K-3 ?
Posted 28/07/2013 - 16:46
Link
Stuey wrote:
Heres' a chance to make myself look stupid - possibly but the whole full frame argument and limited depth of field seems to be counter productive to me for landscapes given the apsc extended depth of field at a given apeture
I have read (I think) that the medium format lenses/system apetures are in fact larger than 35mm for the same f number which helps in terms of diffraction when stopping down for depth of field etc but with apsc we can use the 35mm lenses anyway of course we can use medium format ones with an adapter but I am yet to see someone do this possibly by lack of looking for it or maybe it's just too expensive for most people
Perhaps a full frame camera may benefit by the use of a medium format lens for this 'diffraction' issue 'maybe' by virtue of the difference in the lens design as much as the size of the apeture - maybe or is this just another stupid thought that I should not have released into the public domain
And if so may a Pentax ff model and some older medium/large format glass be of siginificant use
Cheers
Stu
DOF for a given aperture and focal length is the same regardless of sensor size.
Heres' a chance to make myself look stupid - possibly but the whole full frame argument and limited depth of field seems to be counter productive to me for landscapes given the apsc extended depth of field at a given apeture
I have read (I think) that the medium format lenses/system apetures are in fact larger than 35mm for the same f number which helps in terms of diffraction when stopping down for depth of field etc but with apsc we can use the 35mm lenses anyway of course we can use medium format ones with an adapter but I am yet to see someone do this possibly by lack of looking for it or maybe it's just too expensive for most people
Perhaps a full frame camera may benefit by the use of a medium format lens for this 'diffraction' issue 'maybe' by virtue of the difference in the lens design as much as the size of the apeture - maybe or is this just another stupid thought that I should not have released into the public domain
And if so may a Pentax ff model and some older medium/large format glass be of siginificant use
Cheers
Stu
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 28/07/2013 - 16:50
Link
johnriley wrote:
.
Other maker's FF cameras are by no means trouble free, nor are their lenses. The 645 mechanism and lenses are very well tried and have proven reliable.
Are you saying the 645a and it's lenses are 100% trouble free ?.
Other maker's FF cameras are by no means trouble free, nor are their lenses. The 645 mechanism and lenses are very well tried and have proven reliable.
I would certainly agree that other maker's FF cameras wouldn't be 100% trouble free, nothing is, but then thousands of well respect professional photographers use Other maker's FF cameras with great success the world over, just as they do with pentax equipment.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 28/07/2013 - 17:13
Link
What I'm saying, without starting to get into details that aren't really PU relevant, is that other forums dedicated to other makes are full of plenty of problems, some much worse than anything we've experienced from Pentax. For example, a complete recall of a new lens, oil in shutter mechanisms, autofocus problems.....
However, the 67 and 645 systems seem relatively trouble free, as do Hasselblad.
In other words, don't expect the grass to be greener.
However, the 67 and 645 systems seem relatively trouble free, as do Hasselblad.
In other words, don't expect the grass to be greener.
Best regards, John
Posted 28/07/2013 - 17:57
Link
Quote:
DOF for a given aperture and focal length is the same regardless of sensor size.
To expand on that so poor Stuey doesn't get confused:DOF for a given aperture and focal length is the same regardless of sensor size.
Smeggy is quite correct, the DoF in relation to a lenses focal length doesn't change, what does make the difference is that to fill the frame with the same scene on an APSc sensor you have to use a wider focal length, obviously the wider the focal length the greater the DoF.
Personally I'm not bothered about FF, I'm not that good a photographer that I can visualise throwing backgrounds out of focus and I also benefit from the extra reach of APSc for wildlife.
Posted 28/07/2013 - 18:08
Link
fatspider wrote:
Smeggy is quite correct, the DoF in relation to a lenses focal length doesn't change, what does make the difference is that to fill the frame with the same scene on an APSc sensor you have to use a wider focal length, obviously the wider the focal length the greater the DoF.
Personally I'm not bothered about FF, I'm not that good a photographer that I can visualise throwing backgrounds out of focus and I also benefit from the extra reach of APSc for wildlife.
Exactly where I'm at, I'm currently liking the grass here...
Quote:
DOF for a given aperture and focal length is the same regardless of sensor size.
To expand on that so poor Stuey doesn't get confused:DOF for a given aperture and focal length is the same regardless of sensor size.
