Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Showing results 1 to 25 of 300 Search: Liked Posts
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 04-21-2021, 04:14 AM  
Pentax K5iis
Posted By pepperberry farm
Replies: 21
Views: 740
yes - sturdy

yes - takes amazing shots (with clarity and micro-contrast)

yes - definitely a valid choice, even in 2021...
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 04-20-2021, 07:01 AM  
Pentax K5iis
Posted By Viking42
Replies: 21
Views: 740
Definitely! I have the K5ii (same camera, slightly different sensor...no AA filter in the K5iis), and I use it in the rain, snow, bitterly cold temps, and it takes a licking and keeps on ticking :). Coldest temps I used it in was this past winter at -32 deg. C for an hour, and had zero issues, not even a dead battery. Previous to that it was -25 C for about 2-1/2 hours...same result...it just works. Next weekend I was out in sleet and snow for a couple of hours and the camera got covered in it...not a hiccup. Fantastic cameras! And the buttons and dials are big enough that you can use it with thick gloves on.
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 04-19-2021, 11:29 PM  
Pentax K5iis
Posted By photogem
Replies: 21
Views: 740
Full agreement with pepperberry farm and the qualification of "pixie dust"! The K5IIs was the "cream of the crop" with this sensor.
And to me the best of all Pentaxbodies for ergonomics (and position of the buttons).
P-TTL is can be a bit fuzzy but as I hardly use flash so it might well be my inexperience there.
Lowlight ability is fantastic (a feature very important to me).


I think that only now the K3III could be the true successor but for a price.

I sold my K5IIs for the KP because I still had my K5II as backup. Last week I sold it because I found a K5IIs with a nonworking LCD for $ 90, repair was done within 40min and now it is back in my house.
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 03-30-2021, 07:03 PM  
K5 features missing in K5IIs.
Posted By Big Tim
Replies: 9
Views: 2,048
Many, such as myself, agree with you. Do not understand why they would cancel such a useful tool. My thoughts of getting a K5 II, IIS, or even a K3 have been put on hold.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 03-13-2021, 06:42 AM  
Japanese market share (unit sales)
Posted By btnapa
Replies: 37
Views: 1,850
I used to shoot weddings for a living with Canon cameras. I got to know a lot of wedding photographers. Almost all of us shot Canon with a few Nikon shooters. Last I checked three had switched to Fuji and one to Sony. And these guys were devout Canon and Nikon guys. I love my K1. It is by far the best FF camera I have ever shot with. It is "old tech" when you compare it to the Fuji and Sony's advanced technology. However, for a pure photographer, K1 is the camera. Short on tech but long on what matters which is image quality. Unfortunately, everyone has gone tech crazy and that is what is driving the market.
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals 03-12-2021, 02:27 PM  
Japanese market share (unit sales)
Posted By Kevin B123
Replies: 37
Views: 1,850
Canon and Nikon FF mirrorless sales combined exceed Sony's. About 2 years ago those sales were Sony's.

Worse, the E mount is open and Sigma and Tamron are taking lens sales.

Sony needed them in the beginning to fill out the line up and now it is working against them.

Sony played a short disruptive game for profit, now the camera makers have caught up with better ergonomics and interfaces.

Sony is Doomed, Doomed I say.

Give it 2 years.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-19-2021, 09:56 AM  
K3III Delayed... indefinitely
Posted By tibbitts
Replies: 509
Views: 32,547
Not Norm, but... having now had experience with both, for me it's a tradeoff between the nicer "feel" (ergonomics, solid build quality) and much longer battery life of the K-5 vs. the almost-better-in-every-respect image output from the K-70. The K-5 does seem to have better dynamic range at very low ISO, and that can be important for many subjects. In terms of reliability, you can sometimes fix your K-5 with gaffer tape (to hold your lens release button on), while if aperture block failure hits your K-70, the fix is more complicated (though some will say how trivial fixing that was for them.)

