Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-27-2012, 06:03 AM   #841
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,602
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Will be what?
To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Ay, there's the rub,

04-27-2012, 06:09 AM   #842
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,809
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die to sleep,
To sleep, perchance to Dream; Ay, there's the rub,
Nice monochrome.
Is that your own work?





04-27-2012, 06:19 AM - 1 Like   #843
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,273
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Nice monochrome.
Is that your own work?





ROFLMAO

04-27-2012, 06:26 AM   #844
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,602
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Nice monochrome.
Is that your own work?

Perhpas I should clarify the rather broad reference.

Pentax must die and be reborn to the FF, but what if the dream after life is worse than life?

04-27-2012, 06:28 AM   #845
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
"APSC-Style" lenses

QuoteOriginally posted by glanglois Quote
Sorry, Falk, but it's at the end of a long day here. What is an "APS-C style lens"?
see below
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Or a FF lens made with a smaller max aperture to reduce size/cost, basically giving up some of the FF advantage and 'matching' aps-c. Any f/4 zooms for example (24-70 f/4, 70-200 f/4)
Mosty what I meant, cf. below.
Thanks.
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Question to those who may know: What is the most expensive lens to make: a high quality 16-50/f2.8 covering APS-C with good corner-to-corner quality, or a 24-70 f/4 with equally good FF coverage?
As I don't cease to say: FF is cheaper. I treat that topic in one of my papers.
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
No it won't unless the former have a minimum aperture of F:32 which they usually don't....
The minimum aperture usually scales too. E.g., a 300mm may stop down to F32 while a 200mm may only stop down to F22 (as then both holes have same ~9mm size). But it's not a very relevant point beyond F22 anyway.
QuoteOriginally posted by glanglois Quote
Of course, thanks. Now that I'm moderately awake, I'll cheerfully acknowledge that I should have known that.
No, I did not mean the APSC image circle.
(AFAIK, such lenses are called APSC lenses )

So, what are APSC-style lenses? These are lenses which are popular with APSC cameras, with their properties translated to 35mm equivalent terms to make them independent of the sensor size.

E.g., the DA* 50-135/2.8 constant aperture zoom is the equivalent 70-200/4 APSC-style lens. It does exist for Canon FF or Olympus FT (35-100/2). Cheapest for FF, most expensive for crop 2. And Tokina is to bring the lens to Nikon FF.

Other examples would be an equivalent 22/5.6 pancake wide angle (DA15) etc. Or a 18-36/5.6 WA zoom (DA12-24). You get the idea...

At Nikon, I see a recent trend to launch APSC style lenses for FF.

Last edited by falconeye; 04-27-2012 at 06:34 AM.
04-27-2012, 06:29 AM   #846
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,809
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome:
Pentax must die and be reborn, but what if the afterlife is worse than life with the dream?
And all that we see, or seem, is but a dream within a dream....
04-27-2012, 06:47 AM - 1 Like   #847
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,602
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
And all that we see, or seem, is but a dream within a dream....
I concede, more because I have to work today and I can't play English Major quote tag but I will say at times I've thought that digital images on a monitor push into Poe's metaphor.
04-27-2012, 07:32 AM   #848
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by Coeurdechene Quote
It ain't it's "only" advantage, you get more depth of field control, .

Wrong! If anything, you get less DOF control the larger the format atlthough the term is misleading. If you go as large as large format (LF) you need to add tilt and shift to get control over DOF. To be precise APS and FF give exactly the same control over DOF when using lenses with the same aperture range; APS is shifted about a stop towards larger DOF. As 99,999 of all images shot by humankind, and I'm not even slightly exagregating, are shot with DOF no shallower than can be achieved with APS, the argument is moot. FF is at a disadvantage.
I shot with APS, 35mm and MF. You'll experience that for the same image you will use a longer shutterspeed with larger format. This is another disadvantage.


Last edited by Pål Jensen; 04-27-2012 at 07:43 AM.
04-27-2012, 07:38 AM   #849
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
E.g., the DA* 50-135/2.8 constant aperture zoom is the equivalent 70-200/4 APSC-style lens. .
This equivalency is irrelevant for photography for most. Hardly anyone buy lenses for a specific DOF wide open but for exposure freedom (like low light shooting) and brightness of viewfinders. Hence, these lenses are not equal. In addition they will not display the same DOF range which is more relevant than absolute DOF in mm's wide open. They will not give the same exposure at the same DOF when used at the formats they are designed for; exposure is important for photography. Not to mention shutterspeed which may be the difference between an image and no image (due to technical quality).
If you then equalize the formats in order to give them the same output quality you are removing the reasons for using a larger format over a smaller one in the first place.
The equivalency postulate is misleading.

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 04-27-2012 at 07:45 AM.
04-27-2012, 08:02 AM   #850
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
No it won't unless the former have a minimum aperture of F:32 which they usually don't....
Well, actually you're probably not right here (see Falk's comment).

