[Serkevan]

This was the answer I was looking for. Thank you. I agree with most of what you said, but you have to consider that you mentioned 2 things that not everybody have: experience and engineering background. Those 2 things helps in making an educated decision, even if up to a point it's still guessing...

I have been shooting for a year and I know, before taking the camera from the belt, if the wide end of the zoom lens that's on the camera at that moment is not gonna cut it for that building. I also know that I have between zero and no need for any lens longer than 200 or so mm. I also, *also* know that I'd much rather shoot 135mm at 2.8 than 85mm at 1.4-1.8 from 3 meters farther away, because the background blur is not going to look THAT much different and I'm saving half a kg (and half a grand, hah) on the lens.

Seriously, this argument that you have to try everything for something that is literally two mathematical formulas that anyone can learn with half a week of reading up on basic optics is nonsensical.

[Rondec]

Come on, who are you're fooling? First you say you don't need a camera with lots of features and specs because it will take away your credit as a photographer, then you say that you only upgrade to medium format which basically will make your images even more irrelevant due to high quality of medium format cameras and now you come with this significant improved specs for the Pentax mirrorless camera. Basically, you "scream" in this topic that you need high level features to produce good images (15 stops of dynamic range, astrotracer, medium format cameras, high specs Pentax mirrorless camera etc.) but when I say it's nice to have options you tell me that you need basic gear because you want to produce good images by putting effort in them and not get a camera that does all for you. In other words, you bought one of the best cameras in the market for landscapes due to features build in, which is K1, and you say about the ones using cameras that for landscapes are far away in terms of features from K1 that are marketing victims because they put a lot more effort than you to get good landscape images. Nice one!

You talk about significant steps above K1 and yet, you bought K1 II while having K1. This K1 II must be a hell of a improvement over K1...

And as usual, you keep moving the discussion to Canon because others can't wait to support you in such a debate...

Since this discussion started, a single person took the time to provided me a valid comment with arguments without doing the ussual Pentax vs. Canon vs. Sony vs. Nikon circus. That guy was Photoptimist, which I thank to for a normal response. So, it seems that a normal discussion it's doable if people wants that. But it's more fun to move the discussion on the dark side...

---------- Post added 09-16-19 at 06:54 AM ----------



Since you like talking about EOS R, let me ask you something. How much time did you spend shooting with 5D Mark IV and EOS R so that you came to the conclusion that EOS R is weaker than 5D? I'm asking because if you just have this opinion based on the internet articles and videos from influencers, then let me remind you that the same guys who say that EOS R is worse than 5D Mark IV also say that K1 is not a great camera and Ricoh is living in the past. Why do you think that I always say that I value the user experience more than I value lab tests and charts or youtube videos? So, tell me, how much time did you spend in making the test that convinced you that EOS R is a worse camera than 5D Mark IV? Because for me it has all I need from 5D Mark IV and it has 2 additional things that I find usefull: eye af and silent shutter. If video were a thing for me, then it would have been 3 things because on video side EOS R is also better than 5D. Not to mention that EOS R is 1000$ cheaper than 5D when it was launched.

You can buy a lot of camera these days for 2000 dollars. That is true if you are purchasing from any brand and particularly true if you are willing to buy used gear. It is also perfectly reasonable for you to purchase mirrorless gear. It sounds like you really need silent shooting mode and eye AF. I suppose that the eye AF does make things easier, although when you shoot with cameras that don't have it, you learn to work around it.

I do approach things from a Pentax standpoint, which is to say that I own a bunch of K mount lenses and I do think about what benefits and what cost it would be for me to switch to another brand. If, for instance, I switched to Canon and purchased an Canon R and wanted to shoot with 24-70 f2.8/70-200 f2.8, I guess I would just have to buy straight EOS lenses and mount them with an adapter. What I wouldn't be able to do is afford any of the awesome lenses that are specific to the EOS R -- the 50 f1.2, 85mm f1.2 or the 28-70 f2. Those three lenses would cost me 7600 dollars. That means that purchasing even a EOS RP with those three lenses would run about 9000 dollars -- mostly for the joy of shooting in silent mode.

