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

Showing results 1 to 9 of 9 Search:
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 08-21-2013, 07:04 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By Pål Jensen
Replies: 427
Views: 51,881
Are there any datas that say that Nikon is making profit on FF? Nikon answer for their lack of profit and sales is to make more APS cameras according to themselves. I can only assume they do it in order to make profit.

And I'm not convinced that that the DSLR market will be eaten up by other devices anytime soon; thats will happen with P&S, and to some extent mirrorless. There is a countereffect at play here; the more people who shoot causually with cell phone or whatever, the more people get through this more interested in Photography and consequently buy a real camera meaning DSLR. The market is satuurated and will probably shrink but will still be healthy.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 08-21-2013, 06:55 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By Pål Jensen
Replies: 427
Views: 51,881
Just want to start with saying please don't discuss on discussion forum is rather silly.

1) theres a limit downwards for sensor prices (and the rest of the camera). This means that we will never see a $1000 MF camera (I doubt we would see a $1000 FF camera anytime soon). You might have a point if you choose $5000 instead of $1000.
2) Sensor prices for a certain size is not dropping according to Moores law. Moores law is about more computing power on smaller chips. A camera format chip is constrant sizewise. It is size that costs. We get better sensors over time at more or less the same price but thats true for most technology. So there is no perpetual decrease in sensor costs which would have been necessary for your theory to hold water.
3) You mix up image quality with sensor size. You will have increased image quality over time with constant sensor size too, thereby satisfying the expectation for higher image quality for a price point over time; Just compare a *istD with the K5. Although there will be a limit of much quality you can achieve per area there's also a limit defined by the law of deminishing returns*. This will be achieved eventually for sensor smaller than whats currently used in DSLR's. Then other features of the camera will count more for the consumers, pretty much like in the film days.
4) There is no universal desire for larger formats only hindered by economy as you indicate in your last sentence. Some people prefer APS; others FF or MF digital. In addition, MF Digital, not to mention large format, is a very different tool than an APS camera.
5) Larger format size is not a positive factor in itself for most people.

* Already now people can't spot the difference between the K-5 and the 20 something MP FF cameras in large scale prints (my experience too). See here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/219502-full-confidence-k5iis-i...gear-home.html
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 08-05-2013, 07:17 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By Pål Jensen
Replies: 427
Views: 51,881
If it was the idea of fair comparison we would in the film days compared the Pentax 67 with 3200ISO film with a Pentax MX with 50ISO (or something like that). No one did. Fair comparison is to use the same film cause thats the only way to spot the real differences between the formats - and thats after all what we're after - we don't want them to be equal. Thats why we never heard about equivalency in the film days.
Remember, you MUST take exposure into your equivalency calculation, if not, you have no image and then your results is not relevant for photography. This correct approach will show that there can never be true equivalency between formats and that whatever equivalency you choose will be a subjective decision that will (in real life) change from image to image. This also provide the best reason, apart from differences in image quality, to choose a format over the other.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 08-05-2013, 07:03 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By Pål Jensen
Replies: 427
Views: 51,881
People rarely buy what they need but what they want; thats were pragmatism comes in. I've shot lots low light work but came to the conclusion that ultrafast lenses weren't that useful as you need a some DOF in most images anyway - something that also help for sharpnes and focus accuracy. Todays sensor technology have made fast lenses far less needed. Not that long ago 200ISO were max for publishable results. 200ISO F:4 (with an 1.8 lens) below....

Forum: Pentax Full Frame 08-05-2013, 06:35 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By Pål Jensen
Replies: 427
Views: 51,881
But how much dynamic range and/or resolution do you need? At a certain point the law of diminishing returns set in.
As for fast lenses; most photographers go through that phase (I've been there with 50/1.2, 85/1.4, 135/1.8 and 300/2.8) and then move on and take a more pragmatic view of lenses.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 08-01-2013, 05:47 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By Pål Jensen
Replies: 427
Views: 51,881
Most of this are myths. You do not get better AF accuracy with FF; larger formats demand tighter AF precision (Smaller formats use shorter focal lenghts for the same angle of view. Shorter lenses are less critical for focusing. A very small format need no focus at all; fixed focus. Incidentally, shorter focal lenghts display shorter focus throws making them faster to focus).

