Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-07-2011, 12:00 AM   #211
Moderator PEG Judges
Kerrowdown's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Highlands of Scotland.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 30,641
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
I don't know how many they would sell, but I can at least say I'm in for two of them.
+1, I'm up for at least a couple maybe three depending on workload.

08-07-2011, 03:30 AM   #212
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
I know people argue back and forth about size advantages or lack of them, but my wife rented a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens for a wedding she was shooting. When she came back, she commented that while she liked the reach and the rapid HSM focus, she much preferred the DA *50-135 because of its relatively small size in comparison. After trying out the lens, I would have to agree. I would far rather that Pentax put in the effort to update SDM to something faster in the 50-135 than gave me a bigger camera body to stick a 70-200 f2.8 lens on.

Before people starting arguing that I should compare the 50-135 to a 70-200 f4, I buy lenses based on angle of view and light gathering ability, not based on depth of field.
08-07-2011, 05:55 AM   #213
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Before people starting arguing that I should compare the 50-135 to a 70-200 f4, I buy lenses based on angle of view and light gathering ability, not based on depth of field.
These two properties are intrinsically linked. Less DOF is created by more light. You cannot have a brighter lens without losing DOF.

The comparison you have alluded to would be the correct one to make.
08-07-2011, 09:47 AM   #214
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I know people argue back and forth about size advantages or lack of them, but my wife rented a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 lens for a wedding she was shooting. When she came back, she commented that while she liked the reach and the rapid HSM focus, she much preferred the DA *50-135 because of its relatively small size in comparison. After trying out the lens, I would have to agree. I would far rather that Pentax put in the effort to update SDM to something faster in the 50-135 than gave me a bigger camera body to stick a 70-200 f2.8 lens on.

Before people starting arguing that I should compare the 50-135 to a 70-200 f4, I buy lenses based on angle of view and light gathering ability, not based on depth of field.
Angle of view and light gathering ability is why a ff sensor interests me . . . plus, If you haven't figured it out, many of us think that IF pentax puts out a ff body, it will be smaller than the ones put out by Canon for the Lemming folks.


Last edited by Blue; 08-07-2011 at 06:44 PM.
08-07-2011, 09:48 AM   #215
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
You realize the 5DII already has HD video right? Nikon will probably release a professional sports camera that does not have HD video capability. Network contracts with the NFL (ans other sporting events) don't allow photographers to have HD capable cameras on the sidelines. All video rights belong to the TV networks or the NFL. This is one reason sports has been a big area of growth for Nikon. AF of course being the other.

I think Kodak is a dying company. I don't see them making it 5 more years. We will see what Ricoh does, but I still don't see a FF from Pentax in the near future. If a FF is in the cards it will have a Sony sensor.
You may be right about Kodak going under or away as we know them. However, Pentax will have to get the 645 sensors from another source if that is the case. However, I can see someone buying the sensor unit from Kodak. Perhaps that will be the next move for Ricoh!!!
08-07-2011, 12:21 PM   #216
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
You realize the 5DII already has HD video right? Nikon will probably release a professional sports camera that does not have HD video capability. Network contracts with the NFL (ans other sporting events) don't allow photographers to have HD capable cameras on the sidelines. All video rights belong to the TV networks or the NFL. This is one reason sports has been a big area of growth for Nikon. AF of course being the other.

I think Kodak is a dying company. I don't see them making it 5 more years. We will see what Ricoh does, but I still don't see a FF from Pentax in the near future. If a FF is in the cards it will have a Sony sensor.
Yes, I know the 5DMKII has video. If the 5D and D700 do have direct replacements, I still don't see them being video-less. I do agree that a pro sports camera might be without video, but I'm not really thinking of that as anything on the radar of the discussion. Aren't the pro sports cameras using APS-H anyways?

Last edited by sjwaldron; 08-07-2011 at 12:29 PM.
08-07-2011, 12:46 PM   #217
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
These two properties are intrinsically linked. Less DOF is created by more light. You cannot have a brighter lens without losing DOF.

The comparison you have alluded to would be the correct one to make.
Is this true? So, if I am shooting at 200 mm f2.8 on a full frame camera and have an adequate exposure at iso 200, when I shoot 135 mm f2.8 and iso 200 on a APS-C camera with the same shutter speed, will I then be underexposed by a stop? If so, then I am all wrong in my thinking. As I said before, I don't really care about depth of field as much as I care about proper exposure and decent shutter speeds.

Last edited by Rondec; 08-07-2011 at 01:38 PM.
08-07-2011, 01:53 PM   #218
Veteran Member
alohadave's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Quincy, MA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,024
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Is this true? So, if I am shooting at 200 mm f2.8 on a full frame camera and have an adequate exposure at iso 200, when I shoot 135 mm f2.8 and iso 200 on a APS-C camera with the same shutter speed, will I then be underexposed by a stop? If so, then I am all wrong in my thinking. As I said before, I don't really care about depth of field as much as I care about proper exposure and decent shutter speeds.
No, the exposures will (in theory) be the same. The aperture is a ratio and compensates for the different size of the frame and glass.

