Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-26-2013, 10:14 AM   #91
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,416
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
I know, just say 2 more or less stops of bokeh. That seems to play right into many people's misunderstanding of what bokeh is.


ROFL


Steve

10-26-2013, 10:21 AM   #92
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,416
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Mrs. ElJamoquio was taking pics with her new Ricoh APS-C and about cried when she saw the same pics from the D600. I actually didn't think they were THAT different.
That is sort of how I felt when Tuco started posting his D600 stuff on Flickr.


Steve
10-26-2013, 10:30 AM   #93
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,416
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
No more subjective than the rest of the DoF equations. Namely pick an acceptable circle of confusion depending on print size, viewing distance, and how drunk the viewer is and go from there.
Sad, but so true. I have taken part in some extensive and very technical threads on this site regarding DOF and when all the research is done, your statement is the final conclusion. The calculated DOF is truly based on several arbitrary assumptions:
  • Acceptable blur
  • Final image size
  • Viewing distance for final image
Needless to say, in this world of pixel peeping with the speed of a mouse click, acceptable blur has taken on a completely different meaning. To be completely honest, I tell people that there is truly only one true point of focus, regardless of aperture. Anything in front of or behind that point will be less sharp. How much so is dependent on aperture, final image size, and viewing distance.


Steve
10-26-2013, 10:50 AM   #94
Pentaxian
carrrlangas's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Joensuu (Finland)
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,750
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Sad, but so true. I have taken part in some extensive and very technical threads on this site regarding DOF and when all the research is done, your statement is the final conclusion. The calculated DOF is truly based on several arbitrary assumptions:
Acceptable blur
Final image size
Viewing distance for final image
Needless to say, in this world of pixel peeping with the speed of a mouse click, acceptable blur has taken on a completely different meaning. To be completely honest, I tell people that there is truly only one true point of focus, regardless of aperture. Anything in front of or behind that point will be less sharp. How much so is dependent on aperture, final image size, and viewing distance.


Steve
Steve or others, would you know about some good biblography to extand on this subject? I am putting together a small presentation for some friends and their friends with technical bits Ive been collecting (a lot from this forum!) and they are curious the learn about them.

10-26-2013, 12:00 PM   #95
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,179
QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
some good biblography
Herbert Keppler "The Pentax Way" He refers to DOF in a practical way throughout the book with simple diagrams. However, only for the 35mm film format

Arthur Cox " Photographic Optics" Pages 64 to 97. He shows the math with descriptions, geometric optics and lens diagrams. That book is pre- computer, however I use his functions in a spreadsheet.

A very simple but usable computer aided design application is "OpticalRayTracer.jar" it is GPL, free and runs on Java, so it is platform agnostic.
Here it is modeling a vintage 90mm wide angle lens at f/11 on a 4 x 5 film plane.
I can model that because the prescription is available, However I don't think the prescriptions for modern lenses are available in public domain?
The app models dispersion as well for lateral chromatic abberation, and it is possible to change things (for example the aperture), zoom into the film plane and see the circle of confusion.
Attached Images
 
10-26-2013, 12:10 PM   #96
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
That is sort of how I felt when Tuco started posting his D600 stuff on Flickr.
Steve
The biggest wow-factor I experienced when I first got that camera coming from a K-7 and XP1 is something nobody here seems to really care about and that's fine. That camera was traded in for a D800 btw.

It seems everyone's arguments center around size, sharpness and DOF when it comes to brand-X crop sensor vs brand-Y FF. All valid arguments. But when I prioritized my list of things I wanted in my next digital camera those mentioned attributes were near the bottom of my short priority list.

I shoot my film cameras when I want to do things on the methodical and manual side. When I hold a fancy modern camera, I expect a way more from it. Ricoh is only starting to move the Pentax brand in the direction with attributes that were high on my priority list.
10-26-2013, 02:46 PM   #97
Pentaxian
traderdrew's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 570
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by carrrlangas Quote
Steve or others, would you know about some good biblography to extand on this subject? I am putting together a small presentation for some friends and their friends with technical bits Ive been collecting (a lot from this forum!) and they are curious the learn about them.
I don't know of any sources on this. Without knowing exactly what field of view is, I think it is worth mentioning that field of view (maybe we can call it FOV) can be viewed in two or three dimensions to help understand it.

