Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-12-2015, 08:10 AM - 2 Likes   #31
Site Supporter
Buffy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cambridge, Massachusetts
Posts: 334
Re: prints

QuoteOriginally posted by alexcox Quote
What number of Forum users still make prints? It would be interesting to know.
For me, the print is the final step. I have some images on the web, but the print is the thing. Choosing the right paper, the right matte, that's all part of the post process.

02-12-2015, 08:10 AM - 1 Like   #32
Veteran Member
maxfield_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,215
Better portraits with shallower depth of field is what it's really about for me. Something else that I've never seen mentioned is photographer-to-subject working distance. It may seem unimportant to those who don't shoot portraits regularly, but it will be nice not to have to shout from across the room.

Wide angle lenses that are actually wide is another benefit.
02-12-2015, 08:11 AM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 993
QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
You're correct that it's silly. Crop mode is just another name for digital zoom. Activating crop mode on a FF camera wouldn't change focal length. It would just give you a lower resolution image missing the outer edge of your non-cropped image.
I could do it in post ;-)
well, my brain is great at inventing reasons to spend money i guess..
02-12-2015, 08:15 AM   #34
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,243
I do think people probably will complain about a variety of things. The cost of the camera (why doesn't Pentax come out with a D600/6D clone for cheaper than those cameras?). The cost of used lenses (which is bound to go up at this point). The cost of new lenses (which aren't cheap). The fact that wide angles aren't as good as some folks remembered. The fact that they have to stop down more with full frame and thereby lose a lot of the benefit to full frame.

It is no panacea. If you know how to use it, you can get excellent results with it, but then again, you can with APS-C too.

I am no proponent of narrow depth of field photography. I do a lot of landscape and I have thrown away a lot more images because I wasn't stopped down enough, than because I had too much depth of field. If I was into portraiture, it might be a different story. When I shoot film, I just have to remember to stop down more. f8 isn't enough in many situations and f11 or narrower is needed to get everything in focus. If you are shooting f1.4 on full frame, you will end up with a lot of soft and out of focus images. That's just the way it will be.

02-12-2015, 08:44 AM   #35
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I do think people probably will complain about a variety of things. The cost of the camera (why doesn't Pentax come out with a D600/6D clone for cheaper than those cameras?). The cost of used lenses (which is bound to go up at this point). The cost of new lenses (which aren't cheap). The fact that wide angles aren't as good as some folks remembered. The fact that they have to stop down more with full frame and thereby lose a lot of the benefit to full frame.

It is no panacea. If you know how to use it, you can get excellent results with it, but then again, you can with APS-C too.

I am no proponent of narrow depth of field photography. I do a lot of landscape and I have thrown away a lot more images because I wasn't stopped down enough, than because I had too much depth of field. If I was into portraiture, it might be a different story. When I shoot film, I just have to remember to stop down more. f8 isn't enough in many situations and f11 or narrower is needed to get everything in focus. If you are shooting f1.4 on full frame, you will end up with a lot of soft and out of focus images. That's just the way it will be.
Thank you for that assessment. If i were to buy an FF, and i haven't ruled it out, it wouldn't be the additional bokeh that would influence me, it would be the additional stop of light. But yet one sees not only at Sony but Cannikon often selling F4 zoom lenses, e.g. 70-200 F4, to reduce the weight, size and cost of those lenses. That sort of negates the 1 stop of ISO low light advantage of the larger sensor. In other words, one only gainst the advantage of greater light collection if one uses it by buying F2.8 zoom lenses or faster with that FF body. For FF prime lenses, not so much a weight disadvantage to get those faster lenses, i think. I have looked at the Non-pentax FF Picture Thread, and while many of those shots are very lovely, there are others that are just ordinary. One can't buy good photography skills it seems.

Just came back from a popular National Wildlife Reserve where hand carts for carrying heavy lenses were seen occasionally, and not that unusual. I don't begrudge anyone there desire to go there with their birding pursuits - its just not what i wish to do.

Its the A7S with its extremely large photosites that intrigues me the most.
02-12-2015, 09:15 AM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Prince George, BC Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 644
QuoteOriginally posted by max_pyne Quote
Pro:
- using the lenses for what they have been designed for.. no more multiplying with the crop factor.... unless as grispie already mentioned for a very good reason...:-)
- higher resolution
- even better high ISO
- more to crop the files in post
- shallower depth of field

Cons:
- heavier & bulkier lenses
- bigger SD cards required
- bigger files to work with
And don't forget the bigger viewfinder image with FF.
02-12-2015, 10:07 AM - 1 Like   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 343
I'm in the camp that will probably never drop the dough for a FF (if I want to stay married ). However, having some old film-era Pentax bodies, the viewfinder alone would be the selling point for me. Compared to digital aps-c bodies, it's like seeing an IMAX for the first time!
02-12-2015, 10:16 AM   #38
Veteran Member
Dr_who's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 690
Cons:
- heavier & bulkier lenses


Only for certain lenses, the 100mm Macro, 300 DA* and various other lenses we have all gotten used to will work just fine on FF. I think how fast the lens is and if it's metal or plastic makes for a difference on how heavier or bulkier the lens is.

