understanding the 1.5 crop factor

Rupert · 03-14-2017, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by normhead

That's what I like about this place, there's no excuse for making the same mistake twice.

That's never stopped me...I've been banned so many times I have a bronze recognition plaque for it!

Just been enjoying the thread.....not much controversial about it, just some good information.

I would like to add that I really enjoy the Crop Mode of my K1. Shooting mostly wildlife it makes shooting much easier and is a delight to use. It's like having two cameras in one......Crop and FF...all at one price$$!

I understand there are those interested in maximum pixels, but for me the Crop Mode is generally plenty adequate.

When you half press and that Red Crop Frame lights up on the K1 screen, I am delighted every time! I can see exactly what I will get in the finished shot...I like that...a lot!

Regards!

normhead · 03-14-2017, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Kerrowdown

So I'm to take that, as a no then?

What are we talking about again?

I plead the fifth, even though I'm Canadian.

surfar · 03-14-2017, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Rupert

would like to add that I really enjoy the Crop Mode of my K1. Shooting mostly wildlife it makes shooting much easier and is a delight to use. It's like having two cameras in one......Crop and FF...all at one price$$!

Its a great thing, very useful in many circumstances....16mp is good enough for plenty of situations

Nicolas06 · 03-26-2017, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by normhead

But, I don't see the Pentax registration distance as a problem, and niether does anyone else except maybe some short registration manufacturers. And they just want your money.

It isn't. This is a compromize...

On APSC and K3 with it too long registration distance, I truely enjoy the small telelenses we get like the FA77 or DA70. To get the same framing, you need much bigger 115mm lens on FF and on APSC mirrorless the telelenses around 70-90mm with the same apperture are much bigger/heavier.

But now, if I am to shoot WA, I can see all the lenses Fuji has like 14mm f/2.8, 16mm f/1.4, 18mm f/2, 23mm f/1.4 and 23mm f/2...

What I can see is my DA21 is similar to the 18mm f/2 or 23mm f/2. The max apperture is very different and the 23mm doesn't suffer of field curvature as much.

There isn't a better registration distance, it depend what framing and focal length you tend to use the most. On mirrorless with short registration distance, teles are bigger on typically smaller body: not so conveniant. But the WA lenses end up much small, better optically, less expensive. Your choice depend of what your preferences are.

Nicolas06 · 03-26-2017, 02:13 AM

Beside I never got why really FF cameras are supposed to be better at landscapes. The DA limited we have for APSC are about the lenses that have the best flare resistance I know of. The package in APSC is still smaller overall (whatever your lens choice) and great WA angles lenses on FF are extremely expensive.

I would agree FF is better at low light and shallow dof, in particular because f/2.8 zoom offer so much possibilities and lenses are typically better at f/4 than f/2.8 or f/2.8 than f/2...

But for landscape? We all know the resolution of a modern APSC camera is more than we need. Landscape don't move and thanks to SR I can't say low light is really an issue for landscapes... There dynamic range, true, the camera that has the most of it is D810, not K1 and that's because of its 50iso mode. a K5-IIs give you the 80iso mode, enough resolution for any printing size requirement you may have and a bunch of dedicated APSC primes that are optimized for landscape: DA15, DA21, DA40...

normhead · 03-27-2017, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Nicolas06

Beside I never got why really FF cameras are supposed to be better at landscapes. The DA limited we have for APSC are about the lenses that have the best flare resistance I know of. The package in APSC is still smaller overall (whatever your lens choice) and great WA angles lenses on FF are extremely expensive.

I would agree FF is better at low light and shallow dof, in particular because f/2.8 zoom offer so much possibilities and lenses are typically better at f/4 than f/2.8 or f/2.8 than f/2...

But for landscape? We all know the resolution of a modern APSC camera is more than we need. Landscape don't move and thanks to SR I can't say low light is really an issue for landscapes... There dynamic range, true, the camera that has the most of it is D810, not K1 and that's because of its 50iso mode. a K5-IIs give you the 80iso mode, enough resolution for any printing size requirement you may have and a bunch of dedicated APSC primes that are optimized for landscape: DA15, DA21, DA40...

Ya, the list of APS-c primes for landscape, and even zooms isn't all that impressive, unless you look at what's available for the K-1. Then it's really impressive.

I looked at the numbers for the 15-30 today, well over 1 kg (or 2.2 pounds.) Pentax is starving me here. Nothing consumer below 28mm. The other day at Ragged Falls, Tess took my 8-16, I took my K-1 and 28-105, guess who got the shot of the day? I have summer coming up with many trips already planned. What hasn't been decided is what's going with me. If there's no K-1 ƒ4 WA lens by then at a reasonable price, itthe K-1 will be stating home. It's as simple as that. I can work with 24 MP instead of 36 MP, I can't work without my Sigma 8-16, 21 ltd. and 18-135 and DA 200 and TCs.

