[BigMackCam]

If you read all my comments, in one of them I said "Why people invest in a 36mp K1 beast and use it with film era lenses is beyond me. The only logical reasons I came up with are:
1. the nostalgia.
2. Lack of modern lenses in those focal lenghts"

I should also have included collectors which are somehow related to the first category, the nostalgic one. You can take pictures with anything these days if you put it like you did above. In fact, we have a very good and respected photographer who is an architect also and he has some teaching classes for one of the largest photo store in Europe which is located in Bucharest - Romania. One of his seminars is called "Seeing through your smartphone" and it's a very popular and on demand seminar. Here is the website of that photographer Vlad Eftenie.

It seems that the ones who were shooting film are the ones that won't let go old lenses. Some of them are defending the old lenses and they are also promoting those lenses. From a business perspective, this user base of people using and promoting vintage lenses are less than ideal. We want Ricoh to grow as a brand, but we don't buy Pentax modern lenses because they are expensive. We don't buy Sigma or Tamron lenses either because we prefer Pentax lenses (as some people suggest). The R&D money for developing new lenses are less and less with every person who doesn't buy Pentax lenses. That's one of the reasons why Sigma left the building in my opinion.

I see from time to time a Dacia car from 1970 (a romanian brand of cars) on Bucharest streets. It takes the owners from a place to another. I feel nostalgic when I see that car because we had a car like that and a lot of memories come to my mind. But, driving a car like that by someone who doesn't know the old times it's not a great experience. Same or similar when comes to vintage lenses... the ones who used them usually take their time to take pictures...

I don't know how to put it so that won't be interpreted in the wrong way. I used smiley faces in the above comments. Sure, we buy what we want and we spend as much as we want for gear. But to me is odd to invest in a pro body to use it with vintage lenses when there are lots of cheap cameras that can be used with those lenses if someone wants to remember the good old days.

Thanks for the explanation, Dan I understand what you're saying, and I don't think I'm interpreting it incorrectly.

I agree that some folks shoot some older lenses because there aren't any current KAF offerings in those focal lengths. I also agree that popularity of old lenses doesn't help Ricoh / Pentax with sales of newer glass. However, I've no doubt Ricoh knew (and knows) its target market for the K-1 & K-1II very well. It knew that many would be prepared (if not always totally satisfied) to shoot legacy glass while modern full-frame lens offerings are being developed. So whilst this willingness to shoot older glass doesn't help new lens sales, it undoubtedly helps sales of the K-1 and K-1II.

Regarding nostalgia... With respect, I don't think this plays as big a role as you make out. Although at 50 years I'm old enough to have shot film back in the day, I actually didn't get into photography until quite late on. My first interchangeable lens camera was digital - a Nikon D40X (when that model was about to be replaced by the D60), followed a year or two later by the Pentax K-7. I cut my teeth on modern kit lenses, then modern, inexpensive primes like the DA50/1.8. If I remember correctly, I didn't get my first film-era lens - a Pentax M50/1.7 - until some time later when I bought the K-5, followed by my first vintage Soviet lens four or five years ago - a Helios-44M 58/2. I fell in love with the rendering from the Helios, and thus began my fondness for older Soviet glass which I started to collect. There was no element of nostalgia to it - I just liked the rendering and the results I was getting. I'd guess that I'm far from unusual in this respect... There are young photographers and film-makers buying up vintage lenses in their droves because of the characterful rendering they've heard about. For them, it has nothing to do with nostalgia, and everything to do with achieving a different / distinctive look.

A K-1 enables the photographer to capture the intended image circle portion of any 35mm-format lens at high resolution, with impressive dynamic range, and low noise. Why should it matter the age and cost of the lens, if the photographer appreciates the output from that lens? Why should the photographer choose anything less than the best camera he or she can afford to record the output of their chosen lenses? Specifically, what is it about inexpensive older lenses that you feel doesn't warrant using a high resolution, wide dynamic range, full frame camera? After all, the film cameras they were originally intended for were "full frame" and offered the equivalent of high resolution and wide dynamic range with good film stock... Why shoot with a digital body that offers anything less?

I hope this doesn't come across as argumentative, Dan. We have a difference in view-point, but I consider our respective views equally valid. It's a mark of my interest in yours that I'm engaging you on it further - not an intention to argue

Perhaps we ought to take this to a new thread, as we've gone way off topic

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-06-2019 at 02:54 PM.

[Dan Rentea]

The problem here is that you are confusing a bunch of issues, which have nothing to do "in focus".

I'm not confusing anything. And I tell you why.

