All Forum Comments
Comment by Horst posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 10:37
Andrew wrote:
Maybe McGregNi can do a better job,having English as its first language
Regards, Horst
Quote:
I really don't know where you are going with this, Horst. We all know and agree (don't we?) that to have an image fill the frame in a FF camera, you need a lens 1.5x longer than you would with an APS-C camera. This longer lens costs more money. Simples!
Andrew, No you don't, maybe the way I am trying to explain it is not very good.I really don't know where you are going with this, Horst. We all know and agree (don't we?) that to have an image fill the frame in a FF camera, you need a lens 1.5x longer than you would with an APS-C camera. This longer lens costs more money. Simples!
Maybe McGregNi can do a better job,having English as its first language
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 10:31
Andrew wrote:
when I was young and did my own developing and printing, I always cropped when I saw a need to do it. That's just part of it.
With FF you can crop to your APS-C size without loosing definition.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
My bet is that our FF photographer's "human need" is to get the best possible quality from his investment. He will not get that by cropping!!
Cropping has always been around, In Film and digital cameras. You get rid of the irrelevant or disturbing items. or you highlight the item you specifically want to see.My bet is that our FF photographer's "human need" is to get the best possible quality from his investment. He will not get that by cropping!!
when I was young and did my own developing and printing, I always cropped when I saw a need to do it. That's just part of it.
With FF you can crop to your APS-C size without loosing definition.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 10:20
Andrew, just imagine if you had a sensor half or a quarter the size of Your APS-C sensor, You could get away with a 50mm lens and fill the frame.
Regards, Horst
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 10:07
No Andrew it does,t. Your 16 Mp stay 16Mp even with a FF with the same lens if the FF's resolution's has been comparatively increased.
Regards, Horst
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 10:04
Marat wrote:
I have all sorts of other pentax lenses, Fa70mm f1.8 Fa 31,mm F1.8 and other quite expensive ( for my pocket) lenses.
However I always come back to this fantastic F-35-70mm.
I bought it in a Pawn shop, together wit a F50mm 1.4 and a SFX camera.
The Whole bunlde was $AU 80.-
I never yet used the 50mm lens on my K5 , but the little 35-70 just exclusively.
it does just about everything I need and it is as sharp and clean as they come. also quite rugged.
And it costs nearly nothing on Ebay
Regards, Horst
Quote:
I own one of these, great lens but then I am a big fan of these F and FA lenses from that period, the F35-70mm being my favourite.
I also have a F35-70mm lens. This is my all time favourite.I own one of these, great lens but then I am a big fan of these F and FA lenses from that period, the F35-70mm being my favourite.
I have all sorts of other pentax lenses, Fa70mm f1.8 Fa 31,mm F1.8 and other quite expensive ( for my pocket) lenses.
However I always come back to this fantastic F-35-70mm.
I bought it in a Pawn shop, together wit a F50mm 1.4 and a SFX camera.
The Whole bunlde was $AU 80.-
I never yet used the 50mm lens on my K5 , but the little 35-70 just exclusively.
it does just about everything I need and it is as sharp and clean as they come. also quite rugged.
And it costs nearly nothing on Ebay
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Lens fit??? at 20/07/2014 - 10:01
Looks like your out of bed already,
Here Its Sunday 6:30 pm
I agree with all you said, It is really quite simple if you look at it logically.
Regards, Horst
Here Its Sunday 6:30 pm
I agree with all you said, It is really quite simple if you look at it logically.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 09:37
Andrew wrote:
Otherwise there is not much point of having FF.
If you increase the amount of pixels proportionally, your pixel size will stay the same.
You will get the same noise figure with APS_C as with FF.
However you'll get more image on to the sensor.
I can not see Pentax , if ever, releasing a FF with 24Mp only.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
Let's suppose that I have a 24 mp APS-C camera and 300mm f/4 lens fitted. My mate has a notPentax 24 mp full frame camera. If we both want to take the identical subject, filling the frame in the same way, he will have to use a lens that is 1.5x longer if we stand at the same location. His lens will cost many times that of a 300mm f/4.
Hi Andrew. You have to compare apple with apples. A future Pentax FF will not have only 24Mp but the amount of pixels will increase proportionally to the increase in sensor size from APS-C to FF.Let's suppose that I have a 24 mp APS-C camera and 300mm f/4 lens fitted. My mate has a notPentax 24 mp full frame camera. If we both want to take the identical subject, filling the frame in the same way, he will have to use a lens that is 1.5x longer if we stand at the same location. His lens will cost many times that of a 300mm f/4.
Otherwise there is not much point of having FF.
If you increase the amount of pixels proportionally, your pixel size will stay the same.
You will get the same noise figure with APS_C as with FF.
However you'll get more image on to the sensor.
I can not see Pentax , if ever, releasing a FF with 24Mp only.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 01:24
K10D wrote:
So its not really another APS-C Vs FF tread
Regards, Horst
Quote:
Ooh look, another APS-C vs FF thread.
That's how it indirectly started. I was wondering why lenses which are for APS-C exclusively, should not be marked with the 1.5 times focal lenght of FF lenses.Ooh look, another APS-C vs FF thread.
So its not really another APS-C Vs FF tread
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 01:13
Blythman wrote:
Focus is only 2 dimensional, forget depth of field.
Say the animal stays at right angle to you, and half of it covers the APS-C size sensor, Then with FF it will of course cover, say 3/4 of it.
Even if you had a FF lens with not very good edge sharpness, when you crop it back to the APS-C size, (16Mp) it will be exactly the same.
If the animal looked at you, and you had the eye in focus, everything else would be out of focus anyway, except all the items which are at eye level at the time.
The exact Ficus is only at one depth position. Irrelevant if you use the lens at f 0.5 or at f64.
Regards, Horst
Quote:
Assuming that the AF point is the same size on each sensor then, it can be more accurately set on APS-C. So you might have the eye in focus with the crop and out of focus with the FF as on FF it covers a larger area of the animal
Hello Alan.Assuming that the AF point is the same size on each sensor then, it can be more accurately set on APS-C. So you might have the eye in focus with the crop and out of focus with the FF as on FF it covers a larger area of the animal
Focus is only 2 dimensional, forget depth of field.
Say the animal stays at right angle to you, and half of it covers the APS-C size sensor, Then with FF it will of course cover, say 3/4 of it.
Even if you had a FF lens with not very good edge sharpness, when you crop it back to the APS-C size, (16Mp) it will be exactly the same.
If the animal looked at you, and you had the eye in focus, everything else would be out of focus anyway, except all the items which are at eye level at the time.
The exact Ficus is only at one depth position. Irrelevant if you use the lens at f 0.5 or at f64.
Regards, Horst
Comment by Horst posted on Why bother? at 20/07/2014 - 01:04
With the same size sensor, its like focusing on an animal (say a bird, 6 metres away) with a 300mm lens. and then from the same distance focus on the same bird with a 200mm lens. Assuming you want the eye sharp, and all other things being equal,which lens do you think would give you the most keepers?
However you will get a better definition with a 300mmlens, because the eye is spread over more pixels.
but this is only relevant if you use the same size sensor for both lenses.
Regards, Horst