[stevebrot]

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?...)

[Qwntm]

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 ƒ16 or ƒ22 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.

[Serkevan]

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.

[mikesbike]

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.

[Church Key]

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!

[hvz448]

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?

[Rondec]

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.

[BigMackCam]

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...

[Rondec]

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.

[noelpolar]

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.

[ThorSanchez]

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...

[photoptimist]

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.

[noelpolar]

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........

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

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

[GUB]

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