Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-29-2016, 07:28 AM   #361
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,454
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
you want circular images?
Why not make it an option?

Or how about hexagons? One could even Kickstarter a photo printing and framing system that lets people print hexagonal photos and snap together the hexagonal frames to cover a wall with images.

The beauty of digital is that it can hide all the boring technical details of image circles and sensor sizes and let the photographer concentrate on subject matter, exposure, and composition within whatever output image shape they want.

09-29-2016, 07:32 AM - 1 Like   #362
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Or how about hexagons? One could even Kickstarter a photo printing and framing system that lets people print hexagonal photos and snap together the hexagonal frames to cover a wall with images.
You do realize that Ricoh is a printing company?
09-29-2016, 08:28 AM   #363
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,454
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
You do realize that Ricoh is a printing company?
LOL!

So true!
09-29-2016, 08:29 AM   #364
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Why not make it an option?

Or how about hexagons? One could even Kickstarter a photo printing and framing system that lets people print hexagonal photos and snap together the hexagonal frames to cover a wall with images.

The beauty of digital is that it can hide all the boring technical details of image circles and sensor sizes and let the photographer concentrate on subject matter, exposure, and composition within whatever output image shape they want.
I have hoped on a camera that capture the whole image circle. Then it would be possible to choose image format after the image is captured without loosing data. Choose landscape, portrait or square ratio that fully use image circle.

And you could also correct for tilted images on circular images. The crop you do to produce the final image could be done in any angle.

09-29-2016, 09:39 AM   #365
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,013
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Honestly both things are awkward to me. Use of non native lenses, no AF. Lenses that are quite big compared to the camera.Honestly both things are awkward to me. Use of non native lenses, no AF. Lenses that are quite big compared to the camera.
I repeat, yet again, my earlier statement. Obviously you don't do this sort of thing.
I have a mirror lens - it is just a 500mm lens, smaller than the ones you were talking about; it is OK on my K-30, but even with this slightly smaller lens than you were talking about, there is nothing to hold onto when I use it with my Q-30 {and you are already saying that the MFT cameras you are talking about are not significantly larger}. It is just plan awkward. punct.
The Sigma 70-30, or any similar lens, is not at all awkward on the Q-7. From my days using MF on 35mm film, I am quite used to holding a long lens; the Q-7 is just a smaller body. The only awkward part is focusing, but my monopod provides the additional support/stability which eliminates that awkwardness. The birding setup I have is completely natural.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I can get 900-1000mm framing just fine and with better quality than what was posted above with a mere 55-300. I have the HD version, that is a bit expensive but optically the old DA55-300 that goes $150-200 used on ebay does the same.

In attachment a shoot at 300mm (so 450mm FF equivalent) resized to 900mm framing. I got AF for that and if I you say most of the time you zoom etc. Well the 55-300 start at 55mm, (82mm FF equiv), and is quite easy to use. Yeah I know that if you go to 2000mm extreme case the Q will get some more details... I understand the achievement by itself is valuable but I am not sure that so conveniant to use on a regular basis or that it give that great results. After all you explained many time you don't want to go to the full focal length of the zoom...
You are being just plain silly here. Sometimes I don't go to the longest zoom. Sometimes. Comparing the Q-7 to an APS-C camera, the crop factor is approximately 3. I assume you mean "cropping" when you say "framing". In order to get the same framing I'm getting, you have to throw away 2/3 of the the pixel in each dimension - so you end up with 1/9 of the pixels you ended up with. There is absolutely no way that a 3MP image is going to have the detail that a 12MP image has. It just won't happen.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The problem for birding/wildlife honestly is that the longest Q-lens has a real focal lens of 45mm and give 209mm FF equivalent. Without going to the very expensive Leica 100-400, on m4/3 there affordable lenses that go natively to real focal length of 150, 200 or 300mm. They all support AF and work fine. Maybe they are not perfectly sharp pixel wise, but This still bring you to 300, 400, 600mm FF equivalent and so with moderate crop you get 600, 800, 1200mm already. If you want there even TCs. All native. And still for less than $1000, body included. And there still the possibility to basically add any SLR lens to the system thanks to adapter and shorter registration distance...
The longest Q-mount lens is irrelevant here; it would be much better if Pentax would make a Q-mount 55-300mm lens, but they haven't, and I bought the Q-7 not expecting to have it available. I had expected to use K-mount lenses with it, and I have indeed found several K-mount lenses which do exactly what I wanted to do. Again we come to your moderate crop nonsense. You say you are starting off with an image which maybe is "not perfectly sharp pixel wise"; you cannot make even a sharp picture better by cropping 1/2 of its dimensions, 3/4 of its pixels away - and that is exactly the kind of "moderate" crop needed for those cameras to match the "Q".
09-29-2016, 09:50 AM   #366
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,475
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
I have hoped on a camera that capture the whole image circle. Then it would be possible to choose image format after the image is captured without loosing data. Choose landscape, portrait or square ratio that fully use image circle.

