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

Showing results 1 to 21 of 21 Search:
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 09-15-2013, 10:11 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
There's a difference between knowing what the numbers are, and understanding the difference they make to how your photos look.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 09-13-2013, 06:08 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
There has to be a 24 MP APS-c just around the corner, there just has to... unless it was like a 28 or a 30 or something like that.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 09-13-2013, 05:57 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
I think the only market Pentax has left is folks like me who don't really need FullFrame, but might buy one just because it would make many of our lenses two lenses. I already often carry a second body. Imagine taking your FA50, but it's either a 50 or a 35 depending on which body you have it on. Apparently my 60-250 is FF, my A-400 is definitely FF, All I'd need would be a 24-70 or something like that.

But it would be a fluff purchase, something to own because I can. And because as many of you know, you can never own to many different cameras, or too many different types of cameras. If you own it, a use for it will become apparent.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 09-08-2013, 12:33 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
OK, that all sounds plausible, except the part where Pentax has to supply an FF soon. Without going into the details, I'll just say, "No they don't." and leave it at that.



Actually the problem you have is you don't realize that though most people want to spend less than $1000 on their initial purchase, most Pentax users want to spend less than another $1000 the next year on lens upgrades, and maybe keep doing the same until the next time they feel the need to upgrade the sensor. The Pentax user is looking forward to the process of filling in their lens lineup which gives Pentax an endless source of premium upgrade dollars, without going to an FF camera.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 06-05-2013, 05:45 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
I hope that isn't important to anyone on the forum shooting Pentax, because if it is, they've made some bad decisions.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 06-05-2013, 01:16 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
You need to be in one of those threads where they are going on about 1.2 lenses or faster on FF to understand how wrong you are in some folks eyes. There's threads here where they don't even want you posting if you don't have an ƒ1.2 lens. They not only want faster themselves, they don't even want to see your pictures if you don't have one.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 06-05-2013, 12:48 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
There's the Sigma 300 and 500 and lots of legacy glass. But your point is well taken... if you are a DoF freak, you shouldn't be shooting Pentax, and smart Pentaxians like jsherman etc. have moved on and purchased more appropriate systems. But the simple truth is Pentax can make a living without catering to those guys. But, if you don't already own any of the myriad of 1.4 lenses out there for APS-c, you probably aren't a narrow DoF freak. Having options is usually a moot point. If you're going to buy a 300 2.8 a 500 4.5 then Sigma has you covered, and you don't need anymore options. It's not until you actually exceed what's available and want more, that the lack of options is an issue. Until you reach that point you could be blissfully un-aware that you have no options, and it could make not even the smallest difference to your life.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 06-04-2013, 05:49 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
It's another camera. I'd probably buy one because, can you ever really have too many different cameras? :D
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 06-04-2013, 05:30 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
The issue as I see it is not that you can't get the narrow DoF you want, most of the time, it's that you might want narrower. For my use, I wouldn't buy an FF for that. For me, it's the possibility of more resolution for bigger prints that would be the issue. I expect any photographer to understand how to induce narrow DoF be it on a point and shoot or a 8x10 film camera. That's just part of knowing your craft. You just have to accept that there are folks who live in the narrow DoF niche, for whom the absolute narrowest is essential. Or the psychological boost they get from knowing they have the highest level of control of DoF. Perhaps it's a confidence thing. My whole life I've been more concerned about getting more DoF not less. It's just this strange part of my make up. That's what I worry about. maximum DoF and sharpness. That doesn't mean I don't take narrow DoF images. It just means for some psychological quirk, I don't worry about being able to take them. Every one has their own quirks, and some really have become masters at narrow DoF photography, and that's a good thing, just maybe it's not for everyone.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 06-02-2013, 03:08 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
What I get annoyed at is people thinking they can demonstrate "equivalence" with a bunch of numbers. As I always say, show us a few pictures, everyone will figure it out. If you can't show a couple of comparative pictures to make your point, maybe you don't have a point. I've yet to see a decent set of comparative images that where someone took the best image they could using a specific system, demonstrating that what can be done on FF can't be done on APS-c. There are a number of images you've posted that I know are FF images that couldn't have been done on APS-c... so I'm not saying it can't be done. But, if you're going to try and make the case, it needs to be explained visually. Most people have no idea what the numbers mean. That what rots my socks.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-29-2013, 06:10 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
The lens in that range is the Tamron 17-50. Better edges, better control of CA, defintiely better for stitching.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-29-2013, 02:10 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
You're going to post us some images I hope. We have a non-Pentax section of the forum.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-29-2013, 10:11 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
Well then you'd be doing folks a favour by showing them what kind of pictures you want, with what equipment, and why they are better and cheaper with FF using comparatively equal lenses. Maybe someone else shoots your style and would be interested in seeing what you can do. Obviously people who don't want the same type of picture you do, are going to have to do their own research, but you might save some folks who think like you, some time. We can check out prices etc. if we are interested. Obviously things are only going to be cheaper if people do exactly what you did. You can blow a pile more money on FF equipment than you can on APS-c. To Start off with a Nikon D800 and have the same functionality with better IQ I'd be looking at 10K for the starter kit covering 14 mm- 200 mm, with now primes or long zooms. That wouldn't even get me close to the 8- 670 equivalent FoV I have with my APS-c kit, which cost considerably less than 10k.. Like most things going larger increases cost exponentially.

