All Forum Comments
Comment by Horst posted on Henri Cartier-Bresson at 09/10/2015 - 00:07
John, you are quite right.
Was I was thinking about where the early 35mm universal cassette type colour films. The cassette being a Kodak invention specially for the first Retinas . At least I think so
Regards, Horst
Was I was thinking about where the early 35mm universal cassette type colour films. The cassette being a Kodak invention specially for the first Retinas . At least I think so
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Henri Cartier-Bresson at 08/10/2015 - 21:42
Robl, you where lucky to be able to go to this exhibition. I envy you.
The old photographers like H C-B , Alfred Stieglitz etc and later Robert Cappa Created images which I can only dream about. I can not see myself ever to have the feel or instinct to photograph like they did.
All they're where B&W, but you don't even take note of it. It is just the way they where done.
It would not have mattered if they where in B&W or colour.
There are some extremely easy to look at black & white pictures. the same goes for colour.
Of course the early photographers in praxis only had B&W. colour was available as early as 1938.
The German Leica photographers bought and developed the films in the USA. They where shipped by Zeppelin to the USA to be processed and then returned the same way. But the quality and was low and the cost high. Also there was a lengthy delay from taking the picture to getting the final print.
Many of the great ones insisted of processing the negatives and print them self. They often had there own developer formulas which they kept secret.
By the way, this old masters never worried so much about stuff like edge sharpness and lines per mm,
but more about the motive. This made them famous.
I bought my first Spotmatic in 1970. I was so impressed by this camera which let me compose my pictures already on a screen before even taking it. before the Spotmatic I had a couple of Leicas, a IIIc and a M3.
However, the way the Spotmatic blew me away. I got so enthusiastic, the I bought a enlarger, developing set , bulk film loader and a variety of bulk films. All B&W. I liked colour, but it was to expensive and to complicated for me to process it .
In my enthusiasm, I joined the Melbourne Camera Club. This was the most prestigious camera club in the Melbourne area. at least, that's what the members said. A bunch of stuck up farts they where.
Anyway, I did my bit by enlarging my negatives to about 10 x 15 and brought them for show. No problems with that.
However one day the club invited , as I was told: a well known and expert local photographer to criticize
and comment on our exhibition of photographs. He was a little skinny runt with black hair and some white streeks in it. He wore a black and white herring bone suit. I don't think there was any colour in or on him at all. he also wore white gloves.
All prints where in B&W except mine. A while before I started with Kodacolor film and had the prints enlarged by Kodak to the same size as my B&W. It cost me an arm and a leg and I managed only to get a few done every now and then.
Well the expert moved around from picture to picture and gave his opinion. He criticized and gave praise to others. The various owners nodded in agreement and aah't and ooh't and looked at him in admiration. Right on the end he arrived at my print.
He looked at it. Then said, he would not bother to comment on the little colour print, because a.) there was no future in colour and b.) he just wasn't going to .
That's when the argument started. I asked him, If he was afraid of using colour or if he just didn't understand it? he then started ranting and raving and telling everybody, that he was a well known
entity in his field and anyhow he didn't come to be insulted. Especially by someone who had the audacity to photograph in colour. The management of the club the came to me and asked me to leave.
This was the end of my membership in the Melbourne camera club. I never joined any other camera club after this.
A while after this experience Colour developing and printing was becoming less expensive and from then on I did both, colour and B&W. I still have some framed B&W prints Hanging. They still look like new after about 45 years, The colour prints from this area faded when exposed to light.
Regards, Horst
The old photographers like H C-B , Alfred Stieglitz etc and later Robert Cappa Created images which I can only dream about. I can not see myself ever to have the feel or instinct to photograph like they did.
All they're where B&W, but you don't even take note of it. It is just the way they where done.
It would not have mattered if they where in B&W or colour.
There are some extremely easy to look at black & white pictures. the same goes for colour.
Of course the early photographers in praxis only had B&W. colour was available as early as 1938.
The German Leica photographers bought and developed the films in the USA. They where shipped by Zeppelin to the USA to be processed and then returned the same way. But the quality and was low and the cost high. Also there was a lengthy delay from taking the picture to getting the final print.
