted by Simen1 Can you just tell me what you disagree with and explain? We are not making progress with this unspecific nonsense. Nope I wont.

06-03-2016, 03:38 PM - 2 Likes	#97
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	This thread seems to have gone off the rails.

06-04-2016, 01:14 AM	#99
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	I expect the K-1 will offer a significant noise advantage compared to my K-5IIs, despite theories claiming that it shouldn't

06-04-2016, 02:12 AM	#100
farmerDavid Guest	Originally posted by monochrome This thread seems to have gone off the rails. Now I can't get that stupid Ozzy song out of my head David

06-04-2016, 02:27 AM	#101
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	Originally posted by Kunzite I expect the K-1 will offer a significant noise advantage compared to my K-5IIs, despite theories claiming that it shouldn't In crop mode? Well, we should start a new thread about that. Real world comparison between K-1 crop mode and various Pentax APS-C models with the same lenses. It would be an interesting investigation and read. Before testing I would assume that K-5IIs and K-1 crop mode perform quite close and slightly better then K-3/K-3II on noise.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-04-2016, 02:28 AM	#102
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	No, not in crop mode. You were talking about something... I was continuing with that. But it's not really worth discussing, that theory It rarely ends up well.

06-04-2016, 09:27 AM	#104
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	The basis was johnmflores quote: Originally posted by johnmflores What benefits would the K-1 with a bag of F4 zooms have (if any) over a K-3 II with a bag of F2.8 zooms? K-1 crop mode was not mentioned, but this obviously hints about exposure differences between APS-C and FF in general. The theory is clear, FF have about 1 stop lower noise then APS-C if you use the same aperture number. Now, if you set the FF system back with 1 stop smaller aperture, that noise advantage is lost. Turning theory into practice, we talk about the DA* 16-50mm f/2,8 zoom on K-3II versus the patented 35-80 f/4 zoom on K-1. Its not an exact match but close enough that large parts of the zoom ranges gives equal field of view. The DA* are designed for APS-C and does not work well on K-1 in FF mode. The 35-80 f/4 patent states FF image circle. We are not talking about a bag of f/2,8 FF lenses used on a crop camera and comparing it to f/4 FF lenses on a FF camera. We are comparing lenses that are designed for the sensor they are used on. Lenses are designed to have a micro contrast suitable for the sensor size its supposed to be used on. The same goes for CA. The video shows that telephoto compression changes with field of view. Just like I said. But he doesnt change the field of view wit

06-04-2016, 09:39 AM	#105
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	The basis was johnmflores quote: Originally posted by johnmflores What benefits would the K-1 with a bag of F4 zooms have (if any) over a K-3 II with a bag of F2.8 zooms? K-1 crop mode was not mentioned, but this obviously hints about exposure differences between APS-C and FF in general. The theory is clear, FF have about 1 stop lower noise then APS-C if you use the same aperture number. Now, if you set the FF system back with 1 stop smaller aperture, that noise advantage is lost. Turning theory into practice, we talk about the DA* 16-50mm f/2,8 zoom on K-3II versus the patented 35-80 f/4 zoom on K-1. Its not an exact match but close enough that large parts of the zoom ranges gives equal field of view. The DA* are designed for APS-C and does not work well on K-1 in FF mode. The 35-80 f/4 patent states FF image circle. We are not talking about a bag of f/2,8 FF lenses used on a crop camera and comparing it to f/4 FF lenses on a FF camera. We are comparing lenses that are designed for the sensor they are used on. Lenses are designed to have a micro contrast suitable for the sensor size its supposed to be used on. The same goes for CA. The video shows that telephoto compression changes with field of view. Just like I said. But he only changes field of view in one of the two ways possible. By changing the focal length and not by changing sensor size. In post #60 you claimed that the bag of f/4 zooms would give more telephoto compression. Maybe I misunderstood you. There is two possibilities: 1. You claim that FF shooters choose narrower FoV (different composition) then APS-C shooters in the same situation. That would be absolutely ridiculous. OR 2. You claim that telephoto compression depends solely on focal length, not FoV or sensor size. That is absolutely wrong. So, given my possible misinterpretation, was your claim 1. absolutely ridiculous or 2. absolutely wrong?