|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-14-2015, 06:29 PM
|
| |
I have just been very impressed by the 67 shots I have seen in the medium format section of the forum. There is something pretty special about that rendering. And film cameras and manual focus medium format lenses are decently priced on the used market.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-14-2015, 02:31 PM
|
| |
My original comment was with regard to film cameras not digital medium format which are also crop sensors.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-14-2015, 01:09 PM
|
| |
I certainly wouldn't say that an f0.95 lens is cheap, common or likely to be sharp wide open. Clearly you can get shallow depth of field with both full frame 35mm and medium format film -- probably more shallow than what most folks need.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-13-2015, 03:19 AM
|
| |
I don't know that I agree with most of what you say. I do want more megapixels. If you have more megapixels, the only down side is needing more hard drive space. But with memory/hard drives as cheap as they are, that isn't a big deal. As to worse quality with more megapixels, it certainly won't be worse than with lower megapixels. If you zoom in to 100 percent, you will see more problems from poor technique or lens aberrations, sure, but if you print the same size, the higher megapixel image will still tend to look better or, at the minimum the same as the lower megapixel image.
As to the difference between APS-C and full frame, it isn't as big as you say. I shoot both film and APS-C digital and there is less difference in many types of shooting than most people seem to indicate based on this thread.
 Barn at Dawn by Vincent1825, on Flickr
 Barn at Dawn by Vincent1825, on Flickr
(for what it is worth the top shot was with the DA *16-50 on a K-01, the bottom with the FA 31 on a *ist film camera. Obviously not the same framing, but both taken the same morning very close in time to each other).
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-11-2015, 03:51 PM
|
| |
I have no idea why photographers do what they do. There was an article in Outdoor Photographer in which one landscape photographer mentioned that her favorite lens was a Nikon 28-300. I'm sure it's a fine lens, but you don't really think about magazine published landscape photographers shooting with a zoom lens. Another guy was on Creative Live last week and mentioned that he shoots all of his landscapes stopped down to f22 whenever possible.
I don't disagree with you that there is a bump in image quality going from APS-C to full frame -- there is one without a doubt. I just don't know how much benefit you see shooting landscapes at f8 on APS-C and f11 on full frame, if both cameras are 24 megapixels. I've printed bigger than A3 with the K3 and the results are pretty good.
Certainly there is a place for full frame. I just don't know that the average hobby photographer is going to truly see a big difference in his images.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-09-2015, 07:14 PM
|
| |
How about if you want something that renders like the DA 15 and has the same flare resistance, small size and contrast on 35mm?
I'm so used to shooting crop cameras that I'm trying to figure out how to match my APS-C line up on a full frame camera. ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-09-2015, 05:03 PM
|
| |
Maybe.
Maybe folks are just silly expecting that lenses that performed a certain way on 35mm film will have the same angle of view on APS-C. You just need additional lenses, that's all.
Considering that you can go to 8mm on APS-C, the extra "width" you get with full frame (assuming you use the right lens) is minimal. The difference is merely that the APS-C lenses don't have as fast equivalent apertures (this is quite significant on the very wide end of things). If you don't need a 14mm f2.8 equivalent lens and usually shoot stopped down a little with your 14mm lens, then shooting with a 10-20 or 8-16 lens is probably fine. ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-09-2015, 11:32 AM
|
| |
The higher dynamic range is only visible at higher iso than base iso and only on older cameras (D7200 has same dynamic range at base iso as the D810 and the D610 and significantly better than Canon models) and if you follow dynamic range curves, the D7200 tracks really close to the D810 and D600 up to iso 12,800 (Nikon overstates the iso on every single one of their models the same way).
As to auto focus inaccuracies, this is theoretically true, but not something that I have found that is problematic on either size sensor in real life.
I really end up finding the three things that are real and observable in real world shooting are: shallow depth of field, bigger print size, and better optical viewfinder.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-09-2015, 10:50 AM
|
| |
The point that is brought up most of the time is with regard to "equivalence." The idea that you can compare lenses on different size sensors by a formula that adjusts both focal length and aperture. With this in mind, a 50-135 f2.8 on APS-C gets compared to a 70-200 f4 on full frame. When you do this comparison, you find that if your goal is shallow depth of field, no other size sensor can get as shallow as full frame (unless you go up to film medium/large format).
I think the countervailing argument is that if you actually need more depth of field, then full frame does you little good, as once you stop down to APS-C equivalence, you lose your benefit of full frame. That is to say, if you shoot at f2.8 on APS-C and iso 1600 and f4 and iso 3200 on full frame, you will have similar dynamic range, noise and of course depth of field. The only way you get a real benefit is if you are willing to tolerate less depth of field.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
11-16-2013, 12:01 PM
|
| |
Actually cropping a 36 megapixel image gives you a 16 megapixel APS-C image.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-15-2013, 12:13 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-15-2013, 11:53 AM
|
| |
Well, both need to be taken into account. However, my experience is that if the dynamic range is there, you can clean up noise after the fact. The K7 sensor was three stops worse with regard to dynamic range, even though it was a lot closer to the K5 with regard to SNR, but it was pretty bleak above iso 800 in my experience, even with noise reduction software.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-15-2013, 11:00 AM
|
| |
You are probably mixing up dynamic range with SNR/noise. Per DXO Mark, the K5 II measures 8.38 EV of dynamic range at iso 6400 and the D700 measures 8.42. There is no way that you could see the difference with regard to dynamic range between those, although certainly the K5 image would have a stop more of noise.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-15-2013, 03:33 AM
|
| |
I don't see it Jay. Looking at the dynamic range curves for the K5 and D700 on DXO Mark, they are exactly on top of each other. The only difference per DXO Mark is that Nikon slightly overstates their iso (at iso 1600, sensor measurement was iso 1277). Anyway, I doubt you could tell a difference in dynamic range between the two sensors between iso 400 and 6400.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-22-2013, 07:10 AM
|
| |
I guess I still believe that what we forumites are interested in is very different from what the average middle class purchaser of an SLR is interested in. It really is about capturing your kids in football, or baseball, or at birthday parties and getting better quality than your cell phone produces. I would be interested in knowing what percentage of purchasers of an SLR actually purchase any lenses other than a kit lens and telephoto. Based on this forum, you might believe it is 80 to 90 percent, but I believe it is a lot lower than that. If people are happy with the quality they are getting from an entry level SLR with a kit lens -- available for 450 to 500 dollars, why would they move up?