Many of the great ones insisted of processing the negatives and print them self. They often had there own developer formulas which they kept secret.
By the way, this old masters never worried so much about stuff like edge sharpness and lines per mm,
but more about the motive. This made them famous.
I bought my first Spotmatic in 1970. I was so impressed by this camera which let me compose my pictures already on a screen before even taking it. before the Spotmatic I had a couple of Leicas, a IIIc and a M3.
However, the way the Spotmatic blew me away. I got so enthusiastic, the I bought a enlarger, developing set , bulk film loader and a variety of bulk films. All B&W. I liked colour, but it was to expensive and to complicated for me to process it .
In my enthusiasm, I joined the Melbourne Camera Club. This was the most prestigious camera club in the Melbourne area. at least, that's what the members said. A bunch of stuck up farts they where.
Anyway, I did my bit by enlarging my negatives to about 10 x 15 and brought them for show. No problems with that.
However one day the club invited , as I was told: a well known and expert local photographer to criticize
and comment on our exhibition of photographs. He was a little skinny runt with black hair and some white streeks in it. He wore a black and white herring bone suit. I don't think there was any colour in or on him at all. he also wore white gloves.
All prints where in B&W except mine. A while before I started with Kodacolor film and had the prints enlarged by Kodak to the same size as my B&W. It cost me an arm and a leg and I managed only to get a few done every now and then.
Well the expert moved around from picture to picture and gave his opinion. He criticized and gave praise to others. The various owners nodded in agreement and aah't and ooh't and looked at him in admiration. Right on the end he arrived at my print.
He looked at it. Then said, he would not bother to comment on the little colour print, because a.) there was no future in colour and b.) he just wasn't going to .
That's when the argument started. I asked him, If he was afraid of using colour or if he just didn't understand it? he then started ranting and raving and telling everybody, that he was a well known
entity in his field and anyhow he didn't come to be insulted. Especially by someone who had the audacity to photograph in colour. The management of the club the came to me and asked me to leave.
This was the end of my membership in the Melbourne camera club. I never joined any other camera club after this.
A while after this experience Colour developing and printing was becoming less expensive and from then on I did both, colour and B&W. I still have some framed B&W prints Hanging. They still look like new after about 45 years, The colour prints from this area faded when exposed to light.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Henri Cartier-Bresson at 08/10/2015 - 14:06
Johnriley wrote:
You say, a fFF sensor has more pixels, but in real life it doesn't. This seems somewhat confusing.
You also say: " If both cameras, FF and crop sensor, had let's say 20 MP then clearly they both have the same pixel count" it seems that you compare an old FF camera with the latest APS-C.
I am sure, Pentax would not have a FF with 23Mpixels like the K3. It makes no sense technically and commercially. We can assume that the pixel count is higher in proportion to the area increase from APS-C to FF.
This the gives you the same pixel size for each format. So if you crop back the FF image to the APS-C
size, You are exactly in the same position as you where when you had only APS-C. The pixel count after cropping is now the same as your original APS-C. You just magnified part of the image to the APS-C size.
So there is no advantage in an APS-C sensor over full frame. However the FF has the advantage, that you can get a wider image and use it if you want to, but you can also crop it without loosing definition.
Of course for the wide angle user, the advantage is quite obvious.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
Where all this falls down is when we consider the number of pixels. Yes, a FF sensor will have more pixels when the camera position is the same and yes the image remains the same for all formats, but in real life the FF sensor does not have more pixels.
So taking the bike image, the bike fills the frame with the APS-C version. If both cameras, FF and crop sensor, had let's say 20 MP then clearly they both have the same pixel count and dimensions and produce the same size of print. The FF version has a wider view. Hence, for birding, a crop sensor gives more magnification. Hence there is an advantage for this type of photography.
It's very easy to over-think these things.
I do disagree with your explanation.Where all this falls down is when we consider the number of pixels. Yes, a FF sensor will have more pixels when the camera position is the same and yes the image remains the same for all formats, but in real life the FF sensor does not have more pixels.
