All Forum Comments
Comment by Mongoose posted on Ricoh XR Rikenon 50mm f2 at 27/01/2010 - 14:52
Bob and his Pentax wrote:
Unfortunately we have a 'no cameras on site' rule where I work so I've no photos of it. But even those not interested in aircraft could find it an interesting subject - perhaps someone will use it for a subject in the current weekly competition as the theme is 'Size Contrast'.
any situation in which you can use a Boeing 747 as the "small" item in a size contrast shot has got to be worth the effort!Unfortunately we have a 'no cameras on site' rule where I work so I've no photos of it. But even those not interested in aircraft could find it an interesting subject - perhaps someone will use it for a subject in the current weekly competition as the theme is 'Size Contrast'.
Comment by Mongoose posted on A heads up for the aviation spotters here at 27/01/2010 - 14:26
I have a Pantone Huey which is very easy to use. I do partially agree with John however
1. On my HP1955 monitor (a PVA panelled LCD) the Huey makes no visible change to the colour, although it does drop the brightness some which does result in an improved match between monitor and print
2. On 2 cheap TN panelled LCDs which I have, and both the Laptops I use, the Huey makes matters significantly worse. Its attempts to correct the colour balance result in the colour improving when bright but remaining the same when dark, which means that colour accuracy is a strong function of brightness after calibration.
I therefore find that the Huey is helpful on a good quality panel, although most have passable colours to begin with and you may not see a difference if you're not hyper critical. On a poor quality panel, the money is much better spent upgrading the panel.
1. On my HP1955 monitor (a PVA panelled LCD) the Huey makes no visible change to the colour, although it does drop the brightness some which does result in an improved match between monitor and print
2. On 2 cheap TN panelled LCDs which I have, and both the Laptops I use, the Huey makes matters significantly worse. Its attempts to correct the colour balance result in the colour improving when bright but remaining the same when dark, which means that colour accuracy is a strong function of brightness after calibration.
I therefore find that the Huey is helpful on a good quality panel, although most have passable colours to begin with and you may not see a difference if you're not hyper critical. On a poor quality panel, the money is much better spent upgrading the panel.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Monitor calibration at 27/01/2010 - 14:22
great news! I'm so happy for you!
Comment by Mongoose posted on lost ALL my gear! at 27/01/2010 - 12:20
johnriley wrote:
The only failure I have had was not electronic but the write protection switch falling off.
Same here. I fear dropping or losing individual cards more than electronic failure, and of course while the card remains inside the camera you're unlikely to lose it (we all hope!)The only failure I have had was not electronic but the write protection switch falling off.
Comment by Mongoose posted on SD card failure at 26/01/2010 - 14:01
K10D wrote:
link
You can view in full size, I think?
The focused target size would be no different whether FF or APS-C. A 300mm lens is 300mm regardless of what is behind it.
Do you only refer to FOV in respect of 450 on a FF?
Regards
It's a very nicely taken photo, but the central 2/3 of it would not be equivalent to a shot from a K7 taken with the same lens.Mongoose wrote:
Area goes like the linear dimension squared.
On the plus side, lower pixel pitch means better noise characteristics, but you are going to need to project a larger image if you want to get the same result as we currently enjoy on APS-C. Larger image = longer focal length.
I'm much too lazy (not to mention poor) to lug a 450mm F2.8 lens around with me, so I'll stick with my APS-C DSLR thanks.
32MP is a wee bit high, the 12MP FF seems to work fine, even as JPEG.Mike-P wrote:
I'm just thinking that as the sensor is larger to start with, if you have a 18PM FF camera then with the extra megapixels you can crop it to give the same effective length as a 1.5 crop 12MP APS-C at its largest.
I hate to be the one to urinate on the meat grilling aparatus, but acording to my calculations a FF sensor with the same pixel pitch as the K7 would have to be ~32MP.I'm just thinking that as the sensor is larger to start with, if you have a 18PM FF camera then with the extra megapixels you can crop it to give the same effective length as a 1.5 crop 12MP APS-C at its largest.
Area goes like the linear dimension squared.
On the plus side, lower pixel pitch means better noise characteristics, but you are going to need to project a larger image if you want to get the same result as we currently enjoy on APS-C. Larger image = longer focal length.
I'm much too lazy (not to mention poor) to lug a 450mm F2.8 lens around with me, so I'll stick with my APS-C DSLR thanks.
link
You can view in full size, I think?
