[Emacs]

Why did you cite my post? Bad netiquette I observe here.

You should change your avatar to something like this:

---

Last edited by Emacs; 04-09-2012 at 07:26 AM.

[dylansalt]

Why did you cite my post? Bad netiquette I observe here.

If coming from a D7000, why post on pentaxforums?

Live view is better than video, look up my blog.

And you better knew that whatever large your LED TV is, it won't use more than 2 MP, wouldn't you?

Don't visit this part of the forum then or post to it - simple really

[normhead]

Geeze, that's quite the jump, from you bought into the hype before everyone else to APS-c will be dead. The D800 is just released, not even available to those who have paid for it and already it's a major player. I'd say that APS-c sensors will always be a fraction the cost of FF sensors..and there fore always a good deal for those who don't need more than 5,000 horizontal DPI. That's not going to change. There seems to be a barage of Nikon worshipers around all the sudden. The latest new craze I guess.

OK. so someone prove to me that all this FF hype isn't just camera company hype, designed to make you throw out your camera that still meets your needs and buy way more than you need, the same as the car industry or computer industry or what ever else. It's a good business model. But it requires a public that will buy into it.

The fact that you buy into it doesn't make you smart. It makes you a dupe. Unless of course there are technical specs that you really need. But I notice with all the Nikon hype posted, there is not one sentence that says "I need this because <insert your techical spec here> that would be relevant to a Pentax shooter. We have all these self appopinted messiah's wildy and excitedly psoting in Pentax land so they can convert the infidels. It's been recited ad nauseum on this forum that Nikon and Canon have better focussing systems for action shots. It doesn't seem to dawn on any of these clowns that they are repeating something everyone knows to the point rubbing it in everyone's face. It doesn't matter how irrelevant their little spiels are to most Pentax shooters. They just go on and on. As far as I know no one has ever argued with Pentax's "slow" focussing speed. Even though in good light the differences are fractions of a second.

But really if there's going to be all this Nikon D800 hype on here, I'd like Nikon to take out an ad on the front page and pay for the advertising. They are the only ones who stand to benefit from this. Really, it's a Pentax forum. WTF?

I know what I'm going to hear. It's the non-Pentax thread and we are allowed.

That's not what I'm asking, I'm asking why are you doing it. Proselytizing the unwashed masses? Thinking that the rest of us haven't looked into the info on the Nikon site because we're so locked into Pentax, thinking you have some kind of information we don't, or couldn't look up if we wanted it.?

What are you thinking?

[jsherman999]

The fact that you buy into it doesn't make you smart. It makes you a dupe. ...
...
But really if there's going to be all this Nikon D800 hype on here, I'd like Nikon to take out an ad on the front page and pay for the advertising. They are the only ones who stand to benefit from this. Really, it's a Pentax forum. WTF?
...
I know what I'm going to hear. It's the non-Pentax thread and we are allowed.

If you know what you're going to hear, why ask?

That's not what I'm asking,

Oh.

I'm asking why are you doing it. Proselytizing the unwashed masses? Thinking that the rest of us haven't looked into the info on the Nikon site because we're so locked into Pentax, thinking you have some kind of information we don't, or couldn't look up if we wanted it.?

What are you thinking?

Norm, one wonders why you bother to peruse this part of the forum if it bothers you so much - really, I'm asking: why do you read this section, and then take the time to insult the posters here?

.

[normhead]

Norm, one wonders why you bother to peruse this part of the forum if it bothers you so much - really, I'm asking: why do you read this section, and then take the time to insult the posters here?

I keep thinking there might be some relevant information... some thing that would be of interest to a Pentax shooter... instead it's always just the same old hype.

There I answered my your question, and also notice you didn't do me the courtesy of answering mine. The thing is every Pentax shooter knows he can get better auto-focus on Canikon systems. that is not new information. Those of us who read the forum are completely aware of this yet still have our Pentax gear. FF and Canikon users have had every chance to impress us.

You put my name at the front of your post but you didn't answer my question... so I know you weren't talking to me. You were talking to your "audience". Good play. You da god of Pentax users who convert to FF. Congratualtions.

You'd think I was asking something really complicated. Oh and by the way there's a difference being critical and being insulting. It's not always discernible to those being criticized, but hey.

So again I ask.
Why are you doing this?

[JHD]

Between the FF and the MILC revolution, APS-C DSLRs are being eaten alive.

[jsherman999]

I keep thinking there might be some relevant information... some thing that would be of interest to a Pentax shooter... instead it's always just the same old hype.

On the contrary, there is a ton of useful information for Pentax shooters, particularly Pentax shooters who might be interested in using other equipment.

There I answered my your question, and also notice you didn't do me the courtesy of answering mine. The thing is every Pentax shooter knows he can get better auto-focus on Canikon systems. that is not new information. Those of us who read the forum are completely aware of this yet still have our Pentax gear.

