Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-24-2017, 12:57 PM - 2 Likes   #586
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,848
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The reason why the lens is big, could it be contain a sort of optical stabilization that works together with the IBIS ? Could be shooting in the dark without tripod?
Dunno. Maybe it's big because physics.


Last edited by monochrome; 02-24-2017 at 02:41 PM.
02-24-2017, 01:01 PM - 1 Like   #587
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,199
QuoteQuote:
Yet pixie dust is really a matter of engineering and physics. The shapes of the bokeh, color casts, color fringing around bokeh, "busy" bokeh etc. are all predictable consequences of the lens design,
There used to be an interview with Hirakawa somewhere in which he discussed the parameters he adjusted to achieve a 3 dimension spacial effect. Of course not being a lens designer I had no idea what he was talking about,(he used words in contexts I've never seen them before). But you're right, it definitely wasn't about pixie dust for him. However given the complexity of the explanation, I choose to go with pixie dust. I mean I could make an attempt to understand it, but there is absolutely no guarantee I' have the mental capacity to do that, especially at this advanced age. Or, to repeat my comment to my optical physics instructor 50 years ago " I don't have to know how to design a lens to be a photographer, I just have to know how to evaluate what I see." 50 years later I still believe that. But I am grateful for the very basic understanding I got from that class, even if he practically had to beat it into my thick skull with a 2x4.

Last edited by normhead; 02-24-2017 at 01:06 PM.
02-24-2017, 01:07 PM - 1 Like   #588
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,922
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I think the reason you won't get many responses here is that many of us here find that kind photo annoying, and I wouldn't remember it if I'd seen it.You are one of the rare individuals who is caught up in one of the functions I would call "the idiosyncrasies of cameras.". The fact that shooting a 1.4 lens wide open is possible, doesn't make it necessarily a good thing. But if you like that, you might have to become the expert. We await your results.

The reason I can't link to a photo like that is, I don't think it's a good image.
I do enjoy random judgement from strangers on the internet (the so called "experts") as much as the next guy, so thanks for more of it, I'll add to my collection.

You are one of the not-so-rare individuals who is caught up in his own ego, I call it the idiosyncrasies of an internet warrior.

It seems my questions really tick you off. Could it be because you can't in fact provide a simple thing I've asked (and that'd be the end of an argument)?
The fact that 1.4 lenses that render a sharp portrait exist mean that people need it, and buy it for that purpose, paying a significant premium at that.
But wait, I'll call Sigma, Canon, Nikkor, Samyang (with the new 1.2), and tell them they're doing it all wrong, no one needs to shoot wide open cause this guy on the forum likes it at 2.8

And just to clear up your position - you don't think guy for example does good work with a wide open 85? Raisn D'Etre | Flickr
02-24-2017, 01:44 PM   #589
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,199
QuoteOriginally posted by awscreo Quote
I do enjoy random judgement from strangers on the internet (the so called "experts") as much as the next guy, so thanks for more of it, I'll add to my collection.

You are one of the not-so-rare individuals who is caught up in his own ego, I call it the idiosyncrasies of an internet warrior.

It seems my questions really tick you off. Could it be because you can't in fact provide a simple thing I've asked (and that'd be the end of an argument)?
The fact that 1.4 lenses that render a sharp portrait exist mean that people need it, and buy it for that purpose, paying a significant premium at that.
But wait, I'll call Sigma, Canon, Nikkor, Samyang (with the new 1.2), and tell them they're doing it all wrong, no one needs to shoot wide open cause this guy on the forum likes it at 2.8

And just to clear up your position - you don't think guy for example does good work with a wide open 85? Raisn D'Etre | Flickr
It would seem my answers really tick you off.... to the point of name calling.
You linked to an image, I told you why I know of no comparable links for the 77. To me, they aren't memorable. I made no comment on the overall quality of the man's work or on the value of shooting a 85 1.4 wide open.

I made a comment on the image you linked to.

I think you might be a little confused on who's got an ego here. If you are so caught up in this you get personally entwined with an image, not even your own, there's something emotional going on.

QuoteQuote:
The fact that 1.4 lenses that render a sharp portrait exist mean that people need it, and buy it for that purpose, paying a significant premium at that.
If it's such a great thing, why aren't they all millionaires?

