Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-20-2019, 03:17 AM - 1 Like   #781
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 11,250
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
But physics pretty much dictates the size of lenses for a given sensor size, ...
Light gathering ability and image quality have typically more impact on the size of lenses than sensor size.

A "fast" lens needs to have a large front element even when the sensor size is small (f-stops must be interpreted in the context of sensor size for proper comparisons; an f/1.9 lens for the Q does not collect nearly as much light as an f/1.9 lens for FF (~ 1/20 of the light)).

High expectations towards image quality also increase the size and weight of lenses; just compare the FA 50/1.4 to the HD D-FA* 50/1.4.

01-20-2019, 03:29 AM - 2 Likes   #782
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
Smart phone cameras have gotten pretty good. They are good enough for a lot of people. Those who value higher image quality are willing to pay for it, both with regard to price of gear and with needing to lug around bigger cameras and lenses.

But most people are still OK shooting with their smart phones. Or tablets. It is crazy how many people at some event are trying to shoot photos of their kids or some such thing with an ipad. Looks like an ergonomic nightmare to me, but I guess each to his own.
01-20-2019, 06:18 AM - 1 Like   #783
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 256
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Smart phone cameras have gotten pretty good. They are good enough for a lot of people. Those who value higher image quality are willing to pay for it, both with regard to price of gear and with needing to lug around bigger cameras and lenses.

But most people are still OK shooting with their smart phones. Or tablets. It is crazy how many people at some event are trying to shoot photos of their kids or some such thing with an ipad. Looks like an ergonomic nightmare to me, but I guess each to his own.
Most people that own a smart phone with a camera never owned a dedicated camera and don’t realize the differences between the photos produced by either one Unfortunately, most would not even care.
01-20-2019, 06:41 AM - 1 Like   #784
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Smart phone cameras have gotten pretty good. They are good enough for a lot of people. Those who value higher image quality are willing to pay for it, both with regard to price of gear and with needing to lug around bigger cameras and lenses.
While there is some truth there, there is a lot of variability and room inside of "lug around bigger cameras and lenses". And there isn't or doesn't have to be a binary choice between huge/heavy/expensive and cell phone.

Speaking only for myself, I have no plans to go FF because of size, weight, and cost. I see no reason to lug around a 150-450 and a K-1 to take photos of my kids playing soccer when (arguably) a K-3ii and 55-300 PLM does just as good a job for a quarter the cost and half the weight. If I didn't already have a K-3ii I would be interested in a KP or preferably even smaller sized APS-C kit that would usually have small primes on it, but has the flexibility of larger lenses in the cases where I need them. I'm somewhat interested in a GR just for its size, but I have to balance that against cost. I value higher image quality but have never spent as much on a lens as the new GRIII will cost.


Folks here often talk about how mirrorless doesn't really have a size advantage because a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom will about as big on MILC as on a DSLR. Well, I wouldn't buy one of those for any camera unless I get some large and unexpected windfall of cash. And even then I don't know how often I'd lug it around. There's a big gap between "eh, a cell phone is fine" and "I'll buy and carry around whatever it takes".

01-20-2019, 07:23 AM   #785
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
While there is some truth there, there is a lot of variability and room inside of "lug around bigger cameras and lenses". And there isn't or doesn't have to be a binary choice between huge/heavy/expensive and cell phone.

Speaking only for myself, I have no plans to go FF because of size, weight, and cost. I see no reason to lug around a 150-450 and a K-1 to take photos of my kids playing soccer when (arguably) a K-3ii and 55-300 PLM does just as good a job for a quarter the cost and half the weight. If I didn't already have a K-3ii I would be interested in a KP or preferably even smaller sized APS-C kit that would usually have small primes on it, but has the flexibility of larger lenses in the cases where I need them. I'm somewhat interested in a GR just for its size, but I have to balance that against cost. I value higher image quality but have never spent as much on a lens as the new GRIII will cost.


Folks here often talk about how mirrorless doesn't really have a size advantage because a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom will about as big on MILC as on a DSLR. Well, I wouldn't buy one of those for any camera unless I get some large and unexpected windfall of cash. And even then I don't know how often I'd lug it around. There's a big gap between "eh, a cell phone is fine" and "I'll buy and carry around whatever it takes".
Most lenses on an MILC will be the same size as on an SLR, assuming the same focal length covered, same aperture, and similar correction to things like distortion. The only smaller lenses are those primes with focal lengths right around the registration distance, hence really small 40-ish mm lenses for SLRs and small 20-ish mm primes for MILCs.