No, every Pentax users does not know that, and it's not necessarily true, but that's beside the point anyway. Speaking for myself, I post here to share knowledge with other Pentaxians about other systems. It's often useful and refreshing to talk about other systems with folks who have the same shooting background as myself.

For example, it's hard to make comparisons between Nikon lenses an the Pentax Limiteds in the Nikon section of dpreview - because most Nikonians would have no idea what I'm talking about. On this forum, we share a somewhat-common knowledge base. Plus, it's generally a fun and friendly community to 'hang out' in. Generally.

You put my name at the front of your post but you didn't answer my question... so I know you weren't talking to me.

I was talking directly to you, and you alone.

You'd think I was asking something really complicated.

No, you're asking something simple, but when you refuse to acknowledge the answer (which is also simple and should be self-evident, based on the title of the subforum) it does seem as though you may actually be trolling in here.

Oh and by the way there's a difference being critical and being insulting. It's not always discernible to those being criticized, but hey.

You wouldn't characterize yourself as being insulting?

.

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-09-2012 at 02:45 PM.

[D4rknezz]

I keep thinking there might be some relevant information... some thing that would be of interest to a Pentax shooter... instead it's always just the same old hype.

There I answered my your question, and also notice you didn't do me the courtesy of answering mine. The thing is every Pentax shooter knows he can get better auto-focus on Canikon systems. that is not new information. Those of us who read the forum are completely aware of this yet still have our Pentax gear. FF and Canikon users have had every chance to impress us.

You put my name at the front of your post but you didn't answer my question... so I know you weren't talking to me. You were talking to your "audience". Good play. You da god of Pentax users who convert to FF. Congratualtions.

You'd think I was asking something really complicated. Oh and by the way there's a difference being critical and being insulting. It's not always discernible to those being criticized, but hey.

So again I ask.
Why are you doing this?

I'll play


My friend is asking me why I am getting a Nikon D800 as opposed to Canon 5D. Look at the ISO and FPS, he said.

- I said...I love my pentax, and if ISO is important to me, i cant tell since I have never shot more than 1600, and my K5 already can do 52k.
- if FPS is important to me, I can do 20FPS on my K5 jpeg.

So what is important for me? two things - as a wedding photographer wannabe :
- The ability to crop
- The ability to focus in low light.

So why didnt i buy a Canon earlier? Why buy into the "hype" now? Well...I knew 5Dmk2 was about to be replaced...so I have waited for 5DMk3 for the last year. Thats all Now that its out - I would like to get the highest end, and i think its Nikon, not because of its ISO or its FPS, but again, its ability to crop - which in the case of low budget weddings, is ..important. If i were to take pictures in mansions and castles, i wouldnt have need to crop the occasional weird stuff out of place.

Could I have gotten any other canon or nikon camera? sure. But I heard they wont outresolve a 36MP camera, which is important to me.

...hm. I am not sure , did I answer your question as to why I would like one, and that it isnt hype related, but a conscious decision?


PS: the current AF issues with Nikon has me thinking of waiting until its fixed, or looking into 5DMK3. AF is the main reason for keeping a non Pentax system for me.

[D4rknezz]

Oh...and I guess...why it'd be FF...

I can do amazing shots on my K5...given the lighting, background, model, etc...and ideally, i would like to work with these parameters that I can set. Sometimes, though, I find myself with my best wideangle lens : shooting 16-50mm 2.8 at 16mm, at 2.8, and still, because of the space I was in, i cant get everything in, and the highest aperture was stuck at 2.8. At times like these, I wish i was holding an FF, and my 16mm would have been 16 as opposed to 24, and my 2.8 would have been 1. something. So while i am upgrading my AF, i may as well improve my situation when I find myself facing this kind of not so ideal shoot.

[JinDesu]

Oh...and I guess...why it'd be FF...

I can do amazing shots on my K5...given the lighting, background, model, etc...and ideally, i would like to work with these parameters that I can set. Sometimes, though, I find myself with my best wideangle lens : shooting 16-50mm 2.8 at 16mm, at 2.8, and still, because of the space I was in, i cant get everything in, and the highest aperture was stuck at 2.8. At times like these, I wish i was holding an FF, and my 16mm would have been 16 as opposed to 24, and my 2.8 would have been 1. something. So while i am upgrading my AF, i may as well improve my situation when I find myself facing this kind of not so ideal shoot.

Minor point - your DA*16-50 wouldn't work on an FF. It's closest equivalent the FA*28-70/Canon 24-70/Sigma 24-70/Tamron 28-75 would be what you are thinking of. Although all of those are slightly shorter than the *16-50 in terms of equivalent FOV.

[D4rknezz]

Minor point - your DA*16-50 wouldn't work on an FF. It's closest equivalent the FA*28-70/Canon 24-70/Sigma 24-70/Tamron 28-75 would be what you are thinking of. Although all of those are slightly shorter than the *16-50 in terms of equivalent FOV.

Not very minor actually - you hit the nail on the head; and voiced what has been bothering me for the past few days : choice of lenses. having only owned pentax i kept thinking i will just find a list of equivalent lenses in the other system :

16-50, 50-135....I guess not!

