|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-27-2014, 01:28 PM
|
| |
Regarding focal lengths past apsc 100mm (150mm FF eq.) I have to agree: I don't really see much use in an aperture faster than f2.8 (f4 FF eq.). The new mirrorless FF system shows that a 70-200 lens does not háve to be big and bulky, see the new Sony G FE 70-200 f4.
However, what I dó find lacking in the Pentax apsc lens offerings, is the apsc eq. of FF 28/2 and 35/2, where the subject isolation/blending at f2 (FF) is a sore miss when being limited to Pentax apsc.
Hence my belief that for apsc lenses like a 18/1.4 or 24/f1.4 are far more desireable than they are realistic for a Dslr apsc system like Pentax. Alas, only Fuji seems to be able to provide a true FF eq. apsc system.
Which leaves no other option for Ricoh to promote a compact Pentax FF Dslr, or see those like myself partly migrate to another system, which is very well as far as I am concerned, but is it what Pentax really wants?
Once switched, and investing in lenses and cameras of one of the other brands, it becomes less likely to return.
So let's not deny that the Pentax apsc system, good as it is, can not replace an FF system.
Chris
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-22-2014, 01:48 PM
|
| |
You are right, film had its limits, certainly at small format. I meant to say: film had a great latitude for keeping highlights. Blowing highlights has to me been a real downside to digital apsc,. The pentax k5 finally got to a point where that did not dominate digital shooting so noticeably. The Sony A7r is the best in this regard that I've had the pleasure to shoot with.
Chris
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-21-2014, 03:30 PM
|
| |
great shots Nicolas!
Chris
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-21-2014, 03:19 PM
|
| |
Well, you live in a very nice place then! I love these old buildings, provided they have not fallen to a ruin state.
I can go along with your observations about over-processed digital imaging and have the same disliking to it. If the colors, details and light are really there, images shouldn't need a lot of enhancements to get the right mood and look. The more you get to start off with (preserved shadow and highlight detail, color detail) the less work to get it right.
When discussing FF versus Apsc, often people start off in a routine like: " FF takes a good photographer to get any benefit from", or: "a good photographer doesn't need FF to take great images." All true maybe, but this to me is reasoning the wrong way round: a good FF camera helps to take away all kinds of (possible) stumble blocks like extensive PP'ing, and helps create more of the right concentration on learning about your lenses, about light, composition etc. Remember: in the film era, a FF camera was much more common and accessible next to compacts with fixed lenses. And film had a great latitude to capture colors and DR.
Just for fun another shot, with only very minimal PP'ing.
Chris
 |
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-20-2014, 02:19 PM
|
| |
To my experience so far with the Sony A7r, comparing to the (Pentax) Apsc family of the last three years, yes I do spend less time in the raw converter and much less in Photoshop trying to get it right. To begin with (and yes: this is with a quartet of quality Zeiss ZK lenses that I bought three years ago and used on Apsc all this time), the A7r files capture a large dynamic range. I know that per DxO the Sony A7r has the same 14.1 score on dynamic range that the Pentax K5 had, and of course the K5 could bring shadows back seemingly endlessly. Still there is a difference, the images seem to have a wider scope at default, and more often only need brightening up with the exposure tool (I use CO1), whereas the Apsc images need more fiddling around with shadow raising or highlight reconstruction and such, which tend to need all sorts corrections e.g. color wise. Although I could capture quite a large DR with the K5 at iso 80, there was always some sort of sense of compression at default, and colors not really evenly saturated, just needing a lot of work to get a pleasant and natural looking image.
I'm not saying that you can as well shoot the A7r in jpeg, but with a good raw converter it is relatively easy and definitely less time consuming to get balanced, pleasing images with all the tonal details and color nuances. Of course that adds to the satisfaction of shooting with the camera.
Chris
EDIT:
Here is an example with 100% crop and screenshot from the raw converter.
From the screenshot you can see that the whole histogram at default setting, other than a 0,8 ev exposure lifting, easily falls within the 0-255 scale, I can even move the black point as well as white point inwards a bit. This may seem no big deal, with the shot seemingly not containing a large DR, but I have shot many similar lighting situations with all three Pentax crop cameras, and in these circumstances the skies were always blown, or the black point could not be brought back into the 0-255 scale anymore, at least not with the normal exposure tool, needing all sorts of substantial shadow lifting. The sun is lighting up the clouds, and background skies like that are harder than the Sony A7r makes them look, especially with the Zeiss makro planar 50/2, with which this image was taken, a lens that easily blows skies. The great thing is that you can significantly underexpose, and totally bring the image back with a natural look with one slide of the exposure tool. The Sony A7r has this tendency to underexpose around 0,7ev by default, hence the +0,8 ev on this image. You can see from the 100% crop how much real detail is retained. The way in which this makes the image pleasing to me, is that shadows and light tones are all there in a natural way, a bit like my eyes would see them in the real situation.
---------- Post added 08-20-14 at 10:12 PM ----------
Nicolas, see my response to mecrox.
When I have the time, I will do a comparison. I use the Zeiss 28/2, 35/2, 50/2 and 85/1.4. These are the MF Zeiss lenses, on a voigtländer adapter.
These may seem exotic (price wise), but that's not really so: e.g. the 35/2 cost me 799,- euros new at a respectable camera store, the HD DA35/2.8 ltd goes for 729,- euros
Chris
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-20-2014, 06:49 AM
|
| |
I shoot the Pentax K3 (and before that the K5/K5IIs), and since a month or so also the Sony A7r, both with the same (Zeiss ZK) lenses. One of the first things that struck me, is how much color information there is in the Sony Raw files. On a non-technical level this translates (for me that is) into much more involving and life-like images, that also hold up superbly in Raw editing and other PP. I have gone through lots of hoops to get color out of Apsc digital that involved me like Film photography, DxO film pack, tonal and saturation masking in photoshop, colorspaces and what not. But it was only with the Sony A7r that the color that I would like is simply there. My experience with the (seemingly) bloated files (resolution wise) of the A7r, is that apart from benefits of cropping and printing big, the real advantage lies in how the enormous amount of tonal and color detail translates into images that are very pleasant to look at, and also allow for extensive editing without losing their overall appearance.
I still like Apsc as a wildlife and practical system, and the K3 is one fine camera, but even with the same lenses, the Sony A7r gets to where I truly enjoy the images.
Chris
|