Oh course it's possible you shoot in a niche where FF is cheaper. I'm sure many would like to know what that niche is.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-29-2013, 09:27 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
Oh sorry.... I have noticed you ask for it, but I find as I get older, I forget things, not that my memory was ever all that great. Feel free to send me a PM to get my mind back on track.
Nikon D3200 2400-2500 lw/ph extinction at 3400 lines.

Nikon D600 24 MP Lw/ph = 2700 lw/ph total extinction at max 3800 lw/ph..

2700/2500 = 1.08. AN 8 % increase, I gave it too much.

For me, it's D800 or nothing. A d800 has exceeded 4000 lw/ph
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-29-2013, 09:13 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
What does 60% better look like?
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-29-2013, 07:41 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
OK now that's just offensive, I didn't address wide angle lenses, nor specific cases, nor did I imply that there might not be reasons for wanting a specific lens or sensor, for a specific case. Unlike yourself, I do not assume I know what people want ("People want the field of view the lens can actually deliver, " and I've definitely left it open for people to choose what they wish with my blessing. I simply refuse to accept most of the reasons advanced for using a full frame camera.

By the way, The Nikon 14-24, a rough equivalent to my Sigma 8-16 capable of producing close to twice the resolution on a D800 as my 8-16 will produce (which is the kind of performance I'd be looking for if I were to buy an FF system ) is about $2000. That's three times the price of my Sigma 8-16.

So for me to "step up" I need a $3000 camera and a $2000 lens. I believe that would make a significant difference for my IQ on prints larger than 30inches by 40 inches. But I currently don't print that large.

If Pentax makes an FF, I'll need a $3000 camera and at minimum a 31 ltd. but I won't have anything like the Nikon 14-24. SO for me the FF system I'd go to next is already there. I just haven't got 5K lying around to go for it, or any other criteria that would make it attractive, like needing larger prints or narrower DoF or higher ISO functionality. There is nothing in a Pentax system that in anyway approaches the 4000+ lw/ph in the D800 14-24 combination. But there is also no guarantee that will change if Pentax releases an FF. Apart from the D800, everything else is inadequate as an upgrade path based on lw/ph, and many (but not all) other criteria. FF or not FF has little to do with it.

Does that address the wide angle thing sufficiently?
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-29-2013, 06:38 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
That's because it's largely a useless concept... the concept that an image has to be exactly a certain way, and that one should try and emulate what one does with one system on another system suggests that photography is a technical medium in which it is important to exactly create a specific image and that images that aren't created exactly that way are somehow lacking. it's a very rigid way of looking at photographic systems. That is "techcraft". The assigning of non-existent technical requirements to artistic media. You can study your graphs and tables, any of which have the ability to be a complete mis-representation, and doesn't present any information you can't absorb more usefully or practically by looking through the viewfinder. Information is useless without context, and those who promote this concept of "equivalency" tend to focus on very narrow measurable criteria to the exclusion of all else, including the context in which those criteria need to be understood.

But the biggest fault of techcraft is it's fallacious belief that it can understand through mathematical formula etc. Like the social sciences, there are things you have formula for and things you don't. Being able to measure some things but not others, and some very important things, micro-contrast and it's effect on the appearance of sharpness, how the control of CA affects the appearance of sharpness etc. or deliberately leaving them out of the discussion creates a narrow discussion based on depth of field, or dynamic range etc. things that can be measured. And in DoF it's extremely problematic, because, extremely narrow DoF for most photographers is not a desirable characteristic, very often.

SO you have those for whom "equivalency" is not understood (in it's limited technical explanations) who look through a camera lens and examine the images and you understand perfectly without the mumbo-jumbo. Then you techies who have tried (like Psychologists) to turn a soft science into a hard science., and spend way to much time reading numbers and charts to prove things that present only part of the picture. And in between you have those who just understand intuitively the difference between different formats, because they've looked through a lot of cameras., and most of those absolutely do not need to understand a bunch of numbers. Their hand reaches out for the appropriate camera based on the shooting situation. No one looks at a bunch of charts to see what sensor will give them 6 inches of DoF at f 5.6 from the distance they are shooting. And if they did, they would still be choosing an APS-c camera much of the time, they would also be choosing FF cameras, micro 4/3 cameras, and view cameras with scanning backs. But most of us don't have a closet full of different format cameras. We want the best compromise. Every sensor is some kind of compromise.

APS_c is a very good compromise system, so are FF cameras. There is no equivalency because no one format presents a "standard" against which others should be measured. The key is to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each system, not in some bogus "equivalency" concept that ignores ease of use, versatility, carry weights, ergonomics, the different ages and light absorption properties of different sensors, the effects of CA and distortion, the internal processing engines of different cameras etc.

