Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-31-2014, 04:09 AM   #226
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
They are marking their interchangeable lens with the focal length
Except when they aren't.


QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Except if you want to "prove" the "superiority" of one format, like ElJamoquio here.
Again, for at least the second time this thread - equivalence says that any format can produce any picture. I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you that.

Sometimes it's cheaper with full frame and sometimes it's cheaper with the Q. It all depends on your desired picture.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 04:16 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't know that I buy this 20 percent increase. Sounds like a made up statistic to me. But how big are you printing/viewing right now?
I'm not sure why this comes back to me and my needs again. My smallest prints are generally 10x15 and my largest is a hair under 40x60. That's irrelevant though, so I'm not sure why I even humored you. Humor me, now, you told me that the D7100 + 17-55 was better than the D610+24-85. I'm interested in the specs, and could easily sell my setup. Which of the two combos is lighter? wider? Longer? Faster at the short end, and by how much? Faster at the long end, and by how much?

I got the 20% from DxOMark. According to them it's also about 20% between the 18-55 on the K-5II and the 16-50 on the K-50 if I'm recalling correctly.


QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
You biggest increase would come from combining multiple shots in a panorama.
Absolutely. I do panoramas all the time. I don't like using tripods though (not required, but helps a lot). But the pics I want the biggest end up being pics with movement a lot of the time.


QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I should mention that if Pentax releases a full frame camera, I will probably get it. I just won't get it (a) because equivalence proves it is better or (b) because it will be cheaper.
I'm going to buy a faster car. The car is lighter and has more power. But screw F=ma, that equation sucks. .

05-31-2014, 04:31 AM   #227
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Except when they aren't.
Can you give one example of an interchangeable lens marked with some "equivalent" focal length?

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
equivalence says that any format can produce any picture
Your "equivalence" is wrong (and Joseph James "equivalence" doesn't make such claims).
But perhaps you could show me compacts resolving as much detail as a medium format camera. Or are you going to tell me the image is not important, just some "benchmarked" parameters?
05-31-2014, 04:53 AM   #228
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Except when they aren't.




Again, for at least the second time this thread - equivalence says that any format can produce any picture. I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you that.

Sometimes it's cheaper with full frame and sometimes it's cheaper with the Q. It all depends on your desired picture.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 04:16 AM ----------



I'm not sure why this comes back to me and my needs again. My smallest prints are generally 10x15 and my largest is a hair under 40x60. That's irrelevant though, so I'm not sure why I even humored you. Humor me, now, you told me that the D7100 + 17-55 was better than the D610+24-85. I'm interested in the specs, and could easily sell my setup. Which of the two combos is lighter? wider? Longer? Faster at the short end, and by how much? Faster at the long end, and by how much?

I got the 20% from DxOMark. According to them it's also about 20% between the 18-55 on the K-5II and the 16-50 on the K-50 if I'm recalling correctly.




Absolutely. I do panoramas all the time. I don't like using tripods though (not required, but helps a lot). But the pics I want the biggest end up being pics with movement a lot of the time.




I'm going to buy a faster car. The car is lighter and has more power. But screw F=ma, that equation sucks. .
It isn't about you or me specifically, it is just about photographers in general. To me, the reasons for full frame are (1) nicer viewfinder -- not sure if this changes as EVFs get better on smaller sensor cameras, but it is still nice to have. (2) better features -- this is not an issue with Pentax, but with Canon and Nikon there is a tendency to skimp on features of APS-C cameras. Maybe there will be a D400 this year, but till Nikon comes out with such a camera, full frame has better features (3) better resolution -- this is one where I struggle a bit. If you are shooting mostly low iso situations, then I doubt you will see a lot of difference between a K3 print and a D600 print. (4) narrow depth of field -- this is the thing that people throw around the most and the thing that I don't really need personally.