For folks already invested in Canon who have a pretty complete line up of EOS lenses, the equation is very different. It is much easier to mount those lenses using an adapter and never even bother with EOS R lenses if you don't want to.

[Dan Rentea]

I have been shooting for a year and I know, before taking the camera from the belt, if the wide end of the zoom lens that's on the camera at that moment is not gonna cut it for that building. I also know that I have between zero and no need for any lens longer than 200 or so mm. I also, *also* know that I'd much rather shoot 135mm at 2.8 than 85mm at 1.4-1.8 from 3 meters farther away, because the background blur is not going to look THAT much different and I'm saving half a kg (and half a grand, hah) on the lens.

Seriously, this argument that you have to try everything for something that is literally two mathematical formulas that anyone can learn with half a week of reading up on basic optics is nonsensical.

First of all, the discussion started with having choices. By having choices I mean having the option to choose between the 135mm and the 85mm in the first place. Second, choosing lenses based on background blur is not enough because each lens act different in terms of af performance, contrast, chromatic aberrations , weight, the balance on your camera, etc. Third, maybe the background will be similar in terms of blur, but the look will be different on the models. I had 135mm f2 lens and sold it because of the 85mm f1.4L which is way better than the old 85mm f1.2L lens. Not having an option for the 85mm focal lenght, I went to 135mm. As soon as I had the choice of a very good 85mm lens, I went to the store and I rented it to see if it worth replacing the 135mm with the 85mm.

Just 2 examples:

1. I had to choose between DA70mm f2.4 limited lens and the FA 77mm f1.8 limited lens back in the days I was shooting with K-3 II. Most people said that 77mm lens is better, but when I try it I found out that was a lot slow to focus than DA 70mm, had lot more chromatic aberrations than DA 70mm and wasn't as sharp as DA 70mm at f2.4. What that lens had was a better look than DA70mm. I end up buying the DA70mm because:

- I had choices when comes to a portrait lens
- I chose the best lens for my needs based on real tests and not by guessing which one is going to be better

Sure, I can read about it on internet like you suggested, but we are all different and your needs and expectations maybe aren't the same as mine.

2. I have both 85mm f1.4L and 85mm f1.8 lenses. I do shoot from time to time at f1.4, but I shoot more on f1.8 and f2. The 85mm f1.8 looked a lot better in terms of weight and money. All these changed when I had a corporate event and I compared side by side the f1.4 lens and the f1.8 lens. Pfff, what a difference in speed, rendering and overall shooting experience.

But let me give a short example between these 2 lenses. Look at the image from the left how good it is compared to the one from the right. Both images were shot at f.18, ISO 100, 1/200s, from a tripod, with 2s delay.

Look at the more balanced colors, look at the transition between the blur and the focus parts, look at the difference in exposure, look at overall image (assuming that the program I used to upload the image doesn't affect the quality), llok at how the red color look on both. And these images are in good light, smiliar to the ones used by reviewers on internet. In bad light the difference is even bigger and the grip is better, the af is better on the 85mm f1.4 lens. I kept both lenses because the 85mm is used when I want to travel light.

So, personal experience in my opinion combined with options to choose from are always better than buying gear based on mathematical formulas and internet reviews done fast, for clicks, followers and for money.

[Serkevan]

Your starting point is *wanting* the look of an 85mm and being dead set on having the best fast 85mm money can buy. You don't care about options, you want the *best performing 85mm*. Your entire point is nonsensical unless you take "I don't know what I want" as a starting point.

Just pushing the argument a bit towards an extreme, it's like if you said that a birder won't know if they want a 20mm lens because they haven't tried it. No, seriously, they won't want to do birding with a wide angle. You don't need a PhD to know that.

Regarding the images you posted, if you didn't tell me that they are taken with different lenses I would have thought you posted the same pic twice. There is some minute difference (the left one slightly more detail on the ever-so-slightly-out-of-focus backgrounds, but it compensates with the right one because the foreground strawberry looks better than in the left one). Colour rendition is basically the same as well. I am thinking of some placebo effect here...

