Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-24-2020, 10:28 AM   #76
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 38,816
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Most of the most stunning photos I've seen in terms of actually wanting them on my wall, are everything in focus, not narrow DoF.
But Pentax is doomed if they don't offer a 20mm f/1.4 AF lens for FF!!!


Steve

(...Focus? What focus?...)

11-24-2020, 10:34 AM   #77
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 730
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The whole digital coming of age digital emphasis on narrow depth of field has somewhat pushed the old school problem of being able to create everything in focus images with larger format camera into the photographic shadows. Using large format, you can always get too narrow DoF, without pause for thought. marketers made it a selling point (the ability to get narrow DoF.) In earlier times people spent time trying to get hi res images without background blur, which is actually much harder to achieve. The smaller high res cameras are just a joy, compared to setting up on tripods, shooting 16 or 22 with the 2 second timer. Most of the most stunning photos I've seen in terms of actually wanting them on my wall, are everything in focus, not narrow DoF.
I've spent more time and technique trying to achieve greater depth of field than I ever have trying to get shallower depth of field and that's for sure.

Pentax is touted as the brand for landscapes. Not a genre that calls for shallow depth of field too often.
11-24-2020, 10:37 AM   #78
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,549
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
But Pentax is doomed if they don't offer a 20mm f/1.4 AF lens for FF!!!


Steve

(...Focus? What focus?...)
Hey, if you focus far away enough then you don't care whether the star is 10 or 20 lightyears away .

I always thought that the main draw of fast UWA lenses was astro... which is an area where Pentax bodies have nothing to envy anyone else's, but the lenses are not pushing the capabilities of the system yet.
11-24-2020, 12:49 PM   #79
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,906
An ultra-wide can be good for any low-light ultra-wide scene. I do quite a bit of low light work. But I think 1.4 is getting a little extreme in the case of such WA applications. The market for such an expensive beast might be pretty small. f/1.8 should be doable, if only good edge-to-edge can be offered! For APS-C, so far any fast wide angle is just not there, while for FF there is some of excellent quality- the FA 35mm f/2 and the FA 31mm f/1.8 both of which do deliver fine imaging edge-to-edge. From what I've seen, I'm afraid the new DFA 21mm is going to be f/4, as a FF version of the DA 15mm f/4, which I already have. But I'm sure it will not fit into the front accessory pocket of my holster-type camera case as my DA 15mm Ltd so easily does! So not likely will I be interested in simply duplicating for FF what I already have with my APS-C setup, that is so compact and useful.

Right now, even a good, fast DFA 24mm f/1.8 or f/2 having very good to excellent edge-to-edge even wide open is lacking, with which could offer some wide angle also for APS-C- that could serve both systems very well!!


Last edited by mikesbike; 11-24-2020 at 02:31 PM.
11-28-2020, 09:56 PM - 4 Likes   #80
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Church Key's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: West (By Gawd) Virginia
Posts: 63
I just read this entire thread and have a totally off topic comment.

It is one of the finest grouping of thoughts on an interesting technical subject that I have ever read. Also every poster was very respective of all others views. No nasty criticism, snide remarks, etc. I thoroughly enjoyed the time that I spent reading it. My take is that the digital revolution is wonderful in all its variations. My first "real" camera was a Leica 3F w/50mm Elmar, then Nikons, then autofocusing Nikons, then Canon digitals, finally a Pentax K-S2. I don't do prints anymore, so it is way more than I need as all my pics end up being viewed on monitors. I do not miss dealing with darkrooms and chemicals. Recently found a Mamiya 6X7 in the back of a closet. What a PIA to use. It will be going up on eBay soon after I sell the last of my Pentax non-digital lenses.

