Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-13-2015, 07:23 AM   #226
Veteran Member
mrNewt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ON, RH
Posts: 2,170
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Noticably on you 4 shoots, I don't count a tree or a child as wildlife. It is more like bears, at the limit squirel (but thoses are easy to find), wild birds in a forest or near a lake...
If you would have read what I said:

QuoteOriginally posted by mrNewt Quote
... any other pro-ish level camera, it works just fine for birding and wildlife... and anything else you wish to use it for...
You would probably realize that my different shots were there to support the "AND ANYTHING ELSE..". I do know what wildlife means.
The thinking that a pro-ish level camera, no matter the brand, can only be used for a specific type of photography is a myth. The term "wildlife" incorporates a TONS of things. I've never meant that with 70-200mm setup you can take picture of ALL wildlife. That would be amazing... I only added the lens as reference (usually people tend to ask about them).

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
With all due respect, when they think of birding and wildlife, they think of reach. With 70-200mm max the reach is not that great. Wildlife shooter tend to have at least 300mm in general on APSC (so 450mm on FF) and many birder are after the 150-450, 50-500 or 150-600 kind of lenses.
Usually, from my experience and what I have observed from others, 70-200mm suffice for somewhere around the 50% of the local wildlife (by local I mean here in North America).

Yes, the other 50% is usually for those that are more into that specific type of photography. And yes, reach becomes very important. One could argue that by switching from ff to asp-c will give you quite a little bit of extra reach (and this proves what I've been preaching for some time... there is room and place for anything). Most brands out there that have an ff will have an asp-c... so carrying both bodies when you go for a "serious" shoot, is beneficial.

And since my original comment was towards Sliver-Surfer's comment regarding Sony only, I will also mention that, Sony allows you to buy adapters to mount A glass and this will give you all the reach you need while still keeping all the functionality of the lens. And with the second generation of their cameras, this is much improved. And if you need more reach, you can always swap from ff to asp-c effortlessly.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Even for a safari in Africa where the wildlife is big (elephants, lion, leopard, buffalo, rhinoceros...) it is quite recommended to go up to 300mm on APSC because the wildlife will not be always 5 meters from the car. In some case going too near can mean you risk to be killed by the wildlife too.
For ACTUAL African Safari (as in... Africa the country), yes reach is very important as well. Well, I will assume it is since I have never been there so I can't comment much on it (have you been there!?). But for reach, see my above comment regarding adapters. There is a solution if you want... each to its own in the end.

For "North American Safari" (which is basically just another ZOO with bigger backyard), even 70-200mm could be too much. You are inside the car, with windows closed (I'm yet to find a African Safari place where they recommend you to have the windows open)... a big lens is quite hard to use in enclosed spaces. As for local ZOOs... pftt... you barely need 135mm.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
There no native lense like that on FE mount, but also the Camera doesn't have exactly the same grip while when you have a 2kg lense the fact that the camera is bit smaller/lighter isn't an argument anymore. Sure one could do it with an adapter to alpha mount, add a grip and then buy the camera, but that would not be the first idea.
I have never said I bought a Sony because is light. I got it because I wanted it and because the options is offering works for me. Nothing more. And I don't expect that everyone else has the same needs as I do (that's just nonsense)... that's why other brands and options is very good. Each should use what works for them.
And yes, while there are no native FE lens, Sony does offers solutions that works very good.

Look for solutions, not problems... you are a photographer after all.


Last edited by mrNewt; 09-13-2015 at 12:02 PM.
09-13-2015, 07:25 AM - 3 Likes   #227
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,362
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote


shot this yesterday with the a7r/tamron 150-600mm lens, at 600mm f/7.1, using a monopod.
Nice shot. Here's one of mine that is A7 Tamron 500mm mirror no crops .

For fun just now 1000mm f16 1/750s 2000iso no pod no crop Tamron 500mm mirror wit 2x tc

Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 09-13-2015 at 12:16 PM.
09-13-2015, 08:27 AM   #228
ACG
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 55
great photo.

You do a lot better than my efforts with the tamron sp 500 f8.

09-13-2015, 08:39 AM   #229
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,522
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote


shot this yesterday with the a7r/tamron 150-600mm lens, at 600mm f/7.1, using a monopod.
What happened to the guy's face?