[Dan Rentea]

Your starting point is *wanting* the look of an 85mm and being dead set on having the best fast 85mm money can buy. You don't care about options, you want the *best performing 85mm*. Your entire point is nonsensical unless you take "I don't know what I want" as a starting point.

Just pushing the argument a bit towards an extreme, it's like if you said that a birder won't know if they want a 20mm lens because they haven't tried it. No, seriously, they won't want to do birding with a wide angle. You don't need a PhD to know that.

Regarding the images you posted, if you didn't tell me that they are taken with different lenses I would have thought you posted the same pic twice. There is some minute difference (the left one slightly more detail on the ever-so-slightly-out-of-focus backgrounds, but it compensates with the right one because the foreground strawberry looks better than in the left one). Colour rendition is basically the same as well. I am thinking of some placebo effect here...

If I wanted the best 85mm I would have bought the RF 85mm f1.2.

Regarding the extreme argument, it has nothing to do with lens selection. That's why I gave you the 2 examples with Pentax lenses and Canon lenses with similar focal range and that's why I told you why I sold the 135mm lens.

Regarding the image I posted, it shows perfectly why I test lenses and I'm not buying based on internet reviews. We see things differently. The image is at small size, but 8 out of 10 people who saw the images saw also the differences in those 2 images in terms of transition between shadows and highlights, the transition between the blured and the sharp areas, the richer and more balanced colors, etc.

[ThorSanchez]

Regarding the images you posted, if you didn't tell me that they are taken with different lenses I would have thought you posted the same pic twice. There is some minute difference (the left one slightly more detail on the ever-so-slightly-out-of-focus backgrounds, but it compensates with the right one because the foreground strawberry looks better than in the left one). Colour rendition is basically the same as well. I am thinking of some placebo effect here...

Agreed. I looked pretty closely as the two images in a pretty big monitor and the differences appear to be the equivalent of bumping a single random slider in your raw development program by 5%. If you stare long enough I guess you could convince yourself there's a difference, but I would have completely believed that these were two photos taken consecutively with exactly the same camera, lens, settings, etc. I wouldn't pay $5 extra for the difference in gear based on these photos.

---------- Post added 09-16-19 at 08:05 AM ----------

The image is at small size, but 8 out of 10 people who saw the images saw also the differences in those 2 images in terms of transition between shadows and highlights, the transition between the blured and the sharp areas, the richer and more balanced colors, etc.

How many people did you show this comparison to, and at what resolution? And who were these people, professional photographers or just random people?

I think that if you framed a bunch of 24" copies of these photos and intermingled them in a stack it wouldn't have occurred to anyone that they are different pictures. Unless you asked them to find the differences, alerting them that they aren't the same picture.

[Rondec]

First of all, the discussion started with having choices. By having choices I mean having the option to choose between the 135mm and the 85mm in the first place. Second, choosing lenses based on background blur is not enough because each lens act different in terms of af performance, contrast, chromatic aberrations , weight, the balance on your camera, etc. Third, maybe the background will be similar in terms of blur, but the look will be different on the models. I had 135mm f2 lens and sold it because of the 85mm f1.4L which is way better than the old 85mm f1.2L lens. Not having an option for the 85mm focal lenght, I went to 135mm. As soon as I had the choice of a very good 85mm lens, I went to the store and I rented it to see if it worth replacing the 135mm with the 85mm.

Just 2 examples:

1. I had to choose between DA70mm f2.4 limited lens and the FA 77mm f1.8 limited lens back in the days I was shooting with K-3 II. Most people said that 77mm lens is better, but when I try it I found out that was a lot slow to focus than DA 70mm, had lot more chromatic aberrations than DA 70mm and wasn't as sharp as DA 70mm at f2.4. What that lens had was a better look than DA70mm. I end up buying the DA70mm because:

- I had choices when comes to a portrait lens
- I chose the best lens for my needs based on real tests and not by guessing which one is going to be better

Sure, I can read about it on internet like you suggested, but we are all different and your needs and expectations maybe aren't the same as mine.

