On 14/9/14, Darren Addy, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Have you tried it? I disagree.
>You still get fisheye lines, but only the center crop from it, so it
>isn't as noticable as if they extend to the edges, as in a full frame.
h that got me thinking, I've got a 17/4 fisheye somewhere - I'm
go
On 14/09/14 19:46, Larry Colen wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
On 14/09/14 16:31, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Zos,
I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective
resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor.
Here is the link:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-
I don't either personally. A 10-17 would be a lot more interesting
with its adjustable FE effect for about the same cost really IMO.
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM, JC OConnell wrote:
> these are interesting images but I dont see any "fisheye" effects at all
> On 9/14/2014 7:52 PM, Darren Addy w
these are interesting images but I dont see any "fisheye" effects at all
On 9/14/2014 7:52 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, JC OConnell wrote:
fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital.
jco
Have you tried it? I disagree.
You still get fisheye
digital.
But its too nice a lens to part with.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message - From: "JC OConnell"
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps
yes, Ive tried it, you end up with a semi fisheye which is like being
semi pregnant
On 9/14/2014 7:52 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, JC OConnell wrote:
fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital.
jco
Have you tried it? I disagree.
You still
fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital.
But its too nice a lens to part with.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "JC OConnell"
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, JC OConnell wrote:
> fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital.
> jco
Have you tried it? I disagree.
You still get fisheye lines, but only the center crop from it, so it
isn't as noticable as if they extend to the edges, as in a full fr
taxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill"
> Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
>
>
>> On 13/09/2014 10:40 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
>>>
>>> I certainly never saw the 1.5 factor as being
y.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message - From: "Bill"
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 13/09/2014 10:40 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
I certainly never saw the 1.5 factor as being a negative for the
type of
photography I do, although I hardly ever
You do more telephoto than wide, don't you?
By far. Mostly used are my 28-80 f3.5-4.5 F, 70-210 f4.0-5.6 F and 300 f4.5
FA.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Bill"
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor&
On 14/09/14 19:46, Larry Colen wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
On 14/09/14 16:31, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Zos,
I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective
resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor.
Here is the link:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nik
Toralf Lund wrote:
On 14/09/14 16:31, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Zos,
I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective
resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor.
Here is the link:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on
On 14/09/14 16:31, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Zos,
I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective
resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor.
Here is the link:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on-the-canikon-debate/
Zos,
I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective resolution
of the lenses combined with a sensor.
Here is the link:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on-the-canikon-debate/
(from the thread "OT? In case you are ha
On 13/09/2014 10:40 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
I certainly never saw the 1.5 factor as being a negative for the type of
photography I do, although I hardly ever use my 17-28mmf3.5 SMC F
fisheye on digital.
You do more telephoto than wide, don't you?
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml
: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 13/09/2014 9:46 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
I'm not in a buy situation as I've kept all my pre digital lenses and
continue to use them on my digitals.
I didn't see a reason to sell just because I was into digital.
Did you find that a
On 13/09/2014 9:46 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
I'm not in a buy situation as I've kept all my pre digital lenses and
continue to use them on my digitals.
I didn't see a reason to sell just because I was into digital.
Did you find that all of a sudden some lenses that you were meh about
suddenly came
ce Walker"
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I'm only interested in a system that I can buy currently. I'm not
interested in old used pre-digital lenses off fleaBay.
I started my Pentax APS-C collection from scratch save for a single
S-M-C Takum
;
> - Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Walker"
> Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
>
>> A quick search at B&H Photo will show you just how much brand new
>> glass you can buy -- if you have the moola -- for the 645D and Z.
>&g
FF? Not so much.
Which was a good reason not to get rid of your older pre digital Pentax
lenses.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Walker"
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
A quick search at B&H Photo will show you just how much brand new
glass you can buy -- if you have the moola -- for the 645D and Z.
Medium format Pentax is well supported.
