Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-11-2010, 03:25 AM   #346
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I can nail focus perfectly using a 1.2 lens on a FF camera. it's not an impossible thing to do for people. shooting at f2 and lower doesn't guarantee a person not to misfocus. the thing is, how can you call a person a professional if he/she can't even use a lens effectively at their widest openings? such fast lenses and 35mm slr cameras were not created in the first place if no one can even use them for what they could do.

For an image to be sucessful it is paramount that the subject is in focus. If not, the image is a failure. Not having enough DOF is a sign of a incompetent photographer. Hardly any subject, unless it is two dimensional or at infinity, can be in focus at F:1.2; particularly at closer range.
You need a minimum DOF in order to render a person in focus and separate him from the background. Allmost all relevant lenses can provide that. Contrary to common belief ultra fast lenses are not designed to limit DOF (that is a trade-off) but to allow fast enough shutterspeed in dim light. That doesn't mean you can't use DOF creatively but don't need 1.2 for that.

07-11-2010, 03:27 AM   #347
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by C.W Tsorotes Quote
That shot was taken at 1.8 under very low light and was intentionally softened for effect.
Well, it is not sucessful. Lets see the unprocessed image.
07-11-2010, 03:39 AM   #348
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
For an image to be sucessful it is paramount that the subject is in focus. If not, the image is a failure. Not having enough DOF is a sign of a incompetent photographer. Hardly any subject, unless it is two dimensional or at infinity, can be in focus at F:1.2; particularly at closer range.
You need a minimum DOF in order to render a person in focus and separate him from the background. Allmost all relevant lenses can provide that. Contrary to common belief ultra fast lenses are not designed to limit DOF (that is a trade-off) but to allow fast enough shutterspeed in dim light. That doesn't mean you can't use DOF creatively but don't need 1.2 for that.
Pål, I agree in general. However, sometimes a more or less blurred image is desirable so I think it is not entirely correct to say that ´For an image to be sucessful it is paramount that the subject is in focus.´
07-11-2010, 04:01 AM   #349
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,266
QuoteOriginally posted by Boucicaut Quote
Pål, I agree in general. However, sometimes a more or less blurred image is desirable so I think it is not entirely correct to say that ´For an image to be sucessful it is paramount that the subject is in focus.´
I agree, that's how I see things as well.

07-11-2010, 04:48 AM   #350
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Taylor, Texas
Posts: 1,017
QuoteOriginally posted by Boucicaut Quote
Pål, I agree in general. However, sometimes a more or less blurred image is desirable so I think it is not entirely correct to say that ´For an image to be sucessful it is paramount that the subject is in focus.´
This is exactly correct. If not I guess Robert Frank is not a good photographer. Perhaps someone should let a few museums know about that.

But I guess that's the difference between art and a wedding photo.
07-11-2010, 07:49 AM   #351
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by Boucicaut Quote
Pål, I agree in general. However, sometimes a more or less blurred image is desirable so I think it is not entirely correct to say that ´For an image to be sucessful it is paramount that the subject is in focus.´
That depends how you define "subject". I stand by my word. If you shoot a portrait where only the eyes are in focus then the eyes are the subject. The prhotographer need to have a clear intention. However, if shoot a person and the only thing in focus is part of his jacket, then this is the subject in the real photograph, but if the photographer obvious intention was to photography the person (usually meaning the face) then the image is a failure.
07-11-2010, 08:34 AM   #352
Veteran Member
Christopher M.W.T's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 1,689
that photo of me was taken when we were drunk and it was purely and only to show the 5Dmk2 in low light....it wasn't even meant to be used in any serious manner....

Jeez some people need to lighten up your a bunch of bickering school children.
07-11-2010, 09:04 AM   #353
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,311
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
For an image to be sucessful it is paramount that the subject is in focus. If not, the image is a failure. Not having enough DOF is a sign of a incompetent photographer. Hardly any subject, unless it is two dimensional or at infinity, can be in focus at F:1.2; particularly at closer range.
You need a minimum DOF in order to render a person in focus and separate him from the background. Allmost all relevant lenses can provide that. Contrary to common belief ultra fast lenses are not designed to limit DOF (that is a trade-off) but to allow fast enough shutterspeed in dim light. That doesn't mean you can't use DOF creatively but don't need 1.2 for that.
Lets not continue with the OT talk, but:

No pun intended Pål.....

Many of us really use 1,2 as an real photography form, and ie: intentionally use it to compose the fore/background bokeh and to explore the different lenses rendition in the widest aperture possible. Sharpness is never the goal of the picture and IT IS a BIG difference between F1.2 and F1.8, for me its everything when i shoot for bokeh! Sometimes i stop the 1,2 lens down a tad to render background highlights diferently, but mostly its all about the bokeh @ 1,2.
Not much fits inside that DOF, but most of us dont care because its not relevant for the picture. Sometimes i get wild and shoot faces in 1,2 and if i get one eye in focus at 50mm 1,2 im happy, and have a nice looking image.

