When a Pentax Full Frame
Posted 26/04/2011 - 20:08
Link
Hi
Here a link to an article (unfortunately in italian) that shows with graphics the MTO measurament on a Nikon lens used on a FX (FF) and a DX (Aps-c).
To help you in the traslation ;
NITIDEZZA=Sharpness
ECCELLENTE=Excellent
MOLTO BUONO= very good
BUONO=Good
OTTIMO=Great
http://www.fotografia.it/Images/Articolo/208045_ArticoloContenuto_526641_Pdf.pdf
Ciao
alberto
Here a link to an article (unfortunately in italian) that shows with graphics the MTO measurament on a Nikon lens used on a FX (FF) and a DX (Aps-c).
To help you in the traslation ;
NITIDEZZA=Sharpness
ECCELLENTE=Excellent
MOLTO BUONO= very good
BUONO=Good
OTTIMO=Great
http://www.fotografia.it/Images/Articolo/208045_ArticoloContenuto_526641_Pdf.pdf
Ciao
alberto
Posted 26/04/2011 - 20:41 - Helpful Comment
Link
When I was using the *ist-D and Capture One the profiles were not that good. I bought a decent colour profile and my images became a quantum jump better
I suspect that a FF Nikon is going to have a professionally done profile - with care and attention - while the Pentax profiles could well be sub-optimal
I am currently getting lovely results from the K-7 with LR3. Upgraded last week to the K-5 and the dynamic range and lack of noise is utterly astonishing! Prints straight out of LR onto 18x12" at 402dpi are razor sharp. Alas, I don't have a FF Nikon to compare against, but even the K-7 compared favourably against the 5D Mk1 when I tried it. The K-5 blows it away as far as I'm concerned
Matt
I suspect that a FF Nikon is going to have a professionally done profile - with care and attention - while the Pentax profiles could well be sub-optimal
I am currently getting lovely results from the K-7 with LR3. Upgraded last week to the K-5 and the dynamic range and lack of noise is utterly astonishing! Prints straight out of LR onto 18x12" at 402dpi are razor sharp. Alas, I don't have a FF Nikon to compare against, but even the K-7 compared favourably against the 5D Mk1 when I tried it. The K-5 blows it away as far as I'm concerned
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 26/04/2011 - 20:58
Link
MattMatic wrote:
When I was using the *ist-D and Capture One the profiles were not that good. I bought a decent colour profile and my images became a quantum jump better
I suspect that a FF Nikon is going to have a professionally done profile - with care and attention - while the Pentax profiles could well be sub-optimal
I am currently getting lovely results from the K-7 with LR3. Upgraded last week to the K-5 and the dynamic range and lack of noise is utterly astonishing! Prints straight out of LR onto 18x12" at 402dpi are razor sharp. Alas, I don't have a FF Nikon to compare against, but even the K-7 compared favourably against the 5D Mk1 when I tried it. The K-5 blows it away as far as I'm concerned
Matt
Could be.... I do not know Nikon cameras and what I said is an assumption that in case of Pentax you could have similar results enlarging the K-5 sensor.
When I was using the *ist-D and Capture One the profiles were not that good. I bought a decent colour profile and my images became a quantum jump better
I suspect that a FF Nikon is going to have a professionally done profile - with care and attention - while the Pentax profiles could well be sub-optimal
I am currently getting lovely results from the K-7 with LR3. Upgraded last week to the K-5 and the dynamic range and lack of noise is utterly astonishing! Prints straight out of LR onto 18x12" at 402dpi are razor sharp. Alas, I don't have a FF Nikon to compare against, but even the K-7 compared favourably against the 5D Mk1 when I tried it. The K-5 blows it away as far as I'm concerned
Matt
Posted 26/04/2011 - 21:19
Link
MattMatic wrote:
When I was using the *ist-D and Capture One the profiles were not that good. I bought a decent colour profile and my images became a quantum jump better
I suspect that a FF Nikon is going to have a professionally done profile - with care and attention - while the Pentax profiles could well be sub-optimal
I am currently getting lovely results from the K-7 with LR3. Upgraded last week to the K-5 and the dynamic range and lack of noise is utterly astonishing! Prints straight out of LR onto 18x12" at 402dpi are razor sharp. Alas, I don't have a FF Nikon to compare against, but even the K-7 compared favourably against the 5D Mk1 when I tried it. The K-5 blows it away as far as I'm concerned
Matt
Hi Matt!!When I was using the *ist-D and Capture One the profiles were not that good. I bought a decent colour profile and my images became a quantum jump better
I suspect that a FF Nikon is going to have a professionally done profile - with care and attention - while the Pentax profiles could well be sub-optimal
I am currently getting lovely results from the K-7 with LR3. Upgraded last week to the K-5 and the dynamic range and lack of noise is utterly astonishing! Prints straight out of LR onto 18x12" at 402dpi are razor sharp. Alas, I don't have a FF Nikon to compare against, but even the K-7 compared favourably against the 5D Mk1 when I tried it. The K-5 blows it away as far as I'm concerned
Matt
been a while..
