Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-19-2018, 11:56 PM   #31
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by mikesbike Quote

I've come to the conclusion that APS-C quality has now become so advanced there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking with it.
True dat.





08-20-2018, 07:07 AM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,178
Unless I win the K-1 this month I will most likely continue waiting for the K-3ii replacement body.
08-20-2018, 07:16 AM - 1 Like   #33
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
The only issue I had with the 3 kit lenses I either gave away or sold cheap, was once I got the 18-135, they were never again put on a camera. But during the 4 or 5 years before the 18-135 I used them constantly. Starting people off with an 18-135 just makes sense from my perspective.

The 18-135 was described a step above the kit lens. It would make sense in the era of more demanding sensors that the 18-135 would become the next kit. And the 16-85 which was designed to be step above the 18-135 is slowly edging into that designation as well. Every new lens that comes out pushes these older kit type lenses another step down in the pecking order.

The 18-55 and 50-200 at this point are a long way from the top. However, I'd still use one without reservation if it was all I had. Really, they do 90% of what a really good lens should do.
08-20-2018, 07:31 AM   #34
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,178
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The only issue I had with the 3 kit lenses I either gave away or sold cheap, was once I got the 18-135, they were never again put on a camera. But during the 4 or 5 years before the 18-135 I used them constantly. Starting people off with an 18-135 just makes sense from my perspective.

The 18-135 was described a step above the kit lens. It would make sense in the era of more demanding sensors that the 18-135 would become the next kit. And the 16-85 which was designed to be step above the 18-135 is slowly edging into that designation as well. Every new lens that comes out pushes these older kit type lenses another step down in the pecking order.

The 18-55 and 50-200 at this point are a long way from the top. However, I'd still use one without reservation if it was all I had. Really, they do 90% of what a really good lens should do.
Well said. My original kit with my k100d super included the 18-55 and 50-200. I loved them. Today they aren't as nice as done of my other glass but in a way I regret selling them. They were good to me. My hope is that they found a good home where they get used more.

08-21-2018, 05:08 AM   #35
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2018
Photos: Albums
Posts: 96
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
Well said. My original kit with my k100d super included the 18-55 and 50-200. I loved them. Today they aren't as nice as done of my other glass but in a way I regret selling them. They were good to me. My hope is that they found a good home where they get used more.
I have fond memories and good images from a K110D & 18-55 kit lens. It's not as if they are "bad" lenses, it's just that I now have "better" ones.
08-21-2018, 05:28 AM   #36
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,352
QuoteOriginally posted by swanlefitte Quote
It got panned when it first came out.
I certainly did not "pan" it in my review
08-23-2018, 09:10 PM   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bhbrake's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 331
QuoteOriginally posted by mikesbike Quote

I've come to the conclusion that APS-C quality has now become so advanced there is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking with it. In fact, it has come to the point where one can freely enjoy its own particular advantages without feeling especially shortchanged.

I don't really have a reason to go FF as there are excellent C lenses, I don't want the extra weight, and I prefer shooting in 2:3 to 4:3 anyway. Heck, I crop to 16:9 often. The extra resolution would go to waste.

08-23-2018, 09:55 PM   #38
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by bhbrake Quote
I don't really have a reason to go FF as there are excellent C lenses, I don't want the extra weight, and I prefer shooting in 2:3 to 4:3 anyway.
?

Both APS-C and FF have 3:2 aspect ratios.
08-24-2018, 06:16 AM   #39
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,178
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
?

Both APS-C and FF have 3:2 aspect ratios.
I had to read it multiple times also. I think the point was that he crops away a lot on APSC and still has plenty of resolution and that the larger resolution of FF would be wasted since APSC even cropped is sufficient for the results desired.
08-25-2018, 03:29 PM   #40
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bhbrake's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 331
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I had to read it multiple times also. I think the point was that he crops away a lot on APSC and still has plenty of resolution and that the larger resolution of FF would be wasted since APSC even cropped is sufficient for the results desired.
I am losing my mind. I haven't shot film 35mm in 20 years and was thinking the ratio was different. Your assertion is correct- with wide crops there isn't enough resolution gain to justify the extra weight on a hike, especially with the gains in stitching software.

If I won the K1 I would evaluate this assertion . Maybe my math is off as far as the percentage of sensor area gained in either side.
08-25-2018, 06:30 PM   #41
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 28,178
QuoteOriginally posted by bhbrake Quote
I am losing my mind. I haven't shot film 35mm in 20 years and was thinking the ratio was different. Your assertion is correct- with wide crops there isn't enough resolution gain to justify the extra weight on a hike, especially with the gains in stitching software.

If I won the K1 I would evaluate this assertion . Maybe my math is off as far as the percentage of sensor area gained in either side.
The sensor is 2.25 times larger in area. 1.5x wider diagonally. The ratio is 3:2 just like APSC. (Math after this is not fully checked but I think it is accurate) So if you crop 16:9 on a K-3 you get an image roughly 6016x3384 vs. 7360x4140 on the K-1. The K-3 makes a 20mp crop at 16:9, the K-1 gives a 30mp crop. So you get about 1.5x the total pixels even with the change in pixel density and the cropping for 16:9. This assumes you have a lens with a similar field of view to use on FF as you do on Crop.
08-25-2018, 10:35 PM   #42
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
bhbrake's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 331
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
The sensor is 2.25 times larger in area. 1.5x wider diagonally. The ratio is 3:2 just like APSC. (Math after this is not fully checked but I think it is accurate) So if you crop 16:9 on a K-3 you get an image roughly 6016x3384 vs. 7360x4140 on the K-1. The K-3 makes a 20mp crop at 16:9, the K-1 gives a 30mp crop. So you get about 1.5x the total pixels even with the change in pixel density and the cropping for 16:9. This assumes you have a lens with a similar field of view to use on FF as you do on Crop.
Thanks for the explanation- sorry for the confusing foolishness. Shows how ignorant I am when it comes to FF format gear- I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the things I don't use. For some reason I was thinking the micro 4:3 format had come out of shrinking the full frame sensor and the C was not cropping the equilateral ratio, basic stuff, yes, but as mentioned, I was a young teen last time I shot a 35mm camera and until going to DSLRs a decade ago, the Digitals I owned were mostly fixed Fuji 4/3. I loved the 110mm when I was kid, but that's another bag altogether...
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!
18-135mm, 50-200mm, camera, da, da-l, dslr, k-70, kit, lens, pentax kit, photography, savings, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: 67II Kit from Heaven BUSTING UP THE KIT Ron Boggs Sold Items 15 05-12-2012 08:11 PM
For Sale - Sold: K-7 Kit WR kit, Kx White kit, FA50mm 1.4, Voigtlander Nokton, K7/5 Grip Rory Sold Items 19 02-28-2011 10:16 AM
For Sale - Sold: K100D, 2 Kit Lenses, Filter Kit, Book, & DVD Tutorial DaveInPA Sold Items 7 01-30-2009 02:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:02 PM. | 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