[Class A]

BTW, what did you mean by : "FF sensor you are faced with potential sensor vignetting in addition to lens vignetting" ?

Given the same sensor <-> lens distance, the larger the sensor, the wider the angle of the projected light rays will be. That means that light rays hit the flat sensor at more and more acute angles. While you can counteract for the loss of sensitivity with slightly displaces micro lenses, this countermeasure is apparently different to optimise for a large range of focal lengths.

[Art Vandelay II]

To Mr. 135 FF: As for particular people who challenge others' skill level from time to time, just ignore them all! They will say the same even actually your skill level is far above them, or even you showed them your great works they will have other even worse things to say - they are just finding something to personally attack others who just have a different views from them afterall. It is totally meaningless to "discuss" with such people, believe me.

Rice, it's not a personal attack when you ask to see someones work. When I ask to see either yours or 24x36's work it is simply to see if your opinion is worth listening to. If David La Chapelle or Benji K say something along the lines of "I'll only use FF for serious work" then I might actually value their opinions. However you have entire "photography blog" without one meaningful photo on it. So tell me why myself or anyone else should listen to your opinion?

[Tom Lusk]

Is there not a double standard here?

Those that are consistently pro-everything-pentax are never required to show photos.

Those that question any product or marketing decision seem to draw the "let's see your photos so that we can judge whether you're worth listening to" comments.

Rice has provided links to some of his photos - at least twice that I recall. Some were of a Japanese musical performance, that I thought were quite good - but, because they were produced by RH, they drew negative comments by some who could probably do no better.

I don't blame him for ignoring calls to link to more photos. Why should he? Why should 24x36Now?

On a related note, on DPR I asked Roland Mabo to post a link to his PPG gallery, as SURELY, someone as outspoken as he is about the razor-sharp lenses he owns (never has seen a Pentax lens that wasn't absolutely perfect, if you can believe that) and who knows everything Pentax has ever done and will do, has produced some real masterpieces.

There are others, mainly on DPR, that are as vocal as Roland, but they tend to use "screen names", making it hard to decide whether they, too, are worth listening to.

Turnabout is fair play - no?

Please Tom, dont leave us! Your common sense will be missed.

Is there not a double standard here?

Those that are consistently pro-everything-pentax are never required to show photos.

Those that question any product or marketing decision seem to draw the "let's see your photos so that we can judge whether you're worth listening to" comments.

Rice has provided links to some of his photos - at least twice that I recall. Some were of a Japanese musical performance, that I thought were quite good - but, because they were produced by RH, they drew negative comments by some who could probably do no better.

I don't blame him for ignoring calls to link to more photos. Why should he? Why should 24x36Now?

On a related note, on DPR I asked Roland Mabo to post a link to his PPG gallery, as SURELY, someone as outspoken as he is about the razor-sharp lenses he owns (never has seen a Pentax lens that wasn't absolutely perfect, if you can believe that) and who knows everything Pentax has ever done and will do, has produced some real masterpieces.

There are others, mainly on DPR, that are as vocal as Roland, but they tend to use "screen names", making it hard to decide whether they, too, are worth listening to.

Turnabout is fair play - no?

Before being sunk in critics I just wanted to add something to a post that I read before about why would somebody want to move to FF if it is not able to get the most of a K20D. The answer is exactly in the question. A FF will make you easier to take some pictures that you simply cant do with a K20d without HDR and a lot of post-processing.

This is an example of what I am talking about. This is taken with a K100d on a heavily clouded morning. I underexposed the shoot trying to keep the sky of blowing without success. I would say that a FF would have helped me on that. And before starting saying that good photog wake up at 4:30AM to take advantage of the light I will tell you that not all the people enjoy extreme stoicism. And I know, not all the people has 3000usd to spare in a FF pentax body. But those that have it you can bet that they will not buy a Pentax FF camera anytime soon.

[barondla]

Nice shot Gruoso. Have to disagree about the k20D not being able to match FF in this shot. From what I have seen it will most likely beat it. While it is true that FF has a little more dynamic range than APSc, the K20D has a trick up its sleeve.
Put camera on tripod, set exposure for highlights, and enter multiple exposure menu. Tick "auto ev adjust". Select 9 exposures and shoot 9. The ISO 100 setting will yield the noise of ISO 12! 3 stops is way beyond FF advantage in noise. Camera will combine all this into one image. When preparing for printing "lighten" the shadows. This is called Bart's technique. Gives creamy noise free images. Wouldn't work on frozen water. Your shot shows water movement though.

Thanks
barondla

Check out POINT & SHOOT CONTEST 11 WINNERS in P&S forum. Enter #12. Any brand camera. Any subject. Enter now.