FF? Not so much.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
> I have only one thing to say to that, 645d, 645z...
>
Zos Xavius wrote:
I think optics, as has always been the case, will be the limiting
factor for most people.
You're looking a couple inches to the wrong side of the sensor for the
limiting factor for most people. Or a couple of feet for folks who think
you should hold a camera at arms length
I had an image from the K20D displayed on the side of a bus, at 6+ feet
by 4+ feet. You couldn't tell if it was shot with a APS-C FF or medium
format digital. Up close it was a half tone image with approximately
5/8 inch dots, pretty much billboard stuff. If that's how it's
processed it real
I have only one thing to say to that, 645d, 645z...
Alrighty, I have two things to say to that.
On 9/13/2014 3:25 AM, David Mann wrote:
It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a
reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera
that can
So, yesterday I learned that Pentax now has some ambassadors that are
sponsored in Europe. One of them joined my group on facebook. I asked
him to bark up the pipeline for more ambassadors, especially in the
United States. He is also claiming that Ricoh is still indeed working
on a full frame and t
If you can offer that capability to clients with your files that makes
you more competitive. This is why most pros have moved on to FF. The
K-5 was a great camera, but still not as good in terms of resolving
power as say a 5dmk2. I think the K-5 IIs is actually pretty damned
close and the K-3 possi
Slim to none. At least in the immediate future. Sony would take
priority of production and then Nikon would surely have first dibs.
That Nikon beat Sony to the punch on 36mp is interesting because Sony
could have surely kept that chip to themselves and been the first with
the A7r. I get the feeling
The real question here IMO, is how often one would really need to print 2x3
meters? So far I haven't seen a real need to upgrade from K-5 (the
original). In fact I am very much satisfied by 12mp of Ricoh GXR-M.
That said, the fact the tech is constantly moving forward is a great thing.
Sent wi
Can someone cross post this video or at least let me know the thread
that it was in so I can scan for it? :)
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
>
>
> I.
> First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses,
> one should also keep in mind that due to the d
The difference between the K-3 and K-5 IIs is there and easy to see.
The difference between the K-5 IIs and the old K-5 was pretty easy for
me to see as well. A 2x3 meter print would be a rather large
enlargement for anything, film or digital, and I can tell you that I
know I would be able to see a
Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote:
i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter
print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at
close range.
i would actually bet.
I suspect that it would be possible to come up with use cases where you
could tell the diff
No point? The A7 did pretty well.
On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:25 AM, David Mann wrote:
> It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a
> reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera
> that can only be used with old or third-party glass.
>
>
It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a
reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera
that can only be used with old or third-party glass.
Cheers,
Dave
On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:54 am, John wrote:
> Yes, all very interesting. But it st
Yes, all very interesting. But it still doesn't answer the primary question.
What is the likelihood Ricoh-Pentax is going to build a camera around
this sensor?
On 9/12/2014 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
I.
First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving
lenses, one should
I.
First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving
lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the
pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced,
even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for
t
AND ... it's available in Pentax mount.
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-35mm-f18-dc-hsm-a
I like the video too.
On 9/12/2014 12:47 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
I'm seeing pretty impressive results from the K3 coupled with the
Sigma 18-35/1.8 in studio. Editing shots from a session last week fr
each sample, therefore is as high as it's owner decides.
>>> IOW, they will "find" what they're looking for.
>>> Camera handling notwithstanding(???)
>>>
>>> Jack
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Mar
ner decides.
>> IOW, they will "find" what they're looking for.
>> Camera handling notwithstanding(???)
>>
>> Jack
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Mark Roberts"
>> To: "PDML"
>> Sent: Thursday, Sept
27;re looking for.
Camera handling notwithstanding(???)