Ultimately lack of KAF4 support will doom the K-5 generation, but for me not immediately. At the moment I'm planning to still use mine for a while. Norm seems content to use his only KAF4 lens, the 55-300, at open aperture only (the only choice with a K-5) so KAF4 appears not to be a limitation for him.

It's important to also consider which K-5 you're using. The newer II models do have better AF in some respects compared to the original K-5. I'm less enthusiastic about the advantages of the filter-less IIs vs. the II: I'm not convinced you get your money's worth, because the pricing of the IIs often seems irrationally high. If resolution is that important, I believe going to 24mp will be a bigger advantage than merely deleting the AA filter on 16mp. Of course if you compare unsharpened results, dropping the AA filter has a considerable effect, but some of the benefit seems to go away when comparing post-sharpening results.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 02-17-2021, 06:59 PM  
K3III Delayed... indefinitely
Posted By mannyquinto
Replies: 509
Views: 32,547
OMG, with the longest lockdown record in SEA, I hope that it is not just the only reason for the delay. I believe Fuji has also been producing products in the Philippines and yet we do not hear any news of delays.

No wonder they could not release any pricing yet on the K3iii. I became a Pentaxian because of the these two factors that I evaluated when I was picking my 1st DSLR about more than a decade ago: colors and price. Of the two, if Ricoh is going for higher prices for future body releases then I guess they may loose more of their enthusiast market since a part of their existing customers were lured to their fold because of the bang-for-buck when you get into a Pentax gear.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-29-2010, 04:50 PM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Marc Sabatella
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
That's where I would disagree.
[/quote]

I guess it depends on which people you think are failing to pick up on this "crucial point". I thought this comment was directed at me. If you really mean, there is a point being missed by people who don't "get" equivalence at all, or by people who believe that equivalence somehow proves that there is in fact *no* benefit to FF (as is erroneously claimed in the title of this thread), or perhaps by someone else on this thread who otherwise is confused, then I'd certainly agree with you that a point has been missed.

To put it as clearly as I can: there is *no doubt whatsoever* that a shot at 135mm and f/2.8 on APS-C is "equivalent" to one at 200mm and f/4 on FF - meaning same DOF and noise for the same shutter speed. Nothing crucial is being "missed" by this statement. But leaping from this to saying there is no benefit to FF is indeed missing something.



I missed all that drama, sorry to say. Well, they crucified Jesus and shot JFK and MLK; sounds like James got off easy :-)

Anyhow, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of my closing a thread in which I have been an active participant - particularly after putting in what would otherwise become the last word. If another moderator wants to do so, that's fine. Or I can do it if we manage to go another few days without any further activity at some point. But of course, that still leaves the door open for someone to start a new thread on the same topic; it's not like closing the thread will end controversy, unfortunately.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-29-2010, 09:45 AM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Graystar
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
I agree.



That's where I would disagree.



You comments are, of course, correct. However, I would say that this thread was not created as a discussion on how to get the same image from different cameras. Remember the opening title...

"Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero"

That title strongly implies "test". And the point of my post is in agreement with your comment above...this is no test. I call it "rigged" in the sense that the outcome was already known...anyone who knows the concepts of equivalency could have told the opening poster, "of course there's no difference...that's physics, not sensor ability."




Yes, I agree, and I think it was Joseph James' strong sentiment on that point that caused him to ultimately get booted from DPReview.

In any case, I decided to make my post because I read through the posts and I didn't see anyone attempt to make known that the reason the noise is the same is that the shot noise is the same between the two cameras. So I was just trying to give further info as to why the images should be the same, despite the difference in sensor size.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-29-2010, 09:33 AM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By falconeye
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
You are right.

And this thread should close because new posts only add new confusion to the topic.

And while you are right, Marc, Graystar does have a point as well. Which he would have found treated if he would have cared to read through the thread ...

Like you said, Marc, equivalence is a mapping of one sensor size properties to another in such a way that the resulting images are independent of sensor size ("look the same").

This projects a set of all possible images for one sensor size onto the set of all possible images for another.

