Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-24-2014, 05:10 AM   #571
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,539
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I can't quite work out how people can complain about EVF resolution when the grain of the focussing screen is many times more prominent and more coarse in OVF's.
I don't get what your problem is, I barely notice the graininess of OVFs and the slowest lens I work with is the sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6.

12-24-2014, 05:18 AM   #572
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,115
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
The Leica S2 didn't fail, the blur on the dogs nose and the background blur draws attention to the part of the animal that is characteristically most important in portraiture - its eyes.
I'm all for background blur and bokeh. But in your view it's OK to make a portrait, of a human subject, with the eyes in focus, but the nose blurry? It is something I was tought to avoid. And I do, because I find it extremely unaesthetic. Again, an EVF would have previewed that DOF on-the-fly.

---------- Post added 24-12-14 at 13:19 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
I don't get what your problem is, I barely notice the graininess of OVFs and the slowest lens I work with is the sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6.
The grain is present on fast lenses as well.
12-24-2014, 05:33 AM   #573
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,539
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
The grain is present on fast lenses as well
it isn't as obvious at f/1.2 - and in any case if you are complaining about grainy viewfinders at that aperture, you're never going to be satisfied with DSLRs.

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
It is something I was tought to avoid. And I do, because I find it extremely unaesthetic.
Aesthetics and DOF are both very subjective things, and with fast lenses there are always going to be instances due to the 3D geometry of faces -both animals and people - where at wide apertures everything simply won't be in focus. I don't hear people complaining about the tips of their noses or ears being out of focus, you see that a lot in professional portraiture.




For example:

Pentax K10D - SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2



Pentax K10D - SMCP-K 50mm f/1.2 @ f/1.2 100% crop

Last edited by Digitalis; 12-24-2014 at 05:51 AM.
12-24-2014, 08:28 AM   #574
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
Yeah that is one of the reasons why my mother and I didn't like the Fuji X system, the focus by wire mechanism. Sure it is possible to use Leica M, Voightlander and Zeiss lenses but you forgo AF, which is one of the good reasons to get a X system as AF simply doesn't exist in any current RF camera system.
After reading through some of these posts several times, I realized I'm not really clear on what we mean by "focus by wire". This is going to sound like an exam question, but I am a former teacher. I guess I need someone to explain what is meant by "focus by wire", and why it would be used on mirror-less systems but not on DSLR systems.

---------- Post added 12-24-14 at 10:32 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely NOT advocating taking pictures at arms length. I'm saying the eye level VF's need to have quality, brightness, sharpness and information enough so you don't NEED to use the back LCD screen.
Another "why question" from me; I apologize if people get tired of them, but "inquiring mind wants to know": when I take a picture using an LCD, my old instincts kick in and I hold the camera as close to my nose as I can and still focus on the screen; why do most people assume a "zombie pose", holding the camera at arm's length? I can see problems with that pose, but is there some advantage to that pose when taking a still picture??

12-24-2014, 08:51 AM   #575
Site Supporter
jcdoss's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kansas City, MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,810
reh321, I'll defer the answer to question #1 to those with experience with focus-by-wire lenses, however the answer to question #2 seems obvious to me. Most people assume zombie-poses, because in fact, most people are actually zombies.
12-24-2014, 11:40 AM   #576
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
After reading through some of these posts several times, I realized I'm not really clear on what we mean by "focus by wire". This is going to sound like an exam question, but I am a former teacher. I guess I need someone to explain what is meant by "focus by wire", and why it would be used on mirror-less systems but not on DSLR systems.

---------- Post added 12-24-14 at 10:32 AM ----------

I'll give you a partial answer. Today's cameras have morphed into having both video and still photography capability. Those companies that have a video-centric background - like Sony - tend to make lenses that are more suitable for adjustment while the video recording is going on. video cameras are often on a tripod, but still, one wouldn't want a lens that had click type adjustment rings for focus or adjustments. Focus by wire takes little torque and is appropriate for video and liable to have less impact on the video recording process. Those companies who developed the still photography equipment, primarily, know that their customers appreciate damped adjustment rings, and click type aperture rings which can be precisely set and adjusted, and that won't wander out of position by inadvertent touching.

