Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2016, 03:18 PM   #76
ACG
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 55
Very informative post.
Thanks Steve

03-06-2016, 03:31 PM   #77
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,666
QuoteOriginally posted by Tan68 Quote
I have put some thought into this and I think I understand where the fellow is coming from. I admit he is thinking about things in.. a new way.

Consider a field of view for the final image that frames a Volkswagen with proper emissions control.

1 > At 28mm on a FF, we use crop mode to frame the VW. This gives us an equivalent field of view = 42mm.

2 > At 42mm on a FF, we do not use crop mode to frame the VW. But, we see the same environmentally friendly vehicle as with 28mm+crop.

Alright, the argument is that there is more detail because longer focal length is used in scenario 2 above. Maybe...

Really, I think there is more detail when the longer focal length is used and it is for this reason: In scenario 1, the FF sensor is cropped digitally. The wider view with the 28mm lens is cropped by disregarding portions of the FF sensor and we end up with the VW front and center.. In scenario 2, all the FF sensor is used. A crop is still performed but it is done optically. The wider field of view with the 28mm lens is reduced by mounting a 42mm lens... VW front and center.

So, it could be argued the 42mm lens, being longer, provides more detail. However, I think the better argument is that the 42mm lens performs an optical crop versus the digital crop made when the 28mm lens. We all know cropping with lens is better than cropping digitally...

Hi Tan,


Look back at Post 47, and you can see that's not the situation.


It's about the old Equivalence chestnut - two different format cameras at the same distance with different lenses.


There's no digital cropping being done.


The argument you, me and others have put forward - that details are dependent on how many pixels you can lay down on the target - has been rejected by 2351HD.
03-06-2016, 05:26 PM   #78
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Yep
The hierarchy of focus performance for all camera types stacks something like this (best at top):
  1. EVF zoomed to 1:1*
    magnified live view (1:1*)


    less accurate:
  2. Manual focus using coincidence rangefinder -or-
    split-image rangefinder -or-
    magnified ground glass at focal plane -or-
    optimized matte field (e.g. Canon S-type with fast lens) -or-
  3. CDAF
  4. F/2.8 PDAF (with fast lens) (generally limited to central region on high-end SLRs)
  5. Microprism rangefinder
  6. Stock focus screen for most dSLR cameras
  7. F/5.6 PDAF
* At greater than 1:1 pixel mapping (viewfinder to sensor) the view is composed of interpolated (best guess) data.
corrected :-)

Last edited by osv; 03-06-2016 at 06:11 PM.
03-06-2016, 09:02 PM   #79
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,155
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
corrected :-)
It apparently works for you, but I can't believe you would make this assertion if you have experience with the other methods I placed at the #1 spot. OTOH, I don't own your camera so I can't comment on its EVF except that it should be at least as good as magnified live view on a similar pixel-pitch sensor. (1:1 from the sensor is, after all, the gold standard for focus evaluation.)

Edit: My experience has been that the other methods I placed in the #1 spot have equivalent accuracy and precision in day-to-day shooting and I have fairly deep experience with all of them. Still though...I appreciate the smiley


Steve


Last edited by stevebrot; 03-06-2016 at 09:54 PM.
03-06-2016, 09:12 PM - 1 Like   #80
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,666
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
It apparently works for you, but I can't believe you would make this assertion if you have experience with the other methods I placed at the #1 spot. OTOH, I don't own your camera so I can't comment on its EVF except that it should be at least as good as magnified live view on a similar pixel-pitch sensor. (1:1 from the sensor is, after all, the gold standard for focus evaluation.)