I view noise as affected by the field of view of FFs and APS-C cameras also.
10-26-2013, 02:50 PM - 1 Like   #98
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,821
You might want to have a look at this.... it will tell you everything you need to know.

Pentax Wins....

10-28-2013, 07:25 AM   #99
Veteran Member
Andi Lo's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 2,925
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You might want to have a look at this.... it will tell you everything you need to know.

Pentax Wins....
Doesnt matter, got FF

(the above is a meme joke by the way), I'm glad that K-3 is getting good reviews, it can only bode well for the future of Pentax.
10-28-2013, 07:41 AM   #100
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,821
QuoteOriginally posted by Andi Lo Quote
Doesnt matter, got FF

(the above is a meme joke by the way), I'm glad that K-3 is getting good reviews, it can only bode well for the future of Pentax.
It occurs to me is that there is so much anti-Pentax BS posted on this forum, after a while even I start to believe it. It's just a relief to see someone saying nice things about Pentax, even if they are a bunch of bozos.
10-28-2013, 08:48 AM   #101
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,416
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
The biggest wow-factor I experienced when I first got that camera coming from a K-7 and XP1 is something nobody here seems to really care about and that's fine.
Let me guess...AF speed and accuracy


Steve

(BTW...congrats on the D800...Major envy from this corner of the world...)
10-28-2013, 11:06 AM   #102
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
well seen

QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Keeping the field of view or the framing of the subject the same is a sensible way to compare the formats, and is the one people usually have in mind when they make the claim "FF has shallower DoF than crop" so I think it's usually worth mentioning. However, I don't really care what parameters are changed when comparing the DoF as long as they're explicitly stated. I've lost count of the disagreements I've seen between two people who were both right but failed to clearly indicate what exactly they were comparing and thus seemed to have reached different conclusions when all they had done was answer different questions.

Change focal length, distance, aperture, format, print size, or don't, it doesn't matter but being clear about it cuts confusion by at least one stop. Maybe two.


If only there were some way to establish a relationship between formats, like some sort of equivalence concept...

Seriously though, this is spot-on, and it pertains to other things like 'perspective'. I've been in page-long discussions going no-where before I realized the other folks were using a different definition of a term or terms, and neither of us were wrong in what we were arguing, we were just arguing about different things using the same terms.

.
10-28-2013, 11:39 AM   #103
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,821
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote


If only there were some way to establish a relationship between formats, like some sort of equivalence concept...

Seriously though, this is spot-on, and it pertains to other things like 'perspective'. I've been in page-long discussions going no-where before I realized the other folks were using a different definition of a term or terms, and neither of us were wrong in what we were arguing, we were just arguing about different things using the same terms.

.
I've never done that.
10-28-2013, 06:10 PM   #104
Veteran Member
Ikarus's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 471
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You might want to have a look at this.... it will tell you everything you need to know.

Pentax Wins....
Great job by the K-3 and the 55mm f/1.4! That said, it is very apparent from the example pictures that the DOF of the Nikon is much shallower at the same aperture. I wouldn't go as far as to invoke apples and oranges, but the comparison would be a lot more meaningful had the author at least attempted to normalize for DOF, even though that's not possible without error, since the aperture can only be adjusted in discrete steps.
10-28-2013, 08:20 PM   #105
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
You could get close in aperture, certainly within a third of a stop. Even with discrete control, though, it's tough because the rated aperture and the actual aperture can deviate.

Certainly I would have produced nominally the same picture, same focus point, and same exposure before I would have posted results on the web.

Nevertheless the K-3 results looked fine.
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!
dof, ffs, full-frame, nikon, pentax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to shoot a wedding with APS-C and FF nick52 Photographic Technique 8 08-05-2013 05:14 PM
APS-C and FA 43 lens focal length Driline Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 03-09-2013 09:45 AM
APS-C vs Micro 4/3 in DR and DOF lightbulb Pentax DSLR Discussion 16 02-24-2012 07:27 PM
Comparing a P&S to a APS-C camera: SNR, Framing/Equiv. Zoom range, DOF dosdan Photography Articles 2 06-11-2011 06:39 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 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