2. I have both 85mm f1.4L and 85mm f1.8 lenses. I do shoot from time to time at f1.4, but I shoot more on f1.8 and f2. The 85mm f1.8 looked a lot better in terms of weight and money. All these changed when I had a corporate event and I compared side by side the f1.4 lens and the f1.8 lens. Pfff, what a difference in speed, rendering and overall shooting experience.

But let me give a short example between these 2 lenses. Look at the image from the left how good it is compared to the one from the right. Both images were shot at f.18, ISO 100, 1/200s, from a tripod, with 2s delay.

Look at the more balanced colors, look at the transition between the blur and the focus parts, look at the difference in exposure, look at overall image (assuming that the program I used to upload the image doesn't affect the quality), llok at how the red color look on both. And these images are in good light, smiliar to the ones used by reviewers on internet. In bad light the difference is even bigger and the grip is better, the af is better on the 85mm f1.4 lens. I kept both lenses because the 85mm is used when I want to travel light.

So, personal experience in my opinion combined with options to choose from are always better than buying gear based on mathematical formulas and internet reviews done fast, for clicks, followers and for money.

I can't see a real difference in the two images.

[Serkevan]

Honest question, was that before or after they were told which lens took what? I'm not saying that there is no difference, I'm saying there are minute differences. That means "you have to know what you are looking for to notice" differences, or that you have to look closely. I still struggle to see any meaningful difference in the colours except for a couple details in the leaves of the strawberries and that's it.

Obviously it's better to have options, I don't know why you are insisting on that when I never said anything to the contrary. If I were to decide between the 70 and the 77 I would probably toss a coin, get the 77 anyway and be happy with it because ultimate sharpness is for the bourgeoisie. Or I would get the 70 because it's less than half of the price and I would still be happy because the differences are barely visible and my work is for myself.

For the record, I have gotten a bunch of perfectly adequate A4 and even some A3 prints that were taken with a manual focus lens on a K-7. Everyone who saw them thinks our cat is unbelievably cute and I got no comments about chromatic aberrations .

---------- Post added 09-16-19 at 05:22 AM ----------

Agreed. I looked pretty closely as the two images in a pretty big monitor and the differences appear to be the equivalent of bumping a single random slider in your raw development program by 5%..

Phew, thanks, I thought I was going blind ^^'

[Dan Rentea]

How many people did you show this comparison to, and at what resolution? And who were these people, professional photographers or just random people?

Do you know random people who knows how to look at the differences? Of course the images was showed to the people in the room at the moment were taken.

I think that if you framed a bunch of 24" copies of these photos and intermingled them in a stack it wouldn't have occurred to anyone that they are different pictures. Unless you asked them to find the differences, alerting them that they aren't the same picture.

I don't need to do such a thing because I did a comparation test with the same image and I told people that one was taken with a D810 and one with 6D and you don't know how many of them found differences.

This time they just looked at both images and told me which they preffer with arguments. Again maybe the differences are small to you because no matter how big your monitor is, the image is resized to 960px so that I can uploaded on the forum.

---------- Post added 09-16-19 at 12:42 PM ----------

Obviously it's better to have options, I don't know why you are insisting on that when I never said anything to the contrary.

Why I insist? Because all I said in the first place is that is nice to have options and from that comment people started a big deal about how you don't need options and how Pentax is better than Canon despite the fact that no one said something about a comparation.

Yes, you didn't said that isn't better to have options. The others thought (or they pretended to act like) is worse to have options by switching to Canon and it was not the case.

Have you looked at the last 2 pages of comments? Everybody said why they don't want to switch to Canon. The more I said it's not about Canon, the more they told me about why they stick to Pentax.

[ThorSanchez]

I don't need to do such a thing because I did a comparation test with the same image and I told people that one was taken with a D810 and one with 6D and you don't know how many of them found differences.

This time they just looked at both images and told me which they preffer with arguments. Again maybe the differences are small to you because no matter how big your monitor is, the image is resized to 960px so that I can uploaded on the forum.

Fair enough. Maybe at larger sizes and resolutions the differences are more pronounced. At the posted sizes the two photographs are nearly, but not quite, identical.