So taking the bike image, the bike fills the frame with the APS-C version. If both cameras, FF and crop sensor, had let's say 20 MP then clearly they both have the same pixel count and dimensions and produce the same size of print. The FF version has a wider view. Hence, for birding, a crop sensor gives more magnification. Hence there is an advantage for this type of photography.
It's very easy to over-think these things.
You say, a fFF sensor has more pixels, but in real life it doesn't. This seems somewhat confusing.
You also say: " If both cameras, FF and crop sensor, had let's say 20 MP then clearly they both have the same pixel count" it seems that you compare an old FF camera with the latest APS-C.
I am sure, Pentax would not have a FF with 23Mpixels like the K3. It makes no sense technically and commercially. We can assume that the pixel count is higher in proportion to the area increase from APS-C to FF.
This the gives you the same pixel size for each format. So if you crop back the FF image to the APS-C
size, You are exactly in the same position as you where when you had only APS-C. The pixel count after cropping is now the same as your original APS-C. You just magnified part of the image to the APS-C size.
So there is no advantage in an APS-C sensor over full frame. However the FF has the advantage, that you can get a wider image and use it if you want to, but you can also crop it without loosing definition.
Of course for the wide angle user, the advantage is quite obvious.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Full Frame teaser - Spring 2016! at 07/10/2015 - 12:42
McGregNi wrote:
Regards, Horst
Quote:
Raises the obvious question though .... Would an 'aps-c' crop of an object shot at the same size on FF look just as sharp as the equivalently magnified object on an aps-c sensor?
Yes it would, because if your APS-C has 23Mpixels and the FF 2.1 times the amountas it should , when you crop back to APS-C then you again have your 23MPixels and the same sharpness.Raises the obvious question though .... Would an 'aps-c' crop of an object shot at the same size on FF look just as sharp as the equivalently magnified object on an aps-c sensor?
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Full Frame teaser - Spring 2016! at 07/10/2015 - 02:55
wvbarnes wrote:
[quote][I have a growing interest in wildlife photography. The 300 F4 DA Star with the 1.4 HD tele adapter on gives the same field of view as 630mm on a 35mm sized sensor. The latest Nikon 600mm (for example) weighs 3.8 kg as well as being huge./quote]
The misconception, that a lens of a given focal length gives a different size of the object to be photographed with different sensor size is not correct.
Lets make a few assumption to make things easier.
The existing camera is a K3, the Camera to be purchased in the future would be a Pentax FF.
The K3 has approx 23Mpixels so to be comparable the FF sensor should have 48.3Mpixel.
This insures, that the resolution of the FF is as good as the APC-S. The pixel size of approx 3.91 microns
stay the same. Also the light sensitivity is equal. therefore there should not be more noise for a high sensitivity (ASA) setting. Assuming of course the technic stood still and no improvements where made.
The FF sensor is 2.1 times larger in area than the APS-C sensor
The next assumption is the same lens (say 200mm) ,the same size subject and the same subject to camera distance is used.
The 200mm Lens has an angle of view of 12Deg. No matter what sensor is used the angle of view of the actual lens does not change. The smaller sensor just does not utilize the whole 12Deg, but somewhat less.
No say, you photograph a grazing Elephant and you are a t a distance from it, the height of the Elephant exactly fits in to your viewfinder. In your APS-C viewfinder and sensor it would be 15.6mm.
if you take the picture, the image in your memory card would reflect this.
Now with your FF camera, You fit the same lens to it, stay at the same spot and the Elephant has not moved. The Elephant in your viewfinder and sensor is still 15,6mm high. But it does not touch the top and bottom of the viewfinder, you see more in your viewfinder. but the Elephant size is still the same.
You are just utilizing the whole 12Deg of the viewing angle of you 200mm lens.
The resolution of the Elephant is exactly the same as in your APS-C sensor.
Now the next step is where a problem seems to appear. If you download it to your computer and view it on your existing screen, the Elephant appears smaller,, because more is shown on your scree,
The same happens if you print it on paper if you are fixed to a given paper size.