09-13-2015, 09:59 AM   #230
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,534
We should have a photo scavenger hunt contest. The first person to photograph all three:

-a Sony a7rii
-the upcoming Pentax FF
-leprechaun with a Leica

in the wild will win a prize. It has to be a camera of someone you've never met before, no cheating. We can have an early bird prize to the first person to get any one item on the above list.
09-13-2015, 10:00 AM   #231
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,362
QuoteOriginally posted by ACG Quote
great photo.

You do a lot better than my efforts with the tamron sp 500 f8.

thank you

---------- Post added 09-13-15 at 01:02 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
What happened to the guy's face?
You need a megaphone a soapbox and the word Cheese!! I tried it with the F18 Hornet pilot but he blinked so I had to settle for that shot

Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 09-13-2015 at 10:40 AM.
09-13-2015, 11:23 AM - 3 Likes   #232
ACG
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 55
These are crops from the a7r. The birds were taken with the K85 1.8 and k35 3.5 and the bees with the m100 f4 macro.
Does one really need huge cumbersome long lenses for wildlife when they there is such an ability to crop and retain detail??
I can only imagine the resolution from the 42 and 50 MP sensors
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
ILCE-7R  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
ILCE-7R  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
ILCE-7R  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
ILCE-7R  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
ILCE-7R  Photo 
09-13-2015, 01:53 PM - 2 Likes   #233
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ponoka Alberta Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 540
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Are you going to show us you're right, or are you expecting us to take your word for it? I've never seen such a lot of work put into speculation and supposition. It is impressive, only in that you're really struggling to show make a point and at a causal glance, you aren't even proving your own point.

Do you really think the enjoyment of images of IQ is in anyway related to the kinds of comparison's you're making. How hard do you have to look to see a difference? Can you enjoy an image by looking that hard? I can't maybe you can, I don't know. Your whole post looks like a bunch of nonsense to me. Nitpicking to the nth degree.
“Nitpicking to the nth degree” <----- this can be so easily applied to the great advantage that you seem to think that the 24mp aps-c image would have over what a 36mp cropped to 15mp.
If you take a look below you would have to squint to see any real world difference as seen between the K5 and K3 image.But according to you this 24mp revolutionary increase in resolution for reach cannot be made up unless FF has the same FOV as a cropped sensor . Now have a look at the D4 you see a far great increase in resolution than you can see between going from the K5 to the K3. I will remind you this is the very site you referenced to showing how there is no resolution advantage when going to a larger format, if we use your site clearly the K3 struggles against the D4S @16mp. Could it be that cropping the image by a factor of 1.5 does decrease the resolution that the sensor can capture?



If you don’t like this site how about we look over at photozone and see what happens to resolution when using a smaller image circle.
Let’s take 4 prime lenses on a 16mp cropped sensor


da 40mm 2620 lw/ph
da 70 2706 lw/ph
Fa 43 2627 lw/ph
DA 35 2723 lw/ph
Average 2637 lw/ph so we see a very even resolution that the aps-c has

How about we compare it to a 16mp APS H with prime lenses
When we crop the D3X to 16mp it works out to be a camera with a 1.225 crop factor close to (aps h), this works out rather well as I have the same scaling when using a 36mpFF and crop it to 24mp it would work out to also a 1.225 crop.


24mm G 3933lw/ph cropped by 1.225 gives us 3210lw/ph
85mm 1.8 G 3872lw/ph ---------- 3160 lw/ph
50mm F1.8 G 3926lw/ph --------- 3234 lw/ph
28mm 1.8 G 3920lw/ph ---------- 3200 lw/ph

Average 3201 lw/ph so as you can see there is clearly an advantage to using a larger sensor( with only a aps h not a FF size sensor) with regard to resolution. For the most part that’s a resolution increase far greater than we see going from apsc kit zoom to many of the primes available for apsc and we see many folk that would consider it a worthwhile upgrade going from a kit zoom to prime (no squinting required)

Now how does this play out to what I have been saying all along that one would not have to use the equivalent FL on FF to match the same reach factor that you think apsc has. If I was to use a lens with the same FOV (1.225 crop factor) on aps h 16mp camera I clearly have a resolution advantage over a 16mp apsc with the same FOV so please tell me which system would give me better resolution for printing larger or cropping more the 3201lw/ph or 2637lw/ph image ?

