Film equivalent size

pathdoc · 09-08-2016, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by rod_grant

but in regard to sanity prevailing, you obviously haven't spent much time in the Why I won't buy a K3 thread

Yes, but that stopped being serious as well as sane a long time ago, and from the brief glimpses I've given it is basically a LOLarious free-for-all now.

If I were going to post seriously there, the answer would have to be "Because I have already decided to buy the K-1, and any advantages the K-3 series still has over it are ones I don't need."

normhead · 09-08-2016, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by pathdoc

Yes, but that stopped being serious as well as sane a long time ago, and from the brief glimpses I've given it is basically a LOLarious free-for-all now.

If I were going to post seriously there, the answer would have to be "Because I have already decided to buy the K-1, and any advantages the K-3 series still has over it are ones I don't need."

Post seriously in that thread? There's a moderator there to make sure that doesn't happen. It's against thread rules.

As for the "I have a K-1 "argument, the K-3ii made that redundant more than a year ago. You're a bit behind the times thinking that.

pathdoc · 09-08-2016, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by normhead

As for the "I have a K-1 "argument, the K-3ii made that redundant more than a year ago. You're a bit behind the times thinking that.

LOL. I did say K-3 series. I'm well aware that the K-3ii maintains an edge over the K-1 for certain applications, but none of that applies to me. True, if I already had a K-3 or K-3ii I wouldn't be trading up at all, but everything the K-1 offers me is an advance over my K-5 bar a slight loss of MP in crop mode and loss of ISO 80, and I can deal with that. And after a year of shooting manual-focus film bodies, I can even deal with the loss of the onboard flash.

normhead · 09-08-2016, 08:02 AM - **1 Like**

What I wanted over my K-5 was better AF which the K-3 gives me in spades, faster burst, and more magnification and cropping room. So, I'm kind of like you with your K-1. For many of my images, a K-1 would be no better than a k-5, with a lower burst rate. Doubling the sensor size does have some applications. But since I'm quite happy with my K-3 landscapes....

even though I have a K-3, I've still been known to post in the "why I won't buy a K-3" thread. Just in my case, it's because I already have one.

Someone explain to me again, what is it I'm missing here?

**BigMackCam** · 09-08-2016, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by normhead

Someone explain to me again, what is it I'm missing here?

A fishing rod?

stevebrot · 09-08-2016, 08:32 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

Someone explain to me again, what is it I'm missing here?

Women in bikinis on jet skis, burly guys in plaid shirts fishing, and all the other stuff any good beer commercial has.

Steve

Not a Number · 09-08-2016, 08:33 AM

To get back on topic the exif data should show the crop factor (1.5) and the 35mm equivalent.

normhead · 09-08-2016, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by BigMackCam

A fishing rod?

Originally posted by stevebrot

Women in bikinis on jet skis, burly guys in plaid shirts fishing, and all the other stuff any good beer commercial has.

Steve

And I was so happy with that image. You guys ruin everything. If I tell Tess I'm going to bring out women in bikinis for my photo, I am going to be in so much crap, I may never be able to dig my way out. You guys are no help.

Originally posted by Not a Number

To get back on topic the exif data should show the crop factor (1.5) and the 35mm equivalent.

For curious minds to ponder after they take their picture. "Looky dere, this here exif gives the equivalent in 35mm, but not for a 1 inch FZ1000 or a 645z or a Q. I wonder why they think dat dere 35mm equivalent is so important.?"

**BigMackCam** · 09-09-2016, 05:46 AM

@pathdoc & @normhead - I deleted those last two messages. Best we stay on topic and keep the content "family friendly", eh?

Thanks!

noblepa · 09-09-2016, 08:31 AM - **2 Likes**

I have seen a lot of discussion regarding the "crop factor". Most led to confusion and provided no really productive information.

I suggest that, after you read this thread, you forget you ever heard the term. You just need to learn a couple of milestones.

Back when we were shooting 35mm SLRs (and today with so-called "full frame" cameras), a 50mm lens was considered "normal". Shorter focal lengths were wide angle; longer were telephoto. The longer the focal length, the more telephoto it was/is.

On an APS-C camera, such as all Pentax cameras except the K-1, normal is about 33mm. Shorter than that is wide angle. Longer is telephoto.

There are some other considerations, such as depth of field, but when thinking about focal length and field of view, you can go crazy doing the math, when, IMHO, it is really not necessary.

