|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-24-2019, 03:40 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-24-2019, 02:47 PM
|
| |
My loose definition of "similar" result is, similar field of view and similar depth of field. Beyond that, we get into lens characteristics and camera sensor performance differences - and all bets are off there. To me, field of view and depth of field get folks in the ball-park ;)
New thread about to be posted...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-24-2019, 01:50 PM
|
| |
Absolutely not. My point is, it gets you in the ball-park in terms of framing and creative depth of field.
Agreed, Norm... Me too. But if we're trying to approximate similar result between formats, or understand how a specific focal length lens will be useful on another format, broadly equivalent field of view and creative depth-of-field gets us in the ball-park ... after which the character of each lens kicks in. My definition of "equivalence" (flawed though it may be) relates only to the field of view and depth of field. Personally, I consider rendering to be a different though equally important subject.
More to come in a thread I'm working on. And I hope you'll contribute to that, as your views (and those of everyone else here) are valid, important and appreciated. I just can't promise to agree with them :p :lol:
I like these debates where we have very different opinions yet bang each other over the head respectfully :p
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-24-2019, 12:14 PM
|
| |
In fact, we've gone massively off-topic here. And I'm as guilty as the rest. Call myself a moderator?! Sheesh...
I'm going to open a new thread on so-called equivalence and state my own personal understanding of what it is, why I think it can be a useful concept, why it has helped me, and why so many folks get confused by it.
And, when I've opened that thread, I cordially invite interested parties to join the thread and kick the stuffing out of me :lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-24-2019, 11:56 AM
|
| |
Norm...
If I take two portrait photos of my friend at the same camera to subject distance - one with my APS-C Pentax K-3 plus Helios-44-2 58mm f/2 lens wide open, the other with my full frame Sony A7 MkII and, say, a Jupiter-9 85mm f/2 lens set at f/2.8 - are you saying those shots won't display roughly the same field of view, and roughly the same depth of field?
I'm not talking about every aspect of the two photos being identical (colours, contrast, resolution, aberrations, out-of-focus rendering qualities etc.), but just those two properties - field of view, and depth of field - being very similar.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-24-2019, 10:28 AM
|
| |
I don't know who that last comment was aimed at. If it was me, it was misplaced, as I'm not preaching.
Perhaps I'm using the wrong word in saying equivalence? Or perhaps many people have subtly (or wildly) different understandings of the scope of equivalence, and thats's what causes the emotive debate?
When I started out, I wanted to achieve the same field of view and the same depth of field as others using different (typically full frame) equipment. And when I started shooting full frame along-side my APS-C gear, until I'd become used to both formats, I needed a way of quickly working out in my head the necessary focal length and aperture setting on one format to produce results broadly equivalent to the other.
So, if I can't call that equivalence, I don't know what to call it. But whatever "it" is, it was - and ocassionally still is - useful to me. Others may approach the issue differently, and for them I say "have at it" :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-24-2019, 10:12 AM
|
| |
I've said this before... There is, to begin with, a use for equivalence, at least in terms of understanding the focal lengths and apertures required to achieve a specific field of view and depth of field. Unless, that is, you're only ever going to shoot one format, in which case just learn them from experience. But swapping between APS-C and full frame (as I frequently do), understanding equivalence is very handy for me, or at least it was initially. Now, I'm so used to my lenses now that I know what works on each format without thinking about it too much. Equivalence was also useful early in my journey when I was trying to get the same results as those shooting full frame cameras with my APS-C gear...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-20-2019, 12:26 PM
|
| |
I wonder if there's some copy variation, either optically or in the AF accuracy (i.e. play in the movement)? My FA50/1.4 also has that glow at f/1.4, but it's pretty good at f/2... Not as good as it is at f/2.8, but I don't see any soft glow effect. In fact, if it's possible to have a favourite aperture setting for a lens, with mine it is f/2. There's enough detail, and the bokeh is much more attractive here than at f/1.4.
Or perhaps I simply have a different tolerance, which is probably the more likely explanation :p
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-20-2019, 02:55 AM
|
| |
I'm not so sure about that...
I mean, I can see why some people might want smaller, lighter equipment (I certainly wouldn't object to lighter gear). But physics pretty much dictates the size of lenses for a given sensor size, and whilst manufacturers are becoming somewhat cleverer with lens design, there's only so far they can go in reducing the physical size of, say, a 70-200 f/2.8. Then, so far as camera bodies are concerned, they can only make those so compact before the number and size of individual controls is reduced to the point of compromised user interface. Sure, they could move these controls to touch-screen access, but that's just not practical for on-the-fly operation with our eye to the camera.