Smeggy is quite correct, the DoF in relation to a lenses focal length doesn't change, what does make the difference is that to fill the frame with the same scene on an APSc sensor you have to use a wider focal length, obviously the wider the focal length the greater the DoF.
Personally I'm not bothered about FF, I'm not that good a photographer that I can visualise throwing backgrounds out of focus and I also benefit from the extra reach of APSc for wildlife.
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 28/07/2013 - 18:13
Link
simonkit wrote:
I agree with most of your comments Jules, there's no doubt that some people get carried away with the promotional material/hype and end up with a camera that's beyond their needs. In fact I think people forget to read the spec of a camera before buying it, from what I've read about the technical details of a certain very high megapixel FF camera it's a landscape photographers camera moreso than anything else and if I were looking for a "general use" FF it wouldn't even be on my list..too low FPS, not the best noise handling, too large image files for bulk processing..I'm sure there's other negatives too.
It does seem that the consensus is that a very high FF sensor does produce a more detailed image, I think there's not really any debate on that point, whether the owner uses the output from such a camera to see any benefit of this is the deciding factor and my guess would be that most don't, I think this is where crop sensor cameras are a better option.
Knowing my usage I'm sure that it's the best choice available for me at the moment. A key issue is that glass suitability for it is pretty much well known so risks are relatively small, the problem I see, and the reason I won't be buying one, is that by the time the same amount of knowledge is known about a Pentax FF we're probably talking 12 months in the future and it's just too long to wait, this all along has been my only frustration with owning a pentax, as a manufacturer they are always last to turn up at the party!!
Simon
Unless you try it Simon, you'll never really know, so you must, the D800 is a beast and no mistake! I can fully understand about the waiting, there is still no definate plan fom Pentx/Ricoh or whatever they are called this week. There is only so much hanging on you can do, if you have the need and finances then you owe it to yourself to try it out, it may be your panacea but it was not mine.I agree with most of your comments Jules, there's no doubt that some people get carried away with the promotional material/hype and end up with a camera that's beyond their needs. In fact I think people forget to read the spec of a camera before buying it, from what I've read about the technical details of a certain very high megapixel FF camera it's a landscape photographers camera moreso than anything else and if I were looking for a "general use" FF it wouldn't even be on my list..too low FPS, not the best noise handling, too large image files for bulk processing..I'm sure there's other negatives too.
It does seem that the consensus is that a very high FF sensor does produce a more detailed image, I think there's not really any debate on that point, whether the owner uses the output from such a camera to see any benefit of this is the deciding factor and my guess would be that most don't, I think this is where crop sensor cameras are a better option.
Knowing my usage I'm sure that it's the best choice available for me at the moment. A key issue is that glass suitability for it is pretty much well known so risks are relatively small, the problem I see, and the reason I won't be buying one, is that by the time the same amount of knowledge is known about a Pentax FF we're probably talking 12 months in the future and it's just too long to wait, this all along has been my only frustration with owning a pentax, as a manufacturer they are always last to turn up at the party!!
Simon
You also could argue that given Pentax's finances they've never even been invited to the party until now...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 28/07/2013 - 18:56
Link
Where is this mythical Pentax K3 everyone seems to be talking about?
I see no evidence anywhere that Pentax are working on a full frame camera and no mention from Pentax/Richo of a 'K3' or any other new DSLR.
I see no evidence anywhere that Pentax are working on a full frame camera and no mention from Pentax/Richo of a 'K3' or any other new DSLR.
Regards,
Michael
Michael
Posted 28/07/2013 - 19:18
Link
It's a rumour Michael, it's what powers the web, without them it would all come crashing to a halt
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 28/07/2013 - 19:57
Link
johnriley wrote:
What I'm saying, without starting to get into details that aren't really PU relevant, is that other forums dedicated to other makes are full of plenty of problems, some much worse than anything we've experienced from Pentax. For example, a complete recall of a new lens, oil in shutter mechanisms, autofocus problems.....
However, the 67 and 645 systems seem relatively trouble free, as do Hasselblad.
In other words, don't expect the grass to be greener.
Agreed on that point.
What I'm saying, without starting to get into details that aren't really PU relevant, is that other forums dedicated to other makes are full of plenty of problems, some much worse than anything we've experienced from Pentax. For example, a complete recall of a new lens, oil in shutter mechanisms, autofocus problems.....