To what I really said : I might be a shallow hipster, but I certainly think it's useful to use f/2.8 on e.g. my DA35 Ltd. for shallow DoF effects. I'm not obsessed by dreamy bokeh, but sometimes shallow DoF works better, IMHO. However, I think f/2.8 on a standard zoom on a FF camera with a sensor performing well on high ISO is simply overkill, so I don't see the need for Pentax to make a 24-70 f/2.8 for their initial FF camera release. A 24-70 f/4 will be just fine (or 24-105 - I think Canon sells a lot of those with their 5d's). Then make sure the 60-250 works well on FF (maybe it only needs a new petal hood?) and we only need something like a 16-35 f/4 to have a fine initial setup.
04-27-2012, 08:16 AM   #851
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Wrong! If anything, you get less DOF control the larger the format atlthough the term is misleading. If you go as large as large format (LF) you need to add tilt and shift to get control over DOF. To be precise APS and FF give exactly the same control over DOF when using lenses with the same aperture range; APS is shifted about a stop towards larger DOF. As 99,999 of all images shot by humankind, and I'm not even slightly exagregating, are shot with DOF no shallower than can be achieved with APS, the argument is moot. FF is at a disadvantage.
I shot with APS, 35mm and MF. You'll experience that for the same image you will use a longer shutterspeed with larger format. This is another disadvantage.
The FF sensor is larger and far more photons hit each pixel for an equivalent resolution. Thus numerically equal ISO's do not have equivalent noise for an equivalent photo.

The bottom line is that when all considerations are equal you can shoot at a higher ISO and thus use the same shutter duration. It is not a disadvantage.
04-27-2012, 08:16 AM   #852
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
This equivalency is irrelevant for photography for most.
It seems to be for you and for the record, I'll leave you alone on this topic from now on. Happy shooting
04-27-2012, 08:22 AM   #853
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
This equivalency is irrelevant for photography for most. Hardly anyone buy lenses for a specific DOF wide open but for exposure freedom (like low light shooting) and brightness of viewfinders.
I think a lot of people buy lenses for DOF. Assuming your assumption is more correct than my assumption, though... even at the same DOF the 'quality' of a lens will generally be much better for a FF. In other words, when you're shooting an APS-C for a given scene you might choose to shoot it wide open, where most lenses do not perform well technically, whereas for the equivalent DOF on FF you would be able to shoot closer to the 'best' part of the lens.

Low light shooting is equivalent given all other things equivalent as I mentioned in the prior post.

Brightness of viewfinders is either equivalent or better for FF depending upon your assumptions (viewfinder area and speed of lens). If you have the same speed of lens and the same viewfinder area, the FF will be brighter. If you have the same speed of lens and a larger FF viewfinder (which most people seem to prefer) then the brightness will be the same. If you have the same viewfinder area and 'equivalent' lenses (FF slower) then the brightness will be the same.
04-27-2012, 08:42 AM   #854
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
The FF sensor is larger and far more photons hit each pixel for an equivalent resolution. Thus numerically equal ISO's do not have equivalent noise for an equivalent photo.

The bottom line is that when all considerations are equal you can shoot at a higher ISO and thus use the same shutter duration. It is not a disadvantage.
You do not choose one format over another to get equivalent resolution. Quite the opposite in fact. All this equavalency talk may be interesting armchair talk but is is irrelevant for almost all. Cameras and lenses are not DOF measuring instruments where the only thing that matters is exact DOF wide open (but strangly enough not range of DOF). They are instruments for talking pictures.

Keep the physics in mind;

1) A larger format will give better image quality than a smaller one at the same ISO all things equal.
2) Different formats give different DOF at the same magnification, focus distance and numerical aperture.

You cannot equalize yourself away from these facts unless as an intellectual excersize with little value for real life photography, or if to trade away the main reason for using another format in the first place. At which point the whole excecise becomes pointless.
04-27-2012, 08:48 AM   #855
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Well, actually you're probably not right here (see Falk's comment).
.
I am right
We were talking abot 24-70 (FF) and 16-45 lenses here not super telephotos which Falk brought up (actually; people buy super telephotos for magnification; speed for exposure freedom and ease of focusing. APS has a definitive advantage as the wide open DOF of, say, a 400/2.8 is a problem not a solution). What you do with the equivalency experiment is to only regard the DOF wide open and not take into consideration the reality; namely that lenses have a range of DOF. Hence, you need F:32 on that FF lens to make it "equivalent" DOF-wise (but not otherwise) in your example.

But the whole point is that formats are not equal in the first place and the reason for them is that they aren't. Hence, equalizing them is an excercise in futility...

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 04-27-2012 at 09:15 AM.
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!
dream, frame, full-frame, pentax, pentax full frame
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
Full Frame Pentax a pipe dream? Athiril Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 08-18-2008 02:10 AM
My Dream of a K20D, crushed..... Mr Hyde Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 04-10-2008 02:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:37 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