Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-10-2011, 10:17 PM   #1846
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
QuoteOriginally posted by Kryscendo Quote
180 degrees? I think you need to learn more about our anatomy. Then brush up on your camera theory.

.
I didn't think you'd return on this


QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
Sorry you're right, we can see almost 180 degrees. Nearly right. sorry it wasn't quite accurate enough for you


please point out where my camera theory is erroneous?



12-11-2011, 12:26 AM   #1847
Senior Member
Kryscendo's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 223
Sorry, didn't see your reply. Also sorry, you weren't even close.

Typically our eyes see about 80-70 degrees as field of view. The rest is periphery and periphery is about 120 degrees. The area of sharp focus though that our eyes see is only about 2 degrees though. Try reading a book from the corner of your eyes. This is in a sense why those magic eye puzzle optical illusions work.

Also, the point I was making was that on a full frame camera, some lenses can appear more normal than telephoto. A normal lens is roughly what the human eye sees in terms of angle of view. There is little to no distortion and space isn't expanded or compressed like with wide angle or telephoto lenses respectively.

A 50mm lens on a FF sensor camera will look identical to a 50mm lens on a film SLR. That same 50mm lens on an APS-C sized sensor camera will roughly have an angle of view similar to that of a 75mm lens on a film SLR. This is what people often refer to as 'crop factor' as the smaller sensor records a smaller piece of the image circle and appears more 'zoomed in' in layman's terms. "Crop factor" as a term though isn't very good. It just appears to change the angle of view- it doesn't change any effects, like for example how wide angle photography can expand space and telephoto can compress it.

Enjoy.
12-11-2011, 01:58 AM   #1848
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
According to Photozone tests the K-5 does not have a light AA filter. If I am not mistaken he said the K-5 and the K10 showed nearly identical resolution. Since he bought the K-5 to test lenses with, I don't think he was happy. He may have updated his review. I have not been over there in a while.

Take a look at DPR's review of the Olympus E-5 and go to high ISO (ISO 3200) shots in RAW. Compare the K-5 to the E-5 on the top label of the Martini vermouth bottle. At ISO 3200 the 4/3 sensor in the E-5 is resolving more detail in the text and the coat of arms. Maybe the in-camera NR is to blame, but the E-5 is showing better detail. Noise is a different issue.
Maybe he said that and other things; however, let's take a look at the DA 70mm reviews (which was done with both the K10D and the K-5):
Pentax SMC-DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited - Review / Test Report
Pentax SMC DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited - Review / Lab Test
One can see a consistently higher than 20% measured resolution increase, which can only mean:
- the camera don't have a strong AA filter
- that tiny lens is excellent (but we knew this)

Since DPReview is unable to focus on the same d*mn thing twice (and they're using a 3D setup insted of a flat chart, making it worse), it's pointless to select a specific object and try to draw any kind of conclusion.
12-11-2011, 04:12 AM   #1849
Site Supporter
markku55's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hanko, Finland
Posts: 195
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
The leica summilux 50/f1.4 is still a better investment though.
What will a FF camera cost these days, let's take the 5D mkII for the price so that will be $2200.
What do you think will happen with the value of the Leica and 5D over lets say... 4 or 6 years.
The Leica might even rise in value where as the 5D value would be halfed most likely.

Lets stretch it over 20 years, surely the Leica lens will last that long and probably even longer... what will be left of the 5D then?

So the price difference is not essential in this case, in the long run lenses will last you must longer and will hold their value much better.
1. Do you think that Leica is made of 4+ times better aluminium, glas, surfase treatment etc than competitors similar lenses?
2. If I could aford to buy a complete set of leica lenses and then still some of the Leicas latest DSLR body, I would miss the possibility to change to a DSLR system in where there is used the latest technology on the market. Leica is and most probably will be always after the leaders in DSLR technology, and why, because Leica is really quite a tiny maker, and the development of new technologies is quite expensive, Leica do not have that money.
3. Leica is like Rolls Royce, nice to have, but if you want a modern car with understandable cost, RR is not your choise.
Leica is and will be an expensive system, because they are more or less hand made which is not profitable if you do not have the huge image like Leica have. If Ricoh or some even more unknown brand would start making same quality products as Leica, tehy could not ask even close to those prices what Leica asks for their products, the price/quality factor is far too high.
4. This is only my opinnion

12-11-2011, 04:27 AM   #1850
Pentaxian
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,221
QuoteOriginally posted by markku55 Quote
Leica is like Rolls Royce, nice to have, but if you want a modern car with understandable cost, RR is not your choise.
It can be right for their cameras, but about lenses…
Do you have one? I do and it really outperforms everything I had before. So I've even started to buy the system. Planned to buy simmiluxes 35 and 50, summicrons 28 and 90. It won't be cheap for sure and will take some time (one or two glasses per year), but the IQ is too outstanding. The IQ difference is quite reasonable BTW: most japanese primes has old schemes, they put all their efforts into zooms (so they are even outperforms now their old primes). But these ASPH's has newer schemes: they are just as sharp wide open as closed down, have uniform resolution across the frame, and the color is just stunning.