I could probably use four thirds just as easily as APS-C for my needs, but I am happy with things as they are.
05-31-2014, 05:18 AM   #229
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Can you give one example of an interchangeable lens marked with some "equivalent" focal length?
No.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Or are you going to tell me the image is not important, just some "benchmarked" parameters?
No.

OK, I've answered many of your question, now please answer mine, that I've had to ask twice.

05-31-2014, 05:32 AM   #230
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
If you can't give even one example, stop making claims like this:
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
If they were using focal length on their lenses you'd have a point, but the manufacturers aren't.
There is no question addressed to me in your last 10 posts. I didn't go further back in this thread so I'll just ask: what was the question you asked twice?
05-31-2014, 05:33 AM   #231
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Equivalence is nonsense because no one buy or use cameras of different formats in order for them to be equal.
Sigh.

Sigh, sigh, sigh, sigh.

Sigh.

Sigh.



.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 06:40 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote

I should mention that if Pentax releases a full frame camera, I will probably get it. I just won't get it (a) because equivalence proves it is better or (b) because it will be cheaper.
It probably won't be cheaper, especially at first. But you say you won't get it because 'equivalence proves it is better' - equivalence doesn't prove any format is 'better', but it can describe lens/sensor combos that are better for you, for a certain set of applications, and that combo can be in m43, aps-c, FF, MFD, etc.

Can you list the reasons why you'd get a Pentax FF?

.

Last edited by jsherman999; 05-31-2014 at 05:47 AM.
05-31-2014, 05:41 AM   #232
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Humor me, now, you told me that the D7100 + 17-55 was better than the D610+24-85. I'm interested in the specs, and could easily sell my setup. Which of the two combos is lighter? wider? Longer? Faster at the short end, and by how much? Faster at the long end, and by how much?
For the third time...
05-31-2014, 05:45 AM   #233
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
That question wasn't addressed to me - why should I answer? Why should I defend a claim I didn't make?

05-31-2014, 05:45 AM   #234
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
If you can't give even one example, stop making claims
You said 'manufacturers' a few posts back. Most manufacturers use labels of equivalent focal lengths on some of their cameras or advertising materials for lenses.

Later you challenged me to provide 'interchangeable lenses' that are labeled (not advertised) with focal length labels. By restricting the definition in two ways I can no longer provide you an example.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 05:47 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Honestly, the reviews don't look that great on the Nikon 24-85. Maybe it is great on full frame and would trounce other lenses on APS-C, but I doubt it. It looks to me like most 17-50-ish f2.8 zooms will have significantly better performance on APS-C than that lens. Even the DA 17-70 probably would outperform it, based on Photozone's testing.
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
That question wasn't addressed to me - why should I answer? Why should I defend a claim I didn't make?
Yes, you did. I quoted you so you can see where you told me the 17-50ish f/2.8 zooms are better. Did I just misinterpret you?
05-31-2014, 05:52 AM   #235
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
Your logic is faultless: you claim I, "Kunzite", said something, then "prove" it by quoting Rondec. Can't argue with that.

Sorry, but it's you who must support your claim that manufacturers aren't "using focal length on their lenses" - which at best (i.e. including the irrelevant compacts) is a faulty generalization.
Now you're talking about advertising? Moving the goalposts, hmm...
05-31-2014, 05:57 AM   #236
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
Ricoh is using equivalent focal length when naming GR lens units.
FI the APS-C 33mm f/2.5 unit is named - A12 50mm f/2.5 and the 1/1.7" 5.1 - 15.3 mm f/2.4-4.4 unit is named S10 24-72mm f/2.4-4.4.

