[enoeske]

Ah, thanks for this. Interesting - I hadn't understood the DoF / blur aspect. Very useful!

---------- Post added 01-07-2016 at 08:20 PM ----------



Right, I get that. Hence, a 55m lens and 85mm lens shot at the same distance give the same perspective, as in my example (b), yes?

Any lens from the same distance gives the same perspective.

[bertwert]

I really hope that's the end of this thread.

then I'm happy for the thread to end too

I doubt this thread will end for at least 10 more pages...

As someone who happily shoots APS-C and FF, "Oh, no'!

BigMackCam already told me I was wrong

[robthebloke]

More or less. I don't really buy the whole equivalence stuff, mainly because I find it dwells on the need to find ultimate shallow depth of field.

+1.

As a stupidly true example, if you want shallow DOF then the DA35 f2.4 is better lens than the FA31 f1.8. it focuses closer, and is slightly narrower, which both add up to more bokeh than the FA31 (when wide open, and as close as you can get). If you want bokeh quality, not quantity, then the FA31 is the way to go. (Well no, the 6x7 with 105mm f2.4 is unbeatable, everything else is a pale imitation)

[clackers]

Right, I get that. Hence, a 55m lens and 85mm lens shot at the same distance give the same perspective, as in my example (b), yes?

Correct.

If I frame a shot with my K-30/35mm Sigma combo, I can stand in the same spot with my A7/50mm Pentax one because the field of view matches.

"Compression" is bollocks. You'll find Internet illustrations of this but they've altered the distance to the subject.

[BigMackCam]

BigMackCam already told me I was wrong

I feel bad now... Hey, *I* didn't know I was right!

---------- Post added 01-07-2016 at 08:44 PM ----------

...if you want shallow DOF then the DA35 f2.4 is better lens than the FA31 f1.8. it focuses closer, and is slightly narrower, which both add up to more bokeh than the FA31 (when wide open, and as close as you can get)

And for any of you FA31 owners who are unhappy with the close focusing / bokeh aspects of your lens, I have a DA35 f/2.4 here for trade. Please PM me

---------- Post added 01-07-2016 at 08:46 PM ----------

Any lens from the same distance gives the same perspective.

That's what I thought. Thanks, Eric

[robthebloke]

Correct.

If I frame a shot with my K-30/35mm Sigma combo, I can stand in the same spot with my A7/50mm Pentax one because the field of view matches.

"Compression" is bollocks. You'll find Internet illustrations of this but they've altered the distance to the subject.

Yeah, it isn't bollocks. Try a 6x7 with 105, which is approx a 75 on film 645, and 50mm on 35mm, and 35mm on apsc.

You can't help but alter the distance to the subject, larger formats have larger min focusing distances, that's just the way it is.

Apsc vs 35mm is an anomaly, where we're talking about a 35mm mount, that's used for both formats (so min focussing distances are the same for both). Don't base assumptions on that comparison, it doesn't hold for the Q/645/67 mounts.

[clackers]

Apsc vs 35mm is an anomaly, where we're talking about a 35mm mount, that's used for both formats (so min focussing distances are the same for both). Don't base assumptions on that comparison, it doesn't hold for the Q/645/67 mounts.

Agreed ... it's bollocks for APS-C vs 35mm, since one is merely a crop of the other.

Like the big formatter you are, Rob, I see you refused to call 35mm 'Full Frame'. 😉

[BigMackCam]

Agreed ... it's bollocks for APS-C vs 35mm, since one is merely a crop of the other.

Like the big formatter you are, Rob, I see you refused to call 35mm 'Full Frame'. ��

LOL

Just to be clear, though, my example (a)... I'm correct (am I?) that moving back from the subject so that, using the same 85mm lens on APS-C as I did on 35mm, I frame the portrait correctly, it would introduce compression of the subject and background - yes?

[enoeske]

LOL

Just to be clear, though, my example (a)... I'm correct (am I?) that moving back from the subject so that, using the same 85mm lens on APS-C as I did on 35mm, I frame the portrait correctly, it would introduce compression of the subject and background - yes?

Yes, moving back changes the perspective and compresses the scene.

[robthebloke]

And for any of you FA31 owners who are unhappy with the close focusing / bokeh aspects of your lens, I have a DA35 f/2.4 here for trade. Please PM me

I had a friend who was wanting a dslr on a budget, he got a ks-1 + DA35. I ended up buying it for him (he didn't want to buy from a German eBay seller), I checked it out, and handed it over (he gave me cash).

