Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-13-2015, 02:02 PM   #91
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I really am ambivalent about the 24 Mp on the K-3 Jay. The AF is by Pentax standards to die for, and some sources say as good as the Nikon D7100... If they had the K-3 AF on a 16 MP with the Dynamic Range of a K-5camera I'd be tempted, and I'm definitely going to give the 20 Mp, KS-2 a look.
I read one magazine, think it was Pop. Photo. that thought the K3 static AF at low light was superior to the D7100.

I bought the K3 for its AF, not its 24mp. But yesterday, i heard about a chance to get some owl pics, so went out with my DA300 (my longest lens), a 1.4 Tamron converter and my K3. The great horned owl was up high in a tree and the 2 chics were up in another nearby tree. I was too lazy to carry my heavy tripod so i carried a threaded walking stick. Except it was too short for the angle on the tree. So i held the walking stick with one hand and held the camera with the other hand. (i hope noone took my picture ) But i ended up with a very few possibles, and when i enlarged one, it was a pretty decent one of single chick with its yellow eyes visible. Wouldn't have been able to enlarge that pic without those 24 useless mega pixels. So maybe there;s a paradigm here, that all those pixels, besides resolution, are also useful for tele lens extenders.

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I will say that if manufacturers drop the ball in AF in any way, 50+MP is going to make more people upset than ever. PIxel-peepers will see AF errors more clearly, there will be a lot of angst, people will be upset about buying 50MP FF and not seeing razor-sharp results at 100%.

36MP is really all I think I want/need. I'm sure I'll be able to talk myself into more later.
Yep, i'm now a believer in MP. Isn't that what smart phones are all about - zooming with mp. MP are a lot lighter than heavy glass to carry around. Need to wait till i my next laptop upgrade however.

02-13-2015, 02:20 PM   #92
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 70
QuoteOriginally posted by hjoseph7 Quote
Canon just announced a 50MP FF the 5Ds ! Wow, how many pixels can you cram on a sensor ?
With that pixel density, I guess their new FF is trying to catch up with mobile phones...
02-13-2015, 04:27 PM   #93
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by jsharpy Quote
Just get a HD DA 1.4 converter and it keeps the FOV you love and covers the FF sensor with your lenses. I shot a roll of film to test it a few days ago and worked great with my 16-50 qne 60-250
If you compare an image taken with the converter vs. one created by cropping without the converter, which looks better? Is there a noticeable difference? (I know you cant answer this with film, but...) TCs can vary in quality, I'd like to know how hat one performs.
02-14-2015, 07:22 AM   #94
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
If you compare an image taken with the converter vs. one created by cropping without the converter, which looks better? Is there a noticeable difference? (I know you cant answer this with film, but...) TCs can vary in quality, I'd like to know how hat one performs.
This converter gives no change in the IQ just zooms you in and gives more detail(unlike any other converter I ever tried). It is hard to tell with film because the scanner used and other factors but I was very happy with the results and I scanned it at 2400dpi. Based on my test I wont be looking at new glass for the FF just using the converter with my 16-50. The 60-250 had little corner shading at a few zoom ranges without the converter and it was flawless with it. The one that really surprised me was my 10-17 it worked great with the converter also. So the short answer to your question the HD DA 1.4 converter is every bit as sharp as any * lens and when you zoom in the pictures have more detail because of the extra magnification. Just make sure you update your software to the latest version that make a huge difference.

---------- Post added 02-14-15 at 08:38 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
If you compare an image taken with the converter vs. one created by cropping without the converter, which looks better? Is there a noticeable difference? (I know you cant answer this with film, but...) TCs can vary in quality, I'd like to know how hat one performs.
Forgot to say the drawback is one stop of light. But DOF stays close to the same due to the zoom. Here is a picture about a 50% crop with the 1.4 converter and my da300* lens
https://joesharpphotopage.shutterfly.com/pictures/276

You dont get the full quality on shutterfly but you can see the the converter is very sharp.


Last edited by jsharpy; 02-14-2015 at 07:39 AM.
02-14-2015, 07:47 PM   #95
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by jsharpy Quote
So the short answer to your question the HD DA 1.4 converter is every bit as sharp as any * lens and when you zoom in the pictures have more detail because of the extra magnification.
Good to hear and wouldn't surprise me if that Pentax TC was the best TC out there. It's a Pentax lens, after all
02-15-2015, 05:40 AM - 2 Likes   #96
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,585
QuoteOriginally posted by DavidSKAF3 Quote
The Real Pros (and Cons?)
Real Pros - I'm wanting one.

Real Cons - It's not available yet.

02-15-2015, 08:15 AM - 1 Like   #97
Veteran Member
Kguru's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Perth - WestAust
Posts: 602
My pro: I can stop searching for the elusive lens that can do on APS-C the same as my 20 / f1.7 on FF
02-15-2015, 06:53 PM - 1 Like   #98
Pentaxian
calsan's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Perth, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,367
Cons
- would need a much bigger bag, less room for other important stuff, like water bottles.
- frankly, the k3 and a few lenses are already all I wish to carry all day.
- risk of going over aircraft carry on luggage weight limit - means some lenses would be in main luggage, potentially either getting dropped by luggage handlers or being sent to the wrong country.
- no DA15 limited.

Pros
- no need to save for retirement, as wife would kill me if I bought one.

