Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-08-2014, 08:02 AM   #91
Veteran Member
krebsy75's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chester County, Pa.
Posts: 804
My turn to show off...

FA 77 @ f/2 via PZ-1:


FA 77 @ f/2 via K-5IIs:


01-08-2014, 08:14 AM   #92
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
Normhead, I don't see any pictures in your post at all. So admitted, I'm commenting without having seen them. But it doesn't have to be technical deficiencies of camera systems, or lack of knowledge of the user, it can also just be physics at work. For example take a picture with the DA 15 ltd. Anything in the borders gets stretched out. If you accidentally catch a person walking into your frame in the border, he or she will turn into an extremely obese figure. Now take an equivalent FL like 22mm and shoot the same scene with it on an FF camera. The distortion in the borders will be much less distorted. Not gone of course, but much less obvious and much less disturbing.
01-08-2014, 08:27 AM   #93
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Normhead, I don't see any pictures in your post at all. So admitted, I'm commenting without having seen them. But it doesn't have to be technical deficiencies of camera systems, or lack of knowledge of the user, it can also just be physics at work. For example take a picture with the DA 15 ltd. Anything in the borders gets stretched out. If you accidentally catch a person walking into your frame in the border, he or she will turn into an extremely obese figure. Now take an equivalent FL like 22mm and shoot the same scene with it on an FF camera. The distortion in the borders will be much less distorted. Not gone of course, but much less obvious and much less disturbing.
Yes, but as a photographer you know about that , so you either try the shot with your 10-17 fisheye, or you wait until the the person leaves the frame. I don't see what the value is of imaginigaing situations where one system or the other wouldn't work. In my own work using the 10-17 fisheye and the 8-16 Sigma, sometimes the images looks better with distortion, sometimes they look better without. Distortion isn't always negative in an image.

So this is what I'm saying, if you limit yourself to very narrow parameters in a hypothetical situation, it's easy to get it wrong. Because there will always be variables you din't think of in your scenario, that are quite real and unavoidable in the field. Which is exactly why I think this type of speculation is useless.

Last edited by normhead; 01-08-2014 at 08:43 AM.
01-08-2014, 08:28 AM   #94
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by krebsy75 Quote
My turn to show off...

FA 77 @ f/2 via PZ-1:


FA 77 @ f/2 via K-5IIs:
Really nice.... the expression in that second one is priceless. I hope it is blown up to life size and hung on your wall, it's a treasure. I took one of my son on a beach in Spain when he was 3 with a cute little hat on, with a very similar expression, and it hung on my mothers wall for almost 40 years, until she died. Thanks for the memory.


Last edited by normhead; 01-08-2014 at 08:34 AM.
01-08-2014, 08:29 AM   #95
Veteran Member
krebsy75's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chester County, Pa.
Posts: 804
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Really nice....
Thank you.
01-08-2014, 08:31 AM   #96
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
I see many new APS-C cameras under $500 but very few new full frame cameras under $1,500.
01-08-2014, 08:36 AM   #97
Veteran Member
krebsy75's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chester County, Pa.
Posts: 804
I'm nuetral on the FF vs. APS-C issue. I feel it comes down to the application and willingness to lug heavier gear around. And spend more money on glass...

I will say this regarding portrait photography: With APS-C you may be forced to use a lens within an aperture range in which performance isn't ideal. f/1.4 on APS-C is equivelant to f/2.0 on FF. Most f/1.4 glass isn't very sharp at that aperture.
01-08-2014, 08:41 AM   #98
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by krebsy75 Quote
I'm nuetral on the FF vs. APS-C issue. I feel it comes down to the application and willingness to lug heavier gear around. And spend more money on glass...

I will say this regarding portrait photography: With APS-C you may be forced to use a lens within an aperture range in which performance isn't ideal. In other words, f/1.4 on APS-C is equivelant to f/2.0 on FF. Most f/1.4 glass isn't very sharp at that aperture.
I agree with you there, but then in my Portarait Studio classes I was trained with an 8x10 tilt shift, so as far as I'm concerned, for portraits, the larger the better. If I had a portrait studio, I'd be shooting MF or 4x5 film. My kids are grown and I do very few portraits these days, usually of the wife, and they often get me in trouble, so I try to avoid them. The one I posted above is my grand-daughter.


