Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-21-2015, 11:48 AM   #31
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 29,316
QuoteOriginally posted by cxdoo Quote
To further support your point, the biggest drawback to using high ISO is dramatic loss of dynamic range. Yes, you can get relatively sharp and bright but the colors are just not there.

This was shot in a very dark museum. However, a tripod and ISO100 makes it look even better than what I could see with my own eyes.
And that would be my first choice. I'd rather maximize a system at full dynamic range, than use an ISO that severely diminishes dynamic range. You get a better image. As for snapshots with flash, use a point and shoot fer god's sake. What are you lugging around an SLR for?

10-21-2015, 11:55 AM   #32
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,966
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The question is why should we underexpose -3ev when the cameras auto-exposure is right withing +-1ev. I mean, it's nice to demonstrate the amazing DR of a D750 or the great DR of a K-5II by underexposing by 5ev, but unless it happened by mistake, or just for the purpose of showing off the D750 capabilities, I never did that. So, usually is we don't have enough light, we use a tripod, otherwise we use a flash. Tripod and flash deliver way beyond the one stop advantage of the FF.
The most critical factor in getting a well-focus shot is shutter speed used, it is by design not by mistake. I am willing to trade off by using ETTL (as opposed to ETTR) so I can get an adequate shutter speed of 1/160 (granted this depends on focal length). If I had an auto-focus lens, I would have used TAv mode with a upper limit on ISO and also -1 or -2 ev. As an event photographer, I agree that you do have the option to use flash, but that is another scenario. As for use of tripod, I don't think so, people move around not waiting for your shots. This example is only to show the good dynamic range of the sensor can be used without sacrificing a lot by using much higher ISO than needed.

Last edited by aleonx3; 10-21-2015 at 12:01 PM.
10-21-2015, 12:04 PM   #33
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,387
QuoteOriginally posted by aleonx3 Quote
The most critical factor in getting a well-focus shot is shutter speed used, it is by design not by mistake. I am willing to trade off by using ETTL (as opposed to ETTR) so I can get an adequate shutter speed of 1/160 (granted this depends on focal length). If I had an auto-focus lens, I would have used TAv mode with a upper limit on ISO and also -1 or -2 ev. As an event photographer, I agree that you do have the option to use flash, but that is another scenario. As for use of tripod, I don't think so, people move around not waiting for your shots. This example is only to show the good dynamic range of the sensor can be used without sacrificing a lot by using much higher ISO than needed.
Indeed, I see your point.
10-21-2015, 12:05 PM   #34
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 29,316
An example of an image taken with a K-3 where I shot at 200 ISO for maximum DR and minimum noise. 1/125 of a second is not ideal for this image, you lose a lot of shots to motion blur, but when you do get one, it is outstanding, and that tends to be my approach, shoot for outstanding at low ISO as opposed to more reliability in capturing the image at higher ISO. I simply don't want that higher ISO image. I want detail in my blacks, and in my whites. This one taken at ƒ7.1 with an F 70-210.



Last edited by normhead; 10-21-2015 at 12:15 PM.
10-21-2015, 12:06 PM   #35
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,966
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think the point is just that things have come a long way over time. This is iso 6400 f4 1/8 second.

It is fine. Not great, but for a dark museum, it is what you can get. Flash isn't an option because there was glass in the way. On the other hand, iso 6400 shots and above aren't great, just passable, even on full frame. If I have a choice, I am going to use lower iso however I can.
Agree 100%, for most of my shots as event photographer, I seldom use ISO range higher than 2000.
Honestly, if you asked me the same question several years when I don't have much experience, I would have used higher ISO range to get images which otherwise not possible to get either too blurry and/or noisy.

