Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-30-2016, 07:27 AM   #376
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
Image circles are free, sensors cost money. It's like buying a K-1 and only shooting in crop mode.

09-30-2016, 08:00 AM - 4 Likes   #377
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 766
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
With Q and adapter: no I don't.
Well, don't use it! Nobody tells you, or anyone, that you should use a Q in situations were you feel you would be better served by an other camera and format. But if someone is, what's the problem ? Reh321, nor anyone, told that a Q7 with an adapter is the only or best way to do birding. He simply says and shows that he can do it with results that he find satisfying enough not to look at other gear. I'm totally fine with that...

And this is often the problem with discussion around the Q. Many people totally seems to be unable to understand that the satisifed Q users accept some compromises in exchange for a highly practical go around camera. Is it pro level ? No, but you don't always need pro gear. Could you get better DOF control with an APS-C camera ? Sure! But it's not the end of all in photography or even needed in every picture, and when present it's more often than not a secondary quality of the picture, not a make or break. We can argue that, in the example provided by Iytrytyr, that an APS-C or FF camera with the right lens could have provided a more pleasing bokeh and blablabla. But this is missing the point that the picture is already quite good as it is and Iytrytyr can be totally satisified with it without feeling the need for more bokeh... It's the same with all the examples provided by Reh321. We can argue that, on paper, someone could easily get as good or better pictures with an APS-C or FF DSLR with a good lens. But this is totally missing the point that, under these situations, the DSLR would have stayed at home anyway and would have thus provided no picture at all, totally obliterating any technical advantages it may have. You know, a good friend of mine is equiped with high end FF Nikon gear. But when we go out for casual outings with our families, I bring my Q7 but its gear stays at home. At the end of day, who do you think has the best pictures, even if on paper its D800 and Nikkor lenses totally blows away my Q7 and 01,02,06 lenses on any technical angles you can think of ? Sure, he sometime had made comments on the absent bokeh, the lack of resolution or the noise compared to what he can get out of its D800. To which I only hade to answer: "well, show me this noise free picture with pleasing bokeh of your kids playing in the flower field so that we can compare". Which usually end up the argument, since I have the shot (not to say many!) and he doesn't... And in the end of the day, it's all that matter: the shots we have, not the ones we could have taken with gear that you'll never have with you in this situation. And this is the point of getting and using a Q.
09-30-2016, 10:37 AM - 2 Likes   #378
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 973
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Image circles are free, sensors cost money. It's like buying a K-1 and only shooting in crop mode.
Absolutely not. I was talking about Q and those sizes sensors (1/2,3" - 1/1,7" and my suggestion 1/1,5") are very cheap. And since they are planar they doesn't add much to the weight and size of the Q.

On the other side, lenses image circles cost a lot more (compare APS-C lenses to equivelent FF lenses from any brand). Image circles also means longer and wider lenses (they increase by volume, not area like sensors), thus also weight.

Lenses are classified after their smallest image circle from any combination of settings. But their image circle vary a lot depending on settings, but all that increase in image circle are always wasted. My suggestion is to start using some of that wasted area. Its cheap and it doesn't add notable weight or size, but depending on settings it will increase performance of the system on all but one setting combination.

Increasing the sensor size will only be wasted with a few setting combinations. In all other cases it will start to utilize image circle that are wasted today.
09-30-2016, 10:46 AM   #379
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,762
QuoteOriginally posted by CarlJF Quote
We can argue that, in the example provided by Iytrytyr, that an APS-C or FF camera with the right lens could have provided a more pleasing bokeh and blablabla. But this is missing the point that the picture is already quite good as it is and Iytrytyr can be totally satisified with it without feeling the need for more bokeh.
A micro 4/3 shot, let alone an APS-C or FF shot, would have needed a big lens that would have intimidated the subject.
The Q system now rules candid photography, the way Leica ruled almost a century ago.

09-30-2016, 12:19 PM - 1 Like   #380
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,750
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
Absolutely not. I was talking about Q and those sizes sensors (1/2,3" - 1/1,7" and my suggestion 1/1,5") are very cheap. And since they are planar they doesn't add much to the weight and size of the Q.

On the other side, lenses image circles cost a lot more (compare APS-C lenses to equivelent FF lenses from any brand). Image circles also means longer and wider lenses (they increase by volume, not area like sensors), thus also weight.