I'll bet I've got the same EVF on my Sony FF as Osv's, and it's beaten hands down by the Katzeye split prism focusing screen in my K-30.
03-06-2016, 09:58 PM   #81
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,721
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
corrected :-)
My own experience with my lowly K-30 is that pictures I take with my old Pentax-A and earlier MF lenses are sharper than the ones I take with my AF modern lenses - which means that the focusing I'm accomplishing using the K-30's built-in "focus achieved" signal must be working well. So, I'm interested in using neither LiveView {which I find to be very awkward to use when doing manual focusing handheld} nor adding split image to my camera; personally I'll stick to what is working for me. {of course, focus-peaking is the choice by default for my Q-7, which is why I have to find room for a Hoodman in my Q-7 bag}. I guess this thread has demonstrated by now that YMMV reigns supreme in this area.

Last edited by reh321; 03-06-2016 at 10:00 PM. Reason: added thought
03-06-2016, 11:07 PM   #82
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,155
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
I'll bet I've got the same EVF on my Sony FF as Osv's, and it's beaten hands down by the Katzeye split prism focusing screen in my K-30.
osv does his focus evaluation at a distance of about 100 yards with a possible slight advantage over our setups. His PK/E adapter is a little shy of the 45.46mm K-mount register allowing him to rack to slightly past infinity. His demonstrated ability to attain focus with his standard subject at that distance is impressive, though it is not clear if the same could be accomplished using other methods if a little focus overrun were allowed.


Steve
03-06-2016, 11:36 PM   #83
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,666
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
. His PK/E adapter is a little shy of the 45.46mm K-mount register allowing him to rack to slightly past infinity.
I have the Novoflex adapter, the most expensive you can buy, if that makes any difference.

03-06-2016, 11:39 PM   #84
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,155
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
I have the Novoflex adapter, the most expensive you can buy, if that makes any difference.
Yes, it would.


Steve
03-07-2016, 12:41 AM   #85
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 73
QuoteOriginally posted by VoiceOfReason Quote
I think one advantage no one mentions is that on the K1 you will have a little less of a diffraction issue than on the K3, so can shoot at narrow apertures for more DOF in certain instances where you want it. Should be about the same as on the K5 though.
It will certainly help with the diffraction but because you have a better DOF with APS-C at equivalent aperture, I am not sure there is a real benefit to it
03-07-2016, 01:01 AM   #86
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
My own experience with my lowly K-30 is that pictures I take with my old Pentax-A and earlier MF lenses are sharper than the ones I take with my AF modern lenses - which means that the focusing I'm accomplishing using the K-30's built-in "focus achieved" signal must be working well. So, I'm interested in using neither LiveView {which I find to be very awkward to use when doing manual focusing handheld} nor adding split image to my camera; personally I'll stick to what is working for me. {of course, focus-peaking is the choice by default for my Q-7, which is why I have to find room for a Hoodman in my Q-7 bag}. I guess this thread has demonstrated by now that YMMV reigns supreme in this area.
i'm busting steve's chops, but i don't have enough experience with rangefinder shooting to even have a valid opinion on it

i suspect that everyone is making their own method work pretty well, due to experience... the q7 will also do 6x magnification, i think... hoodman on the lcd is a good idea regardless.

here is what it looks like with sony, pixel density matters, 14.4x(a7r) vs. 11.7x(a7)

people have claimed that all of the higher-end mirrorless cameras have the same epson evf, just different diopters and implementation.

if pentax delivers a clean 16x on the k1 lcd, it's gonna rock some worlds out here.

---------- Post added 03-07-16 at 12:18 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Cyril_K5 Quote
It will certainly help with the diffraction but because you have a better DOF with APS-C at equivalent aperture, I am not sure there is a real benefit to it
i don't think so either, because when the actual dof is the same, so is the diffraction, the aperture number on the lens doesn't mean much when comparing formats... higher pixel density makes it easier to see diffraction, unfortunately, but it also increases resolution.

bigger sensors give better control over dof, but that's minor, the real gain comes from more latitude in post, better dr, and 36+ pixels increasing the resolution.

but it comes at a price... $$$, lower fps, bigger glass, etc.