**pepperberry farm** · 09-09-2016, 08:44 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by noblepa

I have seen a lot of discussion regarding the "crop factor". Most led to confusion and provided no really productive information.

I suggest that, after you read this thread, you forget you ever heard the term. You just need to learn a couple of milestones.

Back when we were shooting 35mm SLRs (and today with so-called "full frame" cameras), a 50mm lens was considered "normal". Shorter focal lengths were wide angle; longer were telephoto. The longer the focal length, the more telephoto it was/is.

On an APS-C camera, such as all Pentax cameras except the K-1, normal is about 33mm. Shorter than that is wide angle. Longer is telephoto.

There are some other considerations, such as depth of field, but when thinking about focal length and field of view, you can go crazy doing the math, when, IMHO, it is really not necessary.

^^^this^^^^^

thank you - can we please put away the whole 'equivalency' issue...

**BigMackCam** · 09-09-2016, 11:08 AM - **1 Like**

You folks may want to take a look at this post:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/173-general-photography/329446-full-frame...ml#post3767033

Hopefully it will settle some of the discussions around equivalence and we can move on

emalvick · 09-15-2016, 01:00 PM

I made a mistake of caring too much back when I started digital photography. My problem was having what we would now call a bridge camera with a sensor that essentially had a field of view that was 6x smaller than a 35 mm camera (based on Exif info on FL and equivalent FL). I originally had a film SLR, so on that camera it made more sense to look in terms of 35 mm rather than see focal lengths ranging from basically 6 mm to 40 mm (or something similar).

Then when I got the Pentax I tried to base my lens purchases on the equivalent FL of that bridge camera to the equivalent FL of the new APSC camera. I don't think it was until I got the K5 that I finally quit caring. I shoot by feel now that I've had a lot of practice. Viewfinder shows me what I'll get, and I have a nice instinct about what DOF might be when I select a FL, Distance, and aperture. Experience makes up a lot more than math does.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Combined effect of defraction, lens defocus and sensor/film size on resolution	ARCASIA	Pentax Medium Format	8	11-22-2020 03:19 PM
Does size (lens elements/filter size) really matter?	Vantage-Point	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	11-03-2014 05:31 PM
Any full size digital or large size enlargement medium format pics on the net?	PPPPPP42	Pentax Medium Format	53	09-22-2012 12:52 PM
Film 50mm equivalent on the k7	kaiserz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	04-20-2012 10:17 AM

09-08-2016, 07:01 AM	#16
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by rod_grant but in regard to sanity prevailing, you obviously haven't spent much time in the Why I won't buy a K3 thread Yes, but that stopped being serious as well as sane a long time ago, and from the brief glimpses I've given it is basically a LOLarious free-for-all now. If I were going to post seriously there, the answer would have to be "Because I have already decided to buy the K-1, and any advantages the K-3 series still has over it are ones I don't need."

09-08-2016, 07:07 AM	#17
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by pathdoc Yes, but that stopped being serious as well as sane a long time ago, and from the brief glimpses I've given it is basically a LOLarious free-for-all now. If I were going to post seriously there, the answer would have to be "Because I have already decided to buy the K-1, and any advantages the K-3 series still has over it are ones I don't need." Post seriously in that thread? There's a moderator there to make sure that doesn't happen. It's against thread rules. As for the "I have a K-1 "argument, the K-3ii made that redundant more than a year ago. You're a bit behind the times thinking that.

09-08-2016, 07:44 AM	#18
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Originally posted by normhead As for the "I have a K-1 "argument, the K-3ii made that redundant more than a year ago. You're a bit behind the times thinking that. LOL. I did say K-3 series. I'm well aware that the K-3ii maintains an edge over the K-1 for certain applications, but none of that applies to me. True, if I already had a K-3 or K-3ii I wouldn't be trading up at all, but everything the K-1 offers me is an advance over my K-5 bar a slight loss of MP in crop mode and loss of ISO 80, and I can deal with that. And after a year of shooting manual-focus film bodies, I can even deal with the loss of the onboard flash.

09-08-2016, 08:02 AM - 1 Like	#19
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	What I wanted over my K-5 was better AF which the K-3 gives me in spades, faster burst, and more magnification and cropping room. So, I'm kind of like you with your K-1. For many of my images, a K-1 would be no better than a k-5, with a lower burst rate. Doubling the sensor size does have some applications. But since I'm quite happy with my K-3 landscapes.... even though I have a K-3, I've still been known to post in the "why I won't buy a K-3" thread. Just in my case, it's because I already have one. Someone explain to me again, what is it I'm missing here?

