Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Showing results 1 to 25 of 300 Search:
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 10-10-2014, 06:49 PM  
Pentax dslr: apsc costs more than one stop (relative to full frame)
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 239
Views: 15,286
You're knocking down a Strawman - equivalence is NOT ABOUT EXPOSURE.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:58 PM ----------



Good so far, getting back to topic.



D'oh! Fell on your face again. No "internal adjustment" is necessary to account for difference in total light, the difference in sensor size is all that's needed to explain the difference. Ignore the "exposure" arguments - they are nothing but a red herring. There is no difference in light intensity hitting each sensor at a given f-stop of a given lens, but there IS a difference in total light gathered, because there is less area gathering the light on the smaller sensor vs. the larger sensor. It's as simple as that.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 10:07 PM ----------



Yup you could be wrong, and as a matter of fact...



No, you don't "suck in" less light. BUT you do capture less of it when you use a smaller sensor.



No, no, NO!! It has nothing to do with the goddamn pixels! It is the SIZE of the imaging area - that's the difference maker, period! With equivalent sensor tech, the advantage of the bigger sensor never "disappears," so get over it.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 10:11 PM ----------



NO - f2.8 transmits the same intensity of light with any focal length, NOT the same AMOUNT of light. THAT depends on how much image capturing AREA that light intensity is projected on. Bigger sensor = more light.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 10:23 PM ----------



If there is anything "pointless," it's your entire post. You've argued against a long list of things that nobody discussing "equivalence" ever asserted to begin with.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 10:31 PM ----------



No, it's just a counter to the "f2.8 = f2.8 = f2.8" misinformation that comes out of the same mouths as "200mm = 300mm."

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 10:39 PM ----------



You mean what you say in the rest of your post?! :lol:



Nobody argued that it "transmits less light." Nobody argued the the f-stop "changed," either.



Intensity yes, total light captured, no.



And with the change of FOV comes a change of DOF, which is exactly why you ALSO multiply the f-stop by the crop factor - to determine the relative DOF the same way you multiplied the focal length to get the relative FOV.



It doesn't change to focal length, either, yet you managed to see the need for THAT "change."
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 10-10-2014, 06:41 PM  
Pentax dslr: apsc costs more than one stop (relative to full frame)
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 239
Views: 15,286
No, no, no, Markus, you've let the idiots drag you down to their level. The simple answer is the right one. There is no "compensation" in camera regarding ISO values. And there doesn't need to be. They are arguing about "exposure," which is NOT the same thing as total light gathered. The total light gathered is simply varying with the size of the sensor, that's it. It takes nothing more to explain it.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:42 PM ----------



Still arguing exposure, NOT the same thing as total light gathered.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 10-10-2014, 05:51 PM  
Pentax dslr: apsc costs more than one stop (relative to full frame)
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 239
Views: 15,286
Actually no, for light gathering purposes, a 70-200 f2.8 acts like a 105-300 f4.5. For exposure purposes, it acts like a 105-300 f2.8, but then there is the additional noise due to less area of the sensor. It would take a 70-200 f1.8 to "act like" a 105-300 f2.8 on APS-C for "light gathering" purposes.



APS-C has essentially one advantage - it's cheaper and lighter when you are prepared to accept the compromises.



It may be important, it may not be - it depends on the photo. Having the flexibility is better than not.



Yup, and they have much more range.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:01 PM ----------



If you want to talk about brainwashing, talk about the "70-200 f2.8 = 105-300 f2.8" crowd that "convert" one aspect of a lens' application while conveniently ignoring the other. If the video is not valid, then why does the 200 f5.6 FF shot look like the 100 f2.8 MFT shot?! Even when plainly demonstrated, you argue that the result is "lies." LOL

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:04 PM ----------



Nope, they have equal exposure, not equal light gathering capability (reflected as more noise on the smaller format at the same f-stop).

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:07 PM ----------



You get better image quality, unless you can get 150% of the linear resolution out of the lens used on the APS-C camera, as compared with the lens used on the FF camera.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:17 PM ----------



Right so far...



D'oh! This is where people always fall on their faces - when they start making it about the stupid pixels. The larger sensor doesn't always have more photosites, and it does not matter if it has more, the same number, or less. It has more than twice the surface area, and therefore captures more than twice the light at the same aperture. It therefore has more than twice as much "signal" to offset against its "noise."



100% crop means nothing. It is the size of the image area, not the stupid pixels, that account for the difference!



D'oh! Once again, wrong. It does absorb more light, over twice as much, because it's more than twice as large.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:24 PM ----------



The exposure isn't what we're talking about - we're talking about the total light captured. Are you seriously going to argue that if you take that D800 shot and trim it down to less than half its size that you haven't got less total light in the remainder than you had in the whole?!