The resolution is reasonable simple.
a.) You buy a screen which has a 2.1 times the viewing area as your existing one.
b.) You use paper with 2.1 times the area compared to your paper you used so far
c.) you crop it back to the APS-C size. You don't loose resolution, because the pixel size stays the same.
So for the Wildlife or sports photographer, there is no disadvantage using FF. On the contrary, you gain some extra area which you can use or discard.
Have a look at the attached drawing . It shows you exactly the size of both sensors and the actual size of the image.
Now for the wide angle enthusiasts:
FF is even better than for tele. Your existing 24mm lens has an angle of view of 84 Deg. This does not change with the sensor size.
However APS-C does only utilize 62mm. .
So to get the same view on your APS-C, you need to buy a a 18mm lens . This is of course more expensive.
You have actually lost what you can see with your APS-C compared to your FF.
I hope, I managed to explain somehow that FF has no disadvantages but only advantages,
Regards, Horst
[quote][I have a growing interest in wildlife photography. The 300 F4 DA Star with the 1.4 HD tele adapter on gives the same field of view as 630mm on a 35mm sized sensor. The latest Nikon 600mm (for example) weighs 3.8 kg as well as being huge./quote]
The misconception, that a lens of a given focal length gives a different size of the object to be photographed with different sensor size is not correct.
Lets make a few assumption to make things easier.
The existing camera is a K3, the Camera to be purchased in the future would be a Pentax FF.
The K3 has approx 23Mpixels so to be comparable the FF sensor should have 48.3Mpixel.
This insures, that the resolution of the FF is as good as the APC-S. The pixel size of approx 3.91 microns
stay the same. Also the light sensitivity is equal. therefore there should not be more noise for a high sensitivity (ASA) setting. Assuming of course the technic stood still and no improvements where made.
The FF sensor is 2.1 times larger in area than the APS-C sensor
The next assumption is the same lens (say 200mm) ,the same size subject and the same subject to camera distance is used.
The 200mm Lens has an angle of view of 12Deg. No matter what sensor is used the angle of view of the actual lens does not change. The smaller sensor just does not utilize the whole 12Deg, but somewhat less.
No say, you photograph a grazing Elephant and you are a t a distance from it, the height of the Elephant exactly fits in to your viewfinder. In your APS-C viewfinder and sensor it would be 15.6mm.
if you take the picture, the image in your memory card would reflect this.
Now with your FF camera, You fit the same lens to it, stay at the same spot and the Elephant has not moved. The Elephant in your viewfinder and sensor is still 15,6mm high. But it does not touch the top and bottom of the viewfinder, you see more in your viewfinder. but the Elephant size is still the same.
You are just utilizing the whole 12Deg of the viewing angle of you 200mm lens.
The resolution of the Elephant is exactly the same as in your APS-C sensor.
Now the next step is where a problem seems to appear. If you download it to your computer and view it on your existing screen, the Elephant appears smaller,, because more is shown on your scree,
The same happens if you print it on paper if you are fixed to a given paper size.
The resolution is reasonable simple.
a.) You buy a screen which has a 2.1 times the viewing area as your existing one.
b.) You use paper with 2.1 times the area compared to your paper you used so far
c.) you crop it back to the APS-C size. You don't loose resolution, because the pixel size stays the same.
So for the Wildlife or sports photographer, there is no disadvantage using FF. On the contrary, you gain some extra area which you can use or discard.
Have a look at the attached drawing . It shows you exactly the size of both sensors and the actual size of the image.
Now for the wide angle enthusiasts:
FF is even better than for tele. Your existing 24mm lens has an angle of view of 84 Deg. This does not change with the sensor size.
However APS-C does only utilize 62mm. .
So to get the same view on your APS-C, you need to buy a a 18mm lens . This is of course more expensive.
You have actually lost what you can see with your APS-C compared to your FF.
I hope, I managed to explain somehow that FF has no disadvantages but only advantages,
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Full Frame teaser - Spring 2016! at 07/10/2015 - 01:00
My 10 year old Grand daughter already has a K10 and my 5 year old Grandson has an Espio something or other.
Plus, when I go, it will all be theirs. Wow!!