From my perspective equivalency is just too narrow a focus to be useful. It's not witchcraft. It's a microscopic look at one small part of camera systems, so myopic as to be next to useless from an artistic stand point. WHo has a better understanding of the laws of motion? The guy who can create a device to launch a basket ball through hoop 24 feet away using mathematical formula. Or the guy who just does it by practicing his 3 point shot? There are two ways to understand things. Throw in ability of the human brain to appreciate non-random characteristics that have never been completely defined, and what you have is pseudo science.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-28-2013, 12:40 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
Actually jsherman, I've understood that point for almost as long as you've been making it. It's you that's a little slow on the uptake here. I've never argued that people don't want all kinds of crazy things. My brother used to want one of those Green Bay packer cheese head things until I bought one for him. He never tried to say he needed it. If you consider it a "want', buy what you want. I don't care. There's not need to justify it. If you're going to sell it as something you need, you should probably be able to justify that. Need is different than want. After 3 years explaining that, I hope you get it this time.

However, some people are actually interested in understanding technical differences and stuff, as is trying to help them understand what they are getting for their money. Telling people what you want is fine. Or better still go to some gift registry and tell people who might buy you what you want, what you want. An old Quaker adage..."tell me what you want and I'll tell you how to get along without it." It's hardly a case of not understanding the difference between a need and a want, it's way more philosophical than that.

And as I've always said, I want a Pentax 645. I can want with the best of them... but do i need one? I can't justify it.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-28-2013, 06:49 AM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
I Just find that so odd. I shot film pentax for 30 years, with full frame lenses used on full frames, and to me it seems like an non-issue. Taking pictures is composing in the viewfinder. What lens is on my camera is not important, because I can see what I need to see in the viewfinder regardless of what lens is on the camera. The only place I pay attention to lenses is I need to know the minimum ƒ stop and I need to know what lens to put on. So I put on a 50 instead of a 70. Once that 50 is on the camera it's business as usual. You compose, you shoot. Am I thinking "I'd really like to use this lens on the format it was designed for? " Why would I care about that? I've used old camera lenses in my enlargers, I'm buying an adapter to use 645 lenses on my K-5. A lens is a piece of glass. It doesn't care what it was designed for and I don't either. It's a crazy notion. Of all the irritants you can be bothered by that's one of the oddest ones, at least as I see it.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-27-2013, 03:59 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
What is a waste of money is totally need dependent. If you never use more the 6 MP, a K-5 is a waste of money. It's not a race to see who has the most lw/ph. SO really if you look at what I do, my Optio 10 WR is a waste of money, because I never use the file size on the 9 WR (12 MP) and my K-x is a waste of money because I never use it for anything more than I would have used the K100D for. I don't think I'd ever declare something a waste of money categorically, but i would declare something overkill for one's shooting style in some circumstances.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-26-2013, 01:50 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By normhead
Replies: 427
Views: 51,882
Same old suspects, same old conclusions...

So far a 24 MP FF increases MTF 13 % for a 50% increase in file size. Over a 24 MP APS-c camera, and that only in lab tests. IN tests in the field it's almost certain to be closer, although, no one is testing. There exists a serious case of the law of diminishing returns. People always say there is no wide angle 1.4 lens for APS-c. People never say there is no 1.4 135 for FF, but there is an 85 1.4 for APS-c that has the same FoV? When something is true at one end of the spectrum, it's also true at the other. People ignore the back end of trade offs. Or even more likely, they post theory to prove that it is in some way not true.

But the killer is, that people who say they can't live without a WA 1.4 lens, never seem to know what percentage of their WA images were best taken at 1.4. Someone should post a break down so we know what we're missing. Not how many were taken, I've taken a huge number of images @ 2.8 up until F16. F 16 it turns out is a lot more useful than F-2.8. I'm guessing 1.4 would be even less useful than 2.8.

There I've said my same old thing, issued a challenge that will be ignored. Now I expect a line by line breakdown of my post with at least one poster will post that he's not telling because i wouldn't listen anyway.

What's funny...

people who mix the FF argument with the image size argument. If you're talking FF vs APS-C , keep the discussion to the discussion of sensor size. Pixels is another issue. We can argue that quite conclusively that a D800 out resolves all other APS-c and FF cameras. It's just not an issue related just to sensor size.

The biggest reason, for not wanting a Pentax FF? I'd have to buy a 31 ltd to make it worth my while. I find the distortion, whether aspherical or not can be disturbing in APS-c WAs. That's the only lens I can think of I'd rather use on an FF system than APS-c. But, my 21 ltd really isn't that bad for the same FoV. I use WA for landscapes. F 1.4 in landscapes is probably about as useless as...._________ (insert your favorite useless thing)

You definitely have more lens choices with APS-c. With APS-c you can use FF lenses, like my A-400 FF lens to great advantage. You can use APS-c lenses, only as APS-c lenses. Even the D800 only gives you 15 MP in crop mode. People seem to forget you have an MTF advantage using a K-5 over a D800 used in crop mode, using the same lens. The D800 is less, all other FFs are way less.

FF isn't the holy grail. But there are a lot of folks who are completely fixated on it, and possibly not in a good way... and that's the truth.
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 21 of 21

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:52 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