Last edited by Emacs; 12-11-2011 at 04:38 AM.
12-11-2011, 05:05 AM   #1851
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 83
QuoteOriginally posted by Smeggypants Quote
So you've no basis to say it's poor performer then. So why say it? The 30/1.4 does give great performance across the frame when stopped down. Wide open at 1.4 the frames edges are usually bokeh anyway and like I said previously that's why sigma have no doubt optimised the centre region. it's pointless trying to across the frame performance at 1.4 as anyone wanting that wouldn't be shooting wide open anyway.

Smegpants, I wish you wouldn't keep pushing your Sigma 30/1.4 down my throat. I said at the beginning I want to replicate the performance of my FF 43/1.9 Limited on APS-C. I don't want f1.4 because it's bound to be too big and heavy. And the Sigma doesn't cut it performance-wise, period, although it's obviously fine for your style. If I wanted something that's all-centre it might be a candidate. Besides 28mm is the equivalent 'ideal' focal length on APS-C and Sigma's version (a 1.8) is even more monstrous with its 77mm front end and 500g.

Pentax made an A-series 28/f2 weighing only 215g and accepting 49mm filters but they are so rare I've never seen one. What's Sigma's problem? Indeed, what's Pentax's problem that they haven't plugged this gap in the lens line-up with a modernised 28/f2? The 31/1.8 Limited is frankly silly money and not exactly compact either.

Seems to me like all this dithering over 'FF or no FF' is holding up important lens work.

Last edited by unfocused; 12-11-2011 at 05:15 AM.
12-11-2011, 05:31 AM   #1852
Site Supporter
markku55's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hanko, Finland
Posts: 195
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
It can be right for their cameras, but about lenses…
Do you have one? I do and it really outperforms everything I had before. So I've even started to buy the system. Planned to buy simmiluxes 35 and 50, summicrons 28 and 90. It won't be cheap for sure and will take some time (one or two glasses per year), but the IQ is too outstanding. The IQ difference is quite reasonable BTW: most japanese primes has old schemes, they put all their efforts into zooms (so they are even outperforms now their old primes). But these ASPH's has newer schemes: they are just as sharp wide open as closed down, have uniform resolution across the frame, and the color is just stunning.
You have right - at least partly, not all of the Leica lenses are really better than the Japanese competitors. You can simply check it from "Third-Party Lens Reviews in this forum:
Leica 180mm F2.8 Elmarit-R Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 1:2.8/60 Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Leica Summicron-R 1:2/50 Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
One thing which is also NOT like Anvh said, the prices of those used lenses are quite cheap.
12-11-2011, 05:43 AM   #1853
Pentaxian
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,221
QuoteOriginally posted by markku55 Quote
You have right - at least partly, not all of the Leica lenses are really better than the Japanese competitors. You can simply check it from "Third-Party Lens Reviews in this forum:
Leica 180mm F2.8 Elmarit-R Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 1:2.8/60 Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
Leica Summicron-R 1:2/50 Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database
One thing which is also NOT like Anvh said, the prices of those used lenses are quite cheap.
They are old SLR R-type lenses, not modern ASPH for M-mount. Big difference.
I've just dropped my SLRs and selling my pentax lenses now: they are too bulky and just not good enough at the wide end.
BTW, check the leica lens club at this forum. This R-optics still has something different. About the comparison: they do their best (A 50/f1.2, that is SHARP when stopped down) and found it's only about as good as summicron-R. And if they took summilux?.


