Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-03-2014, 11:25 AM   #121
Senior Member
devouges's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 188
Hi Big Dave,
I did find a place that had one on demo. I did try it. Not bad at all. Outside, the zoom is pretty good. But on low light, I found it does quite a bit of hunting.

At any rate..... I am going to save my pennies for one..... It would probably be the best walk-around lens for me when I am not birding.


Last edited by devouges; 08-03-2014 at 01:08 PM.
08-03-2014, 11:51 AM   #122
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteOriginally posted by devouges Quote
Hi Big Dave,
I did find a place that had one on demo. I did try it. Not bad at all. Outside, the zoom I pretty good. But on low light, I found it does quite a bit of hunting.

At any rate..... I am going to save my pennies for one..... It would probably be the best walk-around lens for me when I am not birding.
If you're visiting Algonquin Park this summer, just drop by my place. I have way more stuff than those silly stores in any case.
08-03-2014, 01:07 PM   #123
Senior Member
devouges's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 188
Normhead....... You make me want to take a trip out there ! ! !

I just may take you up on that sometime next year.
08-03-2014, 03:46 PM   #124
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteOriginally posted by devouges Quote
Normhead....... You make me want to take a trip out there ! ! !

I just may take you up on that sometime next year.
We have a cabin where a couple people can crash for a night or two. It's not always empty but more than often than not it is.

08-06-2014, 04:20 PM - 2 Likes   #125
Junior Member
photoephemere's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near from Paris
Photos: Albums
Posts: 38
nine ! it's the number of pages for discuting again and again and again and again about ff vs apsc ... we all know the answers since times ... and ... no picture ...

As a professional photographer here in France, i used to work "FF" ... I started with film olympus OMD ... had canon film ... started the "digital" adventure with a pentax k200d for personal use ... then i bought a k20d and a k7 ... and after a first k5 that was top (except af) ! ... and i was sundenly tempted with FF, just because it could give me again the "view" i was used to with film camera ... So i went canon gear with a 5D, then a 5d II but i didn't like canon bodies ...

i went to Nikon and it was superb ... with a d700, a d7000 then a D3 followed with a d3s and a d4 ... and pro optics ...

During all of these changes ... none of my client have told me about my gear or an upgrade or downgrade of quality in my pictures ... non one saw the differences !

Then one day i realised that ... like Zack Arias said ... in my pictures there wasn't as much unbelievable difference to be seen for my clients or myself (as i m not a pixel peeper ) in apsc vs FF ( but it was case with superior format ! ) ... i realised that only the confort of the viewfinder was real and significant advantage ... that having pro bodies at these years : af was effectively better 2 ...

And i realised that i was carring a lot ... and i realised that finaly ... Body was just like film ... like ink cartridge in the printers ...

And i saw the evolution in apsc body with same quality than "Pro FF" where giving : Excelent AF, all options, Burst, continuous modes, good wb ... etc ...

as i was in love with pentax design and usability since years ... i then check the k3 spec ...

As a pro photographer, i' m used to work in studio, and shoot artists, on-stage, backstage, day, night ... i realised that apsc had never limitated me and my picture quality was as i expected... i checked my Lightroom database ... and had a more precise look at my exif ...

I can asure you that if i show you my database without exif for scenic pictures : you won't be able to tell from wich body it come.

With k3 body i have a compact end versatile system that deliver unbelievable pictures in all stages in a compact bag ! ... I sold all my nikon gear and go back ricoh for my pro equipment and i'm more than happy ! pictures just pop out ! and it's a real pleasure to work with ... it's a very well balanced camera ! as good in use as a pro body like my d4 was ... but without beeing big as a fridge !

At that point ... i also have some tests with mirorless ... and it's just great and amazing ! just like i was in love working with film body ! (25 years ago OM10 ) and i would prefer ricoh giving me a real top high end mirrorless with a top apsc sensor than a FF ! ...

beetween apsc vs ff ? i totaly agree with zack : differences for working are NEGLIGABLE ... quality in viewfinder, perf of the body, WR, Burst, Frame rate, functionality and handling are THE IMPORTANT diferences ... Lens are the real invest, not body ... with a good lens today i can perform the same picture for my clients with a k3, a D3s, a K50, a XE-1 or other camera ... and the result will shine.