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:28 PM ----------



Of course they don't. We're NOT talking about exposure - we're talking about total light captured, which is going to be more than twice as much on a sensor more than twice as big. I knew this discussion was going off the deep end as soon as the "pixels on the brain" arguments started.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 09:35 PM ----------



Yes, total light will be less, noise will be higher, and DOF will NOT be the same, if you take that cropped image and enlarge it to the same size as the FF image, it will appear to have less DOF, just as a "native" APS-C sensor shot would at the same focal length as that taken on a FF camera (which means narrower AOV than the FF shot if taken from the same distance). The reason Sunny 16 doesn't care about the size of your film or sensor is that Sunny 16 is an exposure (light intensity) measure, NOT a "total light collected" measure. So you aren't making any point.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 10-10-2014, 05:04 PM  
Pentax dslr: apsc costs more than one stop (relative to full frame)
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 239
Views: 15,286
It's relevant to those comparing equipment in different formats.



Yup, but just remember that when people start telling you that it "becomes a 75mm f2.0 lens on APS-C," because THAT is the misinformation that the video addresses. The equivalent focal length (angle of view) brings with it an equivalent f-stop (DOF/bokeh). You can't get one without the other.



The notion that they should tell you one half of the equation while concealing the other is intelligent? I think not - it is deceptive, which again is exactly the misinformation the video addresses.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:09 PM ----------



The light intensity would be that of f2.8, but the DOF/bokeh would vary with the sensor format, so you're talking about a different issue. You have "proved" nothing.

Equivalence isn't about "converting" a focal length or an aperture, it is about settings that provide similar images on different formats, period.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:11 PM ----------



Nope, focal length and aperture do not change. AOV and DOF/bokeh do change, however, and that is what equivalence is about - settings that provide similar images on different formats.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:22 PM ----------



What they don't seem to know is that shooting at 100 f2.8 on FF is like shooting at 150 f4.5 on APS-C, NOT 150 f2.8 on APS-C, in terms of the similarity of the images.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:24 PM ----------



Most people? Surveyed the world, have you?

More DOF is NOT better when you want to isolate your subject from a busy or ugly or distracting background. More choices beat less choices.

---------- Post added 10-10-2014 at 08:39 PM ----------



Only nobody insisted any such thing. Only that when comparing different formats, you do so in a way that makes the images similar, as opposed to comparing apples vs. oranges.



The properties of the smaller formats are not ignored, rather compared in a meaningful way as opposed to a meaningless way.



Only nobody said any such thing. All the video discussed was the need to apply "equivalent" settings in each format to make as similar as possible images, when comparing formats. The "lenses claimed to be equivalent" in terms of settings for the three formats were, and it was demonstrated to be so.



Wow, so I guess all that talk you do about how more DOF is better means the larger format is better, eh?! LOL



In reality you lose *nothing* with FF compared to APS-C, since the increase in ISO (assuming same shutter speed) merely makes the noise about the same, it doesn't make it worse. And overall IQ will still be better, because you'll need 150% of the linear resolution from the lens in order to keep pace with FF (and you're not getting it).



Nobody is "defining" aperture, just calculating the settings for different formats that create similar looking images.



Nobody claimed thin DOF to be the "Holy Grail." Nobody insists that thin DOF is the sole purpose of high speed in a lens either. You make one "Strawman" argument after another. The video counters the prevailing misinformation that AOV "equivalence" should be applied but DOF/bookeh "equivalence" should be disregarded, when comparing different formats.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 09-17-2014, 10:42 AM  
What Should Pentax Do?
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 1,095
Views: 86,073
Kid? Why? While "37" might be over the top for a camera body (as opposed to a specialist lens), that ad personifies what Pentax should be striving to be again, as opposed to the bottom feeding also-ran it has sadly become in the last few decades, mostly by its own hand. It's long overdue for Pentax to "Be Pentax - Again." There, I just coined a great slogan for their comeback campaign. They should print it in big black letters and hang it in their offices. Now they just need the products, starting with a FF DSLR. No more excuses, no more "planning," no more "developing," no more stringing along what's left of the Pentax user base along. JFDI.

For the record, I own that lens (the "A" version). But these days, I shoot Nikon F-Mount equipment, thanks to Pentax limiting its K-Mount aspirations to "less-than-half-frame."
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 01-02-2014, 09:07 PM  
Interview with Chief Sales & Marketing Officer / Ricoh Imaging Japan
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 464
Views: 46,849
I think Sony's choice of relatively small maximum aperture lenses is a cynical attempt to perpetrate the myth that "mirrorless" cameras hold a huge advantage in size/weight. The 70-200 f4 isn't all that much smaller (or lighter) than a more typical FF 70-200 f2.8, and there's not that many outside of the mirrorless fanatic base that can't see that a "mirrorless FF" means "thin body with big lens," which in turn means an awkward, front-heavy package that is poor in terms of handling.



