Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-05-2013, 01:12 PM   #136
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Well for narrow DOF you can also look out for 85mm/f1.4 or 135mm/f1.8.

06-05-2013, 01:16 PM   #137
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,735
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Well for narrow DOF you can also look out for 85mm/f1.4 or 135mm/f1.8.
You need to be in one of those threads where they are going on about 1.2 lenses or faster on FF to understand how wrong you are in some folks eyes. There's threads here where they don't even want you posting if you don't have an 1.2 lens. They not only want faster themselves, they don't even want to see your pictures if you don't have one.
06-05-2013, 01:20 PM   #138
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You need to be in one of those threads where they are going on about 1.2 lenses or faster on FF to understand how wrong you are in some folks eyes. There's threads here where they don't even want you posting if you don't have an 1.2 lens. They not only want faster themselves, they don't even want to see your pictures if you don't have one.
There is a special corner for every mad guy in this world.


Buy Leica M with Noctilux and never look back on a cheap forum like this one.
06-05-2013, 03:44 PM   #139
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
It's cheaper to go small DOF on FF than it is on APS-C. If you're purchasing new glass it'll be cheaper to purchase FF + 1.8's than it is to purchase APS-C and 1.4's.

06-05-2013, 05:45 PM   #140
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,735
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
It's cheaper to go small DOF on FF than it is on APS-C. If you're purchasing new glass it'll be cheaper to purchase FF + 1.8's than it is to purchase APS-C and 1.4's.
I hope that isn't important to anyone on the forum shooting Pentax, because if it is, they've made some bad decisions.
06-05-2013, 06:46 PM   #141
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Sure. But my point initially was that between 50mm and 300mm (30mm and 200mm APS-C) there are a lot of options that will give fairly narrow depth of field. Wider than that, Pentax APS-C doesn't have nearly as many options.
There's no overwhelming difference in DOF control anywhere in the focal length range - it's just 1.3 stops for the same FOV and aperture. That's just not earth shattering, and no-one is claiming that it is, but it's there and you notice it from time to time - and it's nice to have. After about 200mm, the additional DOF control is hard to come by without getting into very big and expensive lenses.

The reason these discussions often move in this direction is because 1) it's (equivalence) still not understood very well, and 2) it's one of the measurable/practical ways the formats differ, so it bears discussion. It's not discussed because it's so overwhelmingly important to most FF shooters - it just is what it is.



QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
When you pay that much money for a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Or something like that.
What brings you into the FF section, John?

.

Last edited by jsherman999; 06-05-2013 at 07:14 PM.
06-05-2013, 06:58 PM   #142
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
What brings you into the FF section, John? .
My children, FA31, FA43, and M50

Truth told, those are all sub F2.0, but I rarely use them wide open because even with APS-C, DOF is too thin for the kind of candid/photojournalist style that I often find myself shooting in.
06-05-2013, 07:20 PM   #143
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
hang on to them

QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
My children, FA31, FA43, and M50

Truth told, those are all sub F2.0, but I rarely use them wide open because even with APS-C, DOF is too thin for the kind of candid/photojournalist style that I often find myself shooting in.
Ah, but on FF that wonderful 43 could be shot at f/4, where it's blisteringly sharp, and you'd have f/2.5 equivalent subject isolation. Maybe not important for most street shooting, but...

If Pentax came out with FF, the 43ltd would be the first lens I'd (re-) buy. It's FOV is perfect for a lot of the things I do, it's small, and has that specialness.

06-05-2013, 07:45 PM   #144
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I hope that isn't important to anyone on the forum shooting Pentax, because if it is, they've made some bad decisions.
Small DOF isn't everything. Still, if you mention that people 'should go 1.4 before going FF' you should mention that it'll be more expensive.
06-18-2013, 08:47 AM   #145
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary, AB CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 292
In terms of attraction to FF, I thought originally it would be things like brighter / bigger VF, bigger photosites (less noise), and the usual reasons.

But I'm comparing options based on image qualities, like for example the 645D, and what I'm also finding is that the larger sensors allow for longer focal lengths that give a more pleasing image. For example I tend to like the image properties in the 85-135mm range, but on APS-C I don't like the framing and working distance interactions as much.

Perhaps to convince myself, I ran image comparisons with my 30mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2, and I'm not getting what I want; either the distortion at 30mm is too much for shorter distances, especially for faces, or the fov is too narrow at 50mm and does not allow for as much context in the composition.

