All Forum Comments
Comment by Smeggypants posted on more ff rumors part 2 at 27/10/2015 - 18:29
stub wrote:
I dont know the technicalities of it, But full frame cameras produce far less noise than crop sensor camera.
Well bigger sensor has bigger pixels for a given number of megapixels, so more light can be gathered per pixel, so better signal to noise ratio.I dont know the technicalities of it, But full frame cameras produce far less noise than crop sensor camera.
Comment by Smeggypants posted on more ff rumors part 2 at 25/10/2015 - 23:50
Nigelk wrote:
I feel not all your points are to do with mirrorless versus with mirror John, however. Even taking those points on board I find myself looking at the latest Sony A7 mark2 cameras and thinking wow! As I have very little full frame glass if I were to move to a larger sensor size I would be looking at the whole package, camera and lenses, size cost and so on so I'll be looking at all brands to see what suits me best. I would have to say the 24 mega pixie Sony looks very very nice. The Pentax is going to have to offer something very compelling to make me stick with heavier and bulkier. I can see that if I was a wildlife or sports photographer that perhaps mirrorless is not quite there yet but I bet in most cases they would get the job done and done well.
Sorry for straying Stuart.
Had there been a Pentax mirrorless like the Sony's you wouldn't have had the conversion. I feel not all your points are to do with mirrorless versus with mirror John, however. Even taking those points on board I find myself looking at the latest Sony A7 mark2 cameras and thinking wow! As I have very little full frame glass if I were to move to a larger sensor size I would be looking at the whole package, camera and lenses, size cost and so on so I'll be looking at all brands to see what suits me best. I would have to say the 24 mega pixie Sony looks very very nice. The Pentax is going to have to offer something very compelling to make me stick with heavier and bulkier. I can see that if I was a wildlife or sports photographer that perhaps mirrorless is not quite there yet but I bet in most cases they would get the job done and done well.
Sorry for straying Stuart.
Comment by Smeggypants posted on more ff rumors part 2 at 24/10/2015 - 15:39
Horse!!
Comment by Smeggypants posted on A Ks1 in blue is available for around £205..... I am tempted..... Uh oh..... at 09/10/2015 - 05:51
johnriley wrote:
, but in real life the FF sensor does not have more pixels.
Actually some of them do have more pixels. However it's not all about the number of pixels. The size of the pixels is important too. The Sony 12MP Full Frame sensor has really large pixels in comparison to most other sensors and gives it a great high ISP performance and ergo great Dynamic range. I hope to see this sensor in a Pentax camera one day. Pentax, but in real life the FF sensor does not have more pixels.
Comment by Smeggypants posted on Full Frame teaser - Spring 2016! at 07/10/2015 - 11:10
McGregNi wrote:
I can understand that some may feel the 'need for speed' in low light, although these days surely far better high ISO performance than we could ever get on film would negate the super wide apertures as a real requirement .... ?
It's not a case of either/or where one negates the other. Having a fast lens AND good high ISO performance means even more options for even lower light shootingI can understand that some may feel the 'need for speed' in low light, although these days surely far better high ISO performance than we could ever get on film would negate the super wide apertures as a real requirement .... ?
Comment by Smeggypants posted on Sharpest fast 17mm lens? at 07/10/2015 - 02:02
asharpe wrote:
Indeed, the "normal" point of a wide lens is usually *not* to use it wide open;
And Indeed, the "normal" point of a wide lens is usually *not* to use it wide open;
asharpe wrote:
McGregNi's posting is on target; the reason to get a fast wide lens is so you can use it at a larger aperture and still get sharp photos, at a higher shutter speed and lower iso.
For the Sharp freaks those two statements might be the "norm", but fortunately not every photographer is fixated on sharp sharp sharp.McGregNi's posting is on target; the reason to get a fast wide lens is so you can use it at a larger aperture and still get sharp photos, at a higher shutter speed and lower iso.
There's so much more to photography than sharp sharp sharp.
Atleast Nigel had the sense to say that ....
McGregNi wrote:
Sometimes the point of a 'fast' lens is so that it's sharp stopped down a little ....
Sometimes the point of a 'fast' lens is so that it's sharp stopped down a little ....
.... instead of claiming it's the norm.
Comment by Smeggypants posted on Sharpest fast 17mm lens? at 06/10/2015 - 10:18
SteveLedger wrote:
They sure are, they have been making endoscopes and other medical optical instruments for many years.
Yup, you could end up having a Pentax lens shoved up your bum at some point in your life They sure are, they have been making endoscopes and other medical optical instruments for many years.
"Full Frame or APS-C sir?"
Comment by Smeggypants posted on Same old story - where is Pentax? at 04/10/2015 - 12:37
Not a bad job at all - I would graduated the blur on the ground a bit more gradually. I use this technique some of my own pics occasionally.
Comment by Smeggypants posted on Artificial DOF - Does This Look Fake? at 09/09/2015 - 22:10
50mpCMOS wrote:
When selling any type of image (or even having it available on social media such as Facebook)... It's always best to have it watermarked in numerous locations; even going so far as to placing other photo alterations to the image to make it almost unprintable.
Cannot begin to mention how many images get borrowed and/or stolen from photographers. Once it crosses a countries borders it's next to impossible to do anything about it, without considerable legal fees.
IF selling print photographs also try to make every effort that the print photograph contains something such as ones logo on front and as much information on the back of the photograph. Even if it needs to go so far as to change one aspect of each and every photograph that is sold, and to log whom it was sold to.
I think that's the most paranoid approach to photography I've ever seen in my life.When selling any type of image (or even having it available on social media such as Facebook)... It's always best to have it watermarked in numerous locations; even going so far as to placing other photo alterations to the image to make it almost unprintable.
Cannot begin to mention how many images get borrowed and/or stolen from photographers. Once it crosses a countries borders it's next to impossible to do anything about it, without considerable legal fees.
IF selling print photographs also try to make every effort that the print photograph contains something such as ones logo on front and as much information on the back of the photograph. Even if it needs to go so far as to change one aspect of each and every photograph that is sold, and to log whom it was sold to.
Comment by Smeggypants posted on Selling photos on Ebay, is it a good idea? at 05/09/2015 - 04:34
For my low light gig photography. It will produce far less noise in images .
The pixels will be about the same size as on a 16 MP APS-C, so similar to the K5 series I would have thought.