Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-26-2015, 10:00 AM   #196
Junior Member
Aberrator's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Kaunas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 40
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
print size + viewing distance does influence the DoF
They not only influence, they are essential. That is the whole idea of this DoF concept.
The whole point of DoF... is lost... if you keep print size and viewing distance undefined.

I think it's time for us to stop worrying about this thechnobabble and simply love the photography.


Last edited by Aberrator; 07-26-2015 at 10:12 AM.
07-26-2015, 01:21 PM - 3 Likes   #197
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The difference in portability between an FF camera and the Q is huge.

Both fit in my car's trunk, no problem. Neither one fits in my pocket.

I loved the Q, but...
07-26-2015, 02:35 PM   #198
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Maybe the goal of photography is the creation of images that meet a person's vision. If that vision is all about narrow depth of field, full frame may be the only way to go, but there are many other types of photography out there and I find that narrow depth of field is often not my friend.

Great image!!

I read recently that customers prefer long DOF such as your image. Can't remember the source so am unable to link it. A brother-in-law made the comment that the pictures he gets awards for from his photo club, are not the same ones that sell in shows. The few pictures i have offered for sale with significant bokeh, have not sold. Shallow depth of field is not even on my list as a reason to get a FF body. Its the low light performance that i'm after.
07-26-2015, 03:09 PM   #199
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,738
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
Shallow depth of field is not even on my list as a reason to get a FF body. Its the low light performance that i'm after.
But those two go hand in hand. You get the low light performance gain on FF if you use same f-stop (or larger aperture) as on a smaller sensor format, which give you shallower DOF (at the same FOV) on FF.

I know what you mean, but it seemed a little strange they way you wrote it.


Last edited by Fogel70; 07-26-2015 at 03:18 PM.
07-26-2015, 03:12 PM   #200
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,357
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The funny thing is that people who are the strongest vocalizers of equivalence are those who are also the strongest proponents of a full frame camera.
My son shoots with a 6x9 Fujica GW690III. It only comes with one lens - a 90mm f/3.5. He'd tried and just about given up on all 'smaller' formats, film and digital (except his GR and phone). I can see his point
07-26-2015, 03:59 PM   #201
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I don't care how slow you make the lenses, you will never have a full frame system that is as small as the Q system.
You may be right, but your assertion made a memory pop up in my mind almost immediately ...

... my mother at the time shooting with her Rollei 35. Full frame and as small as a Q
07-26-2015, 04:37 PM   #202
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,377
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
You may be right, but your assertion made a memory pop up in my mind almost immediately ...

... my mother at the time shooting with her Rollei 35. Full frame and as small as a Q
Minox made a pretty small 35mm camera too, and the Olympus XA was very popular I even had a tiny Pentax (PC35AF) back in the 80's, but was there ever a 35mm ILC of comparable size?
07-26-2015, 06:39 PM   #203
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,336
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
You may be right, but your assertion made a memory pop up in my mind almost immediately ...

... my mother at the time shooting with her Rollei 35. Full frame and as small as a Q
Maybe we are due for some sort of completely manual camera, lacking rear LCD, auto focus, video, and on body aperture control. There's an idea that hasn't been tried for awhile...

07-26-2015, 09:43 PM   #204
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,644
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Maybe we are due for some sort of completely manual camera, lacking rear LCD, auto focus, video, and on body aperture control. There's an idea that hasn't been tried for awhile...
If such a camera is made, don't expect it to be a Pentax. In an interview with this website, a Ricoh exec said they had discussed a K1000 type body and rejected it.
07-26-2015, 10:10 PM   #205
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,738
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Minox made a pretty small 35mm camera too, and the Olympus XA was very popular I even had a tiny Pentax (PC35AF) back in the 80's, but was there ever a 35mm ILC of comparable size?
I believe a FF ILC can be made almost as small as Q cameras of today, but because of the sensor/lens mount size a FF ILC will be higher in size than Q. Sony made a very compact FF camera in RX1, and I believe a ILC can be done of the same camera body size.

Sony A7 series is not about smallest possible size, but more of smallest practical size used with lenses available for them today. If Sony ever put priority on make small FF "pancake lenses" for FE-mount, there might also be a reason for making a very small camera to use the lenses on. Remove EVF and grip from A7 cameras and minimize the size in all directions, and it will not be much larger than Q series cameras.