If wide open portraits are such a thing, why can't you find any for the 77?

You go on inserting your own personal opinion on everything into every conversation, but if someone else expresses a personal opinion, they have an ego? Is that the way it works?

You're headed towards the ignore list real quick.


Last edited by normhead; 02-24-2017 at 01:55 PM.
02-24-2017, 01:50 PM - 1 Like   #590
Banned




Join Date: May 2010
Location: Back to my Walkabout Creek
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,541
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Ya I was thinking that too, but there's a dude who claims Jun Hirakawa accomplished nothing during his time at Pentax, I was trying to avoid him by not mentioning Hirakawa.

I just find that kind of lunacy extremely distasteful.

If Hirakawa had only designed the 77, he'd still belong on the designer hall of fame.

In civilised world, we call that ad hominem with feigning of ignorance about whom we really discuss.
So let me be politer than you, and educate, because that is the only cure.

The amount of attention given to Hirakawa is disproportionate to attention given to designers who designed far more important lenses for Pentax, which rocketed Pentax into stardom of fame, when Hirakawa was still in diapers.

FA Limiteds came out when downfall of Pentax already started, when seemed to sink, not a single project relevant anymore, and Asahi desperately needed some loud PR, some good news, that would make them seem relevant and fresh in the world that outran them. So they gave a job to a young lens designer because that is what they wanted to show — that they are still vital and relevant — gave him carte blanche, flamboyantly opened production budget, but Hirakawa couldn't even complete it to Asahi's complete satisfaction. He did not have all the experience and understanding of market and expectations. And he was stubborn, in addition to a sudden and undeserved attention which hit him hard, and was still hungry for experience. His astigmatism needed correction. They pulled extra help, from more senior designers, and best FA lens was made, the FA31. But the smoke fired from the PR gun remained (FA43 and FA77 were released first).

Fact is, Asahi could do it all without Hirakawa, and make even better FA43 or FA77, but they needed a young image for the company, they needed a story. Wow — reading a focal length from a cookie box — fantastic, Asahi is so imaginative! They needed a Hail Mary pass and a fastest young buck who can run for the show.

And that is the truth of it. All PR attention was given to a hot young buck, but two older oxen had to be moved out of stable to pull the cart from deep mud. Even that fact shows that Asahi totally blew it, could not manage things, that all they knew to do was to hope for a Hail Mary pass every 15 years or so.

No one even cared to remember names of those designers who saved the project. Even worse than that, any project that Jun Hirakawa — the invention of the PR — was even randomly involved with, that he even glanced at, was since attributed to be his other masterworks by the ignorant amateurs. That is the price we pay for sucking the milk of marketing inventions.

You guys therefore know only of Hirakawa, and not single other lens designer prior or after, nor you know the context of the FA Limited and why they were created. And that is your tree, which blocks you from seeing the forest. So while the world is going forward, you cuddle your now worn-out teddybear FA77 and scream loudly at those who show you a better toy or two.

Last edited by Uluru; 02-24-2017 at 02:32 PM.
02-24-2017, 01:57 PM   #591
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,580
QuoteOriginally posted by xmeda Quote
No film on this planet has some comparable parameters to 6.6 um pitch digital sensors. Which is current edge in 24mpix APS-C and will be reached by 50-55 mpix FF cameras very soon.
No film? Or no film exploited by our usual means? (Either scanner or silver prints).
02-24-2017, 02:01 PM - 1 Like   #592
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,199
QuoteOriginally posted by Uluru Quote
The amount of attention given to Hirakawa is disproportionate to attention given designers who designed far more important lenses for Pentax, which rocketed Pentax into stardom of fame, when Hirakawa was still in diapers.
You guys know only of Hirakawa, and not single other lens designer prior or after, and that is your tree, which blocks you from seeing the forest. So while the world is going forward, you cuddle your worn-out teddybear FA77 and scream loudly at those who show you a better toy or two.
Really? Apparently you don't know the other Pentax designers (you didn't name any) and you don't even know Hirakawa. What the heck do you know? You do know the site as a whole voted the 77 as the best pentax lens ever don't you? I guess the thousands of folks who articulated their preferences in that survey are all ignorant, you the great Uluru needs to educate them on how ignorant they all are. Yet, apparently, the great Uluru can't name another Pentax lens designer either, or what lens is more important? . or alternatively just chooses not to share his great and unmatched knowledge with the unwashed masses.