Last edited by aleonx3; 10-21-2015 at 12:20 PM.
10-21-2015, 12:20 PM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,387
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
you lose a lot of shots to motion blur, but when you do get one, it is outstanding,
Sure, contrary to film, digital photos cost nothing, even if you get 1 sharp out of 10, it just cost you time to delete the 10 blurred ones. SR and good concentration / technique can produce sharp images even at very low shutter speeds.
10-21-2015, 02:09 PM   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,272
QuoteOriginally posted by cxdoo Quote
the biggest drawback to using high ISO is dramatic loss of dynamic range. Yes, you can get relatively sharp and bright but the colors are just not there.
A lot depends on the scene and the lighting. Some scenes don't have great colour range anyhow (eg gigs washed heavily with LED lighting), or have nice strong contrasty elements of colour and detail, the visual quality of which doesn't seem to bleed away so much no matter how high you crank the ISO. But on the other hand there are some scenes where even ISO 800 may reveal colour and tonality degradation on a modern FF like the D750 or a camera like the K-5/K-3.
10-21-2015, 09:55 PM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 734
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The same 500mm lens and TC gets you to over 1000mm equivalence on APS-c so you still lose. Buy the way my 560mm gets me to the equivalent of 840, with a $500 lens and a $500 TC. SO, more reach, half the price. It would be better debating these things with you if you didn't make it so easy to provide counter points. I didn't have to think much for this one.
No you do not get to over 1000mm on aps-c you still only have a 500mm lens that you are only using the image circle that gives a AOV equivalent to a 1000mm lens ( this is important to understand) to narrow that AOV you must give up something in return and that would be less resolution . Taxing a lens this much eats up a lot of that resolution. One would not expect to use a 2 TC on a 500mm and get the resolution of a 1000mm just the same on cannot expect to crop the image circle of that 500mm with a high pixel count camera and think you would have the same resolution as lower pixel camera with a 1000mm lens. I have never witnessed a sharp 200mm lens cropped to the AOV of a 300mm and not loose resolution when compared to natively shot 300mm

I see nowhere in the OP that at any time with his style of shooting that he would be focal length limited ( the only time a cropped sensor camera can save you money with lens purchases ) so why bring up an augment that has no basis with the original post . Even when we consider your basis on using a cropped camera and an old legacy 400m lens and how you would save so much money on lenses with your A 400 you have to realize Nikon also have legacy glass and they cover the long lens very well for a very long time.

Using your A 400 as the basis as to why cropped would save you so much money letís consider what the original post ever decided that he needed cropped 400mm he could easily go for an AF nikkor 600 F5.6 that start around the $800 and go up to $1500 for the perfect specimen. That is very shy of dramatic $5000 to get this kind of reach and puts you at really no advantage as reach is concerned. If you would like there is a local guy that uses this lens on a D3X and I can tell you it is as sharp or even sharper than my 200-400 with a 1.7 tc . This is what I consider to be a sharp image with the 200-400 F4 and 1.7 tc

If you would like I would think he would have no problem giving me the camera and lens to see how it compares.

We also have five lenses in the Tamron and sigma variety that are in production that can cover to 500 and 600 mm FL all for under $2000 and again a far shy from the $5000 the put out there by you. Before you reply well there zooms and not very good but they only need to resolve for a sensor with photo sites not much smaller that the K10d where then lenses hold up very well at 100% crops and not what is needed with K3 with photo sites 2.25 times smaller.
There is also the new 200-500 very promising lenses ( had it out last week with a D810) even with a 1.4 TC holds up very well Heres a shot taken by a close friend with the D810 and the new 1.4 TC


not bad for $2200 700mm lens wide open
This is what I consider hold up very well, looks good on the D810 should be no problem with a 24mp FF

Just this last week I was looking at a Nikkor AF 500 F4 IF an almost perfect lens for $2400 and again very shy of the $5000. Unlike pentax the big stuff from Nikon goes for very reasonable prices heck an older AF 800 F5.6 can be had for under $4000. So your $5000 is all but funny and very entertaining and I am sorry to rain on that parade


Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 10-21-2015 at 10:17 PM.
10-22-2015, 02:31 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,068
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
No you do not get to over 1000mm on aps-c you still only have a 500mm lens that you are only using the image circle that gives a AOV equivalent to a 1000mm lens ( this is important to understand) to narrow that AOV you must give up something in return and that would be less resolution . Taxing a lens this much eats up a lot of that resolution. One would not expect to use a 2 TC on a 500mm and get the resolution of a 1000mm just the same on cannot expect to crop the image circle of that 500mm with a high pixel count camera and think you would have the same resolution as lower pixel camera with a 1000mm lens. I have never witnessed a sharp 200mm lens cropped to the AOV of a 300mm and not loose resolution when compared to natively shot 300mm

I see nowhere in the OP that at any time with his style of shooting that he would be focal length limited ( the only time a cropped sensor camera can save you money with lens purchases ) so why bring up an augment that has no basis with the original post . Even when we consider your basis on using a cropped camera and an old legacy 400m lens and how you would save so much money on lenses with your A 400 you have to realize Nikon also have legacy glass and they cover the long lens very well for a very long time.

Using your A 400 as the basis as to why cropped would save you so much money letís consider what the original post ever decided that he needed cropped 400mm he could easily go for an AF nikkor 600 F5.6 that start around the $800 and go up to $1500 for the perfect specimen. That is very shy of dramatic $5000 to get this kind of reach and puts you at really no advantage as reach is concerned. If you would like there is a local guy that uses this lens on a D3X and I can tell you it is as sharp or even sharper than my 200-400 with a 1.7 tc . This is what I consider to be a sharp image with the 200-400 F4 and 1.7 tc

If you would like I would think he would have no problem giving me the camera and lens to see how it compares.

We also have five lenses in the Tamron and sigma variety that are in production that can cover to 500 and 600 mm FL all for under $2000 and again a far shy from the $5000 the put out there by you. Before you reply well there zooms and not very good but they only need to resolve for a sensor with photo sites not much smaller that the K10d where then lenses hold up very well at 100% crops and not what is needed with K3 with photo sites 2.25 times smaller.
There is also the new 200-500 very promising lenses ( had it out last week with a D810) even with a 1.4 TC holds up very well Heres a shot taken by a close friend with the D810 and the new 1.4 TC


not bad for $2200 700mm lens wide open
This is what I consider hold up very well, looks good on the D810 should be no problem with a 24mp FF

Just this last week I was looking at a Nikkor AF 500 F4 IF an almost perfect lens for $2400 and again very shy of the $5000. Unlike pentax the big stuff from Nikon goes for very reasonable prices heck an older AF 800 F5.6 can be had for under $4000. So your $5000 is all but funny and very entertaining and I am sorry to rain on that parade
Now, you are talking brand comparisons. The nikon used market is a lot bigger and the lenses on it relatively cheaper than the Pentax market. Even when Pentax releases a full frame camera, it is unlikely to change the fact that full frame lenses for Pentax are pretty expensive. The fact that, as of now, Tamron and Sigma have less than optimal support of the k mount also makes for a lot fewer long lenses available. Folks have to shoot what they can get.

I feel pretty strongly in these discussions that new prices should be used across the board, understanding that the used prices will be somewhat cheaper. It seems to be the most fair comparison. And new telephotos aren't cheap.
10-22-2015, 05:58 AM - 1 Like   #40
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 29,316
QuoteQuote:
I see nowhere in the OP that at any time with his style of shooting that he would be focal length limited
Ya, sometimes I just respond to the nonsense other people than the OP have posted, but this particular OP seems to be of the
gushing about his new gear which is better than he believes is better than every Pentax users new gear, so he might need knocking down a peg or two as well. After all, what kind of person comes on a Pentax forum and insults everyone else's gear? Oops, someone who fits right in with your style Ian. Two peas in a pod.

My $450 dollar A-400...






















It just keeps rolling along. But, I know you need better.

Do you actually think I respect you because you spend 5 times the money I do and then post images I wouldn't even post?

I really have no need to follow you reciting the price of every lens from every catalogue, while you talk up many lenses I've already tried and rejected. What? You are throwing poop at a wall to see what sticks?

