All Forum Comments
Comment by K10D posted on LED ring lights, use of? at 06/06/2010 - 18:00
Yummy yummy
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Can I buy this just to look at? at 06/06/2010 - 17:45
Anvh wrote:
Well you did said my name
APS-C DSLR will always be smaller because of the reasons Kris said.
The same thing is with the high ISO performance of the 135 format sensor will always be a step better because of the large size because if they can make a good APS-C sensor they can use the same thing but bigger for 135 format.
Agreed, smaller sensor = smaller everything else.Well you did said my name
APS-C DSLR will always be smaller because of the reasons Kris said.
womble wrote:
a bigger mirror, a bigger focusing screen, a bigger lightbox, a bigger shutter....
If they can make the 135 format smaller by some technique they can also do that with the APS-C DSLR.a bigger mirror, a bigger focusing screen, a bigger lightbox, a bigger shutter....
The same thing is with the high ISO performance of the 135 format sensor will always be a step better because of the large size because if they can make a good APS-C sensor they can use the same thing but bigger for 135 format.
Remember this?
link
Either DPR or Pentax muffed up when they say that it's compatible with the BG10 battery grip, where does one attach the grip?
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Buy a 135 format? at 06/06/2010 - 17:40
johnriley wrote:
The 645D is another question altogether, and appeals to a totally different market segment. I can't see Pentax trying to break into two major and distinct segments (Medium Format and FF) at the same time, especially as both are high value products.
John, WRT Pentax R&D, where are their notes for the MZ-D? There are cheaper, highly reliable sensors available now. They have effectively developed the body to fit the sensor. The electronics today will be 2/3rds of the size of back then so they don't need to change the body.The 645D is another question altogether, and appeals to a totally different market segment. I can't see Pentax trying to break into two major and distinct segments (Medium Format and FF) at the same time, especially as both are high value products.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Full-frame Pentax? I hope not! at 06/06/2010 - 17:30
Anvh wrote:
Gary, what do you mean?
I never said it was a problem for me but some people even find the APS-C size cameras too big and they go for the 4/3th system also the opposite happens.
I never said it's an issue but it's a difference in system that might be important for some people and that's why it's mentioned because it can be the factor to use APS-C camera instead of 135 format camera.
I was picking up on the weight reasons Stefan. I was not isolating you.Gary, what do you mean?
I never said it was a problem for me but some people even find the APS-C size cameras too big and they go for the 4/3th system also the opposite happens.
I never said it's an issue but it's a difference in system that might be important for some people and that's why it's mentioned because it can be the factor to use APS-C camera instead of 135 format camera.
There seems to be no real reason why the 135 format bodies available are the size and weight that they are.
As a matter of comparison the Canon 5D + battery weighs 895g and a K20D with battery weighs 800g. (DPReview data). Not a lot in it.
The D700 without battery weighs 995g.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Buy a 135 format? at 06/06/2010 - 17:21
George Lazarette wrote:
G
Next there will be a 645D brigade no doubt?robbie_d wrote:
My main issue with FF is whether Pentax as a company currently has enough resource to spread between compacts, APS-C, MF and FF.
If by launching a FF it diverts resources from the others it would surely be a negative for most Pentax users.
You can repeat this a million times, Robbie, but they won't listen. The 135 format brigade are immune to reason.My main issue with FF is whether Pentax as a company currently has enough resource to spread between compacts, APS-C, MF and FF.
If by launching a FF it diverts resources from the others it would surely be a negative for most Pentax users.
G
I personally don't have a big issue over 135 George, I bought one. Oddly enough the 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom I bought for it is sharp edge to edge.
I can not remember the 35mm Pentax users of years ago yearning for a film APS body, I could be wrong though. It would have made sense to get past the soft edged Pentax lenses and gain millimetres on lenses.
We live and learn
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Full-frame Pentax? I hope not! at 06/06/2010 - 16:42
George Lazarette wrote:
Er, because it works just as well if not better on APS-C? Good enough reason?
Er, what Jonathan meant was that field of view was reduced, making long lenses longer. You gloss over that, although it is a huge advantage of APS-C. I concede that short lenses also got longer, but the new wide-angles are very affordable compared to the Pentax 15mm. And smaller and lighter.