Electronic control of camera functions is also having its impact. My Sony Nex cameras can be controlled by a smart phone, which lets me adjust its focus 100 feet away by touch control on the smart phone screen. So unfortunately, some classic lens designs may be changed by evolution of our electronic environment. Do both sides agree on how lenses should be designed - nope
12-24-2014, 11:41 AM   #577
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
After reading through some of these posts several times, I realized I'm not really clear on what we mean by "focus by wire". This is going to sound like an exam question, but I am a former teacher. I guess I need someone to explain what is meant by "focus by wire", and why it would be used on mirror-less systems but not on DSLR systems.

---------- Post added 12-24-14 at 10:32 AM ----------

Another "why question" from me; I apologize if people get tired of them, but "inquiring mind wants to know": when I take a picture using an LCD, my old instincts kick in and I hold the camera as close to my nose as I can and still focus on the screen; why do most people assume a "zombie pose", holding the camera at arm's length? I can see problems with that pose, but is there some advantage to that pose when taking a still picture??
Focus by wire = the focus ring is not connected to the actual focusing mechanism, it's basically a sensor that's sensing the movement, and tells the AF motor to change the focus. Why exactly lens makers do it is beyond me, I don't see a benefit to it. Though people in this thread: focus by wire far superior to direct manual focus? and other stuff seem to see advantages (I can understand those, but thanks, I'll still rather have a directly connected system. Suppose it's like electric power steering vs hydraulic power steering vs steering by wire. Electric and by wire CAN be ok if well implemented, but often they suck.


As for the zombie pose... I suppose it's easier on the eyes? I don't do it though... maybe you should ask the zombies directly?


Philbaum's explanation makes sense, guess I'm not so much of a video guy then.


I guess I can live with focus by wire if it is well done... maybe with some sort of adjustment system to control the friction/resistance. A small dial on the lens perhaps that lets you change it? And another one that lets you chose how the "gearing" is... should it take 3 full circles from one end to another, or 1/4? And lag needs to be reduced, the speed of the focusing also must perfectly match the speed you turn the ring at. I would always miss the end point though... turn till the end, then 1mm back, and focus is right. That doesn't work with focus by wire.

Last edited by kadajawi; 12-24-2014 at 11:46 AM.
12-24-2014, 01:03 PM   #578
Veteran Member
abmj's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Central California
Posts: 600
QuoteOriginally posted by jcdoss Quote
... in fact, most people are actually zombies.
I KNEW it !

12-24-2014, 01:47 PM   #579
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 634
Focus-by-wire is one of the few things that I don't like about my M4/3 system. It's very sloppy and doesn't have a consistent, linear relation between the movement of the focus ring and the focusing element.

I know it's possible, if some camera company actually cared about this, to do focus-by-wire right and actually emulate a mechanical linkage electronically. You could have a focal depth scale, hard stop at infinity, etc. I just don't know if any of them have ever bothered to do it, or if any of them ever will. I think they all regard manual focus as a mere footnote these days.
12-24-2014, 01:50 PM   #580
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Scottville,MI usa
Posts: 5
I hope not

I really hope That SLR's are here to stay. Analog is sometimes the best way to shoot.
12-24-2014, 01:50 PM   #581
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,732
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
Focus by wire = the focus ring is not connected to the actual focusing mechanism, it's basically a sensor that's sensing the movement, and tells the AF motor to change the focus. Why exactly lens makers do it is beyond me, I don't see a benefit to it. Though people in this thread: focus by wire far superior to direct manual focus? and other stuff seem to see advantages (I can understand those, but thanks, I'll still rather have a directly connected system. Suppose it's like electric power steering vs hydraulic power steering vs steering by wire. Electric and by wire CAN be ok if well implemented, but often they suck.

