|
Forum: Winners' Showcase
05-06-2023, 11:03 AM
|
| |
I would like to nominate this photo
|
|
Forum: Winners' Showcase
04-08-2021, 11:15 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
06-10-2019, 09:27 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
05-08-2019, 07:47 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
04-17-2019, 08:35 AM
|
| |
The first place prize should go to ALL of these !!
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
03-10-2019, 10:03 AM
|
| |
I would like to nominate this photo
|
|
Forum: Winners' Showcase
01-09-2019, 09:54 AM
|
| |
I nominate this photo. It lights up bygone days.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
08-25-2017, 11:19 AM
|
| |
Hi, thanks.
I discovered that my firmware is indeed out of date. I have now installed the latest.
thanks for the tip
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
08-21-2017, 12:08 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-3 & K-3 II
08-21-2017, 11:27 AM
|
| |
Today, 8/21/2017, as I started to shoot the eclipse, the first shot started the mirror flapping wildly and draining the battery to zero.
Never happened before. Had to remove the battery to stop it.
Does Ricoh know how to fix this yet ???
I see lots of threads from 2014.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
03-10-2017, 10:40 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
08-08-2016, 08:41 AM
|
| |
I nominate this ! Awesome interpretation of the theme.
|
|
Forum: Winners' Showcase
07-12-2016, 07:30 AM
|
| |
This photo is awesome. Has my vote
|
|
Forum: Winners' Showcase
04-02-2015, 06:27 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
03-03-2015, 09:35 AM
|
| |
Thisis awesome. I nominate this photo.:)
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
02-18-2015, 08:07 AM
|
| |
i also like #9
Reminds of something that I might have shot with my Argus c3 in 1959 ! Love it.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
12-17-2014, 01:15 PM
|
| |
#4 is definitely the sweetest ! I vote for #4
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
11-05-2014, 09:20 AM
|
| |
Hi,
Thanks for the link. Very interesting, especially the ISO part.
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
11-05-2014, 08:02 AM
|
| |
You are breaking my heart !! Especially for the ones in super dim light that are on a first name basis with the sensor. :)
---------- Post added 11-05-14 at 10:11 AM ----------
Hi. OK I give up ! I was only trying to say that IMHO, camera and lens manufacturers are misleading people by saying e.g. 50mm lens is euivalent to a 75 mm lens. Tha's all I was trying to say. I was wondering if I am the only bothered by this. You are correct in your statements about needing to consider everything, including pixel density, pixel size, CCD vs CMOS, lens MTF, distoriton, aberrations, etc etc etc.
This is a great forum ! I will now shut up.
BTW, I love my K-3 !!
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
11-04-2014, 12:10 PM
|
| |
I'm just trying to point out that a smaller sensor means a smaller field-of-view and not increased focal length. E.g. if you want to photograph birds, would you use a smaller sensor instead of a longer focal length lens ? Instantaneous reolution, which is equal to the pixel size divided by the focal length is not improved by having a smaller sensor (with less pixels). This is called IFOV and it is what determines the sharpness of the picture (in addition to lens quality).
Anyway, full frame sensors are becoming available and this discussion will become meaningless (I hope) !
---------- Post added 11-04-14 at 02:14 PM ----------
My apologies ! Think about it this way. Suppose you took the sensor in your DSLR and put tape over on half of it, so you only got half the field-of-view.
Is this the equivalent of doubling the focal length of your lens ? Could you double the distance from your subject and still get the same quality ?
No. Hope this helps.
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
11-03-2014, 02:03 PM
|
| |
No, it's the same as putting a samll mask over the film, to reduce the field.
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
11-03-2014, 02:01 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
11-03-2014, 01:31 PM
|
| |
When camera companies cite the equivalence of a camera with a small sensor as being euivalent to a 35 mm film camera with a longer focal length they are giving the impression that this is a good thing. It is not. You are NOT gaining resolution. You are simply losing field-of-view.
So the 35mm equvalent really refers to the field of view and not the resolution. For example, the K-3 has an "APS-C' sized sensor which is 23.5 x 15.6 mm. The 35mm film camera is 24 x 36 mm. This is a crop factor of 1.5. It is NOT the equivalent of a 1.5x increase in resolution. It is a 1.5x DECREASE in field-of-view. Take this to an extreme. Suppose a camera has a sensor that is 2.4 mm x 3.6 mm. Would this be the same as having a 10X longer focal length ? I don't think so !
Anyway, sorry for the rant. This is a great forum.
|
|
Forum: Winners' Showcase
11-03-2014, 12:59 PM
|
| |
This photo is on theme and pretty much defines marriage ! I love it.:)
|