Regardless, the point is that once you have decided to carry a bag, the only question is what size that bag will be and what the gear in that bag costs. But I will say that it is tougher to see the difference between smart phone photos and kit lens photos shot around 24 to 30mm on an SLR, particularly at web sizes. Just simply introducing a telephoto lens to the equation, as you did, tips the balance strongly in favor of an ILC.
01-20-2019, 09:53 AM   #786
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,128
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
A "fast" lens needs to have a large front element even when the sensor size is small (f-stops must be interpreted in the context of sensor size for proper comparisons; an f/1.9 lens for the Q does not collect nearly as much light as an f/1.9 lens for FF (~ 1/20 of the light)).
Yes, a small sensor collects less total light, so it is up to the processor to make good use of it and to the user not to "out drive his headlights". The light is ultimately gathered by the sensor, not by the lens. A f/1.7 K-mount lens will perform roughly the same on my Q-7 as does my f/1.9 Q-mount lens, even though it is much larger.


QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
High expectations towards image quality also increase the size and weight of lenses; just compare the FA 50/1.4 to the HD D-FA* 50/1.4.
The new DFA* 50mm f/1.4 lens will funnel basically the same amount of light to the sensor as an old Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens does even though it is much larger - but today people are much more focused on corner-to-corner perfection, which accounts for the size difference in this case.

Last edited by reh321; 01-20-2019 at 02:18 PM. Reason: completed quote
01-20-2019, 10:20 AM - 1 Like   #787
Senior Member
alcstudios's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 146
This is why I never use a smartphone as a photography tool.

Attached Images
 
01-20-2019, 12:15 PM   #788
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Yes, a small sensor collects less total light, so it is up to the processor to make good use of it and to the user not to "out drive his headlights". The light is ultimately gathered by the sensor, not by the lens. A f/1.7 K-mount lens will perform roughly the same on my Q-7 as does my f/1.9 Q-mount lens, even though it is much larger.

The new DFA* 50mm f/1.4 lens will funnel basically the same amount of light to the sensor as an old Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lens does even though it is much larger - but today people are much more focused on corner-to-corner perfection.
I haven't used a Takumar 50, but the FA 50 f1.4 really wasn't great below about f2.8. Everything had a sort of soft glow about it. I have like the DA *55 for that reason, but even it isn't great at f1.4, unlike the DFA *50.

I really think the whole point of having top end glass is to try to eke out medium format quality images from a smaller format.
01-20-2019, 12:26 PM - 1 Like   #789
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,574
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I haven't used a Takumar 50, but the FA 50 f1.4 really wasn't great below about f2.8. Everything had a sort of soft glow about it.
I wonder if there's some copy variation, either optically or in the AF accuracy (i.e. play in the movement)? My FA50/1.4 also has that glow at f/1.4, but it's pretty good at f/2... Not as good as it is at f/2.8, but I don't see any soft glow effect. In fact, if it's possible to have a favourite aperture setting for a lens, with mine it is f/2. There's enough detail, and the bokeh is much more attractive here than at f/1.4.

Or perhaps I simply have a different tolerance, which is probably the more likely explanation
01-20-2019, 01:54 PM   #790
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,128
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I wonder if there's some copy variation, either optically or in the AF accuracy (i.e. play in the movement)? My FA50/1.4 also has that glow at f/1.4, but it's pretty good at f/2... Not as good as it is at f/2.8, but I don't see any soft glow effect. In fact, if it's possible to have a favourite aperture setting for a lens, with mine it is f/2. There's enough detail, and the bokeh is much more attractive here than at f/1.4.

Or perhaps I simply have a different tolerance, which is probably the more likely explanation
I believe standards have changed. A generation ago, the way Takumar rendered scenes was 'special' - now if its not corner-to-corner sharp at widest aperture, people aren't interested ..... regardless of other qualities. I was ageeing with statement by @Class A that achieving this modern concept of "perfection" results in much larger lenses than was required to meet the earlier standard.

Last edited by reh321; 01-20-2019 at 02:18 PM.
01-20-2019, 05:48 PM - 2 Likes   #791
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Oh this is going to change in the coming years again when people are tired of dragging around those big camera bags.
This seems entirely false on a very deep level.

There's clearly a subset of customers that trend the opposite way. They think bigger bodies are better, bigger lenses are better, and bigger bags are better.

Does Mr Showoff pick the light little travel camera with it's superzoom or buy a giant beast, multi-kilogram birding lens, and huge carbon fiber tripod with gimbal? With today's high-performance sensors and lenses, small equipment works amazingly well at getting the shot. But that's not the reason Mr Showoff bought a camera. He bought a big cameras and big lenses because they scream $$$$$.