Last edited by Emacs; 12-11-2011 at 08:06 AM.
12-11-2011, 09:53 AM   #1854
Site Supporter
markku55's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hanko, Finland
Posts: 195
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
They are old SLR R-type lenses, not modern ASPH for M-mount. Big difference.
I've just dropped my SLRs and selling my pentax lenses now: they are too bulky and just not good enough at the wide end.
BTW, check the leica lens club at this forum. This R-optics still has something different. About the comparison: they do their best (A 50/f1.2, that is SHARP when stopped down) and found it's only about as good as summicron-R. And if they took summilux?.
Ok, now I understand, you do not need any longer than 135mm, or zooms, or AF etc, your style of photographing is not really the same as for those ones who need a DSLR to get wide range of lenses.
What do you think about this:
Ricoh GXR Mount A12 For Leica M Mount Lens 170613 B&H Photo
12-11-2011, 10:23 AM   #1855
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
well, the reason that we have a market for FF cameras, is that there are people who are looking for a camera which they could use a lens' native focal length (not cropped), be able to control a lens' native aperture DOF (not stopped down). this market does not cater 90% of photography and a specialized market. people invest in the FF market not because what the APS-C can do the same as the FF, but what it can't do. let's not even get to the irrelevant point of people have to stop down inorder not to experience difficulty in using such system because that is exactly what you get from the system. you are not buying a P&S camera that has everything in focus or make your life easier for you. you buy a FF because you are willing to take that extra mile of creating images using lenses in their native focal lengths and aperture.
12-11-2011, 10:48 AM   #1856
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
well, the reason that we have a market for FF cameras, is that there are people who are looking for a camera which they could use a lens' native focal length (not cropped), be able to control a lens' native aperture DOF (not stopped down). this market does not cater 90% of photography and a specialized market. people invest in the FF market not because what the APS-C can do the same as the FF, but what it can't do. let's not even get to the irrelevant point of people have to stop down inorder not to experience difficulty in using such system because that is exactly what you get from the system. you are not buying a P&S camera that has everything in focus or make your life easier for you. you buy a FF because you are willing to take that extra mile of creating images using lenses in their native focal lengths and aperture.
To be honest I think that a mayority of the FF users don't give a rats ass for this argument and probably have no idea what crop is or what native focal length even means.
12-11-2011, 10:49 AM   #1857
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,801
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Maybe he said that and other things; however, let's take a look at the DA 70mm reviews (which was done with both the K10D and the K-5):
Pentax SMC-DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited - Review / Test Report
Pentax SMC DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited - Review / Lab Test
One can see a consistently higher than 20% measured resolution increase, which can only mean:
- the camera don't have a strong AA filter
- that tiny lens is excellent (but we knew this)

Since DPReview is unable to focus on the same d*mn thing twice (and they're using a 3D setup insted of a flat chart, making it worse), it's pointless to select a specific object and try to draw any kind of conclusion.
The 20% difference is probably due to the fact that the K-5 is a higher resolution camera. Comparing 16MP to 10MP. Everything else being equal you would expect the K-5 to show almost a 20% increase in resolution just because it has 60% more "pixels".

I selected a "specific" object because I don't have time to make a list of 50 other objects and I wanted an example. I was shooting with an Olympus E-3 before picking up a K-7 2 years ago. I know two people still using Olympus (E-5) and I have read numerous E-5 and K-5 reviews and compared them. I have not seen anything that indicates the K-5 has a lighter AA filter than my K-7. None of the comparisons between the K-5 and K-7 show any noticeable difference in resolving power. Images from the E-5 however do appear sharper in the reviews/test I have seen.

Maybe the difference is in focus, but if so that means all of the reviewers must be better at focusing the E-5 than the K-5. I'm not saying the K-5 is not a sharp camera. We are talking about 100% crops.

If you would, please post a link to a review or test that demonstrates the K-5's lighter AA and better resolving power.
12-11-2011, 11:55 AM   #1858
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
To be honest I think that a mayority of the FF users don't give a rats ass for this argument and probably have no idea what crop is or what native focal length even means.
are you saying that majority of them has no idea about what they are buying? or plainly saying brandiots that don't know anything about the gadget that they use for photography or just say really know nothing about photography? if that is the case, then this hold true with most APS-C users as well. I would like to know the exact statistics to this as this raises questions whether they are actually users or plain owners. you are not suggesting that these users are just there spending a hefty amount on money on a professional equipment and just shoot AUTO mode, are you?

I'm not arguing the fact that there may be some number of these millionaire owners who cant shoot that own these but I would argue that most of them are unaware of them. I might be able to believe this if they made FF cameras cheaper and the general consumer market would be able to afford them which raises the number of probable novice users. and I don't think that an average novice joe would spend $2000-$4000 on an equipment he doesnt know how to use. in fact, I don't believe either that majority of APS-C owners know what is APS-C or it's relevance. what they only know is that they bought a big dslr camera with a name on it believing it would make them great photographers. in general, cost is one of the defining line separating the substantial number of novice users from people who are aware of what they are doing. bring down the cost to somewhere around entry level for the FF cameras, and I'm sure the number of clueless owners will sky-rocket.
12-11-2011, 12:39 PM   #1859
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
are you saying that majority of them has no idea about what they are buying? or plainly saying brandiots that don't know anything about the gadget that they use for photography or just say really know nothing about photography? if that is the case, then this hold true with most APS-C users as well. I would like to know the exact statistics to this as this raises questions whether they are actually users or plain owners. you are not suggesting that these users are just there spending a hefty amount on money on a professional equipment and just shoot AUTO mode, are you?