I just bought a kr and even that is impressive at high iso... truth is though, for most of my studio and magazin uses the k10 is still good..... I find it hard to fathom why some people believe the jump to ff is gonna make a huge difference in image quality over what is already out there.
yest the kr has some impressive features, video, high iso, speed, that make it a fine addition to our stable, but the studio lit shots from the k10 are just as impressive as ever... what more could one really ask for?
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 26/04/2011 - 21:32
Link
Hi Don
Never said Huge but ... better ... and "Is there anybody in here that can compare what I compared ?"
If so please go on with thos thread ... otherwise let's stop it.
It seems it last too long with few real points ... the last one of Matt (so thanks Matt).
So I put this thread on .... and now Bump .... Bump .... Bump.... is over.
I hope everybody will agree that :
1) The picture born in the mind of anyone of us and the camera/lenses are the instruments
2) We can take wonderful pictures with a toy camera and Horrible ones with the 645D
Never said Huge but ... better ... and "Is there anybody in here that can compare what I compared ?"
If so please go on with thos thread ... otherwise let's stop it.
It seems it last too long with few real points ... the last one of Matt (so thanks Matt).
So I put this thread on .... and now Bump .... Bump .... Bump.... is over.
I hope everybody will agree that :
1) The picture born in the mind of anyone of us and the camera/lenses are the instruments
2) We can take wonderful pictures with a toy camera and Horrible ones with the 645D
Posted 26/04/2011 - 21:37
Link
Hi Don
True - studio work with controlled lighting will show small incremental improvements. But, location work, theatre, available light work takes the K7 & K5 into another league. Just did a shoot on Saturday in full sun - massive dynamic range. The 14-bit RAW of the K5 is unbelievable!! Just wish I could show you the difference with a live Lightroom session
Also have a couple of large prints with the K5 & DA*50-135. I am well pleased
Back on topic - be aware that modern lenses designed for digital will often be significantly better than older film lenses One of the big problems with older lenses and digital sensors is poor collimation. The depth of the pixel sites requires light to enter at right angles - otherwise you get vignetting and other effects. With the exception of a few choice lenses it is probably better to reconsider some of the newer glass. Perhaps borrow or rent?
Matt
True - studio work with controlled lighting will show small incremental improvements. But, location work, theatre, available light work takes the K7 & K5 into another league. Just did a shoot on Saturday in full sun - massive dynamic range. The 14-bit RAW of the K5 is unbelievable!! Just wish I could show you the difference with a live Lightroom session
Also have a couple of large prints with the K5 & DA*50-135. I am well pleased
Back on topic - be aware that modern lenses designed for digital will often be significantly better than older film lenses One of the big problems with older lenses and digital sensors is poor collimation. The depth of the pixel sites requires light to enter at right angles - otherwise you get vignetting and other effects. With the exception of a few choice lenses it is probably better to reconsider some of the newer glass. Perhaps borrow or rent?
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 26/04/2011 - 21:44
Link
MattMatic wrote:
Hi Don
True - studio work with controlled lighting will show small incremental improvements. But, location work, theatre, available light work takes the K7 & K5 into another league. Just did a shoot on Saturday in full sun - massive dynamic range. The 14-bit RAW of the K5 is unbelievable!! Just wish I could show you the difference with a live Lightroom session
Also have a couple of large prints with the K5 & DA*50-135. I am well pleased
Back on topic - be aware that modern lenses designed for digital will often be significantly better than older film lenses One of the big problems with older lenses and digital sensors is poor collimation. The depth of the pixel sites requires light to enter at right angles - otherwise you get vignetting and other effects. With the exception of a few choice lenses it is probably better to reconsider some of the newer glass. Perhaps borrow or rent?