The focused target size would be no different whether FF or APS-C. A 300mm lens is 300mm regardless of what is behind it.
Do you only refer to FOV in respect of 450 on a FF?
Regards
12.1/2.25 = 5.3
an APS-C crop from a D700 is slightly lower resolution than a full size shot from a *istD.
Will it print at A3 and look fantastic? Almost certainly. Can it match a K7 for resolution? No.
The D700 is a fantastic piece of kit and has very good qualities when paired with the right lenses, but to get the most out of it you have to use lenses 1.5x longer than you do with an APS-C based camera. Whether that's a good or bad thing is entirely dependant on your circumstances and what you're trying to shoot, but the truth of it is irrefutable.
I don't actually think a 32MP FF camera would be a good idea, if I were to buy one I'd much rather have a ~20MP model and use longer lenses. It would be the larger well depth leading to better dynamic range and noise performance which would make me want one. However, my mathematics is correct, if you want a central crop to be exactly equivalent to a K7 shot, it has to be a 32MP sensor.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Full Frame Pentax!!!!!!! at 25/01/2010 - 23:16
not quite the same magnitude, but I was at a wedding on Saturday. I thought "I'll need the 50, and a standard zoom, but I will leave my telephotos behind to save space".
I got to the church early and as I was waiting for others to arrive a buzzard swooped in and perched about 30 yards from me.
I swear they have some sort of ESP which allows them to know the maximum effective range of any camera/lens combination you may happen to be carrying, and stay just outside it.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Mistake ... at 25/01/2010 - 17:53
Mike-P wrote:
I'm just thinking that as the sensor is larger to start with, if you have a 18PM FF camera then with the extra megapixels you can crop it to give the same effective length as a 1.5 crop 12MP APS-C at its largest.
I hate to be the one to urinate on the meat grilling aparatus, but acording to my calculations a FF sensor with the same pixel pitch as the K7 would have to be ~32MP.I'm just thinking that as the sensor is larger to start with, if you have a 18PM FF camera then with the extra megapixels you can crop it to give the same effective length as a 1.5 crop 12MP APS-C at its largest.
Area goes like the linear dimension squared.
On the plus side, lower pixel pitch means better noise characteristics, but you are going to need to project a larger image if you want to get the same result as we currently enjoy on APS-C. Larger image = longer focal length.
I'm much too lazy (not to mention poor) to lug a 450mm F2.8 lens around with me, so I'll stick with my APS-C DSLR thanks.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Full Frame Pentax!!!!!!! at 25/01/2010 - 17:49
thoughton wrote:
And I believe if sites like adaptall-2.com didn't exist those lenses would be worth next to nothing!
/me begins plotting denial-of-service attack on adaptall-2.com......womble wrote:
I wonder if an example from here is at least part of the explanation. A while back Malo heard that the Vivitar 28m close focus lens was a really nice one to use. So he got one, took some stunning photos and posted them. Of course, 99% of that is Malo being a great photographer but as a result, some of us (i.e., me) went off and bought one too. The internet makes the "fantastic lens" (or "duff lens") rumour spread really very efficiently!
Oh, for sure I also started keeping an eye on Vivitar 28mm lenses after Martin's flower pic. I wonder if an example from here is at least part of the explanation. A while back Malo heard that the Vivitar 28m close focus lens was a really nice one to use. So he got one, took some stunning photos and posted them. Of course, 99% of that is Malo being a great photographer but as a result, some of us (i.e., me) went off and bought one too. The internet makes the "fantastic lens" (or "duff lens") rumour spread really very efficiently!
And I believe if sites like adaptall-2.com didn't exist those lenses would be worth next to nothing!
Comment by Mongoose posted on "K" series lenses at 25/01/2010 - 13:27
after all, if you didn't have a car, how would you get to places you want to take photos of?
Comment by Mongoose posted on Pentax FA* 600/4 ED [IF] at 22/01/2010 - 17:30
The 50 prime is a very simple lens design and has been pretty much "solved" for quite some time. Until very recent lenses like the Sigma 50mm EX and the Pentax DA* 55 they have all been optically very similar for at least 20 years.
PS, What I'm trying to say is, while I'd be surprised if it's sharper than the FA 1.4 or F1.7, I'd be even more surprised if £16 turned out to be a bad deal for any 50mm prime in good condition.