02-12-2015, 10:22 AM - 1 Like   #39
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 211
QuoteOriginally posted by max_pyne Quote
Pro:
- using the lenses for what they have been designed for.. no more multiplying with the crop factor.... unless as grispie already mentioned for a very good reason...:-)
wrong.

35mm equivalent is nothing special. It is even small compared to the 'pro' films of the glorious days - what do you tell a 6x7 shooter? That his lenses are not meant to be on his camera?

This is just canikon PR garbage. Seriously.

QuoteOriginally posted by max_pyne Quote
- higher resolution
- even better high ISO
- more to crop the files in post
- shallower depth of field
no, no, no and very false. The depth of field for a 50mm on apsc or 'full frame' is completely the same.

QuoteOriginally posted by max_pyne Quote
Cons:
- heavier & bulkier lenses
- bigger SD cards required
- bigger files to work with
no, no and no.
02-12-2015, 10:36 AM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 3,310
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
SNIP... Just came back from a popular National Wildlife Reserve where hand carts for carrying heavy lenses were seen occasionally, and not that unusual. I don't begrudge anyone there desire to go there with their birding pursuits - its just not what i wish to do. ...SNIP
Last night I was talking to a professional whose work includes night landscapes. He often travels from NYC to national parks. He's using a FF camera (Nikon D800). He mentioned he uses a 70-200/f4 instead of f2.8 because of weight.
02-12-2015, 11:47 AM   #41
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,830
QuoteOriginally posted by maxfield_photo Quote
Better portraits with shallower depth of field is what it's really about for me.
As I wrote earlier (good to see we all read each other's replies thoroughly ) this is wrong. There is no link between sensor size and DOF.

QuoteOriginally posted by maxfield_photo Quote
it will be nice not to have to shout from across the room.
Just get the correct focal length, it will be less expensive than a whole new system.

Except for the larger (not brighter) viewfinder, I've read nothing that was an actual "pro" of full frame. There is a lot of misconception, however.
02-12-2015, 12:00 PM - 1 Like   #42
Pentaxian
gmans's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hunter Valley,NSW, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,469
Pro, the endless FF Vs APSC debate is dead.
Cons, (insert Monty Python Voice over) OOOOH NO IT ISN'T!
02-12-2015, 12:11 PM   #43
Veteran Member
blende8's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bremen, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,484
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
As I wrote earlier (good to see we all read each other's replies thoroughly ) this is wrong. There is no link between sensor size and DOF.
But we all know what is meant. Hopefully.
02-12-2015, 12:20 PM   #44
Pentaxian
LFLee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,264
FF is..... bokehlicious.

02-12-2015, 12:37 PM   #45
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Volker76 Quote
no, no, no and very false. The depth of field for a 50mm on apsc or 'full frame' is completely the same.
This ^ leaves out just enough information to be misleading, IMO.

50mm on FF and 50mm on aps-c also delivers a completely different image, because the aps-c shot is 1.5x tighter. It's kinda moot to worry about DOF differences when the framing is radically different.

50mm f/2.8 on FF vs. 35mm f/2.8 on aps-c from the same position - there we have the same FOV, and the FF shot would have a bit over a stop less DOF (equiv to 35mm f/1.8 on aps-c.)

50mm f/2.8 FF == 35mm f/1.8 aps-c in terms of FOV and DOF.

(50mm f/2.8 FF on left, 35mm f/2.8 aps-c on right)


.

---------- Post added 02-12-15 at 01:48 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by DeadJohn Quote
Last night I was talking to a professional whose work includes night landscapes. He often travels from NYC to national parks. He's using a FF camera (Nikon D800). He mentioned he uses a 70-200/f4 instead of f2.8 because of weight.
I get why you'd want to do that, but using f/4 zooms on D800 doesn't give you any or much IQ advantage over say a sigma or Pentax 50-150 f/2.8 on D7000/K5. You'll get more overall pixels, more lp/ph in the image, but you give up the noise advantage and additional DOF control.

I guess it's attractive if you want to just have one camera and want a lower-weight option for it, and if that f4 zoom is awesome... but buying FF and then only shooting f4 zooms with it is not taking full advantage of what you bought, IMO.

Last edited by jsherman999; 02-12-2015 at 12:55 PM.
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!
24x36mm, 35mm, 50mm, advantage, angle, aps-c, camera, crop, d800, dof, f/2.8, f4, ff, frame, full-frame, image, mode, pentax, people, pixel, pixels, pros, resolution, sensor, size, telephoto, view finder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pros and cons of EVF and OVF Ash Photographic Industry and Professionals 187 01-24-2013 06:21 PM
K-5 IIs -- The Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-Filter Class A Pentax DSLR Discussion 114 12-18-2012 10:22 PM
From K20D to 645D, Pros and Cons. Reportage Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 11-10-2010 03:13 PM
Limited edition prints - pros and cons? Wombat Photographic Industry and Professionals 5 07-30-2009 04:09 PM
Pros and cons of the Pentax KM/2000 lesmore49 Pentax DSLR Discussion 109 05-01-2009 11:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 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