1. Depth of Field. For the focal length I am using here, and distance I am using here, DOF is something like a total of 4" total {2" in front and 2" behind the focus point} on an "APS-C" camera; incidentally, this is one place where there is an enormous difference between the different sensor sizes, as you well know. Maybe the head of the Blue Jay is not in perfect focus, maybe the focus point is on the wing instead of the head, but that has nothing to do with the system's ability to focus. This again comes down to the fact that these birds were traveling very fast and I was "lucky" to catch them anywhere in my viewfinder .... I even commented in the Blue Jay thread that he was in the very upper corner of the image. You keep saying that "there is no difference in focus between various formats" - which is true - but there is a big difference in diffraction and the amount of aperture the user of each feels is appropriate. A "FF" shooter will feel more confident with a smaller aperture {because he has different diffraction issues}, so he will get a deeper DOF; every shooter of a $800 KP like me knows that is one of the costs of not having a $2500 camera like you are able to afford.

Ok, let's say that for the first image of the Blue Jay you missed focus due to long shutter speed (1/1000s is a long shutter speed for small birds), even if it's just partially true because the focus seems to be on the wing and no on the head. We can't talk about diffraction either for the first image of the Blue Jay because it was taken at f5.6 on a crop camera. We can't blame either the lack of DOF because at f5.6 the DOF is quite ok for that bird on a crop camera, if it would have had the focus on the head. Forget about my camera and look at 300mm+ thread where Kengo and others shoot with crop cameras and get the images in focus. Like I said, I saw also some squirrel shots of yours our of focus and that's why I wanted to know which image of yours you think it's in focus so that I can understand for future discussions what's your refference when you talk about in focus images.

2. Effect of Motion. I doubt if either of us can determine the appropriate shutter speed to 'stop' motion - no problem with your birds which are still, but a big problem with my photos which include moving birds. In addition, the tiny features of moving birds will be smoothed down, which makes them appear to have less detail than still birds. That leads to a whole bunch of issues that I don't want to address right now between "showing detail" and "in focus."

The sparrow images are static images, not BIF images. That's why I asked for the full resolution images of the first 2 shots you posted here ( Martin's Sparrows - PentaxForums.com ). Yes, small birds move fast their head even if they are standing on walls or branches, but at 1/500s is hard to miss shots like those. It's more complicated only if you take one shot at a time instead of a short burst of 3-5 images. You can trust me on this because I shoot a lot of small birds. One of the fastest small bird which is way faster than a sparrow and just a tad bigger is the mighty kingfisher. I posted an image with it a few comments above, sitting on a branch. That image was taken at 600mm, f8, ISO 640, 1/400s. So, it's possible to get sharp images os small birds even with long shutter speeds.

I love the motion effect on images with birds as long as the effect is visible where it should be, on wings, not on the head.

Here is an example. Sorry for the bad quality, it was downloaded from Facebook at small resolution (960px I think). The head is in focus and the motion effect is on the wings.



Here is another example where the head is in focus. If the wings were in focus the image would have been useless. Again, sorry if the quality is poor. It was also downloaded from my facebook page.

[Take-5-JB]

Wow! This post is like a synopsis of the photographic world today. Individualism and art count for nothing. Perfection is king, no matter how sterile. Jazz and Rock are pitifully impure music. A pianist with hand span too small to play Rachmaninoff and Liszt is not a real concert maestro. If you are not driving a Lamborghini, you are basically walking.

Now on to Sigma. I have been trying to figure how to justify and afford a brand new Sigma 500mm/f4.5, but might not have much time left.

Oh well, I shall trudge onward.

JB

[mlt]

...Oh well, I shall trudge onward....

This is probably the best comment on Sigma stopping K mount production. No further back and forth on Sigma’s decision needed

[reh321]

I'm not confusing anything. And I tell you why.

Ok, let's say that for the first image of the Blue Jay you missed focus due to long shutter speed (1/1000s is a long shutter speed for small birds), even if it's just partially true because the focus seems to be on the wing and no on the head. We can't talk about diffraction either for the first image of the Blue Jay because it was taken at f5.6 on a crop camera. We can't blame either the lack of DOF because at f5.6 the DOF is quite ok for that bird on a crop camera, if it would have had the focus on the head. Forget about my camera and look at 300mm+ thread where Kengo and others shoot with crop cameras and get the images in focus. Like I said, I saw also some squirrel shots of yours our of focus and that's why I wanted to know which image of yours you think it's in focus so that I can understand for future discussions what's your refference when you talk about in focus images.