And for all images which have been mapped it turns out the the effect of sensor size is zero (including effects like noise or diffraction; and assuming perfect glass). Therefore, you are correct, Marc.


But as a matter of fact, too, the following is true: The set of all images for APS-C, when equivalence-mapped into the set of all images for FF, only spawns a subset within this set. There ARE images which have no equivalent images for APS-C (Because the sensor's total full well capacity could have been made larger and because there are no equivalent lenses for glass like 50mm/1.4).
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-29-2010, 09:15 AM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Marc Sabatella
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
Equivalence isn't a "test", and as such cannot possibly be "unfair" to any sensor. It's simply a physical law: a method for ascertaining what focal length and aperture you need on one camera in order to match shots between cameras in terms of FOV, DOF, and noise for a given shutter speed. As such, it is no more or less "fair" than the idea of the crop factor itself (which is just a subset of the idea of equivalence). That is, do we say it is "unfair" to a FF camera to observe that you need a 200mm lens to capture the same FOV as a 135mm lens o APS-C? No, it's just a simple fact - neither fair nor unfair. Similarly, saying you need to shoot that 135mm lens at f/2.8 on APS-C to capture the same amount of light you would have capture at f/4 with the 200mm lens on FF is neither fair nor unfair - it simply *is*.

There is nothing "missing", and there is no "curcial point" that anyone is failing "to pick up on". The whole *point* of equivalence is to determine what focal length nd aperture are necessary to make the total amount of light constant. Of course it is "rigged" - that's the purpose. We 8want* the shots to come out the same, so we "rig" the focal length and aperture to make it come out that way. That way, we know what focal length and aperture are needed on one system to compete with the capabilities of the other.

Arguing against the idea of equivalence is liking arguing against the idea of gravity. It's a simple statement about physical reality; it is a not a judgement call that is a matter of opinion.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-28-2010, 08:22 PM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Graystar
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
Ah...that's the mistake that everyone makes...but that's not the case. If your two cameras both have, for example, 12MP sensors, then for both sensors each pixel will have the same number of photons fall upon it...despite the fact that the pixel on the FF camera is larger.

If you calculate the luminance, there is indeed a difference because luminance is per area. However, you'll also find that the ratio of pixel size between the sensors is the same as the ratio of luminance. That is to say, if you were to shrink the large-sensor pixel to the size of the smaller sensor pixel, and adjusted the luminance to match, then the luminance of the two sensors is the same. So the same amount of light is falling on the large sensor as it is on the small sensor.

That's why, when the equivalent settings are calculate for a compact vs. a FF camera, the FF ends up with f-stops in the range of 16, and ISOs in the range of 3200...because the larger camera is being forced to do more with only a tiny amount of light.

Maybe if it falls off a cliff...maybe.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-28-2010, 06:31 PM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Graystar
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
I think I’ll throw in my $0.02… :D

I believe that Joseph James ended up being banned from DPReview forums due to his near evangelical promotion of the concept of equivalency (link to his work was provide earlier) and his forceful defense of it from detractors. It certainly is an idea that seems to pull the curtain back to reveal some sort of deep truth about sensor size that the manufactures are hiding from us. Personally, I question its value.

As has been discussed already, two images from two different cameras can be considered equivalent if they have the same perspective, framing, DOF, and shutter speed. When the images are examined, they’re found to have the same noise, hence, sensor size made no difference.

This deduction, however, is missing a crucial point. It’s like the 2012 doomsday alarmist that say there will be a planetary alignment that year. They’re right…it happens every year. That tidbit casts new light on the effects that the alignment is supposed to cause.