Anyhow, I appreciate all the insights presented in the thread. PS: The pics that I got from my 6 mp Canon were as good as anything I ever got with my Nikons; go figure!
11-29-2020, 03:43 AM   #81
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2020
Posts: 22
As a photography newb this thread got me wondering is frame rate loss when going from APS-C to Full Frame somewhat inherent or just a choice camera manufactures make? What do you more experienced and knowledgeable users think?
11-29-2020, 03:57 AM - 1 Like   #82
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,868
QuoteOriginally posted by hvz448 Quote
As a photography newb this thread got me wondering is frame rate loss when going from APS-C to Full Frame somewhat inherent or just a choice camera manufactures make? What do you more experienced and knowledgeable users think?
It has to do with read out speeds of larger sensors combined with the higher megapixel totals we typically see in full frame cameras. You can get really fast frame rates with a camera like the A9, but you pay more for a sensor and camera capable of doing that.
11-29-2020, 04:03 AM   #83
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,988
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
It has to do with read out speeds of larger sensors combined with the higher megapixel totals we typically see in full frame cameras. You can get really fast frame rates with a camera like the A9, but you pay more for a sensor and camera capable of doing that.
I'd imagine that in DSLRs, the physically larger mirror in a full frame model also impacts the frame rate. I don't know that for certain, but it would seem logical...

11-29-2020, 04:07 AM   #84
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 22,868
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I'd imagine that in DSLRs, the physically larger mirror in a full frame model also impacts the frame rate. I don't know that for certain, but it would seem logical...
Perhaps, but a lot of the newer SLRs offer a faster frame rate with electronic shutter. Of course that has the downside of dealing with the rolling shutter effect.
11-29-2020, 06:03 AM - 3 Likes   #85
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,982
Mmm.... the frame rate and "reach" loss for me with the K1 made me a better picture taker.... I put more effort into getting closer (every long lense I have is to short), I time things better and don't take so many useless images these days.
11-29-2020, 07:27 AM - 1 Like   #86
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,774
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
Mmm.... the frame rate and "reach" loss for me with the K1 made me a better picture taker.... I put more effort into getting closer (every long lense I have is to short), I time things better and don't take so many useless images these days.
I'm guessing the ref would take issue with me walking up to the 18 yard box during a PK...
11-29-2020, 08:36 AM - 6 Likes   #87
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,500
QuoteOriginally posted by hvz448 Quote
As a photography newb this thread got me wondering is frame rate loss when going from APS-C to Full Frame somewhat inherent or just a choice camera manufactures make? What do you more experienced and knowledgeable users think?
One of the biggest issues is in electronically moving the delicate analog signal from the pixel in the middle of the sensor to the read circuitry. The microscopic traces on the chip that carry these signals have both resistance and capacitance that slow the progress of the signal and increase the time it takes for a high-quality read-out. A bigger sensor has longer traces with more resistance, more capacitance, and slower read-outs.

That's why so many smartphones beat larger cameras in the frame rate game.

The Sony A9 does a lot of high-tech tricks to speed the read-out but they can't completely overcome physics. Both the A9 and A9II are inferior to the Pentax K-1 on still image quality despite the A9II being both much newer and much more expensive than the old K-1.

If you are a cinematographer and want high frame rate video: use a smaller sensor.

If you are a photographer and want high quality still photos: use a larger sensor.
11-29-2020, 02:01 PM   #88
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
noelpolar's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Goolwa, SA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,982
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I'm guessing the ref would take issue with me walking up to the 18 yard box during a PK...
Putting such limitations on yourself is not productive to your overall growth as a photographer........
11-29-2020, 02:24 PM   #89
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
Mmm.... the frame rate and "reach" loss for me with the K1 made me a better picture taker.... I put more effort into getting closer (every long lense I have is to short),
If we take into account pixel densities the K3 /II has only a crop factor of 1.2 over the current K1/II
11-29-2020, 02:34 PM   #90
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,096
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
If we take into account pixel densities the K3 /II has only a crop factor of 1.2 over the current K1/II
I think you could probably word that better before a hell fight breaks out!!

Edit how about " If we only take into account pixel densities the K3 /II has only a crop factor of 1.2 over the current K1

Last edited by GUB; 11-29-2020 at 02:42 PM.
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!
aps-c, benefits, body, camera, crop, dslr, ff, film, fisheye, format, frame, k1, k10d, kp, lens, minutes, pentax, photography, quality, sensor, situation, size, system, tripod, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another my maybe-right understanding of APS-C camera vs Full Frame talkskiwon Pentax K-3 8 10-11-2019 02:25 PM
K-r relevance today mars76 Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 01-07-2015 05:05 AM
Enthusiast vs Prosumer vs Semi Pro vs Pro vs APSC vs Full Frame mickyd Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-12-2013 07:14 PM
K-r ff "relevance" poll ccd333 Pentax K-r 16 06-23-2011 11:36 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:20 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