However, the 67 and 645 systems seem relatively trouble free, as do Hasselblad.
In other words, don't expect the grass to be greener.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 28/07/2013 - 22:07
Link
I see this more clearly now by way of explanation above and now that I have bothered to read up on the issue of full frame and depth of field
Still seems bizarre to me then if you need a shallow depth of field for example it seems that a full frame camera with a 50mm lens at f8 will give roughly the equivalent dof as an apsc camera with a 33mm lens at f5.3 (info sourced from here link) then surely buying a wider angle lens for your apsc camera could be a more viable option than changing to full frame for some uses
I do not doubt that there are advantages of full frame as a format I just don't seem to be able to reconcile them with the use I need whereas a pro such as Simon is more likely to see the benefit but maybe not as much as some would suggest (some probably should be aimed more at the marketing peeps than anyone else:wink
Perhaps the next Pentax jobbie could have the Sony 20mp apsc sensor rather than the 24mp one : or of course it may be a full frame one
Still seems bizarre to me then if you need a shallow depth of field for example it seems that a full frame camera with a 50mm lens at f8 will give roughly the equivalent dof as an apsc camera with a 33mm lens at f5.3 (info sourced from here link) then surely buying a wider angle lens for your apsc camera could be a more viable option than changing to full frame for some uses
I do not doubt that there are advantages of full frame as a format I just don't seem to be able to reconcile them with the use I need whereas a pro such as Simon is more likely to see the benefit but maybe not as much as some would suggest (some probably should be aimed more at the marketing peeps than anyone else:wink
Perhaps the next Pentax jobbie could have the Sony 20mp apsc sensor rather than the 24mp one : or of course it may be a full frame one
Posted 28/07/2013 - 22:26
Link
IMHO shallow depth of field is more useful for portrait photographers, that's not to say landscape photographers don't use it but if you look around the web you'll find the vast majority of landscape images aim for maximum depth.
I think the reason many landscape photographers have been attracted to the 35mp sensor FF mainly revolves around:
- the undoubted increase in image detail that can be captured, although to do this quality glass becomes near essential
- the excellent dynamic range of the sensor
- the ability to go ultra-wide
I also believe that because the manufacturer of this camera has a large range of lenses, and probably more importantly releases new lenses quite frequently, these factors have compounded to make the particular FF model rather popular.
Now I'm sure there's some hype involved too but when you look at the number of pro landscape photographers (which I'm not but thanks anyway Stuey) who have adopted it then it makes me inclined to think it has at least most of the qualities that are suggested.
I think the FF marketing hype is definitely moving up a gear but I also think that just as many people have FF cameras they really don't need there's an equal number around who have DSLRs that they don't need either...the salesman are doing a good job on us all
I think the reason many landscape photographers have been attracted to the 35mp sensor FF mainly revolves around:
- the undoubted increase in image detail that can be captured, although to do this quality glass becomes near essential
- the excellent dynamic range of the sensor
- the ability to go ultra-wide
I also believe that because the manufacturer of this camera has a large range of lenses, and probably more importantly releases new lenses quite frequently, these factors have compounded to make the particular FF model rather popular.
Now I'm sure there's some hype involved too but when you look at the number of pro landscape photographers (which I'm not but thanks anyway Stuey) who have adopted it then it makes me inclined to think it has at least most of the qualities that are suggested.
I think the FF marketing hype is definitely moving up a gear but I also think that just as many people have FF cameras they really don't need there's an equal number around who have DSLRs that they don't need either...the salesman are doing a good job on us all
My website http://www.landscapephotographyuk.com
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
My Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/landscapephotographyuk
Find me on Google+ link
Posted 28/07/2013 - 22:31
Link
Your not a pro Simon
Damn it now I have to find some legitimate sounding excuses why your landscapes (by a fellow amateur) kick the arse out of mine
I'm off to google 'legitimate sounding excuses to use rather than admitting your own failings'
Damn it now I have to find some legitimate sounding excuses why your landscapes (by a fellow amateur) kick the arse out of mine
I'm off to google 'legitimate sounding excuses to use rather than admitting your own failings'
Posted 28/07/2013 - 22:36
Link
The fact that there is discussion about who would benefit ('.. a pro such as Simon is more likely to see the benefit...') demonstrates that the game is much more complicated then in earlier times. I mean, when I started out I had a budget, consumer-grade Canon (eos 300).