Last edited by osv; 03-07-2016 at 01:22 AM.
03-10-2016, 06:13 AM   #87
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
bigger sensors give better control over dof, but that's minor, the real gain comes from more latitude in post, better dr, and 36+ pixels increasing the resolution.

but it comes at a price... $$$, lower fps, bigger glass, etc.
True, the benefit is better image quality. However, my experience from APS/FF/MF is that the larger the format the less is the control over DOF for real life images (strictly DOF control is constant; it is the usefulness of the control that varies). This is particularly evident the moment you start to use MF (in the film days many 6X7 shooters switched to LF in order to get away from the limited DOF control on the 6X7 format; they shot it constantly at F:22).
As 99,99% of all photographs that are actually taken is about getting enough DOF, transposing the DOF scale to thinner DOF such as happens from APS to FF, is a disadvantage. For most photography getting the same DOF at a larger aperture opening is a definitive bonus.
03-10-2016, 06:50 AM   #88
Site Supporter
jlstrawman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 417
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
True, the benefit is better image quality. However, my experience from APS/FF/MF is that the larger the format the less is the control over DOF for real life images (strictly DOF control is constant; it is the usefulness of the control that varies). This is particularly evident the moment you start to use MF (in the film days many 6X7 shooters switched to LF in order to get away from the limited DOF control on the 6X7 format; they shot it constantly at F:22).
As 99,99% of all photographs that are actually taken is about getting enough DOF, transposing the DOF scale to thinner DOF such as happens from APS to FF, is a disadvantage. For most photography getting the same DOF at a larger aperture opening is a definitive bonus.
I got an early start on FF with my Sony A7 II. I moved to FF primarily for the ability to adapt numerous inexpensive lenses, such as Minolta, Konica, Soligor, Vivitar,
Olympus, and of course Pentax. IMHO the IBIS and 24 MP are great features for MY shooting style. Overall, I find that consciously controlling the DOF is less important.
Despite loving the the A7 II, I pre-ordered the K-1. It will be interesting to compare the two. I may keep both.
03-10-2016, 07:22 AM   #89
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
Aside from all the mentioned benefits, my small studio will become "larger" in comparison to when using an APSC camera. And thus, it will become more usable.
03-10-2016, 10:17 AM   #90
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,191
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
True, the benefit is better image quality. However, my experience from APS/FF/MF is that the larger the format the less is the control over DOF for real life images (strictly DOF control is constant; it is the usefulness of the control that varies). This is particularly evident the moment you start to use MF (in the film days many 6X7 shooters switched to LF in order to get away from the limited DOF control on the 6X7 format; they shot it constantly at F:22).
As 99,99% of all photographs that are actually taken is about getting enough DOF, transposing the DOF scale to thinner DOF such as happens from APS to FF, is a disadvantage. For most photography getting the same DOF at a larger aperture opening is a definitive bonus.
This doesn't make sense.

On your K-3, if you get an the exposure that calls for f8, 1/125, ISO 400. On you K-1, you will get the same exposure and DOF with f11, 1/125, ISO 800. Your image quality will also be the same due to the stop advantage regarding DR, noise and diffraction.

This disadvantage is that the K-1 is a lot bigger and costs a lot more than the K-3.
Also, you get more pixels per duck with the K-3.

Last edited by cali92rs; 03-10-2016 at 10:33 AM.
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, 300mm, advantages, app, aps-c, body, camera, cost, crop, dslr, f/2.8, ff, field, focus, frame, full-frame, k-1, k-3, k3, lens, ovf, pentax, pentax k-3, quality, sensor, sigma, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crop Sensors vs Full Frame :: Crop Or Crap? i83N Photographic Industry and Professionals 44 07-30-2014 06:00 AM
No Pentax Full Frame DSLR, What to Do Now Then? RiceHigh Pentax DSLR Discussion 95 07-19-2014 10:57 AM
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
So.... Pentax Full Frame is a sure thing? LFLee Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 11-02-2012 12:55 PM
So It's True....a Full-Frame 'Professional' Samsung Dslr Coming !!!! Confused Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 05-02-2008 04:12 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:51 PM. | 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