And you could also correct for tilted images on circular images. The crop you do to produce the final image could be done in any angle.
That would be wasteful - the sensor would have to be significantly larger than your crop (let's say, for a 35mm crop you'd need a sensor larger than the 645z's).
Besides, many lenses don't project circular images; either due to internal baffles, or to petal hoods.
09-29-2016, 10:16 AM   #367
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
That would be wasteful - the sensor would have to be significantly larger than your crop (let's say, for a 35mm crop you'd need a sensor larger than the 645z's).
Besides, many lenses don't project circular images; either due to internal baffles, or to petal hoods.
Yeah, this will not happen until the extra large sensor don't add much cost to the camera.
Which probably going to require new sensor tech that can be produced much cheaper.

To redesign the lenses (or lens hood) would not be too difficult in most cases.
09-29-2016, 10:31 AM   #368
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,475
An ultra large sensor (more than double the size of the original one, at least for 3:2 formats). An entirely new lens line, likely a new mount, too - the current ones might have restrictions impeding the projection of truly circular images.
Sorry... sounds way too much. How about Ricoh Theta's "Visual revolution beyond the frame" approach?

09-29-2016, 11:23 AM   #369
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
What could be more "Visual revolution beyond the frame" than oversized sensors that capture round images?


A K-mount oversized APS-C sensor (28x28 mm) could probably work for this.
It might be a problem that some APS-C have over-sized image circle so they may capture square 28x28 mm images.

Even K1 could support portrait orientation using APS-C lenses with camera in landscape orientation, and also 24x24 mm square images, or 4:3 format 24x32 mm.
09-29-2016, 12:21 PM   #370
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,766
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
You are being just plain silly here. Sometimes I don't go to the longest zoom. Sometimes. Comparing the Q-7 to an APS-C camera, the crop factor is approximately 3. I assume you mean "cropping" when you say "framing". In order to get the same framing I'm getting, you have to throw away 2/3 of the the pixel in each dimension - so you end up with 1/9 of the pixels you ended up with. There is absolutely no way that a 3MP image is going to have the detail that a 12MP image has. It just won't happen.

The longest Q-mount lens is irrelevant here; it would be much better if Pentax would make a Q-mount 55-300mm lens, but they haven't, and I bought the Q-7 not expecting to have it available. I had expected to use K-mount lenses with it, and I have indeed found several K-mount lenses which do exactly what I wanted to do. Again we come to your moderate crop nonsense. You say you are starting off with an image which maybe is "not perfectly sharp pixel wise"; you cannot make even a sharp picture better by cropping 1/2 of its dimensions, 3/4 of its pixels away - and that is exactly the kind of "moderate" crop needed for those cameras to match the "Q".
I am not silly I am practical. Somebody here say wonderfull I can get a 1000mm equivalent framing with my Q for less than $1000 and showed some quite blury image wiht very few details. My APSC photo cropped to 900mm looked signifcantly sharper meaning that my system was able to record more details. That's just how it is. I didn't spend thousands to get that 55-300. Most people here already have some K-mount body, one can be get used for something like $200 and the previous version of the 55-300 can be get on the bay for $150-200... This isn't more expensive. And you get AF as a noticable improvement.

A sigma 70-300 is completely outresolved by a 24MP APSC sensor anyway so making the pixels smaller doesn't help.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 09-29-2016 at 12:36 PM.
09-29-2016, 02:24 PM - 1 Like   #371
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,013
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I am not silly I am practical. Somebody here say wonderfull I can get a 1000mm equivalent framing with my Q for less than $1000 and showed some quite blury image wiht very few details. My APSC photo cropped to 900mm looked signifcantly sharper meaning that my system was able to record more details. That's just how it is. I didn't spend thousands to get that 55-300. Most people here already have some K-mount body, one can be get used for something like $200 and the previous version of the 55-300 can be get on the bay for $150-200... This isn't more expensive. And you get AF as a noticable improvement.

A sigma 70-300 is completely outresolved by a 24MP APSC sensor anyway so making the pixels smaller doesn't help.
This will be my last comment on this subject unless something radically different comes up.

The fact is that I am extremely practical. My undergraduate degree was in Math with a minor in Physics; I have a graduate degree in Computer Science and a minor in math tools. I mention my background only to demonstrate that I am adequately equipped to consider these questions. Several years ago I was totally frustrated with the pictures I was getting of birds and other wildlife, so I started looking at options.

Considering the possibility of a birding bag that contained mirror lenses of several different focal lengths, I bought a 500mm mirror lens and took pictures using it. I purchased a TC and took pictures using it. I took some of my pictures where "I wasn't close enough", and similar pictures from other sources, and tried cropping them. None of these produced what I wanted.