How much do I have to adjust the FL of aps h sensor to have the same reach as aps c sensor ? Let’s have a go at it, If I only use 13mp of that sensor the final resolution for that 13mp image would be 2849lw/ph On a aps H sensor with a 220mm lens I would have the same reach as 200mm on apsc and would not need the aps h ( CF 1.225) equivalent of 244mm for the same reach.
This jives with what I see going from the D800 cropping it to 24mp and then comparing it to apsc 24mp camera, for me to achieve the same reach as the 24mp apsc all I need to adjust the FL by much less than the crop factor.

Now if you like I could find another site that to yet again shows you that larger sensors holds a resolution advantage, or maybe we should go to the 645 group and let you tell them that having a larger sensor holds NO resolution advantage. Or better yet lets have someone shoot a resolution chart with the 645d crop it to 24mp and then use the same lens on the k3 frame the chart the same see which has the greater recorded resolution. You might learn something if someone did.

---------- Post added 09-13-2015 at 01:57 PM ----------



QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Do you really think the enjoyment of images of IQ is in anyway related to the kinds of comparison's you're making. How hard do you have to look to see a difference? Can you enjoy an image by looking that hard? I can't maybe you can, I don't know.” Your whole post looks like a bunch of nonsense to me
There is a difference to me but the greatest advantage of using FF it greatly increasing the versatility of your lenses as long as you’re not FL limited.

Like

You can substitute a zoom on FF and have the resolution of primes that zoom cover ( that’s a fair tradeoff in my book’s)

For the times when a TC is needed it has less of an effect to the final IQ when you are trying to increase the reach of your expensive lens

If it is going to cost me $2000-7000 on a long FL lenses I am sure going to look at what format is going to give the greatest mileage out of that FL and now that FF cameras are dropping it gives you a rather cheap way to maximize IQ and versatility of expensive FL lenses

Now if I was to base my decision solely on what your IQ requirements I would see no need for myself going with the K3 I would have stayed with the DS K10d or K7 and picked up a single lens like the sigma 50-500 or even the FAJ 70-300 this would have met those needs much better at a lot less money but that’s just me.

But thankfully I am not bound by what other people want out of their photographic equipment or what they think the standard IQ everyone else needs. I photographs for myself ( enjoyment ) and I am always up for the challenge to get the best out of my equipment.

“Your whole post looks like a bunch of nonsense to me”

Not when all the evidence points to a resolution increase when going to a larger format. I am at this time waiting for some evidence from your side showing the opposite from what I have stated, You saying otherwise sounds much more like a bunch of nonsense to me than people who use FF and witness this increase.


Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 09-13-2015 at 02:07 PM.
09-13-2015, 02:55 PM - 1 Like   #234
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,983
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
“Nitpicking to the nth degree” <----- this can be so easily applied to the great advantage that you seem to think that the 24mp aps-c image would have over what a 36mp cropped to 15mp.
If you take a look below you would have to squint to see any real world difference as seen between the K5 and K3 image.But according to you this 24mp revolutionary increase in resolution for reach cannot be made up unless FF has the same FOV as a cropped sensor . Now have a look at the D4 you see a far great increase in resolution than you can see between going from the K5 to the K3. I will remind you this is the very site you referenced to showing how there is no resolution advantage when going to a larger format, if we use your site clearly the K3 struggles against the D4S @16mp. Could it be that cropping the image by a factor of 1.5 does decrease the resolution that the sensor can capture?



If you don’t like this site how about we look over at photozone and see what happens to resolution when using a smaller image circle.
Let’s take 4 prime lenses on a 16mp cropped sensor


da 40mm 2620 lw/ph
da 70 2706 lw/ph
Fa 43 2627 lw/ph
DA 35 2723 lw/ph
Average 2637 lw/ph so we see a very even resolution that the aps-c has

How about we compare it to a 16mp APS H with prime lenses
When we crop the D3X to 16mp it works out to be a camera with a 1.225 crop factor close to (aps h), this works out rather well as I have the same scaling when using a 36mpFF and crop it to 24mp it would work out to also a 1.225 crop.


