Search results for 'sensor cleaning' - page 159
Why bother?
I think because a lot of photographers, self included, are old and spent years using mainly 35mm film cameras and their different focal length lenses. With the advent of digital, there were, and indeed are, so many different sensor sizes that in order to make sense of what one might see looking thro...
Posted by bwlchmawr on 28/06/2014 - 06:53
Why bother?
I think the reason is that we needed a frame of reference for what a lens would do, in the early days of digital photography. At this point cameras were compacts or bridge cameras and they all had different sensor sizes. This meant the focal lengths meant almost nothing to anybody, so the idea of "3...
Posted by johnriley on 28/06/2014 - 08:05
Why bother?
Well, the first thing I want to say, This time I am not trying to sell the advantages or disadvantages of the FF format. bwlchmawr wrote: I think because a lot of photographers, self included, are old and spent years using mainly 35mm film cameras and their different focal length lenses. With ...
Posted by Horst on 28/06/2014 - 08:18
Why bother?
I do find the 35 mm equivalents helpful, and particularly on the small sensor compact cameras, e.g. MX-1. (Off topic - the one I can't get used to is 'litres per 100 kilometres'. 'Miles per gallon' - now that's meaningful.) Cheers. Philip
Posted by MrB on 28/06/2014 - 09:44
Why bother?
That's right Philip, its a needed reference... A lot of low-end cameras still use the rather meaningless '8x / 12x zoom' designations, which only indicate a multiplication factor, but without any real start point! I suppose another question would be, does the 35mm reference only have meaning to the...
Posted by McGregNi on 28/06/2014 - 10:19
Why bother?
Ahoy! On one hand you're quite right, but there is one point that I'm sure a lot of APS-C users don't consider, and that is 'what you actually capture'. What I mean is this: Lets take a 47" TV and call it full frame. Now take a 32" TV and we'll call this APS-C. Put the 32" in front of the 4...
Posted by PIRATE on 28/06/2014 - 19:20
Why bother?
I do find the 35 mm equivalents helpful, and particularly on the small sensor compact cameras, e.g. MX-1. (Off topic - the one I can't get used to is 'litres per 100 kilometres'. 'Miles per gallon' - now that's meaningful.) Cheers. Philip I agree there. The lens sizes on compacts mean nothing...
Posted by Russ on 30/06/2014 - 11:17
Why bother?
Johnriley wrote The lenses I am talking about are of course the DA lenses. In a previous forum I was told, that the DA lenses are different to the FA F A etc lenses .In the DA lenses the light beams are different directed towards the sensor. More right angle directed to the Sensor. This ...
Posted by Horst on 02/07/2014 - 14:45
Why bother?
Well, John, after all this, why not compromise. A lens build purely for The APS-C sensor could be marked for example 50mm/75mm, or 70mm/105mm the you would really know whats going on. This could be done by all Manufacturers. just one needs to have the carriage of doing it. Regards, Horst
Posted by Horst on 02/07/2014 - 15:05
Why bother?
Well, John, after all this, why not compromise. A lens build purely for The APS-C sensor could be marked for example 50mm/75mm, or 70mm/105mm the you would really know whats going on. This could be done by all Manufacturers. just one needs to have the carriage of doing it. Regards, Horst S...
Posted by gwing on 03/07/2014 - 14:26
Why bother?
Now it would be helpful if manufacturers, as now, just gave the proper focal length for their lenses but on each camera body put a stamp saying '47 degrees at 50mm' for whatever they consider their standard length lens. That would help anyone picking up a camera with odd sensor sizes, especially if...
Posted by Russ on 03/07/2014 - 15:55
Why bother?
The point was that most Pentax users are quite happy with their "cropped" sensor cameras, I guess most of the other brand users are happy with their cropped sensor cameras too. My view is if you have a lens collection already based on APS-C sensors you'd probably be looking to upgrade more than ...
Posted by andy_bell on 17/07/2014 - 08:37
Why bother?
Getting back to the Leica argument, two photojournalists I know use both the Leica M9 and the Fuji X-Pro1. Both say that the APSC size Fuji blows the FF Leica out of the water. I'm hopeful that the FF notion will eventually go away as sensor technology develops. However it wouldn't surprise me at al...
Posted by gartmore on 17/07/2014 - 19:03
Why bother?
Am I being stupid here (quite possibly) but if Pentax releases a FF camera all that is needed for APS-C lenses (and I sure someone will make one) is a dedicated extension tube cum adaptor so that the APS-C image fills the FF sensor. Yes there will be some light loss but that isn't so important as m...
Posted by RussV on 18/07/2014 - 10:33
Why bother?
An adapter wouldn't need an extension tube, it would still use the K mount, so no adapter would be needed. The K mount is a full frame mount already. Lenses are made to cover an image circle of a particular size, so most existing lenses won't cover the full area of FF. Some will, depending on the...
Posted by johnriley on 18/07/2014 - 11:26
Why bother?
I would suspect any FF body would have a DA setting so APS-C lenses could be used as APS-C lenses are now, using part of any larger sensor. It would make sense, allowing some people to keep any special DA lenses they might value, or indeed might want to use on another aps-c body. Or if that's not im...
Posted by McGregNi on 18/07/2014 - 16:30
Why bother?
I've always thought it rather false thinking when I read this idea that aps-c is better for wildlife - this theory is based on the crop factor - ie you need a longer telephoto on FF to get the same sized subject from the same distance. But really it misses the point surely? - you're not increasing t...
Posted by andrewk on 19/07/2014 - 23:52
Why bother?
[b] you then crop it to the 16Mpl area and you have exactly the same image with the same quality as your APS-C camera. Not necessarily. Assuming that the AF point is the same size on each sensor then, it can be more accurately set on APS-C. So you might have the eye in focus with the crop and o...
Posted by Blythman on 20/07/2014 - 00:18
Why bother?
Now if you had a FF camera, It would see the same image but it has a 1.5 times greater angle and because it has to have about 43Mpixels One mate has a notPentax 5D MK1 which is 12.8 megapixels (and others have 5D MK2 or 6D - both around 20 mp) - so it doesn't work out quite like that. Practicall...
Posted by pschlute on 20/07/2014 - 00:47
Why bother?
Blythman wrote: Assuming that the AF point is the same size on each sensor then, it can be more accurately set on APS-C. So you might have the eye in focus with the crop and out of focus with the FF as on FF it covers a larger area of the animal Hello Alan. Focus is only 2 dimensional, forget d...
Posted by Horst on 20/07/2014 - 01:04