I can see that the owner of a Pentax 15mm might feel a bit miffed that his lens is no longer super-wide, but that apart, the change to APS-C has been largely beneficial. The alternative would have been for Pentax to try to source another 135 format sensor when they were rare and expensive, and it would probably have destroyed the company.
G
So you agree that the 28 shift lens is a non starter George?K10D wrote:
I was hoping that a Pentax Fx body would appear. As mentioned above, lenses like the 15mm and of course the 28 shift would be usable once again.
I would love a 31mm Ltd but why buy it to put on a body it was not made for?
I was hoping that a Pentax Fx body would appear. As mentioned above, lenses like the 15mm and of course the 28 shift would be usable once again.
I would love a 31mm Ltd but why buy it to put on a body it was not made for?
Er, because it works just as well if not better on APS-C? Good enough reason?
Quote:
I want it on FF to use all of the glass. I could use it on a 35mm film body of course but the cost does not justify that. The same for the rest of the Pentax FF Ltd's. Edge to edge sharpness suddenly means nothing on an APS sensor.
Er, you can use "all the glass" on a DSLR. Soft edges mean nothing on a DSLR, too, which is an advantage.I want it on FF to use all of the glass. I could use it on a 35mm film body of course but the cost does not justify that. The same for the rest of the Pentax FF Ltd's. Edge to edge sharpness suddenly means nothing on an APS sensor.
Quote:
Jonathan, you mentioned in your OP
"I also love the fact that the apparent focal length means those lenses work as if they are one and a half times more powerful than they are on a 35mm camera (not as much, however, as the 2x crop factor on four-thirds)."
The magnification never changes. Only the FOV. As discussed many times here, it was a great marketing con. Less FOV due to smaller sensor size generally means more enlargement to get an image to print size dimensions. Fortunately, most DSLR's have enough resolution that we don't always notice any ill effect with this.
Jonathan, you mentioned in your OP
"I also love the fact that the apparent focal length means those lenses work as if they are one and a half times more powerful than they are on a 35mm camera (not as much, however, as the 2x crop factor on four-thirds)."
The magnification never changes. Only the FOV. As discussed many times here, it was a great marketing con. Less FOV due to smaller sensor size generally means more enlargement to get an image to print size dimensions. Fortunately, most DSLR's have enough resolution that we don't always notice any ill effect with this.
Er, what Jonathan meant was that field of view was reduced, making long lenses longer. You gloss over that, although it is a huge advantage of APS-C. I concede that short lenses also got longer, but the new wide-angles are very affordable compared to the Pentax 15mm. And smaller and lighter.
Quote:
The passing of the 35mm *ist and Pentax film bodies was a sad day indeed, as so much more was lost along with it.
Er, what? Full compatibility with K and M lenses? That had already gone with the last film bodies. The passing of the 35mm *ist and Pentax film bodies was a sad day indeed, as so much more was lost along with it.
I can see that the owner of a Pentax 15mm might feel a bit miffed that his lens is no longer super-wide, but that apart, the change to APS-C has been largely beneficial. The alternative would have been for Pentax to try to source another 135 format sensor when they were rare and expensive, and it would probably have destroyed the company.
G
As I bought most of my Pentax lenses without reading tests and pre internet I was unaware that the they are soft at the edges. Hence the cropped sensor improves them. I also didn't realise that the 31mm Ltd was soft at the edges.
What a shame, I can take that of my wish list.
I did actually say reduced FOV George. However, it still does not make a lens any longer. The shorter lenses didn't change either. You just see less of the image.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Full-frame Pentax? I hope not! at 06/06/2010 - 16:36
Kit price 2500 GBP. Engine and radio extra.
Regards
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on 1/2 size Decathlon at 06/06/2010 - 15:54
I need to get over there Stefan for a beer or two. As mentioned before, my shout and I'll bring some kit for you to try out.
Best regards
Gary
Best regards
Gary
Comment by K10D posted on Full-frame Pentax? I hope not! at 06/06/2010 - 15:38
I always thought that the MAC was king?
I don't own one by the way.
Regards
I don't own one by the way.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on "Why Pentax and not Nikon?" at 06/06/2010 - 15:33
v
v
v
v
v
v
too busy reading the techy stuff...........