If you dont like it? Well, thats OK

07-11-2010, 04:37 PM   #354
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
For an image to be sucessful it is paramount that the subject is in focus. If not, the image is a failure. Not having enough DOF is a sign of a incompetent photographer. Hardly any subject, unless it is two dimensional or at infinity, can be in focus at F:1.2; particularly at closer range.
You need a minimum DOF in order to render a person in focus and separate him from the background. Allmost all relevant lenses can provide that. Contrary to common belief ultra fast lenses are not designed to limit DOF (that is a trade-off) but to allow fast enough shutterspeed in dim light. That doesn't mean you can't use DOF creatively but don't need 1.2 for that.
this is not completely true. you are forgetting an important aspect of an ultra-fast lens which is not taken into consideration, and that is the unique shallow DOF rendering. as "the swede" pointed out, these particular lenses is not all about overall sharpness at wide open. sharpness is not a mandatory requirement nor requisite in determining a successful image. remember that these lenses are used for portraiture and creative portraiture which sharpness is more of a liability rather than an asset or simply saying that fully in-focus sharpness is not the top priority. these lenses are even used for intentional OOF effect which their rendering could produce some of the most surreal images that no other lenses could produce. some are even intentional done OOF (partially and to some specific degree which would render a nice image). it is true however that background to subject DOF separation can be achieved with other lenses, but they can't render the same type or quality of DOF effect that is only unique to ultra-fast lenses. they are unique lenses and saying that other lenses could do and produce the same type and quality of image rendering uniqueness is purely heresay, as I haven't seen such lenses produce one yet that is of the same quality as that of an ultra-fast 1.2 lens. even a 1.4 doesn't even come close, it's just completely different.

the formula for a successful image is not just about image sharpness, but how the image would turn out to be pleasant or really nice using a precision instrument's capability at an specific setting.

Last edited by Pentaxor; 07-11-2010 at 06:41 PM.
07-11-2010, 06:08 PM   #355
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Québec
Posts: 1
New body rumours

Hi, some people said it will be a full frame K9 or K30 i don`t know if it`s true or not?
07-11-2010, 07:13 PM   #356
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,511
I think it makes most sense to see a K200d replacement, since its the oldest model.

Least sense would be a Kx replacement, however the Km was pretty new when it was replaced itself.

The K7 does need a replacement. I would not be too surprised to see a full frame next year either.
07-12-2010, 10:55 AM   #357
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
As long as you don't look to close. In another thread, someone commented that most professionals try to keep their aperture above 4 to maximize depth of field. It also shows that focus systems are easily fooled, even on upper end cameras. Too bad they didn't put face/smile recognition on the 5D -- probably saving it for the MKIII.
Face / smile recognition is only available when shooting using contrast-detection AF, which is realistically too slow and clumsy for real world use on even the best DSLRs, unless your scene is near or completely static (ie. your subject is posing, not moving naturally). Some of the mirrorless cameras are starting to get past this hurdle, but it's taking lenses designed specifically for use with contrast-detection AF.
07-12-2010, 06:18 PM   #358
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,249
QuoteOriginally posted by knoxploration Quote
Face / smile recognition is only available when shooting using contrast-detection AF, which is realistically too slow and clumsy for real world use on even the best DSLRs, unless your scene is near or completely static (ie. your subject is posing, not moving naturally). Some of the mirrorless cameras are starting to get past this hurdle, but it's taking lenses designed specifically for use with contrast-detection AF.
I'm kidding. I don't really think,whatever the hurdles are or aren't, that Canon is likely to put this feature on a pro or semi pro body.
07-13-2010, 03:55 AM   #359
Veteran Member
ghelary's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 617
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
For an image to be sucessful it is paramount that the subject is in focus. If not, the image is a failure. Not having enough DOF is a sign of a incompetent photographer. Hardly any subject, unless it is two dimensional or at infinity, can be in focus at F:1.2; particularly at closer range.
[...]
You just dissed a big part of Guy Bourdin's work. Some of the most famous Cartier Bresson works were also not in focus.

In photography and in art in general, the rule is that ther is no rule. You can do whatever you want as long as it works.
07-13-2010, 01:08 PM   #360
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I'm kidding. I don't really think,whatever the hurdles are or aren't, that Canon is likely to put this feature on a pro or semi pro body.
Well you'd be wrong in that assumption... I'm holding a Canon EOS-1D Mark IV in my hands as we speak -- very much a pro-grade body -- and it offers face detection autofocus in both Live View and Movie recording modes. The same feature has appeared in Canon's semi-pro bodies already, as well.
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!
camera, k-5, pentax, pentax k-5, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My new 73 year old camera void7910 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 1 09-10-2010 11:06 AM
Camera for a 2.5 year old Ramitt Photographic Technique 7 11-14-2009 03:35 PM
Pentax wins European Camera of the Year! Nesster Pentax Film SLR Discussion 8 10-01-2009 04:58 PM
Just in: Pentax K10D Camera of the Year Damn Brit Pentax News and Rumors 11 05-25-2008 01:15 PM
PopPoto's Camera of the Year... Not Pentax loudbay Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 12-14-2007 02:52 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 PM. | 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