I know it doesn't hurt Pentax, that I leave my camera home, but it does beg the question, if I bought one, and have to leave it home, why would anyone else buy it? I can take the 8-16, 18-135, 200 and two TC and 50 macro an have a complete kit, that goes right to 476mm APS-c or the equivalent of 700mm on the K-1. SO, I'm better off for long lens work and wildlife, I get a much less capable walk around lens. And there's nothing the equivalent of my 8-16 (which would be 12-24 on the K-1.)

I wonder how many more years the K-1 will be staying home on trips. Someday, I'll find a Sigma 12-24 in K mount, hopefully. I bought the K-1 to be a landscape camera, but I don't need and won't pay for ƒ2.8 in either weight or price. Pentax has not a single wide angle in production for me.

But there I go whining again.

skierd · 03-27-2017, 11:03 PM

Norm - your first long post in this thread has really helped clear up some things I've been fuddling through as I've been contemplating what to replace my K-30 with. In particular the relationship between image sensor size and print output, especially once I consider the cost of changing from APS-C to 35mm. I see a KP or K3 replacement in my future.

Nicolas06 · 03-28-2017, 03:47 PM

Yep, we often think of technical possibilities. 36MP better because there more details and FF because of more dynamic range. What can benefit of it, in theory? Landscape; So a K1 wonderfull landscape body. Okey. But does it make it visibly worse with a K5 and DA15? Well likely the FF lens would have more flare, less contrast (reduced practical dynamic range) and more resolution. But the resolution, I may never see it...

The size and weight of the 15-30, as well as the price, that's another story!

The DA15, has a telescopic hood that retract inside the lens, it is 4cm long and 215g. You can always take it in the bag, in case of...

DA15

DA15

03-27-2017, 06:57 PM	#36
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Nicolas06 Beside I never got why really FF cameras are supposed to be better at landscapes. The DA limited we have for APSC are about the lenses that have the best flare resistance I know of. The package in APSC is still smaller overall (whatever your lens choice) and great WA angles lenses on FF are extremely expensive. I would agree FF is better at low light and shallow dof, in particular because f/2.8 zoom offer so much possibilities and lenses are typically better at f/4 than f/2.8 or f/2.8 than f/2... But for landscape? We all know the resolution of a modern APSC camera is more than we need. Landscape don't move and thanks to SR I can't say low light is really an issue for landscapes... There dynamic range, true, the camera that has the most of it is D810, not K1 and that's because of its 50iso mode. a K5-IIs give you the 80iso mode, enough resolution for any printing size requirement you may have and a bunch of dedicated APSC primes that are optimized for landscape: DA15, DA21, DA40... Ya, the list of APS-c primes for landscape, and even zooms isn't all that impressive, unless you look at what's available for the K-1. Then it's really impressive. I looked at the numbers for the 15-30 today, well over 1 kg (or 2.2 pounds.) Pentax is starving me here. Nothing consumer below 28mm. The other day at Ragged Falls, Tess took my 8-16, I took my K-1 and 28-105, guess who got the shot of the day? I have summer coming up with many trips already planned. What hasn't been decided is what's going with me. If there's no K-1 ƒ4 WA lens by then at a reasonable price, itthe K-1 will be stating home. It's as simple as that. I can work with 24 MP instead of 36 MP, I can't work without my Sigma 8-16, 21 ltd. and 18-135 and DA 200 and TCs. I know it doesn't hurt Pentax, that I leave my camera home, but it does beg the question, if I bought one, and have to leave it home, why would anyone else buy it? I can take the 8-16, 18-135, 200 and two TC and 50 macro an have a complete kit, that goes right to 476mm APS-c or the equivalent of 700mm on the K-1. SO, I'm better off for long lens work and wildlife, I get a much less capable walk around lens. And there's nothing the equivalent of my 8-16 (which would be 12-24 on the K-1.) I wonder how many more years the K-1 will be staying home on trips. Someday, I'll find a Sigma 12-24 in K mount, hopefully. I bought the K-1 to be a landscape camera, but I don't need and won't pay for ƒ2.8 in either weight or price. Pentax has not a single wide angle in production for me. But there I go whining again. Last edited by normhead; 03-27-2017 at 07:02 PM.