Lenses are classified after their smallest image circle from any combination of settings. But their image circle vary a lot depending on settings, but all that increase in image circle are always wasted. My suggestion is to start using some of that wasted area. Its cheap and it doesn't add notable weight or size, but depending on settings it will increase performance of the system on all but one setting combination.

Increasing the sensor size will only be wasted with a few setting combinations. In all other cases it will start to utilize image circle that are wasted today.
+ 1, Sensor size is costly only past APSC size and even FF sensor are not really expensive. The price we pay is mostly due to habits, market segmentation, and features often loosely or not at all related to the sensor.

Around 1000€: n RX100 IV (1" sensor) cost 1050€, a Sony A7 (full frame) cost 1000€, A Canon 750D (APSC) cost 950€.

For 700€ you can get an FZ1000 (1") or a K3 or K70. For 350€ you can get an Olympus EPL7 (m4/3), a Canon 100D a Nikon D3300 both APSC or a Pentax QS1. (1/1.7")

In fact Sony Alpha 5000 has a E mount and an APSC sensor and is very similar in size as Q. But Q as 1/1.7 sensor, A5000 an APSC and could as well fit an FF sensor so this isn't a problem of the sensor not fitting in the body.

This is not neither a problem of price of sensor of its size. This is just choice. Many mirrorless are bigger to put more electronics, SR, or also to provide better ergonomics: better handling and more dirrect access buttons for more features.

So nothing prevent to decide to make a small camera with 1", m4/3, APSC or why not FF sensor. The lenses are not necessarilly that big. Think DA21, DA40 or DA70. And if to help the design you'd cover less than the full sensor for some lenses, where the issue? You could keep very small optimized primes that would cover APSC sensor like DAltds pancakes. Bundle them with a 50MP sensor and you can do quite some digital zooming. The DA70 would still have 12MP at 140mm... Or design some optical zoom covering a smaller image circle to keep them small.

In fact if you have an A7 you already have exactly that: You can use expensive high quality FF lenses or small light, innexpensive APSC lenses. And nobody complain about it. This is just this isn't that much marketed for it and the base price of an A7 is too high. But in 5 years an FF body may cost 500€ or less. And today an APSC body start a 300€...
09-30-2016, 02:21 PM   #381
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 973
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Interesting....

Certainly, one of the advantages of an EVF (or backpanel display) is that the camera can control how much of the sensor's data is shown to the user. The camera can automatically crop the sensor data to create the user's chosen aspect ratio within the limits of the user's designated image quality requirements (e.g., vignetting, fuzzy corners, CA, or whatever). Whatever usable image is pulled out of the sensor is then expanded to fill the EVF.

Of course, it does have some strange side effects: the field of view might change with aperture and focus; the pixel counts of images might vary a lot; and a long focal length lens with a big image circle might actually be "wider" than a short focal length lens with a small image circle.
I prefer to push as much as possible over to the post process, so I can concentrate better on those things that cant. Catching the moment, focus, aperture and so on. That means I also prefer to not crop before the shot. Things could happen. I could change my mind about the composition. My suggestion is three settings: 1. always crop to Q7 size 2. auto crop to camera decided crop factor 3. never crop.

Yes, auto-crop may have some weird effects, especially for zooms where the zooming action may not change the field of view, just the effective sensor area. I discovered my Sigma 18-35mm f/1,8 (APS-C lens) would have that behavior on a full frame camera.
09-30-2016, 03:21 PM   #382
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
Absolutely not. I was talking about Q and those sizes sensors (1/2,3" - 1/1,7" and my suggestion 1/1,5") are very cheap. And since they are planar they doesn't add much to the weight and size of the Q.

On the other side, lenses image circles cost a lot more (compare APS-C lenses to equivelent FF lenses from any brand). Image circles also means longer and wider lenses (they increase by volume, not area like sensors), thus also weight.

Lenses are classified after their smallest image circle from any combination of settings. But their image circle vary a lot depending on settings, but all that increase in image circle are always wasted. My suggestion is to start using some of that wasted area. Its cheap and it doesn't add notable weight or size, but depending on settings it will increase performance of the system on all but one setting combination.

Increasing the sensor size will only be wasted with a few setting combinations. In all other cases it will start to utilize image circle that are wasted today.
People would just be complaining about wasting sensor space and "pentax is too cheap to make decent lenses for the format" and adapt larger lenses to the mount in order to use the entire sensor.
09-30-2016, 07:22 PM   #383
Banned




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,541
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
+ 1, Sensor size is costly only past APSC size and even FF sensor are not really expensive. The price we pay is mostly due to habits, market segmentation, and features often loosely or not at all related to the sensor.

