Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: What camera, that you intend to buy, do you want Ricoh/Pentax to come out with next?
#1: Full Frame (35mm) Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera 4712.88%
#2: Full Frame (35mm) digital SLR camera 20054.79%
#3: Medium Format digital SLR camera (to supercede 645D) 51.37%
#4: APS-C Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera 133.56%
#5: APS-C digital SLR camera to supercede the K-5 8623.56%
#6: Other camera (please elaborate) 143.84%
Voters: 365. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-05-2013, 06:29 AM   #226
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
I don't see this as a big deal, unless you're traveling with limited card capacity.
It's easy to crop later, during PP.
Absolutely. Most of Pentax's primes cover at least APS-H. The exception are the really wide angle ones. Even if you get a little vignetting on a full frame sensor, at lower isos, you could fix that pretty easily.

01-05-2013, 06:30 AM   #227
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,062
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
I don't see this as a big deal, unless you're traveling with limited card capacity.
It's easy to crop later, during PP.
It's not easy to frame the picture in the OVF if doing crop in PP.
01-05-2013, 07:07 AM   #228
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
If using a single crop ratio, they can get away with just a simple rectangular marking, in the viewfinder.
I think though that graying out (while still keeping the image visible) the cropped part would be better; and if the cropping factor is either automatically variable, or selectable by user (or both), they could adjust the grayed area accordingly.
I'm not sure how expensive would it be, though. Maybe an optional screen with markings for different crops?

About LV, I think they should allow it to perform in the "grayed out" manner, as a zoomed out option.

And, for the RAW image, we should have the option to save the full image or only the cropped part, or, why not, both of them. The new DefaultUserCrop tag and the proxy files should allow it easily, for DNG files (if I understood correctly, after a quick glance through the v1.4.0.0 specs)
01-05-2013, 07:30 AM   #229
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,062
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
If using a single crop ratio, they can get away with just a simple rectangular marking, in the viewfinder.
I think though that graying out (while still keeping the image visible) the cropped part would be better; and if the cropping factor is either automatically variable, or selectable by user (or both), they could adjust the grayed area accordingly.
I'm not sure how expensive would it be, though.
I don't think it will be very expensive to do this, and is probably not more difficult to do than to show active focus points.

01-05-2013, 07:50 AM   #230
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
Probably you're right, well, I don't see how it could be very expensive; but they will have to choose from many relatively inexpensive features.
01-05-2013, 09:03 AM   #231
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Bear in mind, though, that the DA* 16-50/2.8 already only is a f/4.2 in FF terms. It is not faster than that anyhow.


. . .
Only in "equivalency" terms. Otherwise the FA 77/1.8 LTD wouldn't be f1.8 on my MZ-3 and K-5. Physically, the focal length and f numbers are the same.
01-05-2013, 09:23 AM   #232
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
I hope they make this for FF image circle, otherwise you have upgrade the TC when going FF. Or only use it in crop mode even with FF lenses.
It's intrinsic in teleconverters that they're FF, more-or-less.

01-06-2013, 05:11 AM   #233
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 11,250
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Only in "equivalency" terms. Otherwise the FA 77/1.8 LTD wouldn't be f1.8 on my MZ-3 and K-5. Physically, the focal length and f numbers are the same.
It is true that the focal length of the lens doesn't change (upon format change). But its FOV does.
It is also true that the f-ratio of a lens doesn't change (upon format change). But the total amount of light collected does.

Only FOV and total amount of light collected matter for the image.

Even on a Q, the F77/1.8 would be an f/1.8 lens. But the images you take on a Q with "f/1.8" correspond to "f/10" images on an FF. The DOF and noise of the Q-f/1.8 image and the FF-f/10 image would be the same.

One can call a Q-f/1.8 image an "f/1.8" exposure and one can call the Pentax 16-50/2.8 an f/2.8 lens. There is nothing wrong about this. Except that one has to bear the format in mind, according to which these figures are expressed. When expressed in the context of the Q, "f/1.8" means "very, very slow" (not "rather fast"). When expressed in the context of APS-C, "f/2.8" means "a stop slower than f/2.8 on FF". So if a TC converts the 16-50/2.8 into a 24-75/4.2, it doesn't make it slower (on an FF camera). It just translates the APS-C parameters into FF parameters.

I think we agree, but I thought it'd be worth spelling all those things out.
01-06-2013, 08:30 AM   #234
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,377
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
It is true that the focal length of the lens doesn't change (upon format change). But its FOV does.
It is also true that the f-ratio of a lens doesn't change (upon format change). But the total amount of light collected does.

