Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-04-2009, 01:24 PM   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
Weight is a problem, wherever it comes from. And the additional weight of the longer FF lenses is not something that you can ever escape in that format. The rumored Pentax K7 is said to be even lighter and smaller than the K20D. That will tip the scales (metaphorically only) even further in Pentax's favor.
That depends on your point of view I suppose. A lot of people actually prefer heavier cameras because they feel as though they can hold them more stable. One of my buddies that shoots with a D200 bought a battery grip to make the camera even heavier; and it wasn't so he could balance out some monster full frame 70-200mm f/2.8. People with big hands usually don't like small cameras.

I personally would like to have a large camera for normal use and a ultra portable system for travel and walk around use. Unfortunately even APS-C SLR's aren't exactly what I would call ultra-portable. Hopefully Pentax will give Samsung a hand with their NX system. That would fill the ultra portable niche nicely.

05-04-2009, 02:20 PM   #77
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 32
QuoteQuote:
With all due respect, I cannot say that the DOF is shallow enough to add much of artistic merit to this shot. It just "is" but not for any good artistic purpose IMO. Perhaps if someone were sitting on the swing....
I have to disagree. I really like that shot. I do agree that this would be the perfect scene for a portrait though.

QuoteQuote:
However, if you took this shot at 10ft your DOF on FF would have been about 3'. You could put a Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens on your APSC camera and stand 13 ft away, and hey presto, your DOF is now 3.2 ft.
/facepalm
The point of using a particular length lens is the distortion and how much of the stuff around you you can get in the frame. By the same token we could use a 100mm imaginary lens and stand back 6ft but now all you have is the swing and a window behind it in frame. what's the point of a wide angle apart from all wide angle stuff you can fit in the frame.

QuoteQuote:
For most WA shots I would be shooting scenery or interiors which would mean I usually want more, not less, DOF and greater sharpness. With APSC I dont have to stop down as far, raise the ISO, suffer as much edge falloff or distortion, or suffer too much diffraction softening. For many uses, its actually more useful.
Wait you don't use a tripod? you infidel.

also I don't get the argument about fall off,ect . IF you were using a 16-50 @ 16 on a FF to get the same as on a aps-c you'd zoom in to 25.6. Good bye fall off distortion and diffraction


QuoteQuote:
On the rare occasions where I do want less DOF at wider angles, then FF has some advantages, but I could also argue that shallow DOF is more important at portrait lengths, and while a cheap 50/55 F1.4 actually makes a good, affordable portrait lens on APSC with a nice shallow DOF, to actually improve on this with a FF camera I would need a 75-85mm lens faster than F2.2.
Don't you have that backwards? on a FF that 50 1.4 would be equivalent to an 80mm on a APs-C.

Last edited by Bill Stickers; 05-04-2009 at 02:22 PM. Reason: wom
05-04-2009, 02:57 PM   #78
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,299
What's with the FF Postings - why is this discussion even in the "Pentax News and Rumors forum"?

I really do wish the moderators can be more active in moving off topic posts to the appropriate forum. :ugh:
05-04-2009, 03:34 PM   #79
jay
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Posts: 65
QuoteOriginally posted by cousinsane Quote
You are right that the Sigma 24 on APS might get me close to a 35/2 on FF, but it kind of sucks to buy into the Pentax system only to use Sigma lenses .
I don't mean to sound like a Pentax heretic, but I try to find the best product that suits my needs -- I don't care what label is plastered on it.

I have a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens instead of the Pentax 16-50. Why? I think it's a better lens. And if Tokina ever slaps a PK mount on the 11-16mm f/2.8, I'll be the first in line to pick it up. And if a Pentax DA* version comes out? Even better.

And I'm not particularly embarrassed by my Mamiya 645 film system that occasionally travels with me. I even fashioned an adapter allowing me to mount my Mamiya glass to my K10D.

05-04-2009, 04:31 PM   #80
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by cousinsane Quote
Well, the Sigma 30 on APS has a normal field of view. I thought we are talking about wide angle.

You are right that the Sigma 24 on APS might get me close to a 35/2 on FF, but it kind of sucks to buy into the Pentax system only to use Sigma lenses .
Personally I do wish Pentax would make some fast WA lenses like the old FA* 24mm F2, and the 35mm F2 for that matter. It was a very sharp lens.
05-04-2009, 05:07 PM   #81
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
"With all due respect, I cannot say that the DOF is shallow enough to add much of artistic merit to this shot. It just "is" but not for any good artistic purpose IMO. Perhaps if someone were sitting on the swing...."
"I have to disagree. I really like that shot. I do agree that this would be the perfect scene for a portrait though."

"However, if you took this shot at 10ft your DOF on FF would have been about 3'. You could put a Sigma 30mm F1.4 lens on your APSC camera and stand 13 ft away, and hey presto,
your DOF is now 3.2 ft. "

"/facepalm
The point of using a particular length lens is the distortion and how much of the stuff around you you can get in the frame. By the same token we could use a 100mm imaginary lens and stand back 6ft but now all you have is the swing and a window behind it in frame. what's the point of a wide angle apart from all wide angle stuff you can fit in the frame."

Perhaps, but in this case you would get the same field of view, the subject would be the same size and the DOF would be the same. In fact with less perspective distortion it might even look better.
"For most WA shots I would be shooting scenery or interiors which would mean I usually want more, not less, DOF and greater sharpness. With APSC I dont have to stop down as far, raise the ISO, suffer as much edge falloff or distortion, or suffer too much diffraction softening. For many uses, its actually more useful."
"Wait you don't use a tripod? you infidel.

also I don't get the argument about fall off,ect . IF you were using a 16-50 @ 16 on a FF to get the same as on a aps-c you'd zoom in to 25.6. Good bye fall off distortion and diffraction"

First I am not always allowed to use a tripod, but thats not really my issue. Since a 16-50 does not work on a FF camera, thats not really relevant, but lets compare it with the Canon 24-105 F4 since they perform the "equivalent" role.

