FF Pentax anyone?
Posted 26/10/2009 - 16:30
Link
A 400mm lens has the same DOF regardless of the format. Why would that change because of what you put behind it?
Best regards, John
Posted 26/10/2009 - 16:59
Link
I agree with the DOF statement as nothing physically changes on the lens.
I was meaning image from a 400 against a 600 supposing that the lens to same subject distance was the same.
Regards
I was meaning image from a 400 against a 600 supposing that the lens to same subject distance was the same.
Regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 26/10/2009 - 17:48
Link
In that case, the field of view of both lenses is the same, but a 400mm lens has more DOF than a 600mm one.
You get the same effect over different film formats. For a given field of view, such as a "standard lens" for example, larger formats have less DOF because they need longer lenses.
An extreme example is that 110 format needs a 24mm standard and 6x6cm needs a 75mm or 80mm standard.
This is why tiny format CCds in compact digital cameras have immense DOF and putting the background out of focus can be well nigh impossible.
You get the same effect over different film formats. For a given field of view, such as a "standard lens" for example, larger formats have less DOF because they need longer lenses.
An extreme example is that 110 format needs a 24mm standard and 6x6cm needs a 75mm or 80mm standard.
This is why tiny format CCds in compact digital cameras have immense DOF and putting the background out of focus can be well nigh impossible.
Best regards, John
Posted 26/10/2009 - 17:53
Link
Agreed John and hence the early digital point and shoots rarely had a aperture available below f/8.
I still use my Oly C3040 for most of my close up shots of vintage model diesel engines. Virtually bottomless DOF and use of Smart Media cards of course.
Regards
I still use my Oly C3040 for most of my close up shots of vintage model diesel engines. Virtually bottomless DOF and use of Smart Media cards of course.
Regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 28/10/2009 - 16:58
Link
K10D wrote:
It may well be that some new developments arrive, but that would mean yet more lenses surely?
If smaller and cheaper is enough reason now, what 110 format film system would you have or did use, over 35mm? I ask that question genuinely as I do not see any benefit in smaller than APS-C sensors. As per the link, Pentax don't agree either.
Regards
FF is nice. 645 is even more. But Pentax is a company that needs profit to survive and medium format is just a niche market with low profit capacity. FF holds definitely bigger market and profit capacity, APS-C far bigger, bridge even more bigger... More than that, technology is developing, what FF knew a few years ago, APS-C is capable of now, what APS-C is capable of now, bridge cameras will know in a few years time... The mass market goes toward more and more capable smaller size sensors and mass market means profit and surviving opportunity for Pentax.
Anvh wrote:
Why would someone want a APS-C?
Well because the camera is smaller and cheaper, that's more then enough reason for some.
I'm one of them and if I want more quality the 645D would be interesting, if the price is right.
As I said before, imo, I think that APS-C will be the starting point, FF will be semi-pro, pro level and studio work will be medium-larger format. Any reduction in size is there with Olympus and I dont see too many people jumping on board with them.Joe S wrote:
I admit I don't know much about the tech stuff, thus I never heard about pixel pitch before. But with my limited understanding it seems obvious that there is so much more room for improvements in FF while there are signs that APS-C is already getting close to peak performance. So what system performs better today is not really all important to me.
Think 5 years from know, at that time I think FF will be vastly superior. Pentax on the other hand would be struggling to keep people interested in APS-C by introducing features you either love or hate. We can lament this fact but market logic dictates that every manufacturer put a new top model to market at least every 2 years or so.
Not really though, new types of sensors are being tested so who knows. Also with technology we see everything getting smaller, digital cameras wouldn't be an exception I think.I admit I don't know much about the tech stuff, thus I never heard about pixel pitch before. But with my limited understanding it seems obvious that there is so much more room for improvements in FF while there are signs that APS-C is already getting close to peak performance. So what system performs better today is not really all important to me.
Think 5 years from know, at that time I think FF will be vastly superior. Pentax on the other hand would be struggling to keep people interested in APS-C by introducing features you either love or hate. We can lament this fact but market logic dictates that every manufacturer put a new top model to market at least every 2 years or so.
Why would someone want a APS-C?
Well because the camera is smaller and cheaper, that's more then enough reason for some.
I'm one of them and if I want more quality the 645D would be interesting, if the price is right.
It may well be that some new developments arrive, but that would mean yet more lenses surely?
If smaller and cheaper is enough reason now, what 110 format film system would you have or did use, over 35mm? I ask that question genuinely as I do not see any benefit in smaller than APS-C sensors. As per the link, Pentax don't agree either.
Regards
Posted 28/10/2009 - 18:06
Link
KZ wrote:
FF is nice. 645 is even more. But Pentax is a company that needs profit to survive and medium format is just a niche market with low profit capacity. FF holds definitely bigger market and profit capacity, APS-C far bigger, bridge even more bigger... More than that, technology is developing, what FF knew a few years ago, APS-C is capable of now, what APS-C is capable of now, bridge cameras will know in a few years time... The mass market goes toward more and more capable smaller size sensors and mass market means profit and surviving opportunity for Pentax.
By the looks of it, Pentax is trying to do with 645D what Sony did with the A700.FF is nice. 645 is even more. But Pentax is a company that needs profit to survive and medium format is just a niche market with low profit capacity. FF holds definitely bigger market and profit capacity, APS-C far bigger, bridge even more bigger... More than that, technology is developing, what FF knew a few years ago, APS-C is capable of now, what APS-C is capable of now, bridge cameras will know in a few years time... The mass market goes toward more and more capable smaller size sensors and mass market means profit and surviving opportunity for Pentax.
Simply offer the format at a lower price as the rest.
I don't know how successful Sony is with the a700 but Pentax might be able to bring medium format to a bigger group. Most probably studio photographers that just started, maybe even some wedding photographers or amateur fine art artists.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 28/10/2009 - 20:51
Link
Well, the big difference is that Sony is a profitable giant mass producer, who can invest in building up a market for its niche product. While Pentax is at the moment a small player (without a Sony like supporting mother) that just tries to reach break even. If Sony fails to build up a market for their niche product, not so painful for them.
KZ
KZ
Posted 28/10/2009 - 21:00
Link
But KZ you forget, Hoya the biggest glass maker in the world for lenses and Pentax have the designs for their 645 glasses.
Since Pentax is now under Hoya, 1+1=2 right?
I wished that Hoya would abuse Pentax name a bit, by that I mean use it to showcase how good they can make lenses. Maybe that way we can see the tide shifting for Pentax maybe.
Since Pentax is now under Hoya, 1+1=2 right?
I wished that Hoya would abuse Pentax name a bit, by that I mean use it to showcase how good they can make lenses. Maybe that way we can see the tide shifting for Pentax maybe.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Posted 28/10/2009 - 21:46
Link
Well, I did not forget, but at the moment it seems Hoya is thinking on to get rid of Pentax istead of investing in it or exploiting the marketing power of the Pentax name. Amyway, I hope you are right, we will see...
Posted 28/10/2009 - 21:49
Link
Sorry, it's a bit late. My spelling is worse than usual...
Posted 28/10/2009 - 22:03
Link
johnriley wrote:
I seem to recall that Sony was making a loss?
Yes, you are right, but they are so big and financially powerfull (despite present loss) that if they want, they will build up the third big photo brand of the world. Samsung would have the opportunity to do the same with Pentax, but they are hesitating unfortunately...
I seem to recall that Sony was making a loss?
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
6415 posts
17 years
The 600mm image stablised monster he whipped out of the boot of his car (from a very neat purpose built bag) was quite some beastie.
Magnification is of course different on both lenses regardless of sensor size.
Regards