So i am now facing hard decision on what lenses I need. Though in terms of dof, i guess it still applies, a 24-70 2.8 on a full frame will have a little advantage of dof compared to an APS-C at the same fov and aperture size. (equivalency thingy)

[JinDesu]

Not very minor actually - you hit the nail on the head; and voiced what has been bothering me for the past few days : choice of lenses. having only owned pentax i kept thinking i will just find a list of equivalent lenses in the other system :

16-50, 50-135....I guess not!

So i am now facing hard decision on what lenses I need. Though in terms of dof, i guess it still applies, a 24-70 2.8 on a full frame will have a little advantage of dof compared to an APS-C at the same fov and aperture size. (equivalency thingy)

Technically it wouldn't be a problem, besides the length - 16-50 is about 24-75, which is just a bit wider or longer than all the available equivalent lenses. 50-135 is about 75-202.5, so any 70-200 should fit equally.

As far as F2.8 on an APS-C vs a full-frame, you aren't losing out going from APS-C to full-frame. There shouldn't be any problems going that direction.

So if you, for example, get a full-frame camera and a 24-70 and a 70-200 F2.8, it would be more than equal to what you have currently.

Except heavier.

[jsherman999]

Not very minor actually - you hit the nail on the head; and voiced what has been bothering me for the past few days : choice of lenses. having only owned pentax i kept thinking i will just find a list of equivalent lenses in the other system :

16-50, 50-135....I guess not!

So i am now facing hard decision on what lenses I need. Though in terms of dof, i guess it still applies, a 24-70 2.8 on a full frame will have a little advantage of dof compared to an APS-C at the same fov and aperture size. (equivalency thingy)

The Pentax 16-50 is an aps-c lens... Your choices in Nikon mount would be the Nikon 24-70 2.8, Sigma 24-70 2.8 or maybe the new Tamron 24-70 2.8. The Sigma is only about $800 new, and is a very good lens. My personal choice in this range right now is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 - not quite as wide, but very sharp, light, and inexpensive.

You can also look at a FF Nikon 16-35 f/4, 17-35 f/2.8, and a few other older zooms.

(and FYI, an aps-c equivalent of a 24-70 2.8 with regards to FOV/DOF would be a 16-46 f/1.8, so it's not precisely the same - you gain another 1.3 stops DOF control.)

Regarding 50-135 f/2.8 - FF equivalent to that is a large, expensive 70-200 f/2.8, although you can get a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 for much less (although still larger.) And again, your aps-c equivalent to a 70-200 2.8 would really be a 50-135 f/1.8, which doesn't exist.

One of the reasons I'm excited about a D800 is that it will give me the ability to shoot my Sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM II in DX mode. It's a smaller lens than a big 70-200, and the 15MP will be more than enough for what I use it for.

.

[D4rknezz]

The Pentax 16-50 is an aps-c lens... Your choices in Nikon mount would be the Nikon 24-70 2.8, Sigma 24-70 2.8 or maybe the new Tamron 24-70 2.8. The Sigma is only about $800 new, and is a very good lens. My personal choice in this range right now is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 - not quite as wide, but very sharp, light, and inexpensive.

You can also look at a FF Nikon 16-35 f/4, 17-35 f/2.8, and a few other older zooms.

(and FYI, an aps-c equivalent of a 24-70 2.8 with regards to FOV/DOF would be a 16-46 f/1.8, so it's not precisely the same - you gain another 1.3 stops DOF control.)

Regarding 50-135 f/2.8 - FF equivalent to that is a large, expensive 70-200 f/2.8, although you can get a Tamron or Sigma 70-200 for much less (although still larger.) And again, your aps-c equivalent to a 70-200 2.8 would really be a 50-135 f/1.8, which doesn't exist.

One of the reasons I'm excited about a D800 is that it will give me the ability to shoot my Sigma 50-150 2.8 HSM II in DX mode. It's a smaller lens than a big 70-200, and the 15MP will be more than enough for what I use it for.

.

Yaps! the err, the DOF gain is what I want from FF, besides AF - not because APS-C can't, but because the lenses are just not available. I will take a look at the tamron recommendation, since I think i am getting the 70-200 vr2, which will hurt.

[jsherman999]

Yaps! the err, the DOF gain is what I want from FF, besides AF - not because APS-C can't, but because the lenses are just not available. I will take a look at the tamron recommendation, since I think i am getting the 70-200 vr2, which will hurt.

The 70-200 VR2 is incredibly expensive, but it's also brilliant, perhaps one of the best telephoto zooms ever made. But is it 'better enough' to justify the price over the Tamron? Depends on what you need it for, I guess.

I shoot the Sigma 100-300 f4 on both aps-c and FF, and for higher-speed telephoto I shoot a 180 f/2.8 which is incredible optically, relatively inexpensive and smaller. I don't have anything longer than 300...

You may also want to consider the FF Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 for a wide zoom, I hear it's pretty sweet (never tried one.)