I don't know if I'd describe the group you're talking about as the "gearhead crowd," since that's probably a bit bigger than what you're describing, which is what I'd call the "mirrorless fanatics" or "mirrorless cheerleaders" or "mirrorless fanboys." My favorite description of mirrorless cameras is that they are "A solution looking for a problem." Maybe since they are so strident about their view that mirrorless is "the future" into which all cameras will be assimilated, I should call this bunch the "Mirrorless Nazis." :lol:



I think what you're saying makes sense. Mirrorless Nazis love to wax eloquent about the "technology" of mirrorless cameras, but their tired analogies of film vs. digital (typically) simply don't ring true. A mirrorless camera is not a better tool than an DSLR, and in fact is in significant ways a worse tool by far. THAT is why mirrorless won't be "taking over," unless it's a push from camera manufacturers (as in they decide to eliminate other choices for photographers for reasons that have nothing to do with what photographers prefer and everything to do with cost cutting and simplification of production). Mirrorless isn't a "better mousetrap," the way digital is compared with film. It's that simple. It doesn't solve any problem a DSLR presents, and introduces new ones. Maybe the A7/A7r, instead of being the beginning of increased market penetration for mirrorless, will be the camera that shows a lot of photographers just how poor a tool for photography mirrorless cameras are compared with a DSLR, and reaffirms the DSLR as the best tool for photography.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 01-02-2014, 08:45 PM  
Interview with Chief Sales & Marketing Officer / Ricoh Imaging Japan
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 464
Views: 46,849
The 80-400 is a 5:1 zoom ratio lens, and thus introduces significant compromises as compared with the ultra-conservative 200-400 at a mere 2:1 zoom ratio. Anything beyond 3:1, which is the ideal balance between range and optical quality, as a "rule of thumb," is going to suffer in performance (distortion most typically). The 60-250 is just over 4:1, still a wider range than ideal but more conservative than the 80-400.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 10-07-2013, 05:53 PM  
Poll: Would you buy a Pentax Full Frame DSLR? extended poll
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 113
Views: 12,971
At this point, I already DID buy one. Since Pentax STILL hasn't gotten off their rear end and come out with one, the one I bought is a Nikon. Still have my Pentax mount glass, so you never know, maybe I'd become a dual system shooter. Or maybe not.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 09-04-2013, 12:47 PM  
New Camera/s by Christmas
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 997
Views: 141,828
The Nikon D600's low light performance is not as good as your Pentax K30. It is better than your Pentax K30. The fact that you think otherwise tells me you're comparing 100% screen views of each camera. Make some large prints of equal size from both cameras and your mistaken belief will be no more.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 09-04-2013, 12:02 PM  
New Camera/s by Christmas
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 997
Views: 141,828
LMAO! :lol::lol::lol:
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 05-12-2013, 09:29 AM  
Pentax Lens Price Hike - Here we go again!
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 412
Views: 40,495
LOL - Now Pentax seems to be working hard to turn off the last bastion of fervent supporters - the Cheapskates. :lol:
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 05-12-2013, 09:12 AM  
New Pentax cameras 2013
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 1,305
Views: 200,289
An APS-C viewfinder the same size as a FF viewfinder would require "magnification" on the order of about 200% (the figure would be higher but for the reduced magnification of existing FF viewfinders). The engineering inclined around here (Falconeye, care to chime in?) opine that such a viewfinder would make the camera as expensive as a FF camera. Ready to pay the same price for a less-than-half-size format?