A problem with Q is that the lenses is quite large compared to sensor size. I'm surprised that there are no lenses for Q that fully use the advantage of the smaller sensor. A collapsible pancake standard zoom would make a lot of sense on Q.
Attached Images
 
07-27-2015, 02:50 AM   #206
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,336
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
Great image!!

I read recently that customers prefer long DOF such as your image. Can't remember the source so am unable to link it. A brother-in-law made the comment that the pictures he gets awards for from his photo club, are not the same ones that sell in shows. The few pictures i have offered for sale with significant bokeh, have not sold. Shallow depth of field is not even on my list as a reason to get a FF body. Its the low light performance that i'm after.
I shoot landscapes with a tripod, meaning that shutter speed isn't particularly important to me (unless the wind is really blowing), but certainly the tonality and color depth of full frame photos at low iso is pretty impressive. Coming from the K7 to the K5 was a huge jump in ability to get dynamic range out of files. I imagine there is a similar jump going to full frame.

I think the biggest use for shallow depth of field is for subject isolation in portrait situations. My wife uses it a lot and people really like it. But if you are selling photos, unless you shoot wildlife, I think having enough depth of field is important. All the landscape photographers who I have read books from or seen on Creative Live advocate stopping down a lot to be sure that you have adequate depth of field.
07-27-2015, 09:42 AM   #207
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I shoot landscapes with a tripod, meaning that shutter speed isn't particularly important to me (unless the wind is really blowing), but certainly the tonality and color depth of full frame photos at low iso is pretty impressive. Coming from the K7 to the K5 was a huge jump in ability to get dynamic range out of files. I imagine there is a similar jump going to full frame.

I think the biggest use for shallow depth of field is for subject isolation in portrait situations. My wife uses it a lot and people really like it. But if you are selling photos, unless you shoot wildlife, I think having enough depth of field is important. All the landscape photographers who I have read books from or seen on Creative Live advocate stopping down a lot to be sure that you have adequate depth of field.
I can see that, i.e. the portrait shallow dof. There are other differences in style between types of photographic work. I went to a wedding photographers presentation at a club. Several of her shots had blown out light from windows, backgrounds, etc. Things i never would accept to that degree or frequency in landscape photos. Its probably a source of many debates on general photography forums as to equipment, techniques, needs for this or that. Quite funny in a way.

Last edited by philbaum; 07-27-2015 at 10:56 AM.
07-27-2015, 10:46 AM   #208
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,541
Philbaum,

Don't they sell that approach as High Key?
07-27-2015, 11:05 AM   #209
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,336
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
I can see that, i.e. the portrait shallow dof. There are other differences in style between types of photographic work. I went to a wedding photographers presentation at a club. Several of her shots had blown out light from windows, backgrounds, etc. Things i never would accept to that degree or frequency in landscape photos. Its probably a source of many debates on general photography forums as to equipment, techniques, needs for this or that. Quite funny in a way.
Jasmine Star is a wedding photographer that my wife follows and she was showing me some of her photos and I was surprised at how frequently she blows out the sky/the background. I wouldn't describe it as a high key effect, because the couple is exposed normally, but there certainly wasn't much use of the dynamic range you should have with a prime/full frame combo.
07-27-2015, 06:37 PM   #210
Veteran Member
Ikarus's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 460
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
but there certainly wasn't much use of the dynamic range you should have with a prime/full frame combo.
The sensor size is only loosely tied to dynamic range in that it allows for using sensors with larger pixels for the same file size, but what typically happens is that people expect the 'megapixels' to scale with the sensor size, which counteracts the benefit of larger sensors for dynamic range. As far as using a prime lens - the type of lens really has little to no impact on dynamic range.
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, 600mm, ability, aps-c, camera, cameras, depth, depth of field?...can, equivalence jihadis, ff, frame, full-frame, image, inch, lens, lines, lot, lots, magnification, pentax, people, picture, pictures, post, sensor, sensors, stop, sunset
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Depth-of-field bracketing -- is there a way to do this? baj Pentax K-5 16 07-04-2015 02:17 PM
Depth of field and focus trouble with manual lens Craig Barber Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 07-09-2014 07:18 PM
diffraction vs depth of field for Q hoffo Pentax Q 6 02-07-2014 09:38 PM
K10D and depth of field rimofheaven Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 7 01-04-2010 09:21 PM
portraits and depth of field raz Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 31 06-01-2007 08:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:34 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