Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 
Log in or register to remove ads.

Showing results 1 to 5 of 5 Search: Liked Posts
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 04-23-2014, 05:13 PM  
Do you really need a FF ? Why ?
Posted By jsherman999
Replies: 311
Views: 27,842
Actually the typical shooter will see real life advantages to FF anywhere between about 12mm and 200mm (FF equivalent FLs) in noise, or DOF control, or DR up from base, or sharpness for the same DOF/FOV (and get a bigger VF to do it with as a bonus.) Just more options to do what you want with a larger sensor, Norm - it's why you shoot aps-c and not the Nikon 1 or Q!

As ElJamoquio and Falk Lumo point out, you can often do certain things cheaper with FF, too.

You'll see the same advantages past 200mm, too, if you're not concerned with price or size. Some folks aren't concerned with those things... (like 645 shooters for example!)




It's OK, the amount of time you spend in this sub-forum tells us what you really want. :)

.
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 03-14-2014, 05:43 AM  
If you have an FA20-35 and a DA20-40 Ltd.......
Posted By Bagga_Txips
Replies: 18
Views: 2,862
I wish we wouldn't police each other unnecessarily. This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. Often people stray off the point, or fail to see the EXACT requirements of the thread, but surely that's part of the fun? It's easy to ignore posts that are not relevant, it's far harder to ignore snippy "did, didn't" bickering.
Forum: Photographic Technique 11-19-2012, 08:46 PM  
DoF is worthless!
Posted By bossa
Replies: 156
Views: 18,433
I responded to the following statement by you:
" ..the guy has a rather unique and amazing photographic vision."

So saying "of course not" in response to my comment doesn't seem to follow too well from your previous statement. Forgive me if am a little confused here..
Forum: Photographic Technique 11-20-2012, 03:03 AM  
DoF is worthless!
Posted By XMACHINA
Replies: 156
Views: 18,433
"There are many reasons to get fast lenses, but DoF should NOT be among them."

Declarative statement concerning what should motivate other people's choices.

"FF has its pros and cons, as does APS-C. DoF is the least important thing."

Declarative statement as to what other people's priorities should be.

"Portraits are more than just the eyes! It is not romantic, it is not sexy, it is not "deep" to take photos with overly-sharp and saturated eyes, with everything else being blurred out."

Declarative statement as to what other people's aesthetic sensibilities should be.

What would you say about the personality of someone who, without any apparent reservation, makes authoritative statements to people in a highly-trafficked public forum about what should motivate them, what should be important to them, what they should like? Whatever you would say about such a person, after having read these and many more similarly imperious statements, I offered no comment whatsoever about the personality of their author. None. Whatsoever. I defy you to show otherwise.

When you wrote, "And notice also that the photo would be better if the DoF were wider, if more stuff would be in focus," you made a declarative, completely unqualified statement about what would be, as if this was an objective truth. "Notice that I'm holding a playing card." "Notice on your left is a stained-glass window." "Notice that sailboat in the harbor." One directs others to "notice" what one knows will be observed by whomever will look. So tell me, how is it a "critique of [your] personality" for me to write: "So it's obvious that you believe that there is an objectively definable method of aesthetically improving the photo; because YOU think it would be 'better,' naturally every one else must as well." You didn't write the equivalent of "Look there, is that a sailboat?" You didn't write: "I think this would be better..." You directed that your reader "notice" that which, ostensibly, could be objectively perceived.

I "researched" your photos?! I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean, but it sounds way more involved than what I actually did, which was merely to click on the link in your signature and browse your 500pix gallery. Admittedly, there were moments while I was reading through this thread that I wondered whether you remembered that you had provided that link; your accusation as to my "research" only serves to support the notion that you didn't. Even if it were true that I "researched your photos," exactly why would that be inappropriate to know the qualifications of a self-appointed instructor and arbiter of aesthetics? I'm going to assume that real live people who shoot in the way you're deriding are reading this thread, and if their photographic technique is fair game for criticism, what makes you more worthy of respect than them?

"While I argued against the abstract fetishization of a thin DoF, you actually researched my photos and attacked my personal shooting preferences."

I "attacked [your] personal shooting preferences"?! Show me where I even mentioned your "personal shooting preferences" let alone "attacked" them. There is a part of my post where I list many examples of what is commonly considered bad photographic technique. I did so in the course of suggesting that these would make one vulnerable to the type of criticism you're directing at others. Are you telling me that you believe that my citation of issues such as "overexposure," "cluttered composition," "portraits with subject(s) set against fairly-sharply-rendered background distractions" are meant as specific references to your photos? That would be an interesting confession for you to make, and if that's the case then it's you who examined the shoe and decided it fit you. I'm certainly not the one who made any such assignation.

You logged in to a website, started a thread in a section dedicated to "photographic technique," and prosecuted a case against a style of photography that is popular enough to have motivated what you yourself call a "rant." So am I to believe that you didn't think that your lecture would reach the monitors of any of the real live people guilty of this allegedly offensive use of DOF? Or did you decide that you would lecture people on how misguided, and aesthetically unpleasing it is to [mis]use shallow DOF, knowing full well that it would be taken personally by anyone to whom it applied?

So when you write a whole lecture about bad photographic technique, it's to be regarded as purely academic. You demonstrate not the slightest concern that it might offend someone. But when other concepts of bad photographic technique are merely invoked into the discussion, and these concepts are ones that you find can be applied to you, then you complain that you're being "attacked." Shall I identify that bitter taste for you? That's the flavor of your own medicine.

Notice *ahem* what I've done here. I've just steered you into declaring the offensiveness of your own thread.

Mission complete.

-XM
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 10-22-2012, 07:02 PM  
I'm actually astounded K5 IIs-D800e IQ
Posted By jsherman999
Replies: 67
Views: 16,872
Except IronLionZion wasn't an idiot, Norm, he was right all along, you were wrong, but worst of all, you simply didn't listen to what he was saying.

If you want to take another lesson from this - listen. Read what others are writing and think about it before you try to type up a response.

I know how this goes, I've been trying to tell you about the merits/demerits of FF for over a year now, and very little of it seems to 'take', we keep coming back to the same assertions over and over again...

.
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 5 of 5

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:39 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