Last edited by normhead; 01-08-2014 at 08:49 AM.
01-08-2014, 08:50 AM   #99
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You did say FF cameras a cheaper than APS-c cameras, lets no get all righteous. How does an FF camera get to be cheaper, then except by cutting features?
Wait, so all this - pages of posts, dissertation-length diatribes, you insulting a toddler, was all based on you not understanding someone else's argument??



01-08-2014, 08:52 AM   #100
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Yes, but as a photographer you know about that , so you either try the shot with your 10-17 fisheye, or you wait until the the person leaves the frame. I don't see what the value is of imaginigaing situations where one system or the other wouldn't work. In my own work using the 10-17 fisheye and the 8-16 Sigma, sometimes the images look better with distortion, sometimes they look better without. Distortion isn't always negative in an image.
But the distortion doesn't restrict itself to human figures. Yes, it's more prominent on persons. But being the nitpicky pixelpeeping photographer that I am, distorted rocks, trees or any other distorted objects jump out just the same. I don't like it. And the solution was FF because its simply better at that. Of course APS-C with WA works, it just looks bad. And no, in my opinion distortion is never good. It's like lens softness, that's never good either. In the rare case that it is desired it could be added in PP. Or in that case a cellphone can be used.
01-08-2014, 09:02 AM   #101
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,933
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
But the distortion doesn't restrict itself to human figures. Yes, it's more prominent on persons. But being the nitpicky pixelpeeping photographer that I am, distorted rocks, trees or any other distorted objects jump out just the same. I don't like it. And the solution was FF because its simply better at that. Of course APS-C with WA works, it just looks bad. And no, in my opinion distortion is never good. It's like lens softness, that's never good either. In the rare case that it is desired it could be added in PP. Or in that case a cellphone can be used.
I don't think it is that bad. And once you get really wide, even on full frame you see some distortion (the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is about the best of the lot, but you really pay for that). May actually do better using a longer focal length and stitching...
01-08-2014, 09:09 AM   #102
Veteran Member
mrNewt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ON, RH
Posts: 2,170
You can always apply lens correction in PP to fix your distortions.
Personally I like the longer focal and stitching approach - build your panoramas that way.
01-08-2014, 09:27 AM   #103
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,248
To the OP....

I believe many years ago there is someone predict that PC is unlikely to become cheap as well ?

Tech advances, and a spurt in one area may revolutionize another industry.

Consider...
Portable CD player become so good and affordable, then MP3 format change the game...
GPS navigation become so advance and affordable, then smart phone with GPS come along...
PC become so powerful and so affordable, then everyone suddenly caught on with tablets and apps...

I just think it is a good time to live in to observe all these advances.
01-08-2014, 10:50 AM   #104
Pentaxian
redrockcoulee's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,097
I would think that if the shallowness of depth of field factors in on sensor production costs then making a 4X5 sensor should be less than that for a point and shoot camera. Why would the lesser noise factor, price of lens or depth of field mean anything in cost of producing sensors unless one became extremely rare and no longer worth the effort to produce. They seem more like arguments for or against a certain sensor sized based SYSTEM than anything to do with the comparitive costs of manufacturing two different sensor sizes.
01-08-2014, 10:57 AM   #105
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by redrockcoulee Quote
I would think that if the shallowness of depth of field factors in on sensor production costs then making a 4X5 sensor should be less than that for a point and shoot camera. Why would the lesser noise factor, price of lens or depth of field mean anything in cost of producing sensors unless one became extremely rare and no longer worth the effort to produce. They seem more like arguments for or against a certain sensor sized based SYSTEM than anything to do with the comparitive costs of manufacturing two different sensor sizes.
We're yet to see someone who's claimed that FF sensors would be less expensive than APS-C. Who knows, could've been a mis-type by the poster (me?), bad edit by the poster, misunderstanding by the normhead, etc.


Until we do I think it's best not to argue against a strawman.
Closed Thread

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, camera, cost, curve, dslr, ff, ff sensors, film, photography, price, prices, scale, sensors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Suggestion Stop the FF infection ... of the other threads - read on. jpzk Site Suggestions and Help 59 03-18-2015 11:30 AM
K-5II or K-5IIs - which one will you choose if the price is the same? frank Pentax K-5 54 06-20-2013 03:45 PM
This Foron Will Never Be The Same jeffkpotter General Talk 10 06-12-2009 04:14 PM
This Forum Will Never Be The Same jeffkpotter General Talk 45 06-09-2009 06:44 PM
Rumors confirmed! The new Pentax will be FF! B051LjKo Pentax News and Rumors 7 01-11-2008 04:10 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:19 AM. | 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