Personally I voted for the 31 ltd. which was not a Hirakawa design, so I don't even have a horse in this race. Forum wisdom says otherwise.

Damn I thought I had you on ignore.

I better fix that.
02-24-2017, 02:13 PM - 1 Like   #593
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,922
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
It would seem my answers really tick you off.... to the point of name calling.
You linked to an image, I told you why I know of no comparable links for the 77. To me, they aren't memorable. I made no comment on the overall quality of the man's work or on the value of shooting a 85 1.4 wide open.

I made a comment on the image you linked to.

I think you might be a little confused on who's got an ego here. If you are so caught up in this you get personally entwined with an image, not even your own, there's something emotional going on.



If it's such a great thing, why aren't they all millionaires?

If wide open portraits are such a thing, why can't you find any for the 77?

You go on inserting your own personal opinion on everything into every conversation, but if someone else expresses a personal opinion, they have an ego? Is that the way it works?

You're headed towards the ignore list real quick.
Ok, I posted an image and asked if anyone can provide a similar shot with 77, so I personally can have a look and compare two lenses wide open.
From that you've categorized me into some kind of a rare breed, even though all I wanted is to compare two lenses side by side. I didn't say anything about my intention to shoot only wide open until I die.

I'm not sure what man's work you're referring to, initially I linked an image from photozone's review, the only reason for doing that was that it had a full res option where you can see the amount of detail resolved wide open.
I made no claim that pic was a work of art. Only after you've suggested that shooting wide open might not be a "good thing" (if such term can be applied to photography which is like any artform is completely subjective, meaning apples to oranges), I linked to a gallery that I find inspiring.

If you could point me to any name that I've called you that is offensive (outside of normal internet jargon) i'd appreciate it.

I don't understand the comment about being millionaires. What does it have to do with anything at all? You're saying that by stopping down the lens you're increasing your income? lol, I'll shoot at f22 from now on, will own Apple next year.

I can't find full res K-1 samples with 77 ltd, there are plenty of images out there wide open on other pentax cameras.

Yes, I impose my opinion on EVERY conversation there is, that cannot be an exaggeration at all, I'm everywhere and all knowing.

I guess having an ego here means to question the pixie dust?

Anyway, I don't think you're thoroughly reading my responses (since you think I'm defending the photozone's sample pic lol), so it's all a big waste of time.


Last edited by awscreo; 02-24-2017 at 02:37 PM.
02-24-2017, 02:25 PM   #594
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RobA_Oz's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,061
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The reason why the lens is big, could it be contain a sort of optical stabilization that works together with the IBIS ? Could be shooting in the dark without tripod?
We're only guessing, but if you look at the Sigma 50/1.4 Art for comparative purposes, that's a 13-element design. The Pentax FA50/1.4 is a 7-element design.

That would account for a fair amount of the increase in length. Adding WR and internal AF drive adds to the diameter. In-lens stabilisation would, possibly, add to the bulk, but there's no evidence of a separate hardware switch on the barrel, other than the AF/MF one.
02-24-2017, 02:33 PM   #595
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,507
QuoteOriginally posted by lithedreamer Quote
I'm not sure it would. The adapters would likely be all manual focus (few adapters on the market support AF, and as I understand it, it's often slower than native), and they'd lose their WR, a big Pentax selling point.
Check out the most recent ones by Metabones and the one by Sigma. They're AF and seem rather quick.
02-24-2017, 02:45 PM - 6 Likes   #596
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,848
It never ceases to amuse me how deep and passionate these speculative arguments get over things no one on this Forum knows a whit about.
02-24-2017, 02:55 PM - 1 Like   #597
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,409
QuoteOriginally posted by awscreo Quote
Ok, I posted an image and asked if anyone can provide a similar shot with 77, so I personally can have a look and compare two lenses wide open.
From that you've categorized me into some kind of a rare breed, even though all I wanted is to compare two lenses side by side. I didn't say anything about my intention to shoot only wide open until I die.