09-08-2016, 08:10 AM	#20
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,705	Originally posted by normhead Someone explain to me again, what is it I'm missing here? A fishing rod?

09-08-2016, 08:32 AM - 1 Like	#21
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by normhead Someone explain to me again, what is it I'm missing here? Women in bikinis on jet skis, burly guys in plaid shirts fishing, and all the other stuff any good beer commercial has. Steve

09-08-2016, 08:33 AM	#22
Not a Number Moderator Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Venice, CA Posts: 10,526	To get back on topic the exif data should show the crop factor (1.5) and the 35mm equivalent.

09-08-2016, 09:00 AM	#23
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by BigMackCam A fishing rod? Originally posted by stevebrot Women in bikinis on jet skis, burly guys in plaid shirts fishing, and all the other stuff any good beer commercial has. Steve And I was so happy with that image. You guys ruin everything. If I tell Tess I'm going to bring out women in bikinis for my photo, I am going to be in so much crap, I may never be able to dig my way out. You guys are no help. Originally posted by Not a Number To get back on topic the exif data should show the crop factor (1.5) and the 35mm equivalent. For curious minds to ponder after they take their picture. "Looky dere, this here exif gives the equivalent in 35mm, but not for a 1 inch FZ1000 or a 645z or a Q. I wonder why they think dat dere 35mm equivalent is so important.?"

09-09-2016, 05:46 AM	#24
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,705	@pathdoc & @normhead - I deleted those last two messages. Best we stay on topic and keep the content "family friendly", eh? Thanks!

09-09-2016, 08:31 AM - 2 Likes	#25
noblepa Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bay Village, Ohio USA Posts: 1,142	I have seen a lot of discussion regarding the "crop factor". Most led to confusion and provided no really productive information. I suggest that, after you read this thread, you forget you ever heard the term. You just need to learn a couple of milestones. Back when we were shooting 35mm SLRs (and today with so-called "full frame" cameras), a 50mm lens was considered "normal". Shorter focal lengths were wide angle; longer were telephoto. The longer the focal length, the more telephoto it was/is. On an APS-C camera, such as all Pentax cameras except the K-1, normal is about 33mm. Shorter than that is wide angle. Longer is telephoto. There are some other considerations, such as depth of field, but when thinking about focal length and field of view, you can go crazy doing the math, when, IMHO, it is really not necessary.

09-09-2016, 08:44 AM - 1 Like	#26
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,781	Originally posted by noblepa I have seen a lot of discussion regarding the "crop factor". Most led to confusion and provided no really productive information. I suggest that, after you read this thread, you forget you ever heard the term. You just need to learn a couple of milestones. Back when we were shooting 35mm SLRs (and today with so-called "full frame" cameras), a 50mm lens was considered "normal". Shorter focal lengths were wide angle; longer were telephoto. The longer the focal length, the more telephoto it was/is. On an APS-C camera, such as all Pentax cameras except the K-1, normal is about 33mm. Shorter than that is wide angle. Longer is telephoto. There are some other considerations, such as depth of field, but when thinking about focal length and field of view, you can go crazy doing the math, when, IMHO, it is really not necessary. ^^^this^^^^^ thank you - can we please put away the whole 'equivalency' issue...

09-09-2016, 11:08 AM - 1 Like	#27
BigMackCam Digitiser of Film Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: North East of England Posts: 20,705	You folks may want to take a look at this post: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/173-general-photography/329446-full-frame...ml#post3767033 Hopefully it will settle some of the discussions around equivalence and we can move on

09-15-2016, 01:00 PM	#28
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	I made a mistake of caring too much back when I started digital photography. My problem was having what we would now call a bridge camera with a sensor that essentially had a field of view that was 6x smaller than a 35 mm camera (based on Exif info on FL and equivalent FL). I originally had a film SLR, so on that camera it made more sense to look in terms of 35 mm rather than see focal lengths ranging from basically 6 mm to 40 mm (or something similar). Then when I got the Pentax I tried to base my lens purchases on the equivalent FL of that bridge camera to the equivalent FL of the new APSC camera. I don't think it was until I got the K5 that I finally quit caring. I shoot by feel now that I've had a lot of practice. Viewfinder shows me what I'll get, and I have a nice instinct about what DOF might be when I select a FL, Distance, and aperture. Experience makes up a lot more than math does.