There's no free lunch. You want the big viewfinder, you buy the cameras with the big sensor.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 05:57 PM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
It is idle fear; Canon still has the 7D, which hasn't been stripped of content. One model being moved downmarket does not prevent you from buying a model that has the features you want. Camera makers will be happy to continue to make expensive cameras with cheap sensors for the shrinking market of those foolish enough to pay more for less viewfinder and image quality.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 05:41 PM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
Bingo!
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 05:30 PM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
It was killed because Pentax realized that it wasn't going to sell at the required price point, given the cost of the sensor back then. It was going to be a $6,000 camera, and at the time it was a good move not to bring it to market. Now that they can bring a quality FF dSLR to market at less than half that price with extremely high quality, there is no reason not to other than an unwillingness to leave their comfort zone - and refusal to leave that comfort zone is killing Pentax.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 05:11 PM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
APS-C has only been the sales winner due to price. That is the only reason for its existence and that reason is rapidly becoming a non-factor. As more FF cameras come to market at more affordable price points, the reasons for APS-C continue to evaporate. There is next to nothing in the way of FF to APS-C "converts" as compared with the other way round. FF is an upgrade path, unless you like tiny viewfinders and reduced image quality.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 05:00 PM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
Based on what? Japanese market stats?! If so, meaningless - if not, you need to provide a link to your source, since that sounds like utter BS.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 04:53 PM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
Clearly, but this seems to be the lesson they never learn, unfortunately.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 01:43 PM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
You're assuming that Pentax's share of FF vs. APS-C will be the same as the overall market, which is pure speculation. In point of fact, Pentax's heyday was in the manual focus era, so a FF dSLR (with a FF viewfinder, not the garbage APS-C viewfinders Pentax digital shooters are saddled with now) would be more appealing to the potential Pentax user base (i.e., becuase much of the glass that will work on it is manual focus). Pentax's autofocus to date has been sub-par as well, so another reason for bigger viewfinders (more usable for manual focus) to be appealing for Pentax shooters.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 10:43 AM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
The notion that a Pentax FF would generate "such low volumes" is pure speculation, and has no basis. Since Pentax's heyday was in the manual focus era, a FF dSLR would be highly valuable in K-mount, and would probably rival the ever shrinking sales of their latest APS-C offerings.



Sony doesn't have the aforementioned manual focus backward compatibility, and hence has a much smaller "legacy" fan base much of which had already switched over to Nikon and Canon before Sony got its dSLR product line established. Then, they made the bone-headed move of going with the "all Pellicle, all the time" line up that turns off more photographers than it turns on. Their early FF offerings were poor performers (ISO-wise), and that didn't help them gain any traction. I'm sure Pentax can manage to avoid these missteps, and today's sensors won't leave Pentax's FF offering lacking from a performance standpoint.



If this is true, the exactl same thing can be said about APS-C - might as well fold up the tents then! "Playing not to lose" is usually a guarantee that you won't win - just look at the last three decades of Pentax's history for a confirmation of the result of continuing to "bottom feed" in the marketplace!
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 10:29 AM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
Pentax's bone-headed "APS-C only" strategy has lost them legions of customers relative to the handful of "new" customers gained during the same period, and continuing that trend by continuing that strategy will not bring success, but failure.

My opinion only, of course, but it is backed up by viewing the results of decades of camera market "bottom feeding" by Pentax since the dawn of autocfocus.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 10:24 AM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
Seriously?! Nikon and Canon have the exact same "particularly hard grip" on the APS-C dSLR market. You might as well tell Pentax to fold up their tents! There is nothing "special" about APS-C that makes it easier for Pentax to compete in that market space.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 04-11-2013, 10:18 AM  
An interview with Pentax Executive Vice President Jim Malcolm
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 308
Views: 25,447
Yeah - and they all shoot Nikon or Canon LMAO. Clearly you haven't spent much time listening to the Pentax Faithful who wear out their shoulders patting themselves on the back for waiting until the price of every new body that comes out has dropped by nearly half before they pull the trigger. :lol:
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 02-06-2013, 05:59 PM  
How to push the Pentax Full-Frame Idea and get that FF out faster...
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 1,493
Views: 157,364
The "old designs" have been used on dSLRs of a smaller format, which places MORE demand on lens quality than FF, for years now. They hold up quite well, and will hold up even better on a FF dSLR than on an APS-C dSLR.



It wasn't as widespread to do the equivalent of "pixel peeping" in film days, but there's nothing wrong with older Pentax lenses, as can be seen by the images taken with APS-C dSLRs - the "lenses won't be good enough" stories are FUD designed to convince you of the supposed "need" for new lenses, but it is for the most part nonsense.

Having said all of that, Pentax didn't have too many high end autofocus lenses, and the ones they did have may not be the best choices; for example, the 28-70 f 2.8 should be updated to a 24-70 f 2.8, and the 80-200 f 2.8 should be updated to a 70-200 f 2.8, since 28/70 really isn't wide enough for the short end of a "standard" or telephoto zoom (respectively) compared with contemporary competing glass, and leaves a gap (though small, still annoying) in the focal length range when using both lenses. It would also be nice if the 250-600 f 5.6 was a 200-600 f 5.6, which would expand the zoom ratio to the ideal maximum of 3:1 and make it "stack" nicely on top of the 70-200.
Forum: Pentax Full Frame 09-26-2012, 05:29 PM  
My interpretation of the full-frame rumors and interview responses...
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 204
Views: 20,663
For the __th time, lenses will not need a bigger image circle to cover shake reduction. Sony has IBIS on FF cameras for years.

MmmK?!
Search took 0.02 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 300

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:37 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