Such is the case with this concept of equivalence. What people don’t seem to pick up on is that both cameras capture exactly the same amount of light. This is critical because it means that both images have exactly the same shot noise. And if the shot noise is the same, the images will be the same. So it is essentially a rigged comparison…the camera with the larger sensor simply has no method for flexing its low-noise muscle. It is exactly the same as if you held a race between a Ferrari and a Yugo, but set a 20mph speed limit (yes, I know…the Ferrari might still win :P)

I always felt that the equivalence test was unfair to the large sensor, just as the speed limit is unfair to the Ferrari. And in the same way that you can’t really justify a speed limit in such a race, I don’t think there’s any justification for the impositions of equivalence. So what if my DOF is more shallow, or I changed my shutter speed a bit. I got a big sensor…so I can! (rhetorically speaking, of course…I don’t really have a big sensor :( )
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-23-2010, 12:28 PM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Marc Sabatella
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
Glad you posted your experience. Like I said, old myths die hard, but perhaps your post will help convince those who have heard and believed the myth but have no way of testing for themselves.

Actually, what would really be interesting is if you could sift through all the discussion on equivalence for the info on DOF, and see if you can reproduce the effect described: shooting the 18mm on APS-C should produce not just the same FOV and perspective as the 28 on FF, but also the same DOF *if* you shoot at one stop larger aperture on APS-C (eg, 18mm at f/4 on APS-C, 28mm at f/5.6 on FF). You'd have to set up a shot where it was reasonably easy to check this. Of course, the 28mm shot at f/5.6 would also require you to be one stop higher in ISO in order to get the same shutter speed.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-21-2010, 02:57 PM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Marc Sabatella
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
False. If you stand in the same spot and shoot 33mm on APS-C and 50mm on FF, you get *exactly* the same perspective. The notion that perspective has anything whatsoever to do with focal length is a myth that apparently will take a long time to die, but it is a myth nonetheless. Perspective is a function of position and position only. Changing FOV might cause you to want to change position, which is how the myth started ("oooh, this wide angle lens made me come in closer to my subject, and now it's distorted - must be the lens that it did it!" - no, it was the fact that you changed position to accomodate the change in FOV). But as long as you maintain the same position, you have the same perspective. So as long as you achieve the same FOV with two different lens/camera combos, they will have *exactly* the same perspective. Physics does not allow otherwise, I'm afraid, unless you install a black hole somewhere between you and your subject to bend the light. But here on earth, light travels in straight lines between your subject and your lens.

BTW, I could close this thread as Falk suggests, but might as well let this play out - I'd hate to be accused of closing it just to have the last word. And even then, I'm not sure closing it is warranted.

Oh, and Jewelltrail: "These go to eleven"!
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-21-2010, 06:41 AM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Wheatfield
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
Perspective is a condition of where the camera is, the lens has nothing to do with it.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 01-21-2010, 05:39 AM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Rondec
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
A lot depends on how many megapixel sensor is used. APS-C sensors crop off the edges which can be a good thing, but they also have amazing pixel density in the middle. A 15 megapixel full frame camera would likely be easier to design lenses for than a 25 megapixel one.

I forsee Pentax releasing a full frame camera when the time is right (basically when the sensor price is down enough that they can release the camera for below 2000 dollars). At the same time, they will release two new lenses -- a 28-70 f2.8 and a 80-200 f2.8 as well as a redone kit lens.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 10-15-2009, 12:06 PM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Photomy
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
He does not understand what f-stop ratio really means. It is a ratio of opening size diameter to FL of the particular lens. This keeps the light density (light ray flux?) the same for all f-stop numbers that are the same, regardless of format size, film, etc.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 10-09-2009, 11:45 AM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Marc Sabatella
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
Agreed. I don't doubt that you are seeing what what you seeing. I'm just saying whatever it is is specific to the cameras, lenses, and meter you happened to use for the test; it isn't an APS-C versus FF issue. Some camera expose brighter than others given the same settings - and in general, digital cameras might expose a bit more conservatively than film cameras to protect highlights (yes, even for the same settings). But it is just not the case that sensor size plays any role in this.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 10-08-2009, 07:13 PM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By 24X36NOW
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
Marc, believe me, I have long shared *exactly* the understanding you have, i.e., it shouldn't make a difference if I shoot a different format, any ISO/aperture/shutter speed combination should yield the same exposure. Experience, however, has challenged that understanding, and I'm just searching for a logical explanation. Since I have two different dSLRs that both do this, manufactured years apart and with completely different sensors, I have trouble believing that some "random calibration" issue is the culprit, and all the online testers seem to indicate accurate ISOs for the K10D, the camera I use most for digital at present. I can also assure you there is nothing wrong with my meter, as I get accurate exposures with slide film, which is very unforgiving and highlights any exposure errors. Someone opined similarly in a discussion elsewhere, and I kick myself for not bookmarking it at the time, since I've had trouble tracking it down again. I'll be sure to do more experimenting though.

