All Forum Comments
Comment by jules posted on DA* 16-50mm at 29/07/2013 - 11:15
New Lens arrived today, many thanks Chris!
Comment by jules posted on Trade: Pentax 17-70 and 35Ltd for... at 29/07/2013 - 11:13
LennyBloke wrote:
It seems that the "hit and miss" AF of the K5 is the reason why Benjamin Kanarek has stopped using Pentax! And he was a real assset to Pentax
Yeah, he's now in the Nikon forum, quite a lot on the big SUN readers site. It seems that the "hit and miss" AF of the K5 is the reason why Benjamin Kanarek has stopped using Pentax! And he was a real assset to Pentax
Pentax France apparently sponsored him for a bit but were none too helpful during his time with them, I think he was also sponsored by Canon for a while too? Maybe now he's sponsored by Nikon???
That said if your in a studio set up and the camera is continually focusing on peoples feet rather than the face it doesn't sound too good really?
Comment by jules posted on K5 Lowlight AF good enough for Nightclub Photography? at 29/07/2013 - 10:49
50-500 will pretty much do anything in the air at a show except if your too close to the Reds Starburst . and theres one in the classifieds at the minute for a bargain price!
Comment by jules posted on Airshow lens choice at 29/07/2013 - 04:57
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.
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...
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.
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
Cheers
Stu
Sounds to me like you understand it well enough to me.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
Cheers
Stu
For standard Landscaps yes but there is more to landscape than F11, isolating a single bloom in a field of Rapeseed for instance, or the cliche of the single poppy on the edge of a wheat field at f2 with a wide angle 24mm FF. (Never found that poppy!). Not saying that you can't do it with APSC, you can but currently there are a lot more lenses with the shallow depth required for tihs type of work in the FF format, a Noct style 50mm F1 and a 14-16mm F1.8 thrown in would be a start, If the big Camera brands won't do it,maybe Sigma will help us out?
APSC needs some Lens love...
I agree entirely, indeed want and need are two different things. I have an A2 printer and that wall hanging 24"x16"ish size sets my requirement, I want to be able to print as big as it can. Clients ask "who printed it?" When you say "I did" they straight away bung their nose right on it! 20 odd Mpx FF bodies do it, and so can the K5IIs. I have no idea if it's the same for the standard II model (Though I can't really see why it couldn't) and I don't want to open that particular can of wrigglies AGAIN! However if I come into any money I may well find out.
Hey it doesn't matter it's weather sealed...