All Forum Comments
Comment by K10D posted on How About A windows 7 thread! at 27/10/2009 - 10:06
gregmoll wrote:
I have a friend who bought the latest most expensive FF Nikon which can switch between the two formats. He would not belive that regardless of the sensor size selected the the image progected onto the sensor remained the same size.
Greg
If I understand what you say here, let's assume;I have a friend who bought the latest most expensive FF Nikon which can switch between the two formats. He would not belive that regardless of the sensor size selected the the image progected onto the sensor remained the same size.
Greg
A rectangular block is to be photographed.
A 200mm FF lens is mounted on a tripod at X distance from the block.
The block size is ratio-metrically correct for the FF sensor on one face
With a FF camera attached to the lens and at X distance, the image captured is 1mm shy on both horizontal and vertical planes of the FF sensor.
The camera body is then exchanged for an APS-C body.
What changed? Not the image size. How much you see of it, yes.
I expect that to get the same 1mm gap all round, the tripod would have to move back by the crop factor, so another 50% of X for Pentax and 60% for Canon.
If I have this wrong, some one please point me in the right direction.
I can change the same settings on my D700 and without me moving position, what I see through my viewfinder is not the same on Fx and Dx.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Dynamic Range and Medium Format at 27/10/2009 - 02:33
Agreed John and hence the early digital point and shoots rarely had a aperture available below f/8.
I still use my Oly C3040 for most of my close up shots of vintage model diesel engines. Virtually bottomless DOF and use of Smart Media cards of course.
Regards
I still use my Oly C3040 for most of my close up shots of vintage model diesel engines. Virtually bottomless DOF and use of Smart Media cards of course.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on FF Pentax anyone? at 26/10/2009 - 17:53
I agree with the DOF statement as nothing physically changes on the lens.
I was meaning image from a 400 against a 600 supposing that the lens to same subject distance was the same.
Regards
I was meaning image from a 400 against a 600 supposing that the lens to same subject distance was the same.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on FF Pentax anyone? at 26/10/2009 - 16:59
Mongoose wrote:
I see it as 400mm has same FOV as a 600 on FF and the 600 on a crop has a FOV of 900mm on FF.womble wrote:
The 600mm image stablised monster he whipped out of the boot of his car (from a very neat purpose built bag) was quite some beastie.
and equivalent to a 400mm on a Pentax crop sensor.The 600mm image stablised monster he whipped out of the boot of his car (from a very neat purpose built bag) was quite some beastie.
Magnification is of course different on both lenses regardless of sensor size.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on FF Pentax anyone? at 26/10/2009 - 16:29
Hang on chaps....
A lot of my work, I never see. Some has had to be approved by the local ministry before it can be used, other is used or not used. As long as I get paid, it does not matter. I do think that large files/images allow a better crop factor.
I'm off over to Bahrain on Thursday and the K7 has to prove its worth at a Halloween party, daft thing is, I left the flashgun in the UK!!%##@@!@!
BUTTTTTT.... the 160 Ring flash arrives tomorrow (FEDEX have it now in town) so I am going to use that... needs must! Be interesting to see how it performs? Kids will think they are on Fashion TV.
Regards
A lot of my work, I never see. Some has had to be approved by the local ministry before it can be used, other is used or not used. As long as I get paid, it does not matter. I do think that large files/images allow a better crop factor.
I'm off over to Bahrain on Thursday and the K7 has to prove its worth at a Halloween party, daft thing is, I left the flashgun in the UK!!%##@@!@!
BUTTTTTT.... the 160 Ring flash arrives tomorrow (FEDEX have it now in town) so I am going to use that... needs must! Be interesting to see how it performs? Kids will think they are on Fashion TV.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Dynamic Range and Medium Format at 26/10/2009 - 14:46
Quote:
"Some here still shoot with cameras of 4 generations ago and are still more then happy with that and to be honest I don't see the difference here on the web".
I still use my istD. I consider it to have less noise than my K10D. "Some here still shoot with cameras of 4 generations ago and are still more then happy with that and to be honest I don't see the difference here on the web".
The K7 is a different kettle of fish, it strangely has what Pentax used to have and seem to have found again, I cannot put that into words.
Where is George when you need him?
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Dynamic Range and Medium Format at 26/10/2009 - 12:02
Good read and totally on board with what the chap said.
My prints are few and far between, most of the stuff I do on commission or work is put on DVD or USB drives.
I question myself and what makes me happy, as I never get any feedback regarding image quality or technical issues.
I like cameras for all the wrong reasons. Getting good images is a sideline...
Regards
My prints are few and far between, most of the stuff I do on commission or work is put on DVD or USB drives.
I question myself and what makes me happy, as I never get any feedback regarding image quality or technical issues.
I like cameras for all the wrong reasons. Getting good images is a sideline...
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Dynamic Range and Medium Format at 26/10/2009 - 11:11
Excellent link!
Down side of that is that he used an M8, I have just finished reading (web reviews) on the M9. and and and I want an M9. I DO NOT want to spend that sort of cash though. If I total up what I've spent in the last five years on cameras and glass, trying to get what may not be attainable, I'd cringe. So I don't! I was committed to buying a Pentax 645D when it was announced, now, I don't even consider moving towards MF.
Regards
Down side of that is that he used an M8, I have just finished reading (web reviews) on the M9. and and and I want an M9. I DO NOT want to spend that sort of cash though. If I total up what I've spent in the last five years on cameras and glass, trying to get what may not be attainable, I'd cringe. So I don't! I was committed to buying a Pentax 645D when it was announced, now, I don't even consider moving towards MF.
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Dynamic Range and Medium Format at 26/10/2009 - 10:30
viewfinder wrote:
"...It shows what is possible now..."
I'm afraid it does not! What it shows is a set of data supplied by measurement against a piece of software. The software was devised by people who needed a set of criteria in order to compose this software. To mention just one defect; there is no mechanism there for comparing sensors despite some of them being nearly three times the physical size of the others.
Leaving out the software, this is just the same endeavour that has appeared in photographic publications since photography began. And, just like all the rest it is fatally flawed by the very criteria needed to make it 'possible'.
Unfortunately, the only way to decide which system is the best, is the same as it's always been, namely, to do your own set of measurements and comparisons on actual images with your own vital criteria overlaid and carefully considered.
Opinion appreciated."...It shows what is possible now..."
I'm afraid it does not! What it shows is a set of data supplied by measurement against a piece of software. The software was devised by people who needed a set of criteria in order to compose this software. To mention just one defect; there is no mechanism there for comparing sensors despite some of them being nearly three times the physical size of the others.
Leaving out the software, this is just the same endeavour that has appeared in photographic publications since photography began. And, just like all the rest it is fatally flawed by the very criteria needed to make it 'possible'.
Unfortunately, the only way to decide which system is the best, is the same as it's always been, namely, to do your own set of measurements and comparisons on actual images with your own vital criteria overlaid and carefully considered.
I have compared my APS-C images against my FF images, same field of view, same ISO, same subject and effectively, same light and my FF appears better? At 100% I also see more detail. That though is a different sensor and glass.
That is only my opinion of my kit though.
Surely the dynamic range measurement is valid?
So would you advocate disregarding magazine reviews?
Regards
Comment by K10D posted on Dynamic Range and Medium Format at 26/10/2009 - 09:41
Honest question as I did not use Vista although the family do have Vista.
Regards