[Serkevan]

Yeah, there are differences, but at this size they are small enough; I don't consider the "bad" image to be a bad one at all, just... Okay, maybe less outstanding, and that's after looking very hard at the images. I wouldn't pay extra for the left one.

[Dan Rentea]

Yeah, there are differences, but at this size they are small enough; I don't consider the "bad" image to be a bad one at all, just... Okay, maybe less outstanding, and that's after looking very hard at the images. I wouldn't pay extra for the left one.

Yes, looking at these 2 images at this size most probably won't convince anyone to pay extra for the left image. The reason I posted these 2 images is because they were taken in controlled light and there are differences quite visible even at 2048px which is the size of Facebook images. In situations where you have mixed lights and people that don't stand still the differences become even more evident in terms of quality of the images and the speed of lenses.

I also wrote about my experience with Pentax 70mm and 77mm lenses because there are more chances that people have used those 2 lenses, which are different and give different results and they can confirm or deny my findings regarding the 2 lenses. And I also wrote about the 15mm lens vs. the same 15mm version of it, but with HD coating. Different look on them also.

The only thing I'm mad about (this is more like a note to myself ) is that I didn't stop responding to messages that have nothing to do with the initial comment. I should have know better that it's almost impossible to have a constructive discussion where we all could start posting images with similar lenses in terms of focal lenghts and discuss about options based on our needs. And you know why I should have known this? Because of the debate between K1 and K1 II in terms of image quality and the accelerator inside K1 II. The ones shooting with K1 but who didn't touched K1 II had strong opionions about the 2 cameras and I remember that I wondered back then why they even talk about things they haven't used?! But I remember that I haven't used either K1 II and it's better not getting in that discussion.

[biz-engineer]

Come on, who are you're fooling?

Nobody. the fact the some people would have a reason to upgrade their K1, has nothing to do with being happy with my K1. General statements, and specific user.

---------- Post added 16-09-19 at 19:37 ----------

If I wanted the best 85mm I would have bought the RF 85mm f1.2.

It's going to happen sooner or later. I hope you didn't buy an EOS R to use a lens adapter?

[Dan Rentea]

Nobody. the fact the some people would have a reason to upgrade their K1, has nothing to do with being happy with my K1. General statements, and specific user.

If someone is not happy with the camera he bought, then he shouldn't have bought it in the first place. It's simple like day and night. I hope you had a reason to upgrade your K1, other than being a marketing victim, as I am according to you. As long as you are happy, I really don't care if you were a marketing victim or K1 II is a real step forward for you. The fact that you had an option to choose from as a second camera, a replacement camera or any other reason you had is a confirmation of my initial point of view, that is nice to have options. I don't know why I wasted so many comments for something that obvious.

It's going to happen sooner or later.

It's been answered already.

I hope you didn't buy an EOS R to use a lens adapter?

This question has already an answer and it's easy to find it because it was written, not spoken. If you find it and you want further details about that or about Canon RP, which is the subject of this topic, feel free to ask and if I have an answer based on my own tests, I will provide it. I can assure you that my answers will not imply switching the system...

[northcoastgreg]

Look at the image from the left how good it is compared to the one from the right. Both images were shot at f.18, ISO 100, 1/200s, from a tripod, with 2s delay.

Look at the more balanced colors, look at the transition between the blur and the focus parts, look at the difference in exposure, look at overall image (assuming that the program I used to upload the image doesn't affect the quality), llok at how the red color look on both. And these images are in good light, smiliar to the ones used by reviewers on internet. In bad light the difference is even bigger and the grip is better, the af is better on the 85mm f1.4 lens. I kept both lenses because the 85mm is used when I want to travel light.

To be sure, as has already been mentioned, there isn't much difference between these two images, but to the extent there is a difference, I prefer the one on the right. The image on the right has more contrast and richer colors. Look at the white cup on the side. It's whiter in the image on the right — more testimony to better contrast, greater clarity, brighter, more vivid images. The image on the right also has, to my eye, a richer, brighter red color, and more attractive tone of green on the strawberry petals.