I'm not sure what man's work you're referring to, initially I linked an image from photozone's review, the only reason for doing that was that it had a full res option where you can see the amount of detail resolved wide open.
I made no claim that pic was a work of art. Only after you've suggested that shooting wide open might not be a "good thing" (if such term can be applied to photography which is like any artform is completely subjective, meaning apples to oranges), I linked to a gallery that I find inspiring.

If you could point me to any name that I've called you that is offensive (outside of normal internet jargon) i'd appreciate it.

I don't understand the comment about being millionaires. What does it have to do with anything at all? You're saying that by stopping down the lens you're increasing your income? lol, I'll shoot at f22 from now on, will own Apple next year.

I can't find full res K-1 samples with 77 ltd, there are plenty of images out there wide open on other pentax cameras.

Yes, I impose my opinion on EVERY conversation there is, that cannot be an exaggeration at all, I'm everywhere and all knowing.

I guess having an ego here means to question the pixie dust?

Anyway, I don't think you're thoroughly reading my responses (since you think I'm defending the photozone's sample pic lol), so it's all a big waste of time.
I don't know that I can provide a match for your image.

This is a shot at f2.



This at f2.2.



I don't have many straight wide open, but the full size are on Flickr, I believe. Hope that helps.
02-24-2017, 03:18 PM   #598
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by awscreo Quote
How is it wide open then. 2.8 is fairly slow for a prime, even the smc 50 1.8 that I have resolves fair amount of details at 2.8

If sharpness is irrelevant to you that's fine. I do want a sharp wide open lens though, if I'm using it at 2.8 I can just get the 50 2.8 macro for much less and get sharp results.

I'll try to find wide open raws from 77ltd and say Otis, or Sigma 85 art, and compare for myself, see what the difference is like if any
You are free to do what you want so you can print 40x60" and get 1 square inch of the photo in focus except if targeting the sky. If that's you call, well, so be it. Don't forget to have a plan for the gallery that will display your photos and to design a rotation scheme so you can swithc over time

You know if sharpness is that important to you, you are missing it, it isn't FF that going to give the best sensor and lenses too small 24x36 after all still a small format. Far from MF or a chamber...
02-24-2017, 03:25 PM   #599
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,857
QuoteOriginally posted by awscreo Quote
I do enjoy random judgement from strangers on the internet (the so called "experts") as much as the next guy, so thanks for more of it, I'll add to my collection.

You are one of the not-so-rare individuals who is caught up in his own ego, I call it the idiosyncrasies of an internet warrior.

It seems my questions really tick you off. Could it be because you can't in fact provide a simple thing I've asked (and that'd be the end of an argument)?
The fact that 1.4 lenses that render a sharp portrait exist mean that people need it, and buy it for that purpose, paying a significant premium at that.
The reason for it to exit is there a market like anything that does exist but there infinitely more kitlenses sold or haribo sweets than Zeiss Otus lenses. By all means then we could think that both are much more interresting to most people than f/1.4 lenses... In other words, whatever it is, you'll find somebody interrested anyway.

Doesn't mean it is any interresting generally,outside of the inner circle of that people. overall kitlenses are much more interresting than f/1.4 primes. They sell many time more, make more money and many more time great photo are made with the lens bundled in kit with the camera than the high end, including my FA77.
02-24-2017, 03:31 PM - 2 Likes   #600
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,094
FA77 portraits

f/1.8 (just mucking about after a loooong party a couple of weekends ago )









f/2.0

Closed Thread

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!
camera, drive, dslr, effort, f/1.4, f1.8, fa, im, k-1, lens, lenses, management, omega, opinion, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, photo, product, quality, ricoh, sigma, size, statistics, tamron, taste, theory, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Diglloyd reviews DA 35, DFA 50 and DFA 100 Macro lenses on the K-1 Matchete Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 06-09-2016 09:18 AM
Sigma 50/1.4 EX vs. Pentax FA 50/1.4 and DA 55/1.4 DonovanDwyer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 01-24-2014 12:54 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 10-20mm/4, Pentax FA 50/1.4, DFA 100mm/2.8 Macro Alam Sold Items 5 11-20-2011 03:02 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22 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