Thanks for the advice barondla. I will try as soon as I get a K20d, I do think that it is a good camera for 95% of the shoots that I do (I barely do sports or wildlife lately) and the price now is just fair. I still thinking on the FF possibility. The funny thing is that I know that a FF would not make a better photog from me. It is actually the opposite I am quite lazy when I set up shoots and the FF camera remove one or two variables of the equation. The post was to exemplarize the point that ie. a FF nikon would have made a shot with similar light (and not necesarily on a bridal veil-like shoot) without praying for the wind to stop or needing multiple exposures. I am not saying that APS-c sucks just because I find that FF have some advantages. It is just that I am tired of people that trash other peoples desires cos they want something else than an APS-C or better AF, or better QC in pro-grade lenses and so on.

Nice shot Gruoso. Have to disagree about the k20D not being able to match FF in this shot. From what I have seen it will most likely beat it. While it is true that FF has a little more dynamic range than APSc, the K20D has a trick up its sleeve.
Put camera on tripod, set exposure for highlights, and enter multiple exposure menu. Tick "auto ev adjust". Select 9 exposures and shoot 9. The ISO 100 setting will yield the noise of ISO 12! 3 stops is way beyond FF advantage in noise. Camera will combine all this into one image. When preparing for printing "lighten" the shadows. This is called Bart's technique. Gives creamy noise free images. Wouldn't work on frozen water. Your shot shows water movement though.

Thanks
barondla

Check out POINT & SHOOT CONTEST 11 WINNERS in P&S forum. Enter #12. Any brand camera. Any subject. Enter now.

[*isteve]

Is there not a double standard here?

Those that are consistently pro-everything-pentax are never required to show photos.

Those that question any product or marketing decision seem to draw the "let's see your photos so that we can judge whether you're worth listening to" comments.

Rice has provided links to some of his photos - at least twice that I recall. Some were of a Japanese musical performance, that I thought were quite good - but, because they were produced by RH, they drew negative comments by some who could probably do no better.

I don't blame him for ignoring calls to link to more photos. Why should he? Why should 24x36Now?

On a related note, on DPR I asked Roland Mabo to post a link to his PPG gallery, as SURELY, someone as outspoken as he is about the razor-sharp lenses he owns (never has seen a Pentax lens that wasn't absolutely perfect, if you can believe that) and who knows everything Pentax has ever done and will do, has produced some real masterpieces.

There are others, mainly on DPR, that are as vocal as Roland, but they tend to use "screen names", making it hard to decide whether they, too, are worth listening to.

Turnabout is fair play - no?

Of course. Lets see yours....

Trouble is most people on the internet have no intention of learning anything or taking other ideas on board, they just like to see their own opinion in print somewhere.

But there are a few people whose opinions really do count and who are quite well informed, so I occasionally log in to check but very rarely post anything. After all why would YOU care what I think?

And as for Roland...firstly he never starts a post. He generally only responds to posts from people that start bashing Pentax. Secondly, he does not have a blog proclaiming his opinion for the world. However he does have good contacts in the industry and more often than not he has made some pretty accurate predictions about future products so as far as I am concerned he is more worth listening to than some.

And having a go at someone, behind their back, who is not involved in the current argument and cant answer back is pretty low IMO, so welcome to my ignore list. You wont be surprised at the company you will be keeping there.

[Tom Lusk]

"Tis *steve!

One of those DPR people I was just talking about!

[philmorley]

personally if pentax made an equivalent to the a900 I'd preorder, but in regards to your image. looking at dynamic range on dpr (so maybe I reading things wrong and doing something stupid but the k20d outperforms most of ff's at iso100

Camera (ISO 100) Shadow range Highlight range Usable range
Pentax K20D -5.8 EV 3.2 EV 9.0 EV
Canon EOS 450D -5.1 EV 3.6 EV 8.7 EV
Sony DSLR-A700 (ISO 200) -4.9 EV 3.9 EV 8.8 EV
Olympus E-3 -5.8 EV 3.0 EV 8.8 EV
Pentax K10D -4.5 EV 2.8 EV 7.3 EV
Nikon D700 (ISO 200) -4.4 EV 3.4 EV 7.8 EV
Sony DSLR-A900 (ISO 200) -5.1 EV 4.2 EV 9.4 EV
Canon EOS 5D (ISO 100) -4.7 EV 3.5 EV 8.2 EV
Nikon D300 (ISO 200) -4.7 EV 4.1 EV 8.8 EV
Nikon D3 (ISO 200) -4.7 EV 3.9 EV 8.6 EV

+ there is k20d's drange feature to give an extra stop (and noise), personally I'd bracket and transpose sky from other shot, but it increases work.

Phil

[kent vinyard]

If there are any doubts as to Tom Lusks ability, just cruise over to the Pentax Photo gallery and look under artists. His work is some of the best I have seen posted anywhere. Tom, its too bad you don't feel comfortable posting some of you work with your new equipment here I for one would sure like to see some of it. I enjoy good photography no matter what it is taken with.