24mm G 3933lw/ph cropped by 1.225 gives us 3210lw/ph
85mm 1.8 G 3872lw/ph ---------- 3160 lw/ph
50mm F1.8 G 3926lw/ph --------- 3234 lw/ph
28mm 1.8 G 3920lw/ph ---------- 3200 lw/ph

Average 3201 lw/ph so as you can see there is clearly an advantage to using a larger sensor( with only a aps h not a FF size sensor) with regard to resolution. For the most part that’s a resolution increase far greater than we see going from apsc kit zoom to many of the primes available for apsc and we see many folk that would consider it a worthwhile upgrade going from a kit zoom to prime (no squinting required)

Now how does this play out to what I have been saying all along that one would not have to use the equivalent FL on FF to match the same reach factor that you think apsc has. If I was to use a lens with the same FOV (1.225 crop factor) on aps h 16mp camera I clearly have a resolution advantage over a 16mp apsc with the same FOV so please tell me which system would give me better resolution for printing larger or cropping more the 3201lw/ph or 2637lw/ph image ?

How much do I have to adjust the FL of aps h sensor to have the same reach as aps c sensor ? Let’s have a go at it, If I only use 13mp of that sensor the final resolution for that 13mp image would be 2849lw/ph On a aps H sensor with a 220mm lens I would have the same reach as 200mm on apsc and would not need the aps h ( CF 1.225) equivalent of 244mm for the same reach.
This jives with what I see going from the D800 cropping it to 24mp and then comparing it to apsc 24mp camera, for me to achieve the same reach as the 24mp apsc all I need to adjust the FL by much less than the crop factor.

Now if you like I could find another site that to yet again shows you that larger sensors holds a resolution advantage, or maybe we should go to the 645 group and let you tell them that having a larger sensor holds NO resolution advantage. Or better yet lets have someone shoot a resolution chart with the 645d crop it to 24mp and then use the same lens on the k3 frame the chart the same see which has the greater recorded resolution. You might learn something if someone did.

---------- Post added 09-13-2015 at 01:57 PM ----------





There is a difference to me but the greatest advantage of using FF it greatly increasing the versatility of your lenses as long as you’re not FL limited.

Like

You can substitute a zoom on FF and have the resolution of primes that zoom cover ( that’s a fair tradeoff in my book’s)

For the times when a TC is needed it has less of an effect to the final IQ when you are trying to increase the reach of your expensive lens

If it is going to cost me $2000-7000 on a long FL lenses I am sure going to look at what format is going to give the greatest mileage out of that FL and now that FF cameras are dropping it gives you a rather cheap way to maximize IQ and versatility of expensive FL lenses

Now if I was to base my decision solely on what your IQ requirements I would see no need for myself going with the K3 I would have stayed with the DS K10d or K7 and picked up a single lens like the sigma 50-500 or even the FAJ 70-300 this would have met those needs much better at a lot less money but that’s just me.

But thankfully I am not bound by what other people want out of their photographic equipment or what they think the standard IQ everyone else needs. I photographs for myself ( enjoyment ) and I am always up for the challenge to get the best out of my equipment.

“Your whole post looks like a bunch of nonsense to me”

Not when all the evidence points to a resolution increase when going to a larger format. I am at this time waiting for some evidence from your side showing the opposite from what I have stated, You saying otherwise sounds much more like a bunch of nonsense to me than people who use FF and witness this increase.
You don't need to work so hard. Clearly full frame has an advantage over crop formats in many respects. Those who can be convinced are, those who won't be convinced aren't going to be.

