Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-12-2015, 04:14 PM   #121
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by ACG Quote
Similarly, if you are not intending to print bigger than a3 and if low light photography is not a major part of your repertoire then you could get similar IQ and a cheaper and more portable solution with the omd, mft lenses and zuiko 4\3 lenses!!
True. Who needs aps-c?

04-12-2015, 07:20 PM - 1 Like   #122
Pentaxian
kooks's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Josť, Costa Rica
Photos: Albums
Posts: 625
QuoteOriginally posted by kenspo Quote
Then i think we're almost on the same page
I think we are all on the same page.. no body says that this third party glass will match the quality of the new Pentax glass.. i think that this lenses were never ment to do that, but the performance is not bad... is good.. the thing here is that as some of you pointed there are some good lenses.. and some great lenses.. This third party lenses are good.. but not great (well some are).. in order to have great glass you need to spend.. A LOT. But what if the images that you take wont justify that much the difference in price? mmmm..

For example the Sigma 35mm f1.4 art is one of the greates and sharpest lenses around.. same as the Sigma 50mm f1.4 art (not for pentax.. yet) ... those IMO are great lenses. sharp, fast, and really good builded.
04-12-2015, 10:02 PM - 1 Like   #123
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 634
QuoteOriginally posted by ACG Quote
Similarly, if you are not intending to print bigger than a3 and if low light photography is not a major part of your repertoire then you could get similar IQ and a cheaper and more portable solution with the omd, mft lenses and zuiko 4\3 lenses!!
I have an OM-D E-M5, and it's a very slick little system. The responsiveness of it feels like a sports car. (Most DSLRs feel more like SUVs.) I've come to appreciate the EVF too. It's my go-to camera these days.

When it comes to sensor size, I feel like we spend too much time splitting hairs over differences that are not that big. My rule of thumb is: Moving from a small sensor to one 4X the size is a very satisfying step up. 2X is a noticeable but minor improvement. Less than 2X is hardly significant. Keep in mind, I'm talking about linear size here, not surface area or pixel count. So... The difference between M4/3 and APS-C isn't all that significant, nor is the difference between APS-C and FF. If you jump from M4/3 to FF, that's significant -- but still relatively minor. That's about 2X. If you go from M4/3 to 6X7 film, that's about a 4X jump. That's a satisfying step up. That's a visual difference that will pop.

I'm thinking about just running the OM-D and a Fuji GW690 rangefinder here. 6X9 is slightly more than double the height and width of a "full frame" sensor. If you really want to go big, I say don't piddle around. The camera is cheap too, but I'm afraid the film and processing would kill me if I used it too much. That's only getting 8 shots per roll of 120 format film! Better be selective with that.

However, one idea that intrigues me about Pentax FF is. . . Put a Katzeye screen in it, and we'd be able to focus all our manual glass (including those new Samyangs!) the way it was meant to be done. The young whippersnappers who've never used a vintage 35mm SLR with the split-prism and microprism screen don't know what they're missing. In terms of sensor size, it would neatly split the difference between M4/3 and medium format film, too.

I also have been tempted by the thought of a used Sony A7 and adapter. The main thing that held me back was manual focusing. Focus peaking is too sloppy, and the magnifier seems like it would be too slow and awkward. (BTW, the E-M5 doesn't even have focus peaking, no way to manually switch in magnification, and manual focus-by-wire with it sucks big green rocks. It really is hopeless.)
04-12-2015, 10:43 PM   #124
Pentaxian
MD Optofonik's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 900
When. Where. Why. AKA, "horses for courses". Silly rabbits; always, silly rabbits. Everywhere.