But I could have been standing next to a Pro with a Eos 1V, so long as we had the same lens, film and exposure settings, our cameras would have taken identical pictures, with no quality difference despite £100s price difference!
It was the actual work, the conditions, intensity and pressure of the job that necessitated the extra features offered by the top models of the time for the professional. The actual quality of output was fundamentally not controlled solely by the body.
Now it is, so it opens up new questions about the two key aspects of a camera design that dictate its suitability for each category of photographer - 1) sensor output 2) control features, usability & ergonomics, configuration and versatility options.
But I could have been standing next to a Pro with a Eos 1V, so long as we had the same lens, film and exposure settings, our cameras would have taken identical pictures, with no quality difference despite £100s price difference!
It was the actual work, the conditions, intensity and pressure of the job that necessitated the extra features offered by the top models of the time for the professional. The actual quality of output was fundamentally not controlled solely by the body.
Now it is, so it opens up new questions about the two key aspects of a camera design that dictate its suitability for each category of photographer - 1) sensor output 2) control features, usability & ergonomics, configuration and versatility options.
My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article .... link
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II Transceiver
Posted 29/07/2013 - 04:31
Link
simonkit wrote:
IMHO shallow depth of field is more useful for portrait photographers, that's not to say landscape photographers don't use it but if you look around the web you'll find the vast majority of landscape images aim for maximum depth.
I think the reason many landscape photographers have been attracted to the 35mp sensor FF mainly revolves around:
- the undoubted increase in image detail that can be captured, although to do this quality glass becomes near essential
- the excellent dynamic range of the sensor
- the ability to go ultra-wide
I also believe that because the manufacturer of this camera has a large range of lenses, and probably more importantly releases new lenses quite frequently, these factors have compounded to make the particular FF model rather popular.
Now I'm sure there's some hype involved too but when you look at the number of pro landscape photographers (which I'm not but thanks anyway Stuey) who have adopted it then it makes me inclined to think it has at least most of the qualities that are suggested.
I think the FF marketing hype is definitely moving up a gear but I also think that just as many people have FF cameras they really don't need there's an equal number around who have DSLRs that they don't need either...the salesman are doing a good job on us all
Agree with all of that Simon, except for dynamic range, the D800 has no more than the K5, and the going wide, the Siggy 8-16 walks all over the 15mm Ltd Prime I had and the Pentax 12-24mm (BLASPHEMY!!!), and is as wide as it gets. There definately is a quantifiable difference, in all the other respects though, with the D800 at least. It has image quality in spades, you do need really good glass to squeeeze the last oodle out of it, Nikon 14-24, Sigma 35mm F1.4 Nikon 70-200mm F4, would maximise that quality. That will allow just a little more, print size at the Maximum DPI, because as I said before you just can't trust the clients not to stick their enquiring noses right on your prints, if you really are printing big, damn themIMHO shallow depth of field is more useful for portrait photographers, that's not to say landscape photographers don't use it but if you look around the web you'll find the vast majority of landscape images aim for maximum depth.
I think the reason many landscape photographers have been attracted to the 35mp sensor FF mainly revolves around:
- the undoubted increase in image detail that can be captured, although to do this quality glass becomes near essential
- the excellent dynamic range of the sensor
- the ability to go ultra-wide
I also believe that because the manufacturer of this camera has a large range of lenses, and probably more importantly releases new lenses quite frequently, these factors have compounded to make the particular FF model rather popular.
Now I'm sure there's some hype involved too but when you look at the number of pro landscape photographers (which I'm not but thanks anyway Stuey) who have adopted it then it makes me inclined to think it has at least most of the qualities that are suggested.
I think the FF marketing hype is definitely moving up a gear but I also think that just as many people have FF cameras they really don't need there's an equal number around who have DSLRs that they don't need either...the salesman are doing a good job on us all
P.S. Just make sure you test those last three left field focus points thoroughly.
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
24424 posts
24 years
Tyldesley,
Manchester
Other maker's FF cameras are by no means trouble free, nor are their lenses. The 645 mechanism and lenses are very well tried and have proven reliable.