Regards, Horst
Plus, when I go, it will all be theirs. Wow!!
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Same old story - where is Pentax? at 06/10/2015 - 12:01
What do you actually photograph with say a 17 or similar lens with f2.8 wide open.
Do you do landscapes, or interiors? Would the limited dof not be a problem?
I really never had any need to use anything faster then F 3.5 and this very seldom.
For landscapes , if it is to dark, a tripod replaces a fast f-stop .
But I may be totally wrong about all this and have overlooked something.
Regards, Horst
Do you do landscapes, or interiors? Would the limited dof not be a problem?
I really never had any need to use anything faster then F 3.5 and this very seldom.
For landscapes , if it is to dark, a tripod replaces a fast f-stop .
But I may be totally wrong about all this and have overlooked something.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Sharpest fast 17mm lens? at 06/10/2015 - 09:11
I saw a pentax on the Rachel Koo cooking show in a couple of episodes..
She used what looks like a K2 or similar film camera. However iI am not to sure, if she actually took any pictures. She was looking through the viewfinder alright, but didn't bother focusing or setting the anything else on the camera. Maybe the lens was set to about 10m, f8 and 1/125sec with 200ASA .
I personally are not to worried, what happens to Pentax in the future as long as they stay long enought in business to release the FF. after that I could not care . I have plenty of good Pentax lenses to see me through the rest of my life. I am 72 and hopefully have another 20 years to go before I turn in to a vegetable.
Pentax cameras are quite reliable. My Spotmatic which I bought in 1970 lasted until 1983 when purchased a Super-A, this in turn was used until 2010, when I bought my K5.
Both cameras gave me no troubles. Both where send once to the local Importers (C.R.Kennedy) for lubrication. That was all.
My K5 is as rugged as they come. It really gets a lot of use. The Picture count is around the 20,000 mark. It has a few marks on the lacquer, because it had been dropped a few times. Mainly because the bloody strap got in the way.
But It still works perfectly. Shows you how reliable Pentax really is.
Actually now it looks like I am a professional. With the scraped of lacquer.
If Pentax should go bust and I my camera does too, then I have a look on Ebay. There are plenty.
I also don't look around to see who else has a Pentax. As long as I have one.
Regards, Horst
She used what looks like a K2 or similar film camera. However iI am not to sure, if she actually took any pictures. She was looking through the viewfinder alright, but didn't bother focusing or setting the anything else on the camera. Maybe the lens was set to about 10m, f8 and 1/125sec with 200ASA .
I personally are not to worried, what happens to Pentax in the future as long as they stay long enought in business to release the FF. after that I could not care . I have plenty of good Pentax lenses to see me through the rest of my life. I am 72 and hopefully have another 20 years to go before I turn in to a vegetable.
Pentax cameras are quite reliable. My Spotmatic which I bought in 1970 lasted until 1983 when purchased a Super-A, this in turn was used until 2010, when I bought my K5.
Both cameras gave me no troubles. Both where send once to the local Importers (C.R.Kennedy) for lubrication. That was all.
My K5 is as rugged as they come. It really gets a lot of use. The Picture count is around the 20,000 mark. It has a few marks on the lacquer, because it had been dropped a few times. Mainly because the bloody strap got in the way.
But It still works perfectly. Shows you how reliable Pentax really is.
Actually now it looks like I am a professional. With the scraped of lacquer.
If Pentax should go bust and I my camera does too, then I have a look on Ebay. There are plenty.
I also don't look around to see who else has a Pentax. As long as I have one.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Same old story - where is Pentax? at 06/10/2015 - 08:59
Dariony wrote:
Regards, Horst
Quote:
Given the performance of the K3 II and the big HD zoom I am not expecting the FF to do too much for me as a predominantly Wildlife and sports photographer.
Why do you say this?Given the performance of the K3 II and the big HD zoom I am not expecting the FF to do too much for me as a predominantly Wildlife and sports photographer.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Full Frame teaser - Spring 2016! at 06/10/2015 - 07:45
it seems you are also up to all hours. i think it would be about midnight in the UK. here it is 10 am Friday .
Regards, Horst