I'm not arguing the fact that there may be some number of these millionaire owners who cant shoot that own these but I would argue that most of them are unaware of them. I might be able to believe this if they made FF cameras cheaper and the general consumer market would be able to afford them which raises the number of probable novice users. and I don't think that an average novice joe would spend $2000-$4000 on an equipment he doesnt know how to use. in fact, I don't believe either that majority of APS-C owners know what is APS-C or it's relevance. what they only know is that they bought a big dslr camera with a name on it believing it would make them great photographers. in general, cost is one of the defining line separating the substantial number of novice users from people who are aware of what they are doing. bring down the cost to somewhere around entry level for the FF cameras, and I'm sure the number of clueless owners will sky-rocket.
Well this is even more easy. No statistics, but when a photographer with a huge Nikon D3 walks in a gym everyone knows that he is going to make the better pictures. Because we (APS-C users) are convinced that we have the lesser performing equipement.

I've seen a number of people with Nikon D700 that had absolutely no idea about how that machine was working at all. Putting lenses on them that are DX-type because they didn't own a single FX lens. Making pictures in jpg at lower resolution because they only had a 2 GB card. Thought that Nikon was the system for flash-users but ended up with one Metz flash, because a full flash system is very expensive, and who needs it with that D700 and one consumerlens. Standing beside a sportsfield with a 50mm lens and saying "we can crop the picture at home, it really looks great then" (well hell yeah, compared to your iPhone!).

You assume people plan and know what they are doing, because on a forum like this people do. Outside this world it is different.
12-11-2011, 12:48 PM   #1860
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
The 20% difference is probably due to the fact that the K-5 is a higher resolution camera. Comparing 16MP to 10MP. Everything else being equal you would expect the K-5 to show almost a 20% increase in resolution just because it has 60% more "pixels".

I selected a "specific" object because I don't have time to make a list of 50 other objects and I wanted an example. I was shooting with an Olympus E-3 before picking up a K-7 2 years ago. I know two people still using Olympus (E-5) and I have read numerous E-5 and K-5 reviews and compared them. I have not seen anything that indicates the K-5 has a lighter AA filter than my K-7. None of the comparisons between the K-5 and K-7 show any noticeable difference in resolving power. Images from the E-5 however do appear sharper in the reviews/test I have seen.

Maybe the difference is in focus, but if so that means all of the reviewers must be better at focusing the E-5 than the K-5. I'm not saying the K-5 is not a sharp camera. We are talking about 100% crops.

If you would, please post a link to a review or test that demonstrates the K-5's lighter AA and better resolving power.
Sorry, but I'll have to "fix" some of your numbers.
First, it's not "almost a 20% increase", it's over 20%, consistently shown in their own test. This alone is enough to prove there is a significant resolution increase by going from the K10D to the K-5.
Second, in this case we're talking about a test which measures the vertical resolving power, as line pairs per picture height. The difference between the K-5 and the K10D is less than 27.3%, and not 60%. Comparing the K-5 with the K-7 you'll only have a ~5.5% increase in vertical resolution so any real difference will be made by things like focussing and AA filter's strength.

Now, about the E-5 vs K-5: even on that specific zone, for that specific ISO I can't see the E-5 resolving more detail (not that a bottle label would be the best test target). It looks slightly, I mean very slightly better - but this can be explained by many other things like the compulsory NR, focusing differences, diffraction already playing it's part at f/9, different processing and so on; and also by the E-5's very light AA filter. By the way, DPReview had to re-do the K-5 tests over and over again, until they were able to get some acceptable focusing samples.
But, again, I claimed (and successfully proved) there is a significant increase in resolution by going from the K10D to the K-5; not that it have the lightest AA filter and I certainly wasn't comparing it to any other camera - I don't have to prove claims I haven't made
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, bodies, body, dslr, full-frame, lenses, lineup, pentax, system, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM
News Regarding Advertising on PentaxForums.com: An Official Statement Adam Site Suggestions and Help 5 03-24-2010 07:37 PM
Official: New DSLR Body is Coming; Full Frame Model is Under Planning! RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 78 08-04-2008 06:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:12 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