In real world : in all complicated spots ( scenic, hard light ... ) Apsc iso 3200 is more than enough with a good lens and deliver as good quality than FF, iso 6400 is good for hardest situation and quality is great ...

Night photography ? No one shoot the quality at 100 000 iso but use tripods ... in sports ? a K3 6400 with a good 2.8 or 4 prime lens is more than enough to get the shoot ... Not so long ago, my d3s didn't do as much than the k3 : same quality but 24 Mpix ! ... in studio ? i managed enough light and primes lenses : on those apsc bodies i have an awsome quality ... for extra or very very beauty i will use big film format or 645 like ...

So comparing what ? a body that is like an ink cardrige and will evoluate every 2 years but coast more (have a look at a d4 price and what gives real more than a k3 ??? ) ? a camera that doesn't realy do so much ? a camera that will hurt you to cary ? ...

Just put your apsc in it's real limits and you won't need something else than your "photo touch" to be in National Geographic or some good newspapers ...

Talking about sports ... great ! ... i was shooting sport for press one day ... than the day after i saw one of my picture in a local magasine ... great ! ... when i saw the printing quality ... i was crying ... : why am i so disturbing holding such heavy systems when pictures will be printed just like a stikker ? ...

Zack is right and i agree with him : there's no job i can't do well with last generation apsc sensor ... FF doesn't gave me very much for the coast, Kg and less compacity ... what was realy true 6 or 8 years ago, when apsc were bad at more than 1200 iso and only FF where delivering good at 3200 isn't true today ... APsc (some of them ) shines <= 6400, do great job at 12800 ... so why needing more to cary ? ... taking without flash a marathonian in the night without light at 240 000 iso for a press picture of 5x6 cm printed in black and white on a recycled paper ?????????

best for me at the moment : Pentax K3 and some Mirrorless i won't do the promotional here... then YOU ... just do the job !

Here is my point of view and experiences as a pro photographer ... and i won't return Pro FF body ... but apsc for the job or medium format or more (film) for the extra quality ! : Pentax understood that ... everything else is marketing based on frustration ... and i m sory for my poor english ;-)

So tell us : in the way you picture, What are those things you can't do with a k3 and good prime you could do with a d4 and equivalent good prime ????

@ Pentax : i don't need FF anymore, give us a great great great mirrorless APSC with a demoniac sensor and a pure big EVF and all functionalities of the k3 ! and it will be dream ! and give us opened lenses !!!!!

And for those who doesn't believe and want FF and couldn't wait : do you know that you're not married with an industrial ?

Just take what you think you need and you can buy if it makes you happy ;-) but take pictures that speak ! and think about it : what you will carrie for hours and hours and hours all around the world ! ;-) ( i not so long ago do a report of 2 days long non stop ! i was proud to carry not much and comming back with 2800 pictures with only an apsc and 2 lens that were fiting in my pockets viewing some friends with their top gear incredible bag ( show room bags !!!! ) such suffering caring them ! )

And i also agree with dave : what was good in FF was viwfinder with a 50 and "all eyes opened" ;-) you should try some of the last mirroless apsc with big evf and a 35 attached and you 'll be surprised ...


Last edited by photoephemere; 08-06-2014 at 05:06 PM.
08-09-2014, 08:11 AM   #126
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,182
It is much easier to perform selective focus and/or blurry backgrounds and Bokeh with a FF camera. That's a fact. When it comes to wide angle lenses it is nearly impossible to perform these actions with a cropped camera, unless you have a really fast lens, or you get close up to your subject. This is what I miss about FF. When I shoot with film cameras it is much easier to produce blurry backgrounds.


The problem is that with a cropped camera you also have to multiply the aperture not just the focal length by the cropping factor. For example an f2.8 lens is really a f4.2 lens on a Pentax camera which has a cropping factor of 1.5X. So 2.8 X 1.5 = 4.2 . If you have a f5.6 lens that is a whopping f8.2 lens !!(5.6 x 1.5=8.2). The light coming into the lens stays the same, but the DOF changes dramatically. With that said, for those who want to easily perform blurry backgrounds and Bokeh with their cropped cameras, I would say your best bet is to stick with fast lenses, nothing above f2.8.
08-09-2014, 09:18 AM   #127
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteOriginally posted by hjoseph7 Quote
It is much easier to perform selective focus and/or blurry backgrounds and Bokeh with a FF camera. That's a fact. When it comes to wide angle lenses it is nearly impossible to perform these actions with a cropped camera, unless you have a really fast lens, or you get close up to your subject. This is what I miss about FF. When I shoot with film cameras it is much easier to produce blurry backgrounds.