For fun, I compared it to my k-3 with FA31. Put simply, if you want a low light set up, wide open the DA35+ks-1 kicks the shit out of the k-3 + FA31 (assuming you don't mind spending a lot of time in Lightroom fiddling the colours to look ok, or it, do everything in B&W).

Colour accuracy and bokeh quality with the k-3/31 is better than than the ks1/35, but sharpness and noise levels with the latter are better. I've been jumping up and down about how good the ks-1 is for ages, with many people claiming the k50 is probably better as an all round camera. I'm slightly happy to see the d500 appear, because I agree. It shits on the k-3 sensor

[BigMackCam]

Yes, moving back changes the perspective and compresses the scene.

Great - thank you, Eric!

---------- Post added 01-07-2016 at 09:12 PM ----------

I had a friend who was wanting a dslr on a budget, he got a ks-1 + DA35. I ended up buying it for him (he didn't want to buy from a German eBay seller), I checked it out, and handed it over (he gave me cash).

For fun, I compared it to my k-3 with FA31. Put simply, if you want a low light set up, wide open the DA35+ks-1 kicks the shit out of the k-3 + FA31 (assuming you don't mind spending a lot of time in Lightroom fiddling the colours to look ok, or it, do everything in B&W).

Colour accuracy and bokeh quality with the k-3/31 is better than than the ks1/35, but sharpness and noise levels with the latter are better. I've been jumping up and down about how good the ks-1 is for ages, with many people claiming the k50 is probably better as an all round camera. I'm slightly happy to see the d500 appear, because I agree. It shits on the k-3 sensor

Amazing. I'm surprised about the sharpness, though. Is that down to the lens (at that aperture) or the sensor (or both)?

[robthebloke]

Great - thank you, Eric!

---------- Post added 01-07-2016 at 09:12 PM ----------



Amazing. I'm surprised about the sharpness, though. Is that down to the lens (at that aperture) or the sensor (or both)?

Both I think. The FA31 wide open isn't the sharpest on the block, but if both were at f2.8 I'd put my money on the FA31. However, at iso6400 the ks-1 delivers less noise in images by far. Even when rescaled. I'd prefer to have the 14bit raws of the k3 in crappy lighting though (for colour), the 12bit colours are a handful I find. For B&W, the ks1 is unmatched.

At ISO 100 + f4, I'd take the k3 any day.

---------- Post added 01-07-16 at 09:26 PM ----------

Now, if you were to put that 20mp sensor into the k3, I'd buy it! (Well, if I hadn't already put money aside for the k1, then yes I would).

[bertwert]

with many people claiming the k50 is probably better as an all round camera

Personally I'd prefer the K-50...

[BigMackCam]

Both I think. The FA31 wide open isn't the sharpest on the block, but if both were at f2.8 I'd put my money on the FA31. However, at iso6400 the ks-1 delivers less noise in images by far. Even when rescaled. I'd prefer to have the 14bit raws of the k3 in crappy lighting though (for colour), the 12bit colours are a handful I find. For B&W, the ks1 is unmatched.

At ISO 100 + f4, I'd take the k3 any day.

Very interesting on the higher ISO noise performance. You know, I came close to picking up a new K50 for £199 on Black Friday, but decided to stick with what I've got (I really don't need as much as I have, let alone more). However, high ISO performance is something I'm really interested in. I know the K3 / K3II aren't the best in that regard, but I'm surprised the difference vs the K-S1 is so noticeable. That aside, I'm also surprised that you found the 12 bit colours a negative point - it's interesting to know that, even with that range of colours, there's such a noticeable difference.

Now, if you were to put that 20mp sensor into the k3, I'd buy it! (Well, if I hadn't already put money aside for the k1, then yes I would).

Nice I'm sticking with my K3 / K3II now... but I'll be fascinated to read yours and others posts on the K1

[robthebloke]

Personally I'd prefer the K-50...

Depends what your criteria are. I'd rather have a 645z over the k-3, but costs says no. When you can pick up a ks1 + DA35 + flu for £269, if your metric is image quality, then it's a better camera than a k50+da18-55 Wr, but not if weather sealing is more important. I'd rather have a 645z, but I don't have the budget for it

As a cheap and cheerful camera, neither the ks1 or the k50 are by any metric bad. They're both better than entry level canikons