So whilst I can appreciate there will be efforts to reduce the size and weight of equipment, I doubt these reductions will (or even could) be transformative. Incremental, perhaps...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-19-2019, 01:37 PM
|
| |
I wonder why, aside from patent reasons, other manufacturers haven't leveraged the dual pixel focus idea. I only understand the very basics of how it works, and I don't know what limitations it has or the difficulties involved in developing such technology. But it seems like an awfully clever idea, and - so far as I'm aware - completely avoids the need for dedicated PDAF sensors on the imaging sensor. Very clever.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 03:52 PM
|
| |
This is a really interesting subject, and perhaps one for a new thread. Based on what I've seen, 35mm film doesn't seem to compare in resolution to a 24MP APS-C digital camera (that's the highest pixel density camera I own, so the best I can compare to). But there are so many variable factors involved in terms of lenses, focusing accuracy, film stock, digitising, post processing (of both raw digital images and film scans), etc.
I'd love to see an educated and qualified comparison of 35mm film vs digital (APS-C or full-frame), taking into account all the factors. It's beyond someone like me with the levels of equipment, knowledge and experience I have, but it would be quite the learning experience, and an interesting one too.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 12:04 PM
|
| |
Understood. This is merely a difference in our personal preferences, and why I suggested the need for it was arguable. I use the top LCD on all of my cameras that have it, seeing the settings often before the camera comes up to my eye. It's especially useful to me on the occasions when I'm shooting from my tripod. But I realise it's not needed or liked by everyone. Conversely, when I shoot my A7 MkII, despite the extensive and configurable information overlays in the EVF, I miss not having a top LCD.
Well, I can't call myself a K-3 or K-3II "afficionado" per se (I'm certainly no K-3 / K-3II "snob" - they're all just cameras to me), but I do shoot with them and like them a lot. I've reviewed images taken with the KP, and there's no doubt as to the advantage it has in terms of image quality. It's considerably better, especially at higher ISOs - which is compelling for me given my shooting habits. So if Ricoh was to release a K-3II replacement that retains the features you and I largely agreed on for a flagship, but with the KP (or better) sensor, I'll more than likely buy one... if not in the first year of release, then almost certainly at some point soon after. And if they throw in a top LCD too, I'll be grinning from ear to ear :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 11:11 AM
|
| |
I've had one situation where, after a day's shooting, several raw photos - a block of three or four (in sequence, if I remember coorectly) were corrupted on one card, but fine on the other. This was with my Hasselblad HV, not a Pentax camera. Obviously it wasn't an issue, as I was able to get images from the second card. I never was able to find a fault with the card in question... I reformatted it and ran read / write tests, but no errors were returned. So, it could have been an intermittent fault with the card... or it could even have been an intermittent hardware or firmware fault with the camera. I retired the card, and it's never happened since.
Come to think of it, I seem to recall having a total card failure in a compact camera some years back. Long time ago, though... maybe ten years?
I own some cameras with only a single card slot, and I'm more than happy to shoot with them given that this really is just a hobby for me. If I lose some photos, I'd be disappointed - but that's all. If I was a professional photographer, I'd absolutely insist on two card slots. As it is, if I have the choice between one or two slots, I'll take two every time, just for peace of mind.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 10:48 AM
|
| |
Nobody's whining... It's just that some photographers - myself included - prefer two card slots, not for capacity but redundancy. For a hobbyist like me, it's less critical, but even so it has value. I think it's one of those things that most people don't care about until they have an SD card fail and lose several images, or worse still, completely. So that's where the value of two cards comes in... writing simultaneously to both cards so you don't lose images if one fails.
Congratulations on your KP, by the way. It is indeed a fine camera :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 08:00 AM
|
| |
Thanks - but no apology needed... The comment was aimed at all in the thread, not specifically at you ;) Just reminding everyone that we don't need disruption - just healthy, respectful conversation :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 07:49 AM
|
| |
Rest assured, the moderating team will deal with any rule breaking and repeated disruption by any member towards the community, using the infraction system :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 07:31 AM
|
| |
Folks - let's keep this friendly. No need for sarcasm, no need for personal comments. We can challenge each others' opinions without losing our community spirit, right? Thank you :) |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 03:30 AM
|
| |
Good summary and points.
I'd also add that many of us already have PCs with built in SD card readers, and that's my preferred method for transferring photos. I don't like having to use cables unless absolutely necessary, and I'm not a fan of wi-fi transfer for large batches of images. I could buy an XQD reader, but that's another accessory to buy and have lying around next to my laptop, or remember to pack in my laptop bag. I also have a significant stock of fast SDHC cards at 16, 32 and 64Gb sizes that I've acquired over the last few years. I'd prefer not to start buying new cards all over again.