I guess the other issue is that whether or not full frame cameras could be sold for 1000 dollars or less, it probably isn't in the best interest of SLR makers to sell them for that. And I don't believe they will any time soon.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-06-2013, 03:40 AM
|
| |
Is dynamic range related to sensor size, or is it related to sensor type? When I look at the K5 versus the D800, the D800 has a little more dynamic range, but not a whole lot. But maybe that has to do with iso 80 being available on K5 and not on the D800.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-05-2013, 03:14 PM
|
| |
I did a web search and found that, but doesn't seem to have anything backing it up. Seems like it would be expensive and brutally big (the f1.8 zoom is big, but pretty reasonably priced, considering). But certainly Sigma seems to be coming up with a lot of pretty sweet lenses that give Canon/Nikon a good run for their money.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-05-2013, 01:20 PM
|
| |
I could be wrong, but I think Sigma is using "speed boosting" technology to design these faster zooms and not sure that would be usable on full frame.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-05-2013, 07:13 AM
|
| |
Of course, you are right to a certain extent, but I think that is assumed. The K5 never quite caught the D700 with regard to high iso performance, although it did pass it in dynamic range in low iso situations. An original 5D isn't going to out perform a current generation (Sony) APS-C camera, but in general, assuming the same tech, the differences come from the availability of glass. If Sigma releases a bunch of f1.8 zooms for APS-C, then noise differences will be about the same.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-05-2013, 06:15 AM
|
| |
The equivalency has to do with the final image. A K5II with a 135 mm lens at f2.8 and iso 800 will produce an "equivalent" image to a D600 shot with a 200mm at f4 and iso 1600. The noise will be the same in the two images. The way that the you get the improvement in high iso effect is only if you are shooting a faster lens -- aka you are shooting a 200mm f2.8 on the full frame camera. As Class A says, the issue is that there aren't truly equivalent lenses available for APS-C.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-01-2013, 05:07 PM
|
| |
The question isn't really "what is better?" But, "what is good enough?" For the hobby photographer the answer may be quite different from a professional and may even vary based on an individual's income and what style of photography they shoot.
I probably will purchase a full frame Pentax when it is available, but I have no illusions about it making a night and day difference in my photography -- either skills or final images. ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-01-2013, 12:04 PM
|
| |
The borders are present. If I view a photo at a certain print size, projection size then I see the borders on both images -- I assume of course, that I am shooting with my DA *55 on my K5 and the 85 f1.8 on my D800 (that I don't own, but still...). Differences will be able to visualized based on size of print/projection, but certainly I will see the borders in both situations. Anyway, it is a false choice. With many lenses (DA 15, DA 35 limited, DA * zooms), the full frame borders don't exist, the lens is an APS-C lens and so stick it on full frame and you don't see anything more. The same with the Olympus lens I mentioned.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-01-2013, 10:21 AM
|
| |
I don't think there is any particular argument between four thirds and APS-C, except that I can't mount my k mount lenses and have them auto focus on one of those cameras. Obviously, there are some plenty fast lenses for four thirds, particularly the voigtlanders, that get to speeds that are available for Pentax cameras.
I just don't shoot a photo thinking "how little depth of field can I get?" Rather, I know where the sweet spot is for a particular lens (for the DA *55 it is f2 and narrower) and then choose my framing after that. And the things you mention are more a factor of the lens used, rather than format. A lens can be engineered in such a way that it is sharp wide open, or it can require stopping down to get there. Olympus lenses (like the 75mm) are diffraction limited. They are basically as sharp wide open as at f4. So no big deal which you shoot at. The bigger the sensor, the harder it is to have lenses that are that good across the frame and most wider angle full frame lenses require stopping down to get sharp borders.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-01-2013, 06:42 AM
|
| |
I have said several times, but depth of field is a poor reason to use a particular format. Narrow depth of field is no panacea -- it is a one trick pony that gets old pretty fast. At least that's what I gather from the f1.2 thread.
This is a photo of my son with the DA *55 at f2 -- maybe the photos would have been better shot at f1.4 or f1.2, but I doubt it. In the majority of situations, too narrow depth of field in portraiture isn't a great thing...
IMGP2157 by Vincent1825, on Flickr
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-05-2013, 12:32 PM
|
| |
Sure. But my point initially was that between 50mm and 300mm (30mm and 200mm APS-C) there are a lot of options that will give fairly narrow depth of field. Wider than that, Pentax APS-C doesn't have nearly as many options.
|