Around 1000€: n RX100 IV (1" sensor) cost 1050€, a Sony A7 (full frame) cost 1000€, A Canon 750D (APSC) cost 950€.

For 700€ you can get an FZ1000 (1") or a K3 or K70. For 350€ you can get an Olympus EPL7 (m4/3), a Canon 100D a Nikon D3300 both APSC or a Pentax QS1. (1/1.7")

In fact Sony Alpha 5000 has a E mount and an APSC sensor and is very similar in size as Q. But Q as 1/1.7 sensor, A5000 an APSC and could as well fit an FF sensor so this isn't a problem of the sensor not fitting in the body.

This is not neither a problem of price of sensor of its size. This is just choice. Many mirrorless are bigger to put more electronics, SR, or also to provide better ergonomics: better handling and more dirrect access buttons for more features.

So nothing prevent to decide to make a small camera with 1", m4/3, APSC or why not FF sensor. The lenses are not necessarilly that big. Think DA21, DA40 or DA70. And if to help the design you'd cover less than the full sensor for some lenses, where the issue? You could keep very small optimized primes that would cover APSC sensor like DAltds pancakes. Bundle them with a 50MP sensor and you can do quite some digital zooming. The DA70 would still have 12MP at 140mm... Or design some optical zoom covering a smaller image circle to keep them small.

In fact if you have an A7 you already have exactly that: You can use expensive high quality FF lenses or small light, innexpensive APSC lenses. And nobody complain about it. This is just this isn't that much marketed for it and the base price of an A7 is too high. But in 5 years an FF body may cost 500€ or less. And today an APSC body start a 300€...
Yes. Sony is getting all camera sales thanks to that. I think Ricoh knows that and, I presume, they plan to venture into mirrorless FF cameras, able to use any previous Pentax lens. I believe they can make better mirrorless camera than Sony, together with their Olympus design team. Like that, Ricoh does not need to change all the external equipment for the system, and gather audience now served exclusively by Sony.
Why would Ricoh allow Sony to steal unnecessary camera sales?

10-01-2016, 12:15 AM   #384
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,466
Hmm... Sony is selling a fraction from what Canon and Nikon are selling. I guess Ricoh should be busy rather with them, than Sony?
10-01-2016, 12:44 AM   #385
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Hmm... Sony is selling a fraction from what Canon and Nikon are selling. I guess Ricoh should be busy rather with them, than Sony?
With that logic Ricoh should start competing with Apple and Samsung as they sell most camera devices.

Ricoh is already quite busy in the DSLR segment, but if they want to reach their goals they probably need to be busy in more segments.

Last edited by Fogel70; 10-01-2016 at 12:57 AM.
10-01-2016, 12:58 AM   #386
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,466
Actually no - you're making a mistake by calling them "camera devices" when these smartphones are "communication devices with cameras". Those are different devices than what Ricoh Imaging does and is expected to do; mentioning them is a strawman.

My point is that "Sony is stealing sales" is a too weak and emotional reasoning for joining forces with Olympus (we're not told in which way) and fighting Sony on the MILC market.
10-01-2016, 01:14 AM   #387
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
I think you got this backwards. The point Uluru made was that Sony and Olympus work together (as Sony owns part of Olympus).
Sony buys $644m share of Olympus in pursuit of 4K endoscopes and better camera technology - The Verge
10-01-2016, 01:32 AM   #388
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,466
Oh, you're right. Though I don't see any reason to believe that Sony and Olympus are designing cameras together (which is what got me fooled).

My point stands: Ricoh Imaging entering the MILC market won't be because "Sony is stealing sales".
10-01-2016, 02:06 AM   #389
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,191
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Oh, you're right. Though I don't see any reason to believe that Sony and Olympus are designing cameras together (which is what got me fooled).

My point stands: Ricoh Imaging entering the MILC market won't be because "Sony is stealing sales".
Indeed. The Sony E-mount certainly stole sales from their A-mount.



10-01-2016, 02:16 AM   #390
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Indeed. The Sony E-mount certainly stole sales from their A-mount.
But where would Sony be today if they only had A-mount?
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 09:04 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