None of which is to criticise the use of XQD in any way... But I'd personally prefer to stick with SDHC. In fact, given that I shoot multiple camera bodies, I wouldn't buy a new camera that required XQD cards - so I sincerely hope the K-3II replacement, if and when it arrives, uses SDHC.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-17-2019, 03:12 AM
|
| |
The KP is clearly an outstanding camera. But, the things that would make it a flagship - the things that are missing for it to be considered as such - are:
- increased shutter life
- higher maximum shutter speed
- twin SD slots
- bigger buffer (more important where sports, kids, birds in flight are concerned)
- IR remote control
- arguably, a top LCD (many of us still use and value this - I miss having it on my A7 MkII)
- better battery life from the internal battery
Personally, I also prefer a bigger, chunkier body - but this really is just personal preference, and in part due to the fact that I have big hands, with fingers that sometimes struggle just a little with arthritis :o
I definitely think the KP punches above its weight in most areas - and even has features which could be considered special on a flagship model. None of the items above are deal-breakers for most of us, but I do think without them the KP sits in the mid range bracket, albeit at the upper end :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-16-2019, 04:41 PM
|
| |
Ha ha :lol: I'm afraid not. Staffing budget around here is even tighter than Ricoh Imaging's :p :lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-16-2019, 04:11 PM
|
| |
It's not all about the megapickles. Resolution is just one property, and arguably the least important, depending on the user's needs. If you'd like to include dynamic range, sensor noise, readout speed, on-sensor PDAF (the good and bad therein) and a whole bunch of other stuff in that spreadsheet, then yes... that would be interesting reading indeed. I'd love to take a look at it. We could even make it a resource here on the forums for everyone's benefit (subject to review)...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-16-2019, 03:57 PM
|
| |
I don't even know where to begin with this... I certainly haven't time tonight....
Shocking differences between AF performance in two totally different cameras (70D DSLR vs A9 MILC), zero sensor progress since 2015, 1985 Minolta film camera stabilisation and PDAF up to modern digital standards, tech staying relevant in ten year chunks... As posts go, it includes more than its fair share of questionable - dare I say, "tongue in cheek" - references.
I can only assume you're posting this to "shake things up" as you've mentioned before. I'm tempted to bite, yet on second thoughts, I think I'll step aside... for this post, at least :lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-16-2019, 01:20 PM
|
| |
I've never understood the view that MILCs are somehow "better" than DSLRs. I'm like a scratched record repeating myself, I realise, but both tools have advantages and disadvantages depending on the use case and user preferences. I can see why manufacturers might prefer building MILCs due to the reduced electro-mechanical complexity.
There are situations where I undoubtedly prefer using my A7 MkII - but they're surprisingly narrow in scope... specifically, if I'm adapting old manual focus glass. For that, it's wonderful. And yet, still not perfect... but very good. Oh, and I occasionally shoot my A-mount glass on it, either on the very rare occasions where I want my HV set up with one lens and the A7II with another, or because I've forgotten to charge my HV batteries :p :lol: But if I'm shooting modern AF glass, most of the time I'll pick one of my older or newer DSLRs. EVFs have their uses, but I do like a good OVF.
Of course, I'm still hopeful that one day we might see an ILC with hybrid viewfinder. My fantasy for day-to-day shooting :D
I see what you did there. Nice :cool:
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-16-2019, 11:29 AM
|
| |
I don't think anyone's pretending, here - I'm certainly not. That would suggest we know the writing's on the wall but don't want to admit it. Instead, we just have different opinions :)
Sony has the advantage of of being the only mature full-frame MILC platform at present. As such, the lens catalogue is well populated (for a long time it wasn't thus) and the company has had plenty of time to establish a user base who've already invested in FE glass and system accessories.
As for resting on it's 67% share of full frame mirrorless market (I haven't verified that number - I'm taking you at your word), it really shouldn't. Before too long, Canon and Nikon will have their native mirrorless lens ranges fleshed out - and then Sony will have serious competition at the high end of full frame mirrorless, which it never had before. Perhaps it'll develop better features and performance to compete, or maybe it'll go down the pricing route? Of course, it'll still have a fairly unique proposition at the lower (older) end of the model range based largely on price, and in the APS-C mirrorless market with cameras using the same native E-mount. But even that could be a temporary situation... Who knows what Nikon and Canon will develop next, and Panasonic are due to join the melee...
And then there's little old Pentax... standing to one side, watching the big boys fight amongst themselves while it slowly and methodically develops products that cater first and foremost to its existing user base, and attracting a few defectors from the other brands based on a favourable quality / features / price value-proposition.
It's an interesting idea, but a tricky one... Firmware would need to be a revenue-generating product in its own right - either on a discrete ("pay $xxx for the latest feature set") or subscription ("pay $x per month and get every new feature as and when it is released") basis. Even then, there will come a point three or four years after initial release where the review sites, press and buying public will question the sense in buying "old" technology that, despite having new features due to firmware updates, still has an older sensor and other hardware limitations that can't be improved upon simply through firmware...
I cite as an example the Yi M1 mirrorless. Many thought that the company's commitment to firmware updates would translate to regular and significant incremental improvements over the original release... But, while firmware updates kept coming (albeit less frequently than hoped), that camera is (and always will be) increasingly limited by the sensor, hardware architecture and physical interface :o
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-16-2019, 03:14 AM
|
| |
Indeed. Personally, I can't see much justification in having more than three APS-C DSLR models... one each for entry level, mid range and high end. So Canon certainly has room to trim and consolidate, depending on its strategy.
With Ricoh / Pentax, funding and resources pretty much dictate a narrow range of bodies. But, as you point out, that's no bad thing :)
|