Depth of Field will appear different because of the 'crop effect' of the smaller sensor.

08-07-2011, 02:18 PM   #219
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Is this true? So, if I am shooting at 200 mm f2.8 on a full frame camera and have an adequate exposure at iso 200, when I shoot 135 mm f2.8 and iso 200 on a APS-C camera with the same shutter speed, will I then be underexposed by a stop?
The APS-C equivalent parameters for a 200/2.8 @ ISO 200 on FF shot are: 133/1.9 @ ISO 89. These would produce the same images as the 200/2.8 @ ISO 200 on FF.

With 135/2.8 @ ISO 200 you'd therefore be very close to the correct exposure (only 0.05 stop difference).

Your f/2.8 on APS-C is slower than the equivalent f/1.9 (in terms of both DOF and brightness) but you are counteracting that with a higher than equivalent ISO setting.

This assumes an "equivalent image" comparison and thus identical shutter speeds.
08-07-2011, 04:08 PM - 1 Like   #220
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,414
People worry about equivalence WAY too much.
08-07-2011, 04:22 PM   #221
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Well I would like a full frame (for wide angle to portrait) next to an APS-C camera for portrat to telework. Use the system where it blooms the best I think.
08-07-2011, 05:40 PM   #222
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
Equivalence is absolutely KEY when discussing FF vs APS-C, I don't think it's possible to worry about it too much. What ClassA laid out a few posts above is the #1 reason why we should care about sensor size, and why there are so many who want Pentax to come out with a FF option.
08-07-2011, 06:19 PM   #223
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
QuoteOriginally posted by twitch Quote
Equivalence is absolutely KEY when discussing FF vs APS-C, I don't think it's possible to worry about it too much. What ClassA laid out a few posts above is the #1 reason why we should care about sensor size, and why there are so many who want Pentax to come out with a FF option.
The reasons to want full frame are: (1) better specs (2) better viewfinder (3) better high iso and dynamic range (4) a desire for easier ability to get more narrow depth of field. Now, full frame cameras tend to have better specs, but this is not inherent to full frame, it is just as easy to spec an APS-C camera at a high level. In fact, by all accounts, the Canon 7D focuses faster than the 5D MkII.

APS-C cameras have currently passed the current crop of full frame cameras when it comes to dynamic range and have improved considerably when it comes to high iso. Sure, the next generation of full frame sensors will be better, but the question arises how good is good enough? Iso 6400 on the K5 is really decent.

So, we are left with viewfinder and ability to shoot with more narrow depth of field. Oddly, that last item seems to be the thing everyone focuses on. I understand that there are certain situations where it is crucial to have as narrow depth of field as possible. I just don't think with most every day shots a stop of depth of field makes that much difference.
08-07-2011, 06:26 PM   #224
Pentaxian
twitch's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,571
OK I admit it, I want a FF because I own a FA31 and want to use it for 31mm/f1.8 equiv images. Before buying that lens I had no interest in FF .
08-07-2011, 06:46 PM   #225
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The reasons to want full frame are: (1) better specs (2) better viewfinder (3) better high iso and dynamic range (4) a desire for easier ability to get more narrow depth of field.
Regarding (3): Sensor size does not affect high ISO capabilities. It does affect dynamic range.

You forgot that some want their lenses to have the FF-FOV again, e.g., twitch wants the 31/1.8 to be a wide-angle again. Now that lenses like the Sigma 8-16mm are available, wide-angle photography on APS-C is much less of an issue as it used to be but still some would appreciate their existing lenses to get a wider FOV.

N.B., a change to a larger sensor size need not mean "loss of reach". "Reach" as in "What magnification can I get out of my long lenses"? is defined by pixel-pitch, not by sensor size. So if a Pentax FF retained the pixel pitch of the K-5, long lenses would retain their "reach", i.e., there wouldn't be a trade-off at the long end for the advantage at the wide end. One would just crop an FF-image to APS-C dimensions and lose nothing compared to the same lens on APS-C. Such an FF-camera would have to feature 36.7MP, though.
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!
camera, dslr, frame, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
full frame digital beaumont Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 55 01-30-2011 06:31 AM
LX + Scan=Full Frame Digital ziggy7 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 45 01-09-2011 01:59 AM
Digital Only or Full Frame lenses JamieP Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 05-10-2009 08:48 PM
DA vs FA Limited and the question of full frame digital 8540tomg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 11-29-2008 10:07 AM
Full Frame Digital with DA lenses konraDarnok Pentax News and Rumors 27 08-20-2008 11:07 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 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