Falconeye, I was indeed reading...and reading...and reading...and reading this discussion until my eyes were rolling like an old TV that lost its "vertical hold" control (probably dating myself there), and I understand the point being made completely. IF the exposure issue holds, it would negate the argument, but that doesn't mean I don't understand the point being discussed in this thread. Having said that, I'll add a little support to Kristoffen's comment, because the entire discussion amounts to a very long-winded strawman argument. Essentially, it begins with the assumption (not stated openly, but nonetheless) that the only/the primary/the main/the biggest reason that people want a FF dSLR is for the "noise advantage" being debated, when in point of fact there are many reasons people want FF dSLRs, many of which are not even image quality related, so this discussion hasn't accomplished much as the latest attempt to convince people that they should settle for APS-C when they want FF. Further, as has been pointed out, it also (in its contortions to produce a level of "equivalence" that makes a direct noise comparison "equitable") requires the use (in some instances, mainly when shooting at wide apertures) of non-existent lenses that will never be produced (because the cost/size/weight would make them unmarketable to the same people who indicate their lack of interest in FF is owed in no small part to how expensive/big/heavy they think the cameras/lenses are).
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 09-25-2009, 09:34 AM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Marc Sabatella
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
That's sensible, but you have to realize - not everyone cares about emulating the shallow DOF and wide angle capability of FF more than they care about low noise. The discussion is about the noise differences, and hence is relevant for people who care about that. If you're not among them, then this discussion is not for you. That doesn't make it stupid, though - plenty of people *do* care about noise, more than they care about shallow DOF.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 09-24-2009, 04:53 PM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By falconeye
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
No need to make a distinction between noise and DoF (this is what this thread was started for). You need a 20mm f/1.2 APS-C to match the FA31.

And I pointed out above that there are other reasons in favour of FF than noise. The lack of wide aperture wide angles is just one of them. So, you are right.

I have this lens and it is amazing. However, on film make sure not to have people in the edges (or to shoot portrait orientation) because otherwise, they will look reeeeeaaaally faaaaaaaaaaaat :)
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 09-24-2009, 12:58 PM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By kristoffon
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
I think this discussion is stupid.

For instance I have this lens, a 31mm f/1.8. It is a full-frame lens that's a wide angle. It also has a short DOF.

Is there an equivalent APS-C lens that will give me equivalent FOV (21mm) and DOF (f/1.2)? There is not.

Is there an equivalent APS-C lens that will give me equivalent FOV and light-gathering capability (21mm f/1.8)? There is not.

I don't really care about low noise. I'll get a Pentax FF camera when/if it comes out only so I can have my 31mm become a wide angle.

Low noise is not relevant AT ALL. If it matches the K20D that's enough for me.

NOBODY with a FF cam will stop it down to shorten the DOF of their 31mm f/1.8 camera. That makes the discussion EVEN MORE stupid.
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion 09-24-2009, 08:51 AM  
Low noise benefit of FF vs APS-C equals ... zero
Posted By Pentaxor
Replies: 240
Views: 43,334
the point is, this is more like a rat race. of course they need to improve the FF as well if they want to retain that edge over the APS-C dslrs. it's part of marketing. but as far as feature improvement is concerned, the APS-C dslrs are capable of it and isn't handicapped in any way in that department.
Search took 0.34 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 300

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:53 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