Does bridezilla pick the photographer with the dainty MILC, one small zoom, and a tiny bag or does she pick the photographer with the big honking DSLR or MF body and a foot locker-size Halliburton case of big primes, big strobes, big softboxes etc.?

And even if these folks are a minority, they end up defining what non-photographers think is a "serious" camera and influencing what non-photographers by when they decide to become photographers.
01-20-2019, 06:03 PM   #792
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,128
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Does bridezilla pick the photographer with the dainty MILC, one small zoom, and a tiny bag or does she pick the photographer with the big honking DSLR or MF body and a foot locker-size Halliburton case of big primes, big strobes, big softboxes etc.?

And even if these folks are a minority, they end up defining what non-photographers think is a "serious" camera and influencing what non-photographers by when they decide to become photographers.
What about the 'normal' brides? Our older daughter chose photographer based on portfolio and pricing schedule.
01-20-2019, 06:39 PM - 1 Like   #793
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
What about the 'normal' brides? Our older daughter chose photographer based on portfolio and pricing schedule.
First, congratulations on raising a sensible daughter!

Second, too many things in this world are under the influence of less-sensible people -- squeaky wheels and big bridezillas getting all the grease, etc. Too many buying decisions are driven by fear. I wonder how many pro photogs go with the biggest brands of biggest cameras simply because they think (or fear) customers will be uncomfortable with an unorthodox choice.
01-20-2019, 08:04 PM - 1 Like   #794
Senior Member
alcstudios's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 146
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
First, congratulations on raising a sensible daughter!

Second, too many things in this world are under the influence of less-sensible people -- squeaky wheels and big bridezillas getting all the grease, etc. Too many buying decisions are driven by fear. I wonder how many pro photogs go with the biggest brands of biggest cameras simply because they think (or fear) customers will be uncomfortable with an unorthodox choice.
It seems REH did raise a sensible daughter.

This is a true story.....honestly. I answered a (COUGH) craigslist (COUGH) add.... it was back in the K7 era and I didn't know any better He was looking for photographers to cover an event, something like a bikini party or who knows, I sent him a link to my portfolio like the add had requested, I had some concert, wedding and some family portraits in there, He emails me back stating the portfolio was fine and asked for my gear list, I told him the camera, lenses and flash I shoot with (all Pentax) I get an email back the following day stating my services will not be needed because they require "name" brand cameras ?????? and his editors do not understand the Pentax system???

The level of ignorance he displayed did not even deserve a response
01-20-2019, 08:22 PM - 2 Likes   #795
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
What about the 'normal' brides? Our older daughter chose photographer based on portfolio and pricing schedule.
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
First, congratulations on raising a sensible daughter!

Second, too many things in this world are under the influence of less-sensible people -- squeaky wheels and big bridezillas getting all the grease, etc. Too many buying decisions are driven by fear. I wonder how many pro photogs go with the biggest brands of biggest cameras simply because they think (or fear) customers will be uncomfortable with an unorthodox choice.
My daughter never asked about her photographers’ gear. I was shocked when a 26 year old woman and a 23 year old man showed up with little tiny Canon bodies and no L lenses, but it was her deal and my wife wrote all the checks, so I was copacetic with it.

AFA big heavy cameras, some people buy for instance a K-1 for a specific purpose, such as intentionally to use old FF manual lenses on the original format. The size and weight are an issue, sure, but as Norm says, everything is a compromise.

I tolerate the weight when I want to use my K lenses. I imagine there is a valid use case for pro shooters, just as there is a valid APSc use case. On a KP I tolerate cramped hands when I want to shoot 1/60 @6400 ISO indoors and get clean jpegs. I just don’t understand the little camera fetish.

It’s all choices. Nothing is perfect. Ever. (Well, K-1 comes close).

Last edited by monochrome; 01-20-2019 at 08:38 PM.
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!
body, camera, cameras, company, competition, development, frame, gr, iii, ilc, interview, kit, lens, lenses, market, mf, model, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, product, products, ricoh, roadmap, sense, tamron, theta, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 100 YEARS anniversary 2019! SunnyG. Pentax DSLR Discussion 66 10-19-2019 04:35 AM
Ricoh Imaging Will Not Be Exhibiting At WPPI 2019 Conference & Expo Kelvin 5500 Photographic Industry and Professionals 15 12-28-2018 11:05 PM
Nippon Camera Article about FA lenses revdocjim Pentax Medium Format 10 06-10-2014 01:59 PM
Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) Micro-Nikkor Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm vs. SMC Pentax-M 1:1.7 50mm carpents Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 06-23-2007 07:22 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:06 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