The sparrow images are static images, not BIF images. That's why I asked for the full resolution images of the first 2 shots you posted here ( Martin's Sparrows - PentaxForums.com ). Yes, small birds move fast their head even if they are standing on walls or branches, but at 1/500s is hard to miss shots like those. It's more complicated only if you take one shot at a time instead of a short burst of 3-5 images. You can trust me on this because I shoot a lot of small birds. One of the fastest small bird which is way faster than a sparrow and just a tad bigger is the mighty kingfisher. I posted an image with it a few comments above, sitting on a branch. That image was taken at 600mm, f8, ISO 640, 1/400s. So, it's possible to get sharp images os small birds even with long shutter speeds.

I love the motion effect on images with birds as long as the effect is visible where it should be, on wings, not on the head.

Here is an example. Sorry for the bad quality, it was downloaded from Facebook at small resolution (960px I think). The head is in focus and the motion effect is on the wings.

Here is another example where the head is in focus. If the wings were in focus the image would have been useless. Again, sorry if the quality is poor. It was also downloaded from my facebook page.

This whole discussion between us is a waste of time, and has nothing to do with the alleged topic of this discussion. All we have proven is that you are a professional photographer who values certain things and won't accept work that isn't up to your standards. I am a retired scientist who is more interested in situations than in perfect rendition.

In the first photo, my camera did focus, on the bird feeder. I posted the image because I thought other people would be interested in the image of the small gray bird chasing off the other bird. In response to my posting it, another member told me that the small gray bird was probably his mate. Whether or not not is a "keeper" depends on your standards; more to the point, I have no reason to believe that situation will ever arise again, and I would rather post a photo of that situation, and have no one so far complain about focus, than to not post it because it doesn't meet your standards. I do not believe that an "APS-C' camera could have ever captured that scene because the scene demanded more DOF than the camera could provide. That is not a matter of focusing - that is a matter of DOF.

In the photos of the Blue Jay, perhaps your reflexes could have caught the bird's head in the second or two I had - my 71-year-old reflexes could not. Even though the bird's head may not have been quite in focus, the camera system did do what my reflexes requested of it. I consider that to be a "keeper"; you could spend a month on our deck, and I'm not sure your standards would ever be met. That is not Pentax's "fault" - that is a result of your standards.

[Serkevan]

There are young photographers and film-makers buying up vintage lenses in their droves because of the characterful rendering they've heard about.

*Raises hand.


I am not letting go of my M50/1.7 and M135/3.5; I don't care about the (low) cost, they are pretty darn good and I like the rendering: the M50/1.7, for example, beats the Canon EF 50/1.8 in terms of bokeh all day long. Like, no contest whatsoever if the subject is close to the background.

[Dan Rentea]

This whole discussion between us is a waste of time, and has nothing to do with the alleged topic of this discussion. All we have proven is that you are a professional photographer who values certain things and won't accept work that isn't up to your standards. I am a retired scientist who is more interested in situations than in perfect rendition.

In the first photo, my camera did focus, on the bird feeder. I posted the image because I thought other people would be interested in the image of the small gray bird chasing off the other bird. In response to my posting it, another member told me that the small gray bird was probably his mate. Whether or not not is a "keeper" depends on your standards; more to the point, I have no reason to believe that situation will ever arise again, and I would rather post a photo of that situation, and have no one so far complain about focus, than to not post it because it doesn't meet your standards. I do not believe that an "APS-C' camera could have ever captured that scene because the scene demanded more DOF than the camera could provide. That is not a matter of focusing - that is a matter of DOF.

In the photos of the Blue Jay, perhaps your reflexes could have caught the bird's head in the second or two I had - my 71-year-old reflexes could not. Even though the bird's head may not have been quite in focus, the camera system did do what my reflexes requested of it. I consider that to be a "keeper"; you could spend a month on our deck, and I'm not sure your standards would ever be met. That is not Pentax's "fault" - that is a result of your standards.

Reh, when you talk about focus and say on a forum that you get great results with your gear in terms of focus, be more specific. If we all take only words as arguments, we end up buying things that may not be what we expected. I always said that I'm interested more in users opnion rather than internet or online reviews made by influencers. That's why I also look at images of users.

There is a facebook group in my country where people add interesting images with different species of birds or animals that live or are just passing trough Romania. No one cares about images being in focus or sharp as long as the species can be recognized and there is a story behind the image like you say you have with the image with gray bird chasing off the other bird at the feeder.

There is a very big difference between "my image is in focus" and "my image is a keeper because my reflexes are not as good as they used to be".

---------- Post added 12-06-19 at 11:17 PM ----------

*Raises hand.


I am not letting go of my M50/1.7 and M135/3.5; I don't care about the (low) cost, they are pretty darn good and I like the rendering: the M50/1.7, for example, beats the Canon EF 50/1.8 in terms of bokeh all day long. Like, no contest whatsoever if the subject is close to the background.