At the same time, I would say that if your whole goal of shooting is wildlife, then there is little point in paying for the outer portion of your sensor if you end up cropping close to APS-C anyway. The benefit will clearly come for those who have money to purchase longer lenses than they would need to shoot on APS-C. For someone on a more limited budget, it probably makes more sense to go with a crop camera body and shorter lenses. I feel like the most obvious benefits for full frame come in the portrait/low light/landscape departments. In macro and wildlife, for most folks, full frame will not see a huge benefit over crop cameras.
09-13-2015, 03:22 PM   #235
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,686
QuoteOriginally posted by ACG Quote
stuff about sensor performance between APSC and FF
If you want to check the max performance for different APSC and FF, you can continue to check on photozone, on different brand, where 24MP without low pass filter APSC have been tested:

24MP APSC (one example)


So basically it is possible to achieve 3756 on APSC. Do not crop please just compare to the best the D3X did: 3990. That's a 6% difference in resolution. With next generation for people that care, there will be APSC sensor with ever more pixels. Not that this is that important as 8MP is enough for most usages and 16-24MP is mainly for cropping but it sell lenses and people like you make a big argument over resolution.

But what this mean honestly if you don't upgrade for 6%, you'll want something that is noticably better. 36MP vs 24MP would be +22%... not huge but at least noticable not like 6%. With 50MP you get +44% resolution. That's really noticable.

After of course the actual performance will depend much more on the actual lenses than on a sensor because on both system many lenses manage to barely get to 3000 (a 33% difference), and many lenses will struggle even more on borders/corners. You may have to spend much more to get perfect border at high resolution.

QuoteQuote:
If it is going to cost me $2000-7000 on a long FL lenses I am sure going to look at what format is going to give the greatest mileage out of that FL and now that FF cameras are dropping it gives you a rather cheap way to maximize IQ and versatility of expensive FL lenses
That's the difference in thinking. For this price some will want even better resolution and quality and go for an MF. After all if you have 2-3 lenses at 7000$ each, having an MF body not that far away, and that the same thing all over again.

Most people will not do that, most poeple will keep their 100$ APSC kit lense that came with bundled all together on their 500$ camera kit wheras the comparative FF kit lense is 300-800$ and is brought for 2000-2500$ with the lense and may be 24MP only in some cases.

Some will buy a 200$ prime that get 90% of the quality of the best prime at the same focal length or a 500-1000$ zoom that'll get them 90% of what the pro Canikon zoom does provide but for half the price. For long tele, they'll buy a 150-600. or 50-500. And maybe they get a 800$ body like a K3.

They don't have the same problem as you have. You need to get the most of your half dozen 7000$ lenses, that's not a common use case.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 09-13-2015 at 03:50 PM.
09-13-2015, 03:34 PM   #236
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,686
QuoteOriginally posted by ACG Quote
These are crops from the a7r. The birds were taken with the K85 1.8 and k35 3.5 and the bees with the m100 f4 macro.
Does one really need huge cumbersome long lenses for wildlife when they there is such an ability to crop and retain detail??
I can only imagine the resolution from the 42 and 50 MP sensors
You aren't going to get more detail on a A7R with a 70-200 than a user with a 24MP APSC without low pass filter with a 70-200 (for example the tamron that cost 550€ new). You are going to match a 15MP APSC... If you don't crop, yes you get 36MP and more rez, if you do an heavy crop, you still bounded to less magnification and if the lense is not the limiting factor, you'll need a 50MP FF to match what the basic guy is doing with his APSC in term of reach.

And the guy with his real long tele will be able to shoot birds that are not at a feeder or to print the shoot at a reasonnable size and frame it on the wall.
09-13-2015, 03:42 PM   #237
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,686
QuoteOriginally posted by mrNewt Quote
For ACTUAL African Safari (as in... Africa the country), yes reach is very important as well. Well, I will assume it is since I have never been there so I can't comment much on it (have you been there!?). But for reach, see my above comment regarding adapters. There is a solution if you want... each to its own in the end.

For "North American Safari" (which is basically just another ZOO with bigger backyard), even 70-200mm could be too much. You are inside the car, with windows closed (I'm yet to find a African Safari place where they recommend you to have the windows open)... a big lens is quite hard to use in enclosed spaces. As for local ZOOs... pftt... you barely need 135mm.
Planning to go, so I seriously document on the subject. You need fast lenses (usually safari is made near sunrise or sunset) and both short and long lenses. My understanding is 300mm APSC is enough except if you plan for birds where the usuall 500mm+ lenses do quite help.

For information, I think there no windows in a jeep and when you walk, there no car at all. If you do camping, there chances the wildlife will pass by near you when you sleep.