Are you still trying to spin out of the fact that there are some images that are taken with a K-3 that are better than those taken even with a D810? Which was my main point. The rest is just useful fluff.

Last edited by normhead; 10-22-2015 at 06:15 AM.
10-23-2015, 12:25 AM - 2 Likes   #41
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 138
Norm...you somehow find it easy to criticize everyone else's work but never your own? Why the need to bash people that feel differently than you? The photos you just posted...I'm sorry but they're not very good examples of what gear can do. The only photo that seems fine to me is the 4th to last.

You also mention numerous times how FF users praise FF as the holy grail and can't take no for an answer...but it seems to me that it's you who's too stubborn to look elsewhere and see the benefits. I have very little doubt there is a need for an APS-C body next to a FF, but it serves a very specific purpose. Now please, accept the fact there's people with a different opinion than you and there's nothing wrong with that.
10-23-2015, 01:04 AM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,387
QuoteOriginally posted by BeerBelly Quote
Norm...you somehow find it easy to criticize everyone else's work but never your own? Why the need to bash people that feel differently than you? The photos you just posted...I'm sorry but they're not very good examples of what gear can do. The only photo that seems fine to me is the 4th to last. You also mention numerous times how FF users praise FF as the holy grail and can't take no for an answer...but it seems to me that it's you who's too stubborn to look elsewhere and see the benefits. I have very little doubt there is a need for an APS-C body next to a FF, but it serves a very specific purpose. Now please, accept the fact there's people with a different opinion than you and there's nothing wrong with that.
I was recently being very critical about Pentax versus competition. But doing so does not serve any beneficial purpose. The right thing to do is, to praise what's good about Pentax, and also feel free to look at what's available from other brands. Some people just do that.
10-23-2015, 03:24 AM   #43
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,068
QuoteOriginally posted by BeerBelly Quote
Norm...you somehow find it easy to criticize everyone else's work but never your own? Why the need to bash people that feel differently than you? The photos you just posted...I'm sorry but they're not very good examples of what gear can do. The only photo that seems fine to me is the 4th to last.

You also mention numerous times how FF users praise FF as the holy grail and can't take no for an answer...but it seems to me that it's you who's too stubborn to look elsewhere and see the benefits. I have very little doubt there is a need for an APS-C body next to a FF, but it serves a very specific purpose. Now please, accept the fact there's people with a different opinion than you and there's nothing wrong with that.
There is a full frame camera coming and people will buy it (hard to say how many -- probably depends a lot on the cost). However, I am firmly of the opinion that people will shoot more of the same that they are shooting already with APS-C. If you look at a guy like Mike SF, he shoots medium format (645D) and a K5. His photos are really excellent from both cameras, but he has a good eye and knows how to get the best out of his gear. There are plenty of guys shooting with the 150-450 (on APS-C obviously) who are getting stellar results. There is no reason to think that they wouldn't continue to do so if they had a full frame camera -- they'd just have to figure out how to get closer.

I am not a birder/wildlife photogapher -- the closest I get is going to zoos, but it does feel to me like for most folks who like to shoot longer lenses, that APS-C is probably a better option. I feel like landscape and portraiture are the niches where full frame really shines. That isn't to say you can't shoot telephoto on full frame. Of course you can, and get excellent results. It's just a lot more expensive than your crop frame option.

Few photos really come down to format size as the deciding factor as to whether or not they work. Yes, if you have the right light, subject, and good composition, but there isn't enough light for you to shoot and somehow you forgot your tripod, maybe having a full frame camera will let you take a photo that is usable, where APS-C wouldn't. But I see a lot of folks who just have poor technique and skill who believe if they got a better lens or camera that their photos would get better and I firmly believe that isn't the case.

My contribution shot on the K3 with the DA *55.

10-23-2015, 05:28 AM   #44
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 29,316
QuoteOriginally posted by BeerBelly Quote
Norm...you somehow find it easy to criticize everyone else's work but never your own? Why the need to bash people that feel differently than you? The photos you just posted...I'm sorry but they're not very good examples of what gear can do. The only photo that seems fine to me is the 4th to last.