The problem is that with a cropped camera you also have to multiply the aperture not just the focal length by the cropping factor. For example an f2.8 lens is really a f4.2 lens on a Pentax camera which has a cropping factor of 1.5X. So 2.8 X 1.5 = 4.2 . If you have a f5.6 lens that is a whopping f8.2 lens !!(5.6 x 1.5=8.2). The light coming into the lens stays the same, but the DOF changes dramatically. With that said, for those who want to easily perform blurry backgrounds and Bokeh with their cropped cameras, I would say your best bet is to stick with fast lenses, nothing above f2.8.
I guess you didn't watch the video. A photographer who can't fudge the 1.25 stop difference between APS_c and FF, or a 1.25 stop difference anywhere isn't really a photographer. He's a navel gazing number geek. When I bracket for DoF I rarely even use a one stop bracket. 2.8-5.6-11 or 4-8-16.
But let's just talk equivalence for a second.

Using the same lens and equivalence. AN imaginary ƒ2 lens that shuts down to ƒ22.


Sensor - F stops available
APS-c --na-2.8-4-5.6-8-11-16-22-32
35x24----2--2.8-4-5.6-8-11-16-22-

Of the 8 ƒ stops available to you on an FF, 7 are still available using equivalence even if we take off the ƒ 32 at the end of the APS-c, and I have images taken at ƒ22 on APS_C, it's not unusable, so that ƒ 32 is relevant, just not relevant to FF.

7/8 .875 of the ƒ stop available to to FF are available to APS_c. I'm not saying there aren't shooters who value that stop at the narrow end. I'm saying most of the shooters who claim they have to have it are just messing with you. They don't shoot squat, they don't know how to compose for narrow DoF, and their pictures are crap, however, if you go over to the Full Frame shots and thoughts thread, there are also many very accomplished narrow DoF shooters, who grind every last little bit of their narrow DoF magic into their images. And that's great if that's your style. But it isn't every bodies. And for those who are not focused on that photographic niche, the "you have to have an FF for this and that" type arguments are hogwash. No one has to be an FF shooter. it's not mandatory. It's not a natural evolution to go from APS-c to 35x24 sensors.

As for your numbers absolute hogwash.
Last night when I shot the bear out the window I had to take off my TC to get to ƒ4. My 60-250 is ƒ5.6 with the converter on. At ƒ4 I got some blurry images but. at least I got something. Guess what... I did not, and I repeat I did not have to change my ƒ4 to ƒ5.6 I shot at the same ƒ4 a 4/3 shooter would have shot at, that an 35x24 shooter would have shot at, that a MF shooter would have shot at, or a film shooter would have shot at. Absolutely no conversion was necessary. To say that means, you simply don't know when equivalence needs to be applied (when discussing DoF) or when it doesn't (when discussing exposure values.) Until you understand that you're going to be suffering a world of confusion, even though from the lecturing tone you take, I know you think you're absolutely right.

In good light, an APS-c camera produces just as good an image, with half the light, compared to an FF system. That's what it's designed to do.

A one stop difference is nothing 99% of the time... use a few more formats and you'll start to get a feel for what's important.

Until then enjoy your rightness, and have a nice day.

Last edited by normhead; 08-09-2014 at 09:30 AM.
08-09-2014, 09:47 AM   #128
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
I wonder how many APS-C F/1.8 lenses you'd need to have to get system that does what a couple of FF F/2.8 zooms would do.

08-09-2014, 12:52 PM   #129
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
QuoteOriginally posted by hjoseph7 Quote
It is much easier to perform selective focus and/or blurry backgrounds and Bokeh with a FF camera. That's a fact. When it comes to wide angle lenses it is nearly impossible to perform these actions with a cropped camera, unless you have a really fast lens, or you get close up to your subject. This is what I miss about FF. When I shoot with film cameras it is much easier to produce blurry backgrounds.