02-15-2015, 09:12 PM   #99
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Colorado Front Range
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 177
I've been through this format jump before, as a Sony alpha user. I was very content with my APS-c cameras, until I looked through the a900 VF. Oh. My. God! You may have seen the same thing if you stepped up to a Pentax 645 film camera. That VF image was even better-- roomy, bright, immersive! All the other aspects of that format change should hold true for the upcoming one.

Pros-- That VF, as mentioned. Plus, images that don't have to be enlarged so much for final use. That can lower the demands on your lenses, IF the sensor isn't jam-packed with too many pixels. There's an impression that FF cameras demand only the best lenses, to "get the most out of the camera." Maybe so, but a FF camera can get the most out of even humbler lenses. I have eight old Minolta lenses that work beautifully with my a850, and only one was considered best in class, with a 2.8 max aperture, FWTW. Nobody worried about whether their P645 lenses were good enough -- the prints looked great because the negative was so darn big!

Cons-- Focusing really matters, with less DOF to hide errors. Ironically, it takes a better camera to take a blurrier picture! Also, telephoto lenses need to be longer and heavier for the same view. I think most of us will want to keep a K-5 or K-3 for tele work and devote the FF to wide and normal lengths. Cost and size of the FF camera, but I've counterbalanced that by choosing compact lenses and buying used.

Good things are in store, folks....
02-15-2015, 10:38 PM   #100
Senior Member
JeffB's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Posts: 209
Everything is relative. All arguments about so called "full frame" being superior can also made against it. If bigger is better and 35mm is better than APC by the same logic 645 is better than 35mm. And 6x7 is better than 645. And 4x5 is better than 6x7. It never ends.

Every format is a cropped version of some larger one.

Larger formats allow closer camera to subject distance with longer focal lengths. This gives you flattened perspective and shallower depth of field. Advantage portrait.

Smaller formats allow wider lenses to be used more easily with longer DOF. Advantage landscape.
02-15-2015, 10:50 PM   #101
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Colorado Front Range
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 177
Wrong, wrong, wrong

QuoteOriginally posted by Volker76 Quote
if both sensors have the same pixel density than their is NO advantage of the 35mm sensor.
Sorry, but have you ever shot FF? I have, with film and digital, for much longer than I used APS-C. The difference is simple-- when using an FF camera, you use a longer lens for the same working distance. For a head & shoulders portrait, shoulders up and head rendered the same size on the sensor, at the same distance, you'd use a 75mm lens of FF to match a 50mm on crop format. Consequenty, the FF camera gives the narrower DOF of a 75mm lens.

Simply-- the bigger format leads you to use a longer lens, and THAT gives you narrower DOF.
02-16-2015, 04:18 AM   #102
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,933
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatridger Quote
I've been through this format jump before, as a Sony alpha user. I was very content with my APS-c cameras, until I looked through the a900 VF. Oh. My. God! You may have seen the same thing if you stepped up to a Pentax 645 film camera. That VF image was even better-- roomy, bright, immersive! All the other aspects of that format change should hold true for the upcoming one.

Pros-- That VF, as mentioned. Plus, images that don't have to be enlarged so much for final use. That can lower the demands on your lenses, IF the sensor isn't jam-packed with too many pixels. There's an impression that FF cameras demand only the best lenses, to "get the most out of the camera." Maybe so, but a FF camera can get the most out of even humbler lenses. I have eight old Minolta lenses that work beautifully with my a850, and only one was considered best in class, with a 2.8 max aperture, FWTW. Nobody worried about whether their P645 lenses were good enough -- the prints looked great because the negative was so darn big!

Cons-- Focusing really matters, with less DOF to hide errors. Ironically, it takes a better camera to take a blurrier picture! Also, telephoto lenses need to be longer and heavier for the same view. I think most of us will want to keep a K-5 or K-3 for tele work and devote the FF to wide and normal lengths. Cost and size of the FF camera, but I've counterbalanced that by choosing compact lenses and buying used.

Good things are in store, folks....
Good points. I am convinced that the reason why the Nikon V1 has such awesome auto focus is partly because it just has more depth of field than cameras with larger sensors. It certainly is true that even with APS-C you can get situations where a shirt is on focus, but not the eyes, etc. I guess as Jay Sherman always says, you always have the option to stop down.
02-16-2015, 05:14 AM   #103
Veteran Member
DavidSKAF3's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Tompkins County, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 542
Original Poster
This is a side question, but is a 50mm f/1.4 more useful with a FF DSLR than a APS-C DSLR? As opposed to 50mm f/1.7 or f/1.8? Because I always thought faster is always better, but the user ratings do not reflect this in the case of the FA 50mm f/1.4, which I am thinking about buying.
02-16-2015, 05:22 AM   #104
Pentaxian
Dr Orloff's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brighton, England
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 498
Cons, there aren't any because you don't have to buy one if it doesn't suit your requirements. You might not be able to afford one but that's just tough.
02-17-2015, 08:18 AM - 1 Like   #105
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Colorado Front Range
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 177
David-- Twenty or 30 years ago, I would have always wanted the fastest lenses available. Film speeds were much lower, and when you loaded a roll of ISO 200, that's what you were stuck with until 36 exposures were done. Many of my best opportunities happened in the afternoon or at dusk, too. So a half-stop of light was really precious.

Today, we can change ISO on the fly, crank it up three or four stops beyond what was possible with film, and clean up the noise in PP. So I see much less need for f1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms. In my Sony/Minolta system, I have a 50/1.7 prime (which you can buy used for about $50), and that's more speed than I usually need. But it all depends on your subjects and situations, too.
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 03:23 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