So, just about two years ago, I put together a spread sheet comparing all characteristics anyone suggested might be helpful, and compared the Canon SX-50, Pentax Q-7/Q-S1, Nikon 1, and MFT cameras. I asked lots of "devil's advocate" questions here, and seemingly offended some people. I looked at lots of images displayed on-line which had been taken using the various cameras in question. Halloween 2014, around the time Canon released the SX-60, and SX-50 prices plummeted, I almost purchased an SX-50, but I decided that its 1/2.3" sensor just plain had too many short-comings; the SX-50 was clearly second to the Pentax products with their 1/1.7" sensor, and in December 2014 I purchased my Q-7. I am mildly amused that you have never addressed the SX-50 in this thread, even though I have repeatedly referenced it, and the Nikon P-900, as other contenders. I don't know what your real thinking is, so I won't attribute motives to you.

Once I had chosen the body, I considered various lenses. I could not depend on tests using an APS-C sensor, because the quality of image produced by a lens depends partly on how much of the lens {radius} is used. Since it is meaningless to compare images of different subjects, I set up a paper target outside and took pictures using various lenses at various apertures. I was extremely surprised that the Pentax-DA 55-300 was outresolved by the Sigma 70-300, but that is what my practical results were {but the Pentax-DA did come in second out of six lenses tested}; I was also surprised that my tests showed the Sigma lens to work best on the Q-7 in the range f/8 to f/11, but that is what my practical results were. Just to be sure of my choice of the Q-7, I also used the same lenses on my K-30 and established that the Q-7 images were significantly sharper than cropped images from the K-30. So the Sigma became part of my birding bag {essentially permanently coupled to a Pentax K-to-Q adapter}, the DA went back into my K-30 bag, and the other lenses, ... well, someday I will do something with them.

The bottom line is that my decision was entirely practical, based on lots of fact gathering, including looking at lots of images; frankly I haven't seen much change in the situation since then. I am 68 right now. I am guessing that under judicious use, I will be able to use a Q-7 / Q-S1 for birding / wildlife as long as I will be able to use any camera; if that is not true, and the facts then are essentially the same as the facts are now, based on my practical research, I would purchase a Canon bridge camera long before I would follow any of the paths you have advocated. And the bottom line is, looking back at the sentence I bolded above, for the very first time, today I am totally satisfied with the pictures I am getting of birds and other wildlife.

I am not convinced you actually do much photography of this sort. That is not my concern, but as long as you're satisfied with what you are doing, that is wonderful.

Last edited by reh321; 09-29-2016 at 06:19 PM. Reason: further expanded discusssion of lens comparison
09-29-2016, 11:30 PM   #372
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,766
QuoteQuote:
I am not convinced you actually do much photography of this sort. That is not my concern, but as long as you're satisfied with what you are doing, that is wonderful.
With Q and adapter: no I don't. With native telezoom on my K mount body. I do, maybe not much, but I do (see 2 recent examples). Was I doing a lot, I would really want to avoid using a Q with non native lens to do it. I really think Pentax could at least add a somewhat long focal length to the Q like. Just a 30-150, with the crop factor would give us 140-700. Not bad and not that impossible to do neither ! But it is not available... Despite everything they say, it doesn't look they care. All the other cameras and mount go before Q.

(Second one is 761mm FF equivalent framing, heavily cropped). Both are 55-300. Not that bad.

Edit: I had a long message, but removed it: in the end the pictures speak for themselve. let's be practical.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.
09-30-2016, 06:30 AM   #373
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 973
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
you want circular images?
That or rectangular with black corners, aka what others call multi aspect sensor (except from they don't offer the PP crop option). And I want both an auto-crop to 1/1,7" size function, and a auto-crop to max usable size function and a full sensor readout for PP cropping. The advantage of the latter is that we are more free to choose aspect ratio and don't need to have yet another thing to think about in the field. If we stick to the 1/1,7" sensor format then adjusting aspect ratio will yield a smaller effective sensor area.
09-30-2016, 06:35 AM   #374
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,444
You are free to choose your aspect ratio now.
09-30-2016, 07:05 AM   #375
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 973
Yes, but as I mention, within a smaller sensor area, then choosing the same aspect ratio from a larger sensor (constrained by the image circle, that will vary with lens, focal length, aperture and focus distance). In other words, doing it the way I suggest, will result in a larger effective sensor area, with all that means for resolution, noise, aberrations and so on.

Why insist on wasting image circle in stead of sensor area? Why not find a compromise? Why not make the decision on what to waste by looking at consequences for total cost, size and weight?
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!
adapter, aps-c, bunch, camera, comment, company, doubt, evf, fa, ff, ff and apsc, flange, fuji, k1, lens, lenses, line, mirrorless, money, nx, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, ricoh, rumors, samsung, sensor, sensors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Day New Rumor FF Slide (no rice) D1N0 Pentax News and Rumors 129 10-18-2015 06:15 AM
Rumor: Pentax FF new Limited lenses coming soon? Stavri Pentax News and Rumors 253 09-27-2015 10:40 AM
Top 5 lens pick for a Pentax APSC and FF shooter AtitG Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 36 03-02-2015 12:20 PM
Pentax FF Mirrorless Rumor Winder Pentax Full Frame 37 05-04-2013 11:01 PM
After Nikon D600 rumor, Canon entry level FF camera rumor ... LFLee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 17 05-16-2012 08:41 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 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