The problem is that with a cropped camera you also have to multiply the aperture not just the focal length by the cropping factor. For example an f2.8 lens is really a f4.2 lens on a Pentax camera which has a cropping factor of 1.5X. So 2.8 X 1.5 = 4.2 . If you have a f5.6 lens that is a whopping f8.2 lens !!(5.6 x 1.5=8.2). The light coming into the lens stays the same, but the DOF changes dramatically. With that said, for those who want to easily perform blurry backgrounds and Bokeh with their cropped cameras, I would say your best bet is to stick with fast lenses, nothing above f2.8.

I disagree,


I have just taken my APSC camera and shot a test using an f3.5 30mm wide angle lens, and at 8 feet my depth of field is just 6 inches on this cropped camera. The image is noticeably soft beyond that band. Im not using a fast lens and im not close up. I don't think that's too shabby.


I would question what your really saying here. I read your post as suggesting that when you want to separate the subject from the background on APSC, wide angle lenses are difficult to do this with. That was always been true with FF anyway.


When I wish to exploit depth of field I choose a short to mid tele, 80mm to 150mm. I would never attempt to separate the subject and blur the background with a 20mm lens or a 35mm or anything wider than 50mm and that's as true for me with FF as it is with APSC.


There is admittedly slightly more of an DoF effect with FF, but to be honest with APSC when I want to exploit depth of field to separate the subject, I just choose a slightly longer lens, and recompose, end of issue. Its about making your equipment work and do what you want it to, rather than see insurmountable problems.
08-09-2014, 01:12 PM   #130
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by hjoseph7 Quote
It is much easier to perform selective focus and/or blurry backgrounds and Bokeh with a FF camera. That's a fact. When it comes to wide angle lenses it is nearly impossible to perform these actions with a cropped camera, unless you have a really fast lens, or you get close up to your subject. This is what I miss about FF. When I shoot with film cameras it is much easier to produce blurry backgrounds.


The problem is that with a cropped camera you also have to multiply the aperture not just the focal length by the cropping factor. For example an f2.8 lens is really a f4.2 lens on a Pentax camera which has a cropping factor of 1.5X. So 2.8 X 1.5 = 4.2 . If you have a f5.6 lens that is a whopping f8.2 lens !!(5.6 x 1.5=8.2). The light coming into the lens stays the same, but the DOF changes dramatically. With that said, for those who want to easily perform blurry backgrounds and Bokeh with their cropped cameras, I would say your best bet is to stick with fast lenses, nothing above f2.8.
To be honest, if you want shallow deph of field, the 1.5 factor is not enough to make the difference. If the deph of field is huge on APSC is will be still huge on FF (a little less so). If the deph of field is very small on FF it will be be very small on APSC (a little less so).

Using a 24mm (or even 35mm) f/1.4 on an FF will not make make the scene very shallow if you are not near your subject... And APSC would get it too anyway.

On the opposite using a long lens like 85mm f/1.4 will allow for very shallow deph of field on both sensors. For things to really start to be of importance, the crop factor should be like 2 or more. Here this start to be really visible.
08-09-2014, 01:16 PM   #131
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,182
"That was always been true with FF anyway."


I have been shooting outdoor portraits for years and I can tell you (regardless of your test) that when I switched to a cropped digital camera I had to move my subjects several feet from the background. Sometimes 20-30 feet whereas with a film camera the subject only needed to be 5-10 feet from the background at the same aperture.
08-09-2014, 01:24 PM   #132
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
Then you have lots of photos to show us, demonstrating this point right?

Or are you just another internet expert, saying "trust me"?

But in any case, it's like me saying I've never had the same succes with macros with a 35mm sensor, I had with my K-3. It's much easier to keep more of the subject in focus and I get more enlargement of the subject. So you shoot lots of outdoor portraits and love narrow DoF. I shoot lots of landscapes macros and wildlife images, and look more to have everything in focus. I don't shoot portraits very often, so for me, giving up the extra DoF of APS-c to get the narrow DoF of FF, is pretty much a bad idea. Now when I taught student to do DoF separation from a point and shoot, I did have to have them 30-40 feet from the background, and I notice you slyly said "cropped digital camera" not APS-c camera, which totally negates your argument.