Matt
I believe you, Gerri is in love with the kr, it is right up her alley! I definitely see a k5 in her future!Hi Don
True - studio work with controlled lighting will show small incremental improvements. But, location work, theatre, available light work takes the K7 & K5 into another league. Just did a shoot on Saturday in full sun - massive dynamic range. The 14-bit RAW of the K5 is unbelievable!! Just wish I could show you the difference with a live Lightroom session
Also have a couple of large prints with the K5 & DA*50-135. I am well pleased
Back on topic - be aware that modern lenses designed for digital will often be significantly better than older film lenses One of the big problems with older lenses and digital sensors is poor collimation. The depth of the pixel sites requires light to enter at right angles - otherwise you get vignetting and other effects. With the exception of a few choice lenses it is probably better to reconsider some of the newer glass. Perhaps borrow or rent?
Matt
as for lenses, the 50 1.4, I have both the M and fa version, they both perform very well...
I use the m for video as the manual focus ring has much nicer control and feel to it... as for image quality, I've not seen any difference..
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 26/04/2011 - 21:51
Link
Don: the lens comment wasn't directed at you
The 50/1.4 fall into the "few choice lenses" Good point about manual focus and video work
The 50/1.4 fall into the "few choice lenses" Good point about manual focus and video work
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 26/04/2011 - 22:01
Link
MattMatic wrote:
Don: the lens comment wasn't directed at you
The 50/1.4 fall into the "few choice lenses" Good point about manual focus and video work
I wasn't intending to contradict you, I agree with you, just offering up one lens I can easily compare old and new with....
Don: the lens comment wasn't directed at you
The 50/1.4 fall into the "few choice lenses" Good point about manual focus and video work
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 27/04/2011 - 18:51
Link
"Yes ... It is a dangerous route , but:
1) The range of Pentax lenses is wider than Sony/Minolta simply because with Pentax you can use all the lenses since at least K mount.
2) Even Pentax and Nikon could use Zeiss Lenses ... here the list:
Planar T* 1,4/50 ZK
circa 500 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2,8/25 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2/35 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Planar T* 1,4/85 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZK
1.300 euro (pił Iva)"
....I am afraid all of that is totally academic and of no interest at all to the accountants at Pentax; unfortunately all these are manual focus lenses and as such are only of interest to a minority of users, which will be nowhere near enough numbers to make a Pentax full frame a viable financial prospect.
Pentax are a business, which many of this forum seem to forget and a business needs to make profits, not make very expensive products to satisfy a minority of users.
1) The range of Pentax lenses is wider than Sony/Minolta simply because with Pentax you can use all the lenses since at least K mount.
2) Even Pentax and Nikon could use Zeiss Lenses ... here the list:
Planar T* 1,4/50 ZK
circa 500 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2,8/25 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2/35 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Planar T* 1,4/85 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZK
1.300 euro (pił Iva)"
....I am afraid all of that is totally academic and of no interest at all to the accountants at Pentax; unfortunately all these are manual focus lenses and as such are only of interest to a minority of users, which will be nowhere near enough numbers to make a Pentax full frame a viable financial prospect.
Pentax are a business, which many of this forum seem to forget and a business needs to make profits, not make very expensive products to satisfy a minority of users.
Posted 27/04/2011 - 20:06
Link
bretbysteve wrote:
"Yes ... It is a dangerous route , but:
1) The range of Pentax lenses is wider than Sony/Minolta simply because with Pentax you can use all the lenses since at least K mount.
2) Even Pentax and Nikon could use Zeiss Lenses ... here the list:
Planar T* 1,4/50 ZK
circa 500 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2,8/25 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2/35 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Planar T* 1,4/85 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZK
1.300 euro (pił Iva)"
....I am afraid all of that is totally academic and of no interest at all to the accountants at Pentax; unfortunately all these are manual focus lenses and as such are only of interest to a minority of users, which will be nowhere near enough numbers to make a Pentax full frame a viable financial prospect.
Pentax are a business, which many of this forum seem to forget and a business needs to make profits, not make very expensive products to satisfy a minority of users.
Hi Matt"Yes ... It is a dangerous route , but:
1) The range of Pentax lenses is wider than Sony/Minolta simply because with Pentax you can use all the lenses since at least K mount.