04-13-2015, 11:34 AM   #125
ACG
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 55
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
that's close to how i do it as well, but at f/10... isn't that K28 f/3.5 that you own supposed to be one of the pentax magical wonder lenses? here it is vs. the 31mm limited on the a7r, i think that it takes a back seat to the 31ltd, but not by much, and not everyone agrees with that:
Sony a7R 28mm Lens Shootout - FM Forums

one of the best 28mm primes that i've tested for landscape shooting on 36mp is actually the m28/3.5: pentax-m 28mm f/3.5 comparison

nobody gives that lens any credit... i never used it on my old k10d, it wasn't until i put it on 36mp that i realized how clean it was across the frame, when stopped down.

your k35/3.5... if it's the same optical formula as the takumar 35/3.5, the sides are slightly weak on 36mp, the fa35/2 is a much better choice, but of course for more money.

i guess that the moral of the story is to not sell what you have, until you evaluate it on 36mp... even if it's the magical k28/3.5, it won't be worth much if it's decentered.
Many thanks for the excellent post.
I bought the k35 f3.5 as it is a noticeably better lens, to me, then the m35 f3.5. However, not quite as sharp as the Sony Zeiss fe 35 f2.8, but, I prefer the colours rendered by the Pentax glass.

Does anyone ever think that the digital age has almost made photography stressful??

Too many options. Too much concern about IQ. Too much concern about having the perfect lens and every corner sharp. Worries about post processing.

Sometimes I wish that digital photography had not been invented and I was still shooting carefree with my Pentax me and m series lenses!! Anyone agree??
04-13-2015, 01:56 PM   #126
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by ACG Quote

Does anyone ever think that the digital age has almost made photography stressful??

Too many options. Too much concern about IQ. Too much concern about having the perfect lens and every corner sharp. Worries about post processing.

Sometimes I wish that digital photography had not been invented and I was still shooting carefree with my Pentax me and m series lenses!! Anyone agree??
It may surprise you to hear this but I agree, somewhat, or at least I can understand that viewpoint.

But I don't know if it's 'digital photography' itself as much as participation in online forums that brings this. Try to imagine how it would be if you didn't participate in anything besides maybe gallery sharing - wouldn't you be able to just shoot your lenses and bodies and be happy then? Or maybe just stuck to this?
04-13-2015, 03:10 PM   #127
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 634
QuoteOriginally posted by ACG Quote
Sometimes I wish that digital photography had not been invented and I was still shooting carefree with my Pentax me and m series lenses!! Anyone agree??
Years ago I made the mistake of selling off my Sears KS-2. Finally I went on eBay and picked up another one for peanuts, along with a Ricoh XR7 (same camera, just a different name) and some lenses of the same vintage. They're a joy to use and they take great photos, especially with that modern wonder film: Kodak Ektar 100. (And the new Samyang 35mm f/1.4 is fantastic on them!)

However... I haven't forgotten why I went to digital. Film and processing are costly and a hassle, and I'd be pretty unhappy if I ever had to go back to depending on film all the time, for everything. Also, 35mm film doesn't usually net you much more than about 6 MP worth of image detail, or about the same as my old K100d. So... There's no turning back the clock.

One lesson I feel like I've learned is that almost all cameras these days can deliver great image quality. Splitting hairs over IQ should rarely be at the top of the list of concerns when camera shopping. A camera that is responsive, that is ergonomic, that is pleasing to use, that's what I care about more now.
04-14-2015, 02:05 PM   #128
ACG
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 55
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
Years ago I made the mistake of selling off my Sears KS-2. Finally I went on eBay and picked up another one for peanuts, along with a Ricoh XR7 (same camera, just a different name) and some lenses of the same vintage. They're a joy to use and they take great photos, especially with that modern wonder film: Kodak Ektar 100. (And the new Samyang 35mm f/1.4 is fantastic on them!)

However... I haven't forgotten why I went to digital. Film and processing are costly and a hassle, and I'd be pretty unhappy if I ever had to go back to depending on film all the time, for everything. Also, 35mm film doesn't usually net you much more than about 6 MP worth of image detail, or about the same as my old K100d. So... There's no turning back the clock.

One lesson I feel like I've learned is that almost all cameras these days can deliver great image quality. Splitting hairs over IQ should rarely be at the top of the list of concerns when camera shopping. A camera that is responsive, that is ergonomic, that is pleasing to use, that's what I care about more now.
Very well put. I am singing from the same hymn sheet!!

04-14-2015, 03:33 PM   #129
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,924
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Which lenses have I advocated that have 'borderline performance'?

And you should know I'm not advocating 'cheap lenses', I'm advocating 'good lenses' - good lenses just don't have to be expensive.