I guess I can live with focus by wire if it is well done... maybe with some sort of adjustment system to control the friction/resistance. A small dial on the lens perhaps that lets you change it? And another one that lets you chose how the "gearing" is... should it take 3 full circles from one end to another, or 1/4? And lag needs to be reduced, the speed of the focusing also must perfectly match the speed you turn the ring at. I would always miss the end point though... turn till the end, then 1mm back, and focus is right. That doesn't work with focus by wire.
Thank you for the explanation. I have never had a lens like that, and I don't think I'd want one. I have seen a few lenses with buttons to control zoom, but i hadn't noticed how they control focus; I had thought the zoom buttons were for the emotional comfort of those who were coming from point-and-shoot ... I guess I hadn't thought of how a videographer would view life. I do know that the people most comfortable with "live view" are those who come from videography. Frankly, I've never really become comfortable with zoom lenses that twist instead of using the "trombone style", and I prefer my focus ring to be something big and textured (like the aperture ring) so I can find it without looking for it.
12-24-2014, 02:22 PM   #582
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,539
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
Those companies that have a video-centric background - like Sony - tend to make lenses that are more suitable for adjustment while the video recording is going on.
But the interesting thing is that actual cine lenses from Zeiss, AARI, Panavision, Angenieux, all use mechanical helicoids, none of them have ever produced a lens that focuses by wire for cinematography.

Last edited by Digitalis; 12-25-2014 at 05:36 AM.
12-24-2014, 07:30 PM   #583
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,609
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Thank you for the explanation. I have never had a lens like that, and I don't think I'd want one. I have seen a few lenses with buttons to control zoom, but i hadn't noticed how they control focus; I had thought the zoom buttons were for the emotional comfort of those who were coming from point-and-shoot ... I guess I hadn't thought of how a videographer would view life. I do know that the people most comfortable with "live view" are those who come from videography. Frankly, I've never really become comfortable with zoom lenses that twist instead of using the "trombone style", and I prefer my focus ring to be something big and textured (like the aperture ring) so I can find it without looking for it.
AFAIK focus by wire lenses do have a focus ring, it's just not directly attached to the focusing mechanism.


Powered zooms are nice for video, as you can get a smooth zooming motion. I can do that with those push/pull zoom (trombone ) lenses, but with the ones you have to twist...


@Digitalis: I don't think those lenses are powered, and the mounts they come in don't have electricity either. And then there's a difference between "videography" and "cinematography", and the gear those use.
12-24-2014, 08:36 PM   #584
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 691
Give me a K3 sensor in A6000 body, make it Pentax tough and rule the Mirrorless market for the next decade!
12-24-2014, 08:51 PM   #585
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,211
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I'm all for background blur and bokeh. But in your view it's OK to make a portrait, of a human subject, with the eyes in focus, but the nose blurry? It is something I was tought to avoid. And I do, because I find it extremely unaesthetic. Again, an EVF would have previewed that DOF on-the-fly.

---------- Post added 24-12-14 at 13:19 ----------



The grain is present on fast lenses as well.
On the K5, yes. The K3 is a different animal. I see grain only in quite low light.

QuoteQuote:
If anything that Leica S2 is a perfect preview of future DSLRs: Highly specialistic very expensive tools. Price driven up by low demand. Or low demand due to such a high price?
Except that I can buy a very nice bright viewfinder for about $500 in the K-50, and to get an equivalent EVF is about three times that at least. The EVF is the more expensive option.

That may change, but a mirror with OVF is quite inexpensive.
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!
35mm, camera, cameras, canon, compromise, dslr, evf, frame, kit, lcd, lenses, market, mirrorless, ovf, pentax, photography, pm, post, rangefinder, sensor, size, slr, slrs, sony, steve, system, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Dying Flowers Dr Orloff Photo Critique 3 02-02-2014 07:36 PM
Landscape The living and dying. BigJPR Photo Critique 25 05-09-2013 05:51 AM
Dying voice of reason.... jeffkrol General Talk 3 12-14-2012 11:25 AM
GOP problem: 'Their voters are white, aging and dying off' jeffkrol General Talk 42 05-22-2012 08:40 AM
Are all FILM SLRs safe with older flashes? ismaelg Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 5 03-29-2012 08:53 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 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