See I'm a guy that with film (35x24) thought 85-105 was a good portrait lens. SO to me using 70 for portraits is an easy switch. If you like wide angles for portraits, then the difference becomes more pronounced. But that is not strictly camera dependant. it's a combination of your style and the camera selected. I hope you'll understand that what you say might appeal to a very limited audience, among those who have chosen to shoot APS-c. They tend to be people for whom APS-c works really well.

Last edited by normhead; 08-09-2014 at 01:51 PM.
08-09-2014, 01:29 PM   #133
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by hjoseph7 Quote
"That was always been true with FF anyway."


I have been shooting outdoor portraits for years and I can tell you (regardless of your test) that when I switched to a cropped digital camera I had to move my subjects several feet from the background. Sometimes 20-30 feet whereas with a film camera the subject only needed to be 5-10 feet from the background at the same aperture.
What wheres the lens on film and on digital (focal lens and apperture used). Do you think that for example an 77mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.4 would not fit the bill for your shallow deph of field needs? Or even a DA55 f/1.4?
08-09-2014, 01:29 PM   #134
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by wilton Quote
I think that people should be clear about why they need FF and state as much in their discussions without tearing other people (who they don't know) to shreds, but then, that's what makes this site fun. Right? So what do you say? Since I'm writing from the perspective of a "noob" I need to know, am I there or way off the ball? Is there something I'm not accounting for?
yes, i suspect that there is something that you are missing.

i'm wondering if the higher mp count of 36mp ff over aps-c could give you more viewfinder magnification:

it's a focusing test: a7r vs. a7 vs. a7s... same evf on all three cameras, i think, 36mp vs. 24mp. vs. 12mp

the higher the pixel count, the more zoomed in the level of magnification is = better manual focus capability, and better ability to chimp your shots in the field.

you can't do any of that with an ovf, so don't try to argue the indefensible... ovf viewfinders are obsolete, and the fact that pentax used an ovf on the 645d shows how out of touch they are with reality.

for the record... that evf has higher resolution than any lcd you'll find on a dslr, and since it's oled, it also has a better gamma range than an lcd does.
08-09-2014, 01:56 PM   #135
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
yes, i suspect that there is something that you are missing.

i'm wondering if the higher mp count of 36mp ff over aps-c could give you more viewfinder magnification: Sony A7 Series Manual Focus Comparison - YouTube

it's a focusing test: a7r vs. a7 vs. a7s... same evf on all three cameras, i think, 36mp vs. 24mp. vs. 12mp

the higher the pixel count, the more zoomed in the level of magnification is = better manual focus capability, and better ability to chimp your shots in the field.

you can't do any of that with an ovf, so don't try to argue the indefensible... ovf viewfinders are obsolete, and the fact that pentax used an ovf on the 645d shows how out of touch they are with reality.

for the record... that evf has higher resolution than any lcd you'll find on a dslr, and since it's oled, it also has a better gamma range than an lcd does.
Because I can't manual focus my K-3 or K-5? Just because you need these things doesn't mean everyone does. And if you're going to start calling people "out of touch with reality" . because god gave you the right to define who's out of touch with reality and who's not? Lucky you.

<sarcasm off>
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, aps-c & ff, camera, cameras, canon, depth of field, ff, full frame, full-frame, gigs, girl, hobby, image quality, image quality comparisons, images, lenses, nikon, pentax, people, photos, post, print, reality, reason, sense, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Magnification with a FF lens on Pentax DSLR Pentax Bob Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 23 11-02-2012 10:42 AM
A Pentax FF idea, a unique take on the FF market... theperception2008 Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 10-03-2012 01:07 PM
Re-cycling another Pentax FF rumour/FF rumor from A German photography magazine rawr Pentax Full Frame 73 09-19-2012 01:12 PM
noob with a KX hadi Welcomes and Introductions 3 06-01-2011 11:52 AM
If pentax release a FF, wouldn't they have to release a FF wideangle. pcarfan Photographic Technique 10 12-26-2009 04:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:00 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