All Forum Comments
Comment by artykris posted on PLEASE pentax: sell a pro-level digital SLR! at 30/08/2005 - 12:52
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0102/01021106pentaxdigitalslr.asp
PENTAX MZS-D.
It`s a prototype, the idea wasn`t continued, but isn`t that what we all dream about?
PENTAX MZS-D.
It`s a prototype, the idea wasn`t continued, but isn`t that what we all dream about?
Comment by artykris posted on PLEASE pentax: sell a pro-level digital SLR! at 30/08/2005 - 10:04
Matt - I wrote the previous post before reading last one of yours!
I think that now we`ve got rid of all "Circles Of Confusion"
- at least 10-12MP (currently my MINOLTAdualIII scanner gives me this resolution 3800x2600 = ~10MP, so MZSD cannot have less )
- 16-bit depth - making great tonal range in RAW (so it would be anyhow comparable to film);
I think that now we`ve got rid of all "Circles Of Confusion"
Quote:
Still, that said, I wouldn't mind a full frame DSLR. However, I reckon that a reasonably priced one is a way off yet. I wouldn't mind higher resolution, say 8 or 12 mega pixel, and 14 or 16-bit depth (rather than 12). An extra 2 bits would give more headroom for me, especially when working in low light and raking detail out of the
Yes, the future awaited MZSD will have to have:Still, that said, I wouldn't mind a full frame DSLR. However, I reckon that a reasonably priced one is a way off yet. I wouldn't mind higher resolution, say 8 or 12 mega pixel, and 14 or 16-bit depth (rather than 12). An extra 2 bits would give more headroom for me, especially when working in low light and raking detail out of the
- at least 10-12MP (currently my MINOLTAdualIII scanner gives me this resolution 3800x2600 = ~10MP, so MZSD cannot have less )
- 16-bit depth - making great tonal range in RAW (so it would be anyhow comparable to film);
Comment by artykris posted on PLEASE pentax: sell a pro-level digital SLR! at 29/07/2005 - 09:46
Matt - I agree with you, thou I think we`re talking about the same stuff from two different angles .
I still say that smaller sensor gives you more DOF.
So APS gives you more DOF than 35mm - but (that`s the important point which made our views different preserving the same perspective on the lens (FOV).
So it`s true, that 50mm lens used on APS wll have less DOF, but then - it won`t be the same perspective! it will be "75mm" lens then! And if you compare the DOF you get with 75mm on 35mm camera - it`s shallower on 35mm. That was my point from the beggining, maybe I didn`t make myself clear (english is not my native language), sorry for those Circles Of Confusion ) !
Regards,
---
http://artykris.republika.pl
I still say that smaller sensor gives you more DOF.
So APS gives you more DOF than 35mm - but (that`s the important point which made our views different preserving the same perspective on the lens (FOV).
So it`s true, that 50mm lens used on APS wll have less DOF, but then - it won`t be the same perspective! it will be "75mm" lens then! And if you compare the DOF you get with 75mm on 35mm camera - it`s shallower on 35mm. That was my point from the beggining, maybe I didn`t make myself clear (english is not my native language), sorry for those Circles Of Confusion ) !
Regards,
---
http://artykris.republika.pl
Comment by artykris posted on PLEASE pentax: sell a pro-level digital SLR! at 29/07/2005 - 09:37
I`ve just tried the link - http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Here`s what I`ve got :
50mm (actual FL) (for 135 film); f1.4; 3m to subject :
0,25m
50mm equivalent (on DSLR APS - 1,5x; real FL is 33mm!); f1.4; 3m :
0,58m
Hope this helps,
Cheers!
Here`s what I`ve got :
50mm (actual FL) (for 135 film); f1.4; 3m to subject :
0,25m
50mm equivalent (on DSLR APS - 1,5x; real FL is 33mm!); f1.4; 3m :
0,58m
Hope this helps,
Cheers!
Comment by artykris posted on PLEASE pentax: sell a pro-level digital SLR! at 28/07/2005 - 16:37
Yes, but it is shallower due to the fact, that the lens is no longer a 50mm (on 135 film) but 85mm (on DSLR APS format) !
Comparing 85/1.4 on 35mm film and 85/1.4 on DSLR APS format - the DOF is shallower on 35mm.
Generally DOF on APS is wider, it`s a fact connected with the sensor size.
The smaller sensor, the wider DOF you get.
Comparing 85/1.4 on 35mm film and 85/1.4 on DSLR APS format - the DOF is shallower on 35mm.
Generally DOF on APS is wider, it`s a fact connected with the sensor size.
The smaller sensor, the wider DOF you get.
Comment by artykris posted on PLEASE pentax: sell a pro-level digital SLR! at 28/07/2005 - 16:24
George Lazarette wrote:
I completely agree with George`s points.
However, I wanted to add a third downside, which is critical for me and currently keeps me waiting for full framed DSLR:
I`m talking here about a difference in DOF. You say, that I should be happy, cause my 50/1.4 becomes 85/1.4 and is ideal for portrait. That`s right, but the DOF characteristics of such a lens on APS DSLR is different than 35mm 85/1.4. It`s a lot wider on APS DSLR - therefore making it a bit less valuable for portrait, IMHO.