03-28-2017, 03:47 PM	#38
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Yep, we often think of technical possibilities. 36MP better because there more details and FF because of more dynamic range. What can benefit of it, in theory? Landscape; So a K1 wonderfull landscape body. Okey. But does it make it visibly worse with a K5 and DA15? Well likely the FF lens would have more flare, less contrast (reduced practical dynamic range) and more resolution. But the resolution, I may never see it... The size and weight of the 15-30, as well as the price, that's another story! The DA15, has a telescopic hood that retract inside the lens, it is 4cm long and 215g. You can always take it in the bag, in case of... DA15 DA15 DA15

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
My understanding of putting FF lens on crop body	talkskiwon	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	47	07-11-2016 12:05 PM
Focal length (crop factor) confusion	stein	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	9	05-16-2016 04:22 AM
Equivalent focal length with crop factor	lguckert79	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	286	07-25-2015 09:22 AM
Mis-Understanding "Crop-Factor"	Gerard_Dirks	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	13	10-10-2013 11:11 AM
Does the "crop factor" just crop?	jboyde	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	01-03-2010 08:18 AM

03-14-2017, 10:55 AM	#31
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by normhead That's what I like about this place, there's no excuse for making the same mistake twice. That's never stopped me...I've been banned so many times I have a bronze recognition plaque for it! Just been enjoying the thread.....not much controversial about it, just some good information. I would like to add that I really enjoy the Crop Mode of my K1. Shooting mostly wildlife it makes shooting much easier and is a delight to use. It's like having two cameras in one......Crop and FF...all at one price$$! I understand there are those interested in maximum pixels, but for me the Crop Mode is generally plenty adequate. When you half press and that Red Crop Frame lights up on the K1 screen, I am delighted every time! I can see exactly what I will get in the finished shot...I like that...a lot! Regards!

03-14-2017, 11:43 AM	#32
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Kerrowdown So I'm to take that, as a no then? What are we talking about again? I plead the fifth, even though I'm Canadian.

03-14-2017, 01:55 PM	#33
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,141	Originally posted by Rupert would like to add that I really enjoy the Crop Mode of my K1. Shooting mostly wildlife it makes shooting much easier and is a delight to use. It's like having two cameras in one......Crop and FF...all at one price$$! Its a great thing, very useful in many circumstances....16mp is good enough for plenty of situations

03-26-2017, 02:02 AM	#34
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by normhead But, I don't see the Pentax registration distance as a problem, and niether does anyone else except maybe some short registration manufacturers. And they just want your money. It isn't. This is a compromize... On APSC and K3 with it too long registration distance, I truely enjoy the small telelenses we get like the FA77 or DA70. To get the same framing, you need much bigger 115mm lens on FF and on APSC mirrorless the telelenses around 70-90mm with the same apperture are much bigger/heavier. But now, if I am to shoot WA, I can see all the lenses Fuji has like 14mm f/2.8, 16mm f/1.4, 18mm f/2, 23mm f/1.4 and 23mm f/2... What I can see is my DA21 is similar to the 18mm f/2 or 23mm f/2. The max apperture is very different and the 23mm doesn't suffer of field curvature as much. There isn't a better registration distance, it depend what framing and focal length you tend to use the most. On mirrorless with short registration distance, teles are bigger on typically smaller body: not so conveniant. But the WA lenses end up much small, better optically, less expensive. Your choice depend of what your preferences are.

03-26-2017, 02:13 AM	#35
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Beside I never got why really FF cameras are supposed to be better at landscapes. The DA limited we have for APSC are about the lenses that have the best flare resistance I know of. The package in APSC is still smaller overall (whatever your lens choice) and great WA angles lenses on FF are extremely expensive. I would agree FF is better at low light and shallow dof, in particular because f/2.8 zoom offer so much possibilities and lenses are typically better at f/4 than f/2.8 or f/2.8 than f/2... But for landscape? We all know the resolution of a modern APSC camera is more than we need. Landscape don't move and thanks to SR I can't say low light is really an issue for landscapes... There dynamic range, true, the camera that has the most of it is D810, not K1 and that's because of its 50iso mode. a K5-IIs give you the 80iso mode, enough resolution for any printing size requirement you may have and a bunch of dedicated APSC primes that are optimized for landscape: DA15, DA21, DA40...

03-27-2017, 11:03 PM	#37
skierd Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Fairbanks, AK Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,472	Norm - your first long post in this thread has really helped clear up some things I've been fuddling through as I've been contemplating what to replace my K-30 with. In particular the relationship between image sensor size and print output, especially once I consider the cost of changing from APS-C to 35mm. I see a KP or K3 replacement in my future.