Is this why the 40's are popular? That they are the 'best' trade-off in distance, view, and isolation? The only 40-ish lens I have that's any good is the 16-45, but it's crap at isolation.
06-19-2013, 09:06 AM   #146
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by noser Quote
Is this why the 40's are popular? That they are the 'best' trade-off in distance, view, and isolation?
Yes. And why the 43 has remained so popular. And why 55mm was chosen for the DA* portrait lens.
06-20-2013, 06:57 AM   #147
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary, AB CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Yes. And why the 43 has remained so popular. And why 55mm was chosen for the DA* portrait lens.
Thx; the raves about the 43 in general pointed me that way. I'm still not sold on the focal length / distortion / working distances / aperture equation (hence my preference for slightly longer fl's), but my only experience is the 16-45 which is a decent lens, but I suspect it has a different feel to the distortion behavior from the 43. The samples I've seen look 'flatter' than the 16-45.... If that makes sense.
06-20-2013, 01:54 PM   #148
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,249
Larger format give you certain "look", even on wider lens. One can get thin DOF on APSC (long focal length and close focusing), but the photo will look "flat". But look at photo taken with MF camera like the Pentax 67, they are so "alive", like you are there, a sense of immersive. Is not just DOF, I believe. FF obviously not as good as MF, but they are at a 'reasonable' price point than MF.
You can probably try to emulate this type of "look" on APS-C camera, by stitching, using long focal length and large aperture.
I know it is usually dangerous to show pictures when discussing this type of thing, but I will show several pics I took by stitching, that somehow give a feel of those large sensor camera give (my friends told me, so hopefully they are right.). If the pics fail to convey the idea, don't tease me ok?.... :-)
8 photos stitch:

8 photos stitch:

6 photos stitch:


Looking at photos taken with FF and MF camera, this kind of "look" I believe is easy to get with FF or MF with just a single frame.
This is one of the main reason why I want a digital FF.

and like many others, I believe PENTAX will have one, eventually.
06-21-2013, 12:25 PM   #149
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by LFLee Quote
Larger format give you certain "look", even on wider lens. One can get thin DOF on APSC (long focal length and close focusing), but the photo will look "flat". But look at photo taken with MF camera like the Pentax 67, they are so "alive", like you are there, a sense of immersive. Is not just DOF, I believe. FF obviously not as good as MF, but they are at a 'reasonable' price point than MF. ...
Looking at photos taken with FF and MF camera, this kind of "look" I believe is easy to get with FF or MF with just a single frame.
This is one of the main reason why I want a digital FF.

That last photo looks really nice, lots of perceived depth and 'layers'. Yes, something a larger sensor might be able to do natively, but not (maybe) quite at that distance and FOV. Anyay, great job, I really like it.

.
06-21-2013, 04:11 PM   #150
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary, AB CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by LFLee Quote
Larger format give you certain "look", even on wider lens. One can get thin DOF on APSC (long focal length and close focusing), but the photo will look "flat". But look at photo taken with MF camera like the Pentax 67, they are so "alive", like you are there, a sense of immersive. Is not just DOF, I believe. FF obviously not as good as MF, but they are at a 'reasonable' price point than MF.
You can probably try to emulate this type of "look" on APS-C camera, by stitching, using long focal length and large aperture.
I know it is usually dangerous to show pictures when discussing this type of thing, but I will show several pics I took by stitching, that somehow give a feel of those large sensor camera give (my friends told me, so hopefully they are right.). If the pics fail to convey the idea, don't tease me ok?.... :-)

Looking at photos taken with FF and MF camera, this kind of "look" I believe is easy to get with FF or MF with just a single frame.
This is one of the main reason why I want a digital FF.

and like many others, I believe PENTAX will have one, eventually.
Those images are fantastic... That's exactly what I mean. Guess I just signed up for a 645D
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!
24x36mm, aps-c, benefit, depth, ff, field, filter, frame, frame pentax, fuji, full-frame, goldilocks, iq, iso, noise, pentax, picture, resolution, sensor, terms
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So.... Pentax Full Frame is a sure thing? LFLee Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 11-02-2012 12:55 PM
Why is the K7 so terrible? or rather why am i having such a problem with it? runslikeapenguin Pentax DSLR Discussion 60 05-01-2012 01:16 PM
Why do people want a Full Frame sensor? RobG Pentax DSLR Discussion 98 02-15-2012 09:12 AM
Is there such a thing as a decent superzoom (for Pentax)? DanielT74 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 06-21-2011 05:57 AM
Full-Frame Image Sensor Holy Grail - Why? stewart_photo Pentax DSLR Discussion 82 10-10-2007 03:00 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:42 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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