Also, back to the US, I don't think there always a window when you do a hike in Yosemite or Yellowstone neither. Yes everybody take pictures of seagulls or squirels, but that can be more difficult if you are after a bear or just a local deer outside zoos. I'am no expert, but I know that 200mm framing FF is not especially what one would prefer to use if he going in the forest hunting for some wildlife shoots. Hey even 300mm APSC is limiting. For this kind of things, people choose what they can afford to pay and what they accept to lift, not what is the most practical for the practice !

Last edited by Nicolas06; 09-13-2015 at 03:47 PM.
09-13-2015, 07:44 PM   #238
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,674
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
If you want to check the max performance for different APSC and FF, you can continue to check on photozone, on different brand, where 24MP without low pass filter APSC have been tested.
I assume these charts are from the Sony NEX7 or a6000? Both have a low pass filter.

Last edited by audiobomber; 09-13-2015 at 08:46 PM.
09-13-2015, 08:06 PM   #239
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,522
QuoteQuote:
Not when all the evidence points to a resolution increase when going to a larger format. I am at this time waiting for some evidence from your side showing the opposite from what I have stated, You saying otherwise sounds much more like a bunch of nonsense to me than people who use FF and witness this increase.
I posted the evidence you claim to be waiting for two pages ago. You called it "false". But didn't explain why. Apparently the images on Imaging Resources represent some kind of "false image" while the images you posted are more truthful. SO really Ian, I can't help you, your mind is made up and you don't accept information contrary to what you believe.

QuoteQuote:
How about we compare it to a 16mp APS H with prime lenses
When we crop the D3X to 16mp it works out to be a camera with a 1.225 crop factor close to (aps h), this works out rather well as I have the same scaling when using a 36mpFF and crop it to 24mp it would work out to also a 1.225 crop.
There are a few FF cameras that have lw/ph ratios that seem incredible, but I don't doubt they are true. But they are very expensive cameras. You don't get the same effect in cheaper cameras.

Of you look at the data I posted, you'll notice that the D750 is about 200 lw/ph better than a K-3, you'll also notice a D610 is about 100 lw/ph better and the 6D is about 300 worse, You'll also notice that a D7100 D7200 have higher lw/ph values than Pentax camera using the same sensor. I'm aware of all these things. My point is that the 200 lw/ph difference between a D750 and a K-3 makes very little practical difference, and that looking at the images, in some of the Imaging resources images, the K-3 images look sharper, because they have more DOF for the same ƒ-stop. If I've come to any conclusion in all this, it's that less than about a 20% increase in resolution is negligible in terms of increased visible resolution. And that resolution is a very small part of IQ. And that wider DoF often produces more actual line per picture height on APs-c that an image than on a test chart has more lw/ph, because more of the subject is in focus. After all, lw/ph only counts for that area of the photo in sharp focus.The Out of focus areas in narrow DoF images produce very poor lw/ph, and may constitute a very large portion of the photograph when shooting fast wide open FF.
09-14-2015, 02:51 AM   #240
Moderator
Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,392
QuoteOriginally posted by ACG Quote
These are crops from the a7r. The birds were taken with the K85 1.8 and k35 3.5 and the bees with the m100 f4 macro.
Does one really need huge cumbersome long lenses for wildlife when they there is such an ability to crop and retain detail??
I can only imagine the resolution from the 42 and 50 MP sensors
Wow! That makes my bee photos look rather poor!
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!
a7r, a7r or pentax, adapters, advantages, camera, cameras, dslr, evf, f4, features, ff, glass, image, iso, k-5, k10d, legacy, lens, ovf, pentax, people, photography, picture, post, smartphone, sony, sony a7r
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony A7R II & PENTAX FF LFLee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 26 05-17-2015 04:38 PM
Sony A7 or A7r with Pentax limiteds? auricle Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 24 10-07-2014 01:41 PM
Sony A7R & Pentax lenses fnflying Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 05-05-2014 12:56 PM
Hard decision on 25DA or Sony A7r + Canon 17TSE 2351HD Pentax Medium Format 7 01-18-2014 10:41 AM
First look at Sony's A7r FF mirorless body JohnBee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 160 10-24-2013 08:22 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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