You get one stop less DOF at the same aperture with FF (or one stop slower shutterspeed at the same DOF. Incidentally, you do not need to use the same aperture when comparing formats) in most cases hardly visible (just try the DOF preview on your camera). Less DOF do not necessarily give more "pop" - it is dependend on subject, subject/background distance, distance to subject, the character of the background, the lens distortion characteristics and aperture etc. You may find that having the background delineated to some extent give more pop than simply having it washed out beyond recognition.
Also note that most thin DOF images posted here and elswhere will never be considered for publication anywhere because the subject isn't entirely in focus. Ie they don't meet the mandatory technical standards. And/or they would have been improved upon stopping down.

You get exactly the same DOF control with APS as with FF. It is just transposed wholesale (what you gain in one end you loose in tne other) one stop toward thinner DOF for FF. Ie if you want thinner DOF than APS can acheive wide open, FF is the choice (although the effect is usually slight). However, if you want more DOF, and most importantly, more DOF at the same exposure (which is the case most of the time judging from the photos people actually take), APS has the advantage. Remember also that the degree of out of focusness is a subjective thing and never absolute whereas having thing in focus is not (subjective that is; within reason). If you compare lenses with the same angle of view and the same DOF widen open for APS vs FF, that some people insist on for some strange reasons (why should lenses have the same DOF wide open? why not the same DOF stopped down? Or the same shutterspeed wide open at the same ISO? Or the same close focusing distance. or all of the above to be truly equivalent -impossible!), then APS have in fact more DOF control as it has one more stop to choose from (in reality as lenses usually have the same minimum aperture) and the fact that it focus closer than the FF lens (for the same angle of view).
DOF means depth of field. Depth. Controlling it does not means as little depth as possible. It means being able to set a range of DOF; the DOF you want being thin or wide.
Another point is that most fast lenses are bought due to the fact that you can shoot at faster shuterspeeds in low light. Thats why they are called fast. However, theres no logic that says that people that shoot in low light wants or demand thin DOF! That is something that comes into play due to the laws of optics; rather unfotunate laws! In fact, the thin DOF is more often than not a problem. You can use it creatively but it is a highly artificial visual statement that don't mix well with our perception of reality. This explains why you never see a painting with paper thin DOF!

The advantage with FF is better image quality (that is if it is not generation behind the APS sensor you compare it with. By image quality I mean both resolution, noise and dynamic range if anyone is in doubt) and bigger optical viewfinder. And of course the subjective things like preferences for the format particulars; many are used to the 135mm film format and prefer to work with it. The rest are red herrings.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 07-31-2013, 05:39 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By Pål Jensen
Replies: 427
Views: 51,881
The MF look is mostly due to finer tonal gradations. Almost every single Pentax 67 shot, if not every shot, in Pentax long runnning Photo Annual book series is shot at F:22.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 07-31-2013, 05:33 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By Pål Jensen
Replies: 427
Views: 51,881
99,9999% (I'm not even exagregating) of all published images (or images worth publishing) do not display DOF thinner than what can be acheived with APS. Of those about 99% will not suffer in any meaningful way with one stop more DOF (often hardly visible).
You do not get more control over DOF with larger formats just transposing the DOF scale one stop towards thinner DOF with FF vs APS. This means that you have to shoot at one stop slower shutterspeed for FF at the same DOF; a minus in most peoples book. In addition of course, most images display significant levels of DOF.
DOF is not an issue to make general statements regarding formats that are so close to each other as APS and FF.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 05-28-2013, 04:12 PM  
why is a full frame Pentax such a holy grail?
Posted By Pål Jensen
Replies: 427
Views: 51,881
It IS whichcraft as lenses for different formats never (or extremely rarely) are truly equivalent and theres no reason why they should or even that it should be desireable. I'm mean, you might choose a format over another because they are not equivalent. Using DOF wide open and magnification at infinity as the ONLY factors is silly and intellectual cheating. Also using characteristics from one format as benchmark, simultaneously disregard the non- equivalent characteristic of the choosen reference format when using another formats characteristics as benchmark, is to choose the parametres that fit your argument and disregard the rest. Ie many of the lenses claimed to be equivalent are not because of different maximum DOF, different DOF ranges, different maximum magnification, different close focusing distances and different focus throw. Clearly such lenses are not equivalent in any meaning of the word.
Besides, very few buy lenses from absolute DOF wide open. Thats why some lenses are called fast and not narrow (from being able to shoot at faster shutter speeds at lower light levels)....

I have no problems with that some want FF for whatever reasons. Like using the FF lenses like intended, bigger viewfinder or whatever. But the equivalency principle isn't invented by anyone remotely a photrographer; thats for sure.
Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 9 of 9

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:23 PM. | 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