They don't even use the word "equivalent" in the description (*except for the fine print)
QuoteQuote:
The GR LENS A12 50 mm lens has a focal length of 50 mm. Part of its appeal is that it gives a natural visual field with an angle of view nearly the same as the human eye. The 50 mm focal length is one of the most basic for candid photography. Compared to a wide-angle lens, a suitable distance is maintained from the subject, and the photographer is able to chat with the subject and elicit natural expressions to capture the person in a candid way without undue attention being paid to the camera. GR LENS A12 50 mm is also a macro lens. The photographer can enjoy close-up photography to a maximum magnification of 1/2x and, from a wide open aperture setting, obtain images with excellent sharpness and high contrast and resolution to the edge.
GXR / Digital Cameras | Ricoh Global
05-31-2014, 06:08 AM   #237
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Your logic is faultless: you claim I, "Kunzite", said something, then "prove" it by quoting Rondec. Can't argue with that.
My mistake, sorry, I did get you two confused.

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
you who must support your claim that manufacturers aren't "using focal length on their lenses" - which at best (i.e. including the irrelevant compacts) is a faulty generalization.
Now you're talking about advertising? Moving the goalposts, hmm...
Compacts don't have lenses? It's very clear that the OP was talking about P&S / Bridge cameras, which clearly have focal lengths labeled on the front of their lenses (sometimes on the side) as equivalent focal lengths.
05-31-2014, 06:10 AM   #238
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
Ricoh is using equivalent focal length when naming GR lens units.
FI the APS-C 33mm f/2.5 unit is named - A12 50mm f/2.5 and the 1/1.7" 5.1 - 15.3 mm f/2.4-4.4 unit is named S10 24-72mm f/2.4-4.4.

They don't even use the word "equivalent" in the description (*except for the fine print)

GXR / Digital Cameras | Ricoh Global
Ricoh immediately add "that it gives a natural visual field with an angle of view nearly the same as the human eye. The 50 mm focal length is one of the most basic for candid photography."
Using focal length as short hand for angle of view is just one of those givens in photography. Thus Ricoh correctly identifies the lens. They mention the physical focal length and the equivalent focal length in terms of angle of view. Me think no one could ask for more candor.
05-31-2014, 06:14 AM   #239
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Can you give one example of an interchangeable lens marked with some "equivalent" focal length?

QuoteOriginally posted by Originally posted by ElJamoquio:
equivalence says that any format can produce any picture
(and Joseph James "equivalence" doesn't make such claims).
Yes, it does. In fact he's stated that very thing in forums before. There's always the caveat that the available lenses have to allow for it - ie have to have a large enough linear aperture - but one of the underlying tenets of equivalence is that any format size can make any image, given the right lens. It's kind of a basic thing you need to understand if you claim to understand equivalence.

.
05-31-2014, 06:46 AM   #240
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Sigh.

Sigh, sigh, sigh, sigh.

Sigh.

Sigh.



.

---------- Post added 05-31-14 at 06:40 AM ----------



It probably won't be cheaper, especially at first. But you say you won't get it because 'equivalence proves it is better' - equivalence doesn't prove any format is 'better', but it can describe lens/sensor combos that are better for you, for a certain set of applications, and that combo can be in m43, aps-c, FF, MFD, etc.

Can you list the reasons why you'd get a Pentax FF?

.
Because it is there?

Honestly, I have purchased every Pentax flagship from the K10 on, even ones that weren't a huge jump from previous models (except for the K5 IIs). My wife shoots for as a professional and we use the money she makes to buy more gear. I just don't think my photography will change a whole lot with such a camera.
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, bokeh, camera, convention, depth, distance, dof, equivalence, exposure, f-stop, field, film, full-frame, half, image, iso, length, lens, noise, pentax, people, sensor, size, subject, video, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Pretty Simple-Simply Pretty tessfully Post Your Photos! 9 12-05-2013 05:46 AM
Henrys deal on a D7100 - Pretty compelling package! Clarkey Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 10-31-2013 08:23 PM
The inexpesive shooting table from ebay is pretty good. liukaitc Photographic Industry and Professionals 2 07-21-2012 03:44 AM
Equivalence? 300mm/2.8 plus a 1.7X TC jpzk Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 09-28-2010 08:09 AM
DA 10-17mm Fisheye-New for a pretty darn good price Cedromar Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 01-31-2010 06:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:11 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