Only FOV and total amount of light collected matter for the image.

Even on a Q, the F77/1.8 would be an f/1.8 lens. But the images you take on a Q with "f/1.8" correspond to "f/10" images on an FF. The DOF and noise of the Q-f/1.8 image and the FF-f/10 image would be the same.

One can call a Q-f/1.8 image an "f/1.8" exposure and one can call the Pentax 16-50/2.8 an f/2.8 lens. There is nothing wrong about this. Except that one has to bear the format in mind, according to which these figures are expressed. When expressed in the context of the Q, "f/1.8" means "very, very slow" (not "rather fast"). When expressed in the context of APS-C, "f/2.8" means "a stop slower than f/2.8 on FF". So if a TC converts the 16-50/2.8 into a 24-75/4.2, it doesn't make it slower (on an FF camera). It just translates the APS-C parameters into FF parameters.

I think we agree, but I thought it'd be worth spelling all those things out.
I didn't say anything about the FOV. The reason the FOV changes, all other variables kept the same is because the sensor size or film area changes. I specifically don't get into the equivalency with f values because it creates way too much confusion. An f2.8 lens always acts like an f2.8 lens regardless if it is a m4/3 sensor, aps-c sensor (Canon or Pentax/Nikon), full frame even thought the angle of view changes. This is because neither the physical focal length nor the physical aperture change.
01-06-2013, 08:45 AM   #235
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,062
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
I didn't say anything about the FOV. The reason the FOV changes, all other variables kept the same is because the sensor size or film area changes. I specifically don't get into the equivalency with f values because it creates way too much confusion. An f2.8 lens always acts like an f2.8 lens regardless if it is a m4/3 sensor, aps-c sensor (Canon or Pentax/Nikon), full frame even thought the angle of view changes. This is because neither the physical focal length nor the physical aperture change.
How about if using a "inverted TC" to turn a FF lens into a APS-C lens?

With a 50/1.4 FF lens used with a inverted 1.4x TC you will get a equivalence of APS-C 35/1.0.
01-06-2013, 09:51 AM   #236
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
An f2.8 lens always acts like an f2.8 lens
That's true regarding exposure if you keep the ISO levels (somewhat arbitrarily) the same across sensor sizes.

With DOF, of course, a f/2.8 does not equal an f/2.8.
01-06-2013, 01:14 PM   #237
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
Original Poster
Semantics guys. A FF lens has the same characteristics on a FF camera as it does an APS-C camera. We can forget the equivalencies, the FoV is determined by the format, which is why the FF format is desirable. Let's just get to talking more about the characteristics and wishes in a new camera model for your camera bag.
01-06-2013, 01:27 PM   #238
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Semantics guys.
I'm not sure it is. If everyone understands the concept that a 1.55x TC will take a APS-C lens, give it the same DOF + SNR on FF as it had on the APS-C, but with possibly better resolving power... then yes, it's semantics.

I'm just not convinced that everyone understands the concept.
01-06-2013, 03:45 PM   #239
Ash
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,920
Original Poster
No, but then again, it's not for everyone to understand.
Some just like shooting with their camera, and have their own reasons why they prefer FF vs APS-C or otherwise. Kind of like how most people don't fully understand how their cars work, but don't really care - they just like the experience of driving it (or how it gets them from A to B).
This old thread might re-hash some old discussions on the debate: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/71896-low-noise-be...uals-zero.html
But... we're here to discuss our next camera and its features, not the fundamentals of how it works.

Dual SD card slots?
Uncrippled K-mount?
Smaller AF sensors and more accurate viewfinder positioning?
More efficient and accurate P-TTL with faster AF spotbeaming?
All this stuff matters.
01-06-2013, 04:40 PM   #240
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,873
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
No, but then again, it's not for everyone to understand.
I don't think it helps people that are marginally-involved to say 'F/2.8 is F/2.8'. Sometimes it's the same, sometimes it isn't. I won't weigh in on it any further in your thread.
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!
camera, pentax, photo industry, photography, poll
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Camera Enthusiast Giklab General Talk 7 04-04-2012 11:49 AM
Suggestion EXIF (like on Camera Enthusiast) emalvick Site Suggestions and Help 3 01-20-2012 11:54 AM
Suggestion Camera Review Section, leaves a lot to be desired... excanonfd Site Suggestions and Help 7 08-20-2011 10:28 PM
Ricoh to buy Pentax camera business from Hoya ChrisN Pentax News and Rumors 738 07-24-2011 11:24 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:15 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