I shoot raw and hence I consider only DR on raw files. You can check the dinamic range of D700/D3 and it is about 12 stops with less clipping on colors and 1dsMarkIII (and likely the 5DII) is about 11. I am not saying that Pentax is bad on this, I am just saying that there is an evident advantage on FF and even more on MF. Maybe not enought for justifying the expense of more than 1000-2000 dollars for 1-2 stops of high ISO and DR that you need for a few shoots.

The a900 looks like a good camera and the system that sony is building around the zeiss lenses looks sweet. I even like the fact that the camera is probably one of the ugliest-looking ever designed. I am just on a perpetual syndrom of greener grass on the other side of the fence and later awarement of appreciation of what I get. Besides I always end up thinking in how many trips could I do with that money.

personally if pentax made an equivalent to the a900 I'd preorder, but in regards to your image. looking at dynamic range on dpr (so maybe I reading things wrong and doing something stupid but the k20d outperforms most of ff's at iso100

Camera (ISO 100) Shadow range Highlight range Usable range
Pentax K20D -5.8 EV 3.2 EV 9.0 EV
Canon EOS 450D -5.1 EV 3.6 EV 8.7 EV
Sony DSLR-A700 (ISO 200) -4.9 EV 3.9 EV 8.8 EV
Olympus E-3 -5.8 EV 3.0 EV 8.8 EV
Pentax K10D -4.5 EV 2.8 EV 7.3 EV
Nikon D700 (ISO 200) -4.4 EV 3.4 EV 7.8 EV
Sony DSLR-A900 (ISO 200) -5.1 EV 4.2 EV 9.4 EV
Canon EOS 5D (ISO 100) -4.7 EV 3.5 EV 8.2 EV
Nikon D300 (ISO 200) -4.7 EV 4.1 EV 8.8 EV
Nikon D3 (ISO 200) -4.7 EV 3.9 EV 8.6 EV

+ there is k20d's drange feature to give an extra stop (and noise), personally I'd bracket and transpose sky from other shot, but it increases work.

Phil

personally I'd bracket and transpose sky from other shot, but it increases work.

I did it. I just have the files in the pile of bracketed shoots that I never end up processing. Besides, I am not a big fan of overprocessed HDR images and it is quite time consuming to do it seemlessly (at least to me that I am quite newby in terms of PP)

[philmorley]

so this the dr of jpgs? how do you find out for raw?

i agree re the image, it is what I would do, but it increases work and it would be much better to just get it in camera if possible?

[RiceHigh]

When every time they don't want to see some "unfavourable" opinions, there were the "show me your great photos and otherwise go away" "opinion", those people are indeed being very rude in interrupting the discussion and being go off-topic and actually just being very rude.

Do everyone need to show all his photos (and let WHO to judge?) before his could make a post or reply at an open forum?

Since they have no point actually but their intention is clear, I opted to ignore them most of the time for their "request".

Btw, Tom, here are two of my latest crappy works which I have shared recently. Just have a look if you have the time:-

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Chinese Dragon Boat Race

and

RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: Sample Photos of Full Frame Fisheye and 43 Limited on 5D
(this one is for the sake of testing gear, though)

See you, guy. :-)

Is there not a double standard here?

Those that are consistently pro-everything-pentax are never required to show photos.

Those that question any product or marketing decision seem to draw the "let's see your photos so that we can judge whether you're worth listening to" comments.

Rice has provided links to some of his photos - at least twice that I recall. Some were of a Japanese musical performance, that I thought were quite good - but, because they were produced by RH, they drew negative comments by some who could probably do no better.

I don't blame him for ignoring calls to link to more photos. Why should he? Why should 24x36Now?

On a related note, on DPR I asked Roland Mabo to post a link to his PPG gallery, as SURELY, someone as outspoken as he is about the razor-sharp lenses he owns (never has seen a Pentax lens that wasn't absolutely perfect, if you can believe that) and who knows everything Pentax has ever done and will do, has produced some real masterpieces.

There are others, mainly on DPR, that are as vocal as Roland, but they tend to use "screen names", making it hard to decide whether they, too, are worth listening to.

Turnabout is fair play - no?

[vinzer]

I'm not one to question other people's skill, for I know there's a good chance that most of the people here are much better than I am in photography.

I also know that both *isteve and Tom Lusk are excellent photographers, as are most of you here. I hope that we could be more tolerant of one another. I know I'm also guilty of being hot-headed, but I try to keep my posts civil. Discussion is free, and both sides of the arguments I've seen (in this case, FF vs. APS-C - it used to be fast AF vs. manual focus) have their own merits, as it really comes down to need.

Tom, you need no introduction for me. I always have admired your bird photography, and if there is someone who could make the most out of improved FPS and AF speed, as well as super telephoto lenses, it would be you. I miss your helpful posts in these forums.