Concluding my view:
IMO, the prices of DSLRs will go down, as it is true with computer parts. Because those DSLR cameras a r e in fact small computers!
That`s why I`m also optimistic, and decided to wait for a MZS Digital, I believe I won`t be waiting longer than 1-1,5 years
Till then happily shooting with my Z1p ! )
It`s a great forum!
Cheers,
---
artykris
http://artykris.republika.pl
Quote:
"(...) First is the obvious point that your nice wide 24mm lens becomes a less wide 36mm (in angle of view terms). So you need to invest in a new wide-angle. (...)
But at the other end your bog-standard 200mm f4 is suddenly a 300mm f4. Good 300mm lenses cost a lot of money. And in between, your cheap 50mm is now a superb portrait lens at a fraction of the price people pay for fast 85mm lenses.
The second downside is that the smaller sensor size means that the picture has to be enlarged more, and this means that the lens has to be considerably sharper than it needs to be for 35mm.(...)
But the second upside is that because the sensor ignores the outer part of the image circle, lenses which are good at the centre but poor at the edges (which is most of them!) are suddenly transformed. You've cropped away the nasty bits. (...) "
Hello,"(...) First is the obvious point that your nice wide 24mm lens becomes a less wide 36mm (in angle of view terms). So you need to invest in a new wide-angle. (...)
But at the other end your bog-standard 200mm f4 is suddenly a 300mm f4. Good 300mm lenses cost a lot of money. And in between, your cheap 50mm is now a superb portrait lens at a fraction of the price people pay for fast 85mm lenses.
The second downside is that the smaller sensor size means that the picture has to be enlarged more, and this means that the lens has to be considerably sharper than it needs to be for 35mm.(...)
But the second upside is that because the sensor ignores the outer part of the image circle, lenses which are good at the centre but poor at the edges (which is most of them!) are suddenly transformed. You've cropped away the nasty bits. (...) "
I completely agree with George`s points.
However, I wanted to add a third downside, which is critical for me and currently keeps me waiting for full framed DSLR:
I`m talking here about a difference in DOF. You say, that I should be happy, cause my 50/1.4 becomes 85/1.4 and is ideal for portrait. That`s right, but the DOF characteristics of such a lens on APS DSLR is different than 35mm 85/1.4. It`s a lot wider on APS DSLR - therefore making it a bit less valuable for portrait, IMHO.
Concluding my view:
IMO, the prices of DSLRs will go down, as it is true with computer parts. Because those DSLR cameras a r e in fact small computers!
That`s why I`m also optimistic, and decided to wait for a MZS Digital, I believe I won`t be waiting longer than 1-1,5 years
Till then happily shooting with my Z1p ! )
It`s a great forum!
Cheers,
---
artykris
http://artykris.republika.pl
Comment by artykris posted on PLEASE pentax: sell a pro-level digital SLR! at 28/07/2005 - 14:03
Thanks,
And what do you think about the price (for the 20mm) - 500$ ?
I saw that 20/2.8 A version is actually more expensive!
It costs ~750$.
Why is ther such a huge difference in price?
And what do you think about the price (for the 20mm) - 500$ ?
I saw that 20/2.8 A version is actually more expensive!
It costs ~750$.
Why is ther such a huge difference in price?
Comment by artykris posted on any experience with PENTAX 20mm/f2.8FA, PENTAX 24mm/f2.0FA ? at 18/04/2005 - 15:20
Hi,
I`m just considering buying a wide angled autofocus lens for my Z1p.
It needs to be sharp and good for shooting architecture, no barrell distortion.
Has anyone had any working experience with these lens?
- PENTAX 20mm/f2.8FA (500$),
- PENTAX 24mm/f2.0FA (380$),
Are they worth the price? I`m willing to buy them in USA internet shop.
Thanks!
I`m just considering buying a wide angled autofocus lens for my Z1p.
It needs to be sharp and good for shooting architecture, no barrell distortion.
Has anyone had any working experience with these lens?
- PENTAX 20mm/f2.8FA (500$),
- PENTAX 24mm/f2.0FA (380$),
Are they worth the price? I`m willing to buy them in USA internet shop.
Thanks!
Comment by artykris posted on any experience with PENTAX 20mm/f2.8FA, PENTAX 24mm/f2.0FA ? at 18/04/2005 - 13:59
big thanks for your answers,
i think i`ll go for it
the rest of hunting that i have left is for FA135/2.8
and this is kind of a problem - because there is not much of them on the second hand market, and a new one costs ~290£ here in poland...
thx,
cheers,
---
aRti
i think i`ll go for it
the rest of hunting that i have left is for FA135/2.8
and this is kind of a problem - because there is not much of them on the second hand market, and a new one costs ~290£ here in poland...
thx,
cheers,
---
aRti
Comment by artykris posted on smc-m 20/f4 - is someone using it? I need some opinions. at 14/10/2004 - 08:36
so 6MP was a lot then.