2) Even Pentax and Nikon could use Zeiss Lenses ... here the list:
Planar T* 1,4/50 ZK
circa 500 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2,8/25 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2/35 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Planar T* 1,4/85 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZK
1.300 euro (pił Iva)"
....I am afraid all of that is totally academic and of no interest at all to the accountants at Pentax; unfortunately all these are manual focus lenses and as such are only of interest to a minority of users, which will be nowhere near enough numbers to make a Pentax full frame a viable financial prospect.
Pentax are a business, which many of this forum seem to forget and a business needs to make profits, not make very expensive products to satisfy a minority of users.
The mine was a simple answear to a previous question.
In any case the strategy of Pentax is a matter of Hoya not mine.
Let's change the question.
Would you buy a Pentax FF with 20Mp and some other improvements necessary to work with for 2000 Euros ?
I would and I explained the reason why previously. And belive me it is not for accademic reason. But practical.
Ciao
Posted 27/04/2011 - 20:08
Link
MattMatic wrote:
Don: the lens comment wasn't directed at you
The 50/1.4 fall into the "few choice lenses" Good point about manual focus and video work
It's also no problem with the longer focal lengths since the angle it needs to create isn't that great it's the wide angle lenses that are the problem.Don: the lens comment wasn't directed at you
The 50/1.4 fall into the "few choice lenses" Good point about manual focus and video work
That's one reason why Pentax is first going to devellop new wide angle lenses for the 645D and then the longer lenses.
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 27/04/2011 - 20:08
Link
cintelli67 wrote:
The mine was a simple answear to a previous question.
In any case the strategy of Pentax is a matter of Hoya not mine.
Let's change the question.
Would you buy a Pentax FF with 20Mp and some other improvements necessary to work with for 2000 Euros ?
I would and I explained the reason why previously. And belive me it is not for accademic reason. But practical.
Ciao
the previous was for Bret not Matt
bretbysteve wrote:
"Yes ... It is a dangerous route , but:
1) The range of Pentax lenses is wider than Sony/Minolta simply because with Pentax you can use all the lenses since at least K mount.
2) Even Pentax and Nikon could use Zeiss Lenses ... here the list:
Planar T* 1,4/50 ZK
circa 500 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2,8/25 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2/35 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Planar T* 1,4/85 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZK
1.300 euro (pił Iva)"
....I am afraid all of that is totally academic and of no interest at all to the accountants at Pentax; unfortunately all these are manual focus lenses and as such are only of interest to a minority of users, which will be nowhere near enough numbers to make a Pentax full frame a viable financial prospect.
Pentax are a business, which many of this forum seem to forget and a business needs to make profits, not make very expensive products to satisfy a minority of users.
Hi Matt"Yes ... It is a dangerous route , but:
1) The range of Pentax lenses is wider than Sony/Minolta simply because with Pentax you can use all the lenses since at least K mount.
2) Even Pentax and Nikon could use Zeiss Lenses ... here the list:
Planar T* 1,4/50 ZK
circa 500 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2,8/25 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Distagon T* 2/35 ZK
670 euro (pił Iva)
Planar T* 1,4/85 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/50 ZK
880 euro (pił Iva)
Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZK
1.300 euro (pił Iva)"
....I am afraid all of that is totally academic and of no interest at all to the accountants at Pentax; unfortunately all these are manual focus lenses and as such are only of interest to a minority of users, which will be nowhere near enough numbers to make a Pentax full frame a viable financial prospect.
Pentax are a business, which many of this forum seem to forget and a business needs to make profits, not make very expensive products to satisfy a minority of users.
The mine was a simple answear to a previous question.
In any case the strategy of Pentax is a matter of Hoya not mine.
Let's change the question.
Would you buy a Pentax FF with 20Mp and some other improvements necessary to work with for 2000 Euros ?
I would and I explained the reason why previously. And belive me it is not for accademic reason. But practical.
Ciao
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
82 posts
17 years
Italy
They've compared the 3 cameras using the Sony APS-C sensor in this weeks AP (Thanks to the supermarket for letting me read it )Surprisingly (for AP)they rated the Pentax better than the Nikon and Sony for picture quality especially at high ISO
Almost makes up for the horrible write up they gave regarding Jessops taking Pentax back on board after they allegedly dumped them
I simply was wandering if having a FF I could improve my images (especially when the customer is asking for Poster Printing).
I am intended to buy the 645D but the price is to high and what the small fashion company I work with are going to pay , let me think more than once prior putting my hand in the billfold.