So lets say I want deep DOF on the Pentax at 24mm and F10. In this case the COF is 0.02, the DOF goes from 5ft to infinity. Loss of resolution due to diffraction from peak is only 10% at the centre and nothing at the edges.

Looking at the Canon 24-105 on a 5Dmk2, we would need to shoot at 36mm and F16. In this case the COF is 0.03mm and the falloff in resolution is closer to 25% (extrapolating from Photozone numbers).

Even though I am now using a 21MP full frame camera, I have now reduced my resolution to more or less the same level as the Pentax (so I can't print appreciably bigger). If I had started with a 12MP FF camera, I would now have more resolution on the APSC camera for scenery shots.

Again rather a waste of the extra money.

You are of course correct, light falloff is not a problem at F16, but it is a serious problem on a lot of wide lenses on FF when shooting wide open. It would not usually show up on film.

"On the rare occasions where I do want less DOF at wider angles, then FF has some advantages, but I could also argue that shallow DOF is more important at portrait lengths,
and while a cheap 50/55 F1.4 actually makes a good, affordable portrait lens on APSC with a nice shallow DOF, to actually improve on this with a FF camera I would need a 75-
85mm lens faster than F2.2."

"Don't you have that backwards? on a FF that 50 1.4 would be equivalent to an 80mm on a APs-C."

No, I would need at 85 mm lens on an FF camera to achieve the same FOV and perspective as a 55mm lens on an APSC camera.
05-04-2009, 05:29 PM   #82
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
That depends on your point of view I suppose. A lot of people actually prefer heavier cameras because they feel as though they can hold them more stable. One of my buddies that shoots with a D200 bought a battery grip to make the camera even heavier; and it wasn't so he could balance out some monster full frame 70-200mm f/2.8. People with big hands usually don't like small cameras.

I personally would like to have a large camera for normal use and a ultra portable system for travel and walk around use. Unfortunately even APS-C SLR's aren't exactly what I would call ultra-portable. Hopefully Pentax will give Samsung a hand with their NX system. That would fill the ultra portable niche nicely.
Each to his own, but I would wager that the vast majority of users would choose lighter over heavier, all else being equal, and I am not referring to light as a feather.

Rob
05-04-2009, 09:58 PM   #83
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 32
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote

No, I would need at 85 mm lens on an FF camera to achieve the same FOV and perspective as a 55mm lens on an APSC camera.
My bad, teach me to post just after getting out of bed

05-05-2009, 08:14 AM   #84
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by nosnoop Quote
What's with the FF Postings - why is this discussion even in the "Pentax News and Rumors forum"?

I really do wish the moderators can be more active in moving off topic posts to the appropriate forum. :ugh:
i really do wish people like you would just keep their mouths shut, you're worse than the people that start these threads.

Atleast the rest of these people are cooking up new ideas and regurgitating some of the math behind all this fuss for some of the newcomers who i'm sure are learning a thing or two, even if most of it is just banter and speculation.
05-05-2009, 09:13 AM   #85
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Mexico
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,125
QuoteOriginally posted by whatever7 Quote
Its only 1 grand more. For a camera two stops better, its worth it. You can argue its 1 and 1/3 stop or whatever, but my point is think of how much more you have to pay for your lenses if you havee to upgrade them to 1 stop faster.
Think of losing in-camera shake reduction when you go FF. That's worth 2-3 stops.

Rob
05-05-2009, 09:16 AM   #86
Veteran Member
awo425's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC, USA
Posts: 481
QuoteOriginally posted by nosnoop Quote
What's with the FF Postings - why is this discussion even in the "Pentax News and Rumors forum"?

I really do wish the moderators can be more active in moving off topic posts to the appropriate forum. :ugh:
And appropriate forum would be Canon, Nikon or Sony forum?

Last edited by awo425; 05-05-2009 at 09:22 AM.
05-05-2009, 09:42 AM   #87
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 410
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
Think of losing in-camera shake reduction when you go FF. That's worth 2-3 stops.

Rob
I`d take good iso 3200 performance over built in SR any day.

Unless i specifically want to shoot flowing water handheld, which i dont think is a good idea anyway ( tripods rule )
05-05-2009, 11:31 AM   #88
Pentaxian
konraDarnok's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Albums
Posts: 961
I could live the rest of my life and never hear 'full frame' again and be happy.
05-05-2009, 12:12 PM   #89
Veteran Member
Gooshin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Toronto, the one in Canada.
Posts: 5,611
QuoteOriginally posted by konraDarnok Quote
I could live the rest of my life and never hear 'full frame' again and be happy.
clearly you've never shot film
05-05-2009, 12:41 PM   #90
Pentaxian
konraDarnok's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Photos: Albums
Posts: 961
QuoteOriginally posted by Gooshin Quote
clearly you've never shot film
Yes I have. Not that has anything to do with the price of tea. Film comes in many sizes.
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!
aps-c, images, matter, mf, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, quality, sensors, size, system
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
View Previous postings - Help mickeyobe Site Suggestions and Help 2 11-26-2008 12:25 PM
Photo Postings and CR on this forum and Photographic Technique 3 07-03-2007 04:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:51 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