The lessons you or anyone should take here is that:

1) These days IQ can usually be improved more by using good lenses on a great sensor than great lenses on a worse sensor, and
2) The delta in quality between 'good' and 'great' lenses is often very small, smaller than the difference between, say, sensors of different sizes and same gen
3) It generally costs more to chase great glass than it does to chase great sensors, and the returns diminish faster with 'great glass'

I should point out that everyone's idea of what's 'good' vs. 'great' is different, though. If I were to qualify what I mean,

Good: FA 50 f/1.7 Great: Zeiss Planar f/1.4
Good: Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 Great: Nikon 24-70 2.8
Good: Tamron 70-200 2.8 Great: Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR II




The problem there is to get the 'maximum' out of it you could easily spend another $6 or $8K in one shopping trip. I'm here to warn you that $6K-$8K just might not be worth it to you, when all is said and done. 'maximizing' things just means travelling all the way down the existential, shrinking funnel of diminishing returns to the very end, and realizing you ended up only three feet from your comfortable stopping point
I guess I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to glass, but I prefer to shoot with Pentax glass. I have shot with Sigma/Tamron lenses before and they were fine, but the colors just weren't quite right and I stressed myself out trying to get them to match what I get from my Pentax lenses.

I currently already have full frame primes: FA 31, DA 40, DA *55, FA 77, DFA 100, and DA *200, all of which seem to perform nicely on film. The problem is that the zooms will take a while to save for. I guess I could use a 28-75 Tamron, but the issue is that I'm used to having 24mm equivalent on APS-C (16-50) and I really would want something wider than 28mm. Oh well, I guess we'll see what comes out and what the funds looks like at that point. My kids are really going to have to get some scholarships, I'm afraid, if they want to go to college...
04-14-2015, 06:08 PM   #130
Pentaxian
kooks's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: San Josť, Costa Rica
Photos: Albums
Posts: 625
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess I could use a 28-75 Tamron, but the issue is that I'm used to having 24mm equivalent on APS-C (16-50) and I really would want something wider than 28mm. Oh well, I guess we'll see what comes out and what the funds looks like at that point. My kids are really going to have to get some scholarships, I'm afraid, if they want to go to college...
You also have the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG HSM too.. its more expensive than the Tamron but is 24-70 and. f2.8
04-16-2015, 07:06 PM   #131
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to glass, but I prefer to shoot with Pentax glass. I have shot with Sigma/Tamron lenses before and they were fine, but the colors just weren't quite right and I stressed myself out trying to get them to match what I get from my Pentax lenses.

I currently already have full frame primes: FA 31, DA 40, DA *55, FA 77, DFA 100, and DA *200, all of which seem to perform nicely on film. The problem is that the zooms will take a while to save for. I guess I could use a 28-75 Tamron, but the issue is that I'm used to having 24mm equivalent on APS-C (16-50) and I really would want something wider than 28mm. Oh well, I guess we'll see what comes out and what the funds looks like at that point. My kids are really going to have to get some scholarships, I'm afraid, if they want to go to college...
Get the inevitable wide angle zoom, and then the 28-75 won't be a limitation.
04-17-2015, 02:28 PM   #132
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Get the inevitable wide angle zoom, and then the 28-75 won't be a limitation.
Yep, one way to do it. What I did is have a 28-75 2.8 and then a small 20 f/2.8 prime. The 20 mm goes with me most places.
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, 36mp, a7, a7r, adapter, camera, f/1.8, f/3.5, ff, frame, full-frame, glass, k55, k85, lenses, market, ovf, pentax, pentax k-3, sensor, sharpness, version
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Full Frame: What will make you buy it? mikeodial Pentax Full Frame 130 07-27-2016 05:53 PM
What is a " full frame, interchangeable sensor" for the LX? nick h. Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 8 11-18-2013 08:14 PM
Enough about the full frame, what about the flash issue, Adam? Lage Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 2 02-07-2013 10:55 AM
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-04-2013 07:38 PM
What's the big deal with full frame? Ari Freund Photographic Technique 66 07-07-2009 01:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:40 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