You also mention numerous times how FF users praise FF as the holy grail and can't take no for an answer...but it seems to me that it's you who's too stubborn to look elsewhere and see the benefits. I have very little doubt there is a need for an APS-C body next to a FF, but it serves a very specific purpose. Now please, accept the fact there's people with a different opinion than you and there's nothing wrong with that.
You want me to criticize my own work in public? Really, Who does that? As for what you think, I've explained that lots of times. If 1 in 1000 people like my work enough to buy a print, I'll make a lot of money. I don't need every one to think my work is great. I Just need to cater to the taste of a few people. SO as long as I'm selling stuff when I want to, all the negative opinions count for nothing. Even my own negative opinions. I've had people buy prints that were blown up to 30x20, that weren't as good big as I though they'd be, but they sold, despite my criticism. In the big picture, what I think is important in a picture counts for very little. Same for what you think. I take my own criticism with a grain of salt, why would I care about yours? If I throw up a pile of images and someone likes one of them, that's worth it for me. The number of times I've put up a series of 7 or 8 images and 4 different images are someone's favourite of the lot, suggests different people think different things are good. SO when I put up a series of images, it's not because I think they are all good, but each one of them has something. Maybe not technical excellence but something.

QuoteQuote:
You also mention numerous times how FF users praise FF as the holy grail and can't take no for an answer...but it seems to me that it's you who's too stubborn to look elsewhere and see the benefits. I have very little doubt there is a need for an APS-C body next to a FF, but it serves a very specific purpose.
This is a fabrication born of ignorance.

I constantly say...
FF for more resolution
FF for the ability to trade DoF for lower noise.

APS-c for macro and long lenses.

and 90% of the time it makes no difference.

I only post in defence of APS_c when some FF idiot starts spouting non-sense.

IN fact if you were to read through my 16,000 posts no one has put forward the real benefits of FF more than I have. A few people have asked me if I think they should go FF and after looking at their work I agreed that that would be their best move. Unfortunately they had to change brands and ended up leaving the forum so I can't point you their way. But I am not the anti-FF guy you think I am. But that doesn't mean I think it in everyone's interest to own one, from a technical perspective.

Your post makes it clear you are completely ignorant of what my message is. So please accept the fact that if people present technically incorrect information, I'm probably going to challenge it. everyone has their right to their opinion in the privacy of their own home. If they post it on an internet forum, people have the right to correct them, especially if they are shills for a specific brand of format. So, why don't you just relax, and have another beer?

Last edited by normhead; 10-23-2015 at 05:37 AM.
10-23-2015, 05:37 AM - 1 Like   #45
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 138
You're the only one calling people idiots, you're the only one bashing people's work. People tend to get defensive when you call them an idiot outright. You're also the only one low enough to stoop down to personal bashing...
Your photographic skills are lacking and so is your demeanor. You're too stubborn to take a step back and reflect on what you post...if you had the capacity to do that you might realize some of your errors.

You pretty much make a mockery out of every FF thread on here and I for one think this forum is a poorer place because of you. Now write what you wish and flame me for being an idiot and not seeing your way...
Closed Thread

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!
camera, canon, crop, d7000, d750, dx, forum, iso, jpeg, k20d, k5, kit, lens, lenses, nikon, noise, pentax, photos, pic, portrait, pp, range, sa, settings, shot, size, sunset, time, wifi, zero
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D750 Winder Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 535 06-18-2015 08:29 AM
Good deaL on Nikon D750 from tommorow Shanti Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 1 04-14-2015 08:47 PM
Pentax colors on Nikon D750 skyer Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 26 03-06-2015 01:42 PM
Nikon D750 - Amazon has stopped listing the model interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 7 01-17-2015 06:32 PM
Nikon D750 Owners Reporting a Dark Band Problem That Causes Ugly Lens Flares interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 5 01-07-2015 10:50 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:30 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