Again, it was just my opinion and nothing more. If you like old lenses, use them. To me it doesn't worth the effort. Last time I tried a vintage lens (after many failed attempts) which a friend of mine told me I will love was the Helios 44-2 lens (or 44-3, I don't remember which one). What can I say other than horrible experience?!

Later edit. The last experience was with Petzval 85mm lens. I remember now because both (Helios and this one) have that weird bokeh. And the manual focus + weird bokeh = no no for me.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 12-06-2019 at 04:26 PM.

[reh321]

Reh, when you talk about focus and say on a forum that you get great results with your gear in terms of focus, be more specific. If we all take only words as arguments, we end up buying things that may not be what we expected. I always said that I'm interested more in users opnion rather than internet or online reviews made by influencers. That's why I also look at images of users.

There is a facebook group in my country where people add interesting images with different species of birds or animals that live or are just passing trough Romania. No one cares about images being in focus or sharp as long as the species can be recognized and there is a story behind the image like you say you have with the image with gray bird chasing off the other bird at the feeder.

There is a very big difference between "my image is in focus" and "my image is a keeper because my reflexes are not as good as they used to be".

It got part of the Blue Jay in focus, and was close to focus on the rest it; that is much better than Pentax would have done a generation ago, no matter how good my reflexes are.

Honestly my reflexes have never been enough to catch the head of that Blue Jay - and I really doubt if yours are either. The only way of focusing on its head would be to have an MILC with enough AI to find the eye and focus on it in the time it takes to press the shutter. Maybe the Canon 5Div used in your examples will have an MILC sibling someday that does that, but Pentax AF is still ages ahead of anyone who is used to the K-5, or even the K-3. Today, if they want to 'nail' the Blue Jay photo - as you define 'nail' - they will have to purchase a "FF" Sony and attend worship every day.

added: I told it "focus on the Blue Jay"; it obeyed the instructions I gave it as best it could. I'm glad you can think so much faster and give much better instructions.

[BigMackCam]

... And with that last post, might I suggest we return to the original thread topic. I've been as guilty as anyone in straying, so I'll follow my own advice here too

Thanks all

[BigMackCam]

@Dan Rentea; - I've deleted your last post, which came after my previous request to get back on topic (I suspect we were composing our posts at the same time ). Please feel free to start another thread if you wish to continue the discussion... Thanks

[Dan Rentea]

@Dan Rentea; - I've deleted your last post, which came after my previous request to get back on topic (I suspect we were composing our posts at the same time ). Please feel free to start another thread if you wish to continue the discussion... Thanks

There isn't much to discuss about that particular topic or topics. As for Sigma, maybe Pentax will start a collaboration with them (like they did with Tamron) and bring into market a 105mm f1.4 for example or one of the wide lenses:
- Sigma 14mm f1.8
- Sigma 20mm f1.4
- Sigma 24mm f1.4

[reh321]

How much of what Sigma currently provides is a less expensive version similar to what Pentax already provides in some form {for example, Sigma's 10-20mm lens is less expensive that Pentax-DA* 11-18mm} and how much is completely different?

[MikeyBugs95]

There isn't much to discuss about that particular topic or topics. As for Sigma, maybe Pentax will start a collaboration with them (like they did with Tamron) and bring into market a 105mm f1.4 for example or one of the wide lenses:
- Sigma 14mm f1.8
- Sigma 20mm f1.4
- Sigma 24mm f1.4

I personally would love to see the Sigma 60-600S in Pentax regalia. It's never going to happen because it would compete with the 150-450 and is already expensive but I'd love to know that, one day, I might be able to get one.

[totsmuyco]

How much of what Sigma currently provides is a less expensive version similar to what Pentax already provides in some form {for example, Sigma's 10-20mm lens is less expensive that Pentax-DA* 11-18mm} and how much is completely different?

I think some of us would like to have an alternative. A cheaper alternative. As I said earlier, I for one bought a Sigma 10-20 over the Pentax 12-24 as it is cheaper and the Pentax is non-WR. I would have gotten it if it was WR rated. Some may start of with a Pentax body and have Sigma lenses cause they're cheaper. Then when upgrade comes, they switch to Pentax. It's the same way canikon guys do. Some really like Sigma as others like Tamron.

IMO I would say that I would like to have an OEM except that I also have requirements. Firstly, WR rated. That's one of the reasons I chose Pentax. I'll pay a little extra if its WR.

As to a Sigma - Pentax collaboration, I wouldn't see that happening. It's just my gut feel. Pentax market is too small for Sigma to maximize it's investments. I'm sure they have an investment committee and they'd choose to produce those that will give them the best inventory turnover and higher returns.

[Mistral75]

An investment committee in a family business? I'm not so sure.