Jack
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
To: "PDML"
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46:50 AM
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Jack Davis wrote:
And I suspect a
I'm seeing pretty impressive results from the K3 coupled with the
Sigma 18-35/1.8 in studio. Editing shots from a session last week from
a pretty loosely shot group portrait of 11 I found some moire in a
small headpiece of fine netting. I'm not sure if the lens is
out-resolving the sensor but it's
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:11 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:
>
>
>> On 11 Sep 2014, at 14:36, "Stanley Halpin"
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> [...]
>
>>> Log scales can be another useful tool…
>
> My logs weigh more than your logs.
>
> B
> --
Ah, but my logs crackle and pop nicely when use
on 2014-09-11 16:45 Darren Addy wrote
>> did anyone have problems with jaggies when using very sharp lenses on
8mp cameras?
...i think that this question is irrelevant unless someone was
answering the question with a camera that lacked an anti-alias filter.
I doubt that there were any in 8MP da
I don't have any idea if John's point about diagonal lines is valid or
not, but...
>> did anyone have problems with jaggies when using very sharp lenses on 8mp
>> cameras?
...i think that this question is irrelevant unless someone was
answering the question with a camera that lacked an anti-alia
on 2014-09-11 15:12 JC OConnell wrote
the sensor NEEDS to outresolve the lens significantly so that diagonal lines
dont have any jaggies
i'm not sure that's correct; a lens that underperforms the sensor should
reduce moire, but a diagonal line projected very sharply onto a sensor
should still
steve harley wrote:
>on 2014-09-11 1:22 Larry Colen wrote
>>
>> P.J. Alling wrote:
>>> 46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of
>>> physics.
>>
>> That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3.
>
>did the math K-3 has significantly higher pixel density, so it w
> On 11 Sep 2014, at 14:36, "Stanley Halpin"
> wrote:
>
>
>> [...]
>> Log scales can be another useful tool…
>
My logs weigh more than your logs.
B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the
the sensor NEEDS to outresolve the lens significantly so that diagonal
lines dont have any jaggies
On 9/11/2014 2:09 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
You *want* your sensor to "out-resolve the lens", people. Don't say it
like it's a bad thing.
I think that people are forgetting that if the sensor DOES N
on 2014-09-11 1:22 Larry Colen wrote
P.J. Alling wrote:
46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of
physics.
That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3.
did the math — K-3 has significantly higher pixel density, so it would be
the one pushing the ragged
On 9/10/2014 3:43 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
and new line of Sony cameras using them in January?
Reported...
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-no-other-new-camera-from-sony-at-photokina-sr5-new-generation-sensor-and-cameras-release-in-january/
This is of interest, of course, since Pentax uses Sony
You *want* your sensor to "out-resolve the lens", people. Don't say it
like it's a bad thing.
I think that people are forgetting that if the sensor DOES NOT
out-resolve the lens you theoretically have moire. This is why AA
filters were necessary in the past, but as pixel pitch shrinks it
becomes u
Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote:
>i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter
>print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at
>close range.
> i would actually bet.
And if the sensor's outresolving the lens, there won't BE any
difference.
--
PDML Pentax-D
ark Roberts"
To: "PDML"
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46:50 AM
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Jack Davis wrote:
>And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a
>significant step.
Since the current 36-megapixe
On 11/09/2014 10:46 AM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
mark roberts wrote:
Since the current 36-megapixel cameras already out-resolve most available
lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space
with little or no improvement in image quality.
Of course you won't notice the difference on the web or
i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter
print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at
close range.
i would actually bet.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:57 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
> I think that it might well be more than a 28% change in file size, but
I think that it might well be more than a 28% change in file size, but
I'm not sure at this point, everything even raw files are subject to
some kind of compression these days.
On 9/11/2014 10:46 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Jack Davis wrote:
And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% w
That is true, but I think that about the K-3 sensor as well, and most
users seem to think that the K-5 produces better image quality at high
ISO than the K-3.
What I'd hope for in the future, more than most anything else, would
effectively be, a K-5III with an improved ~16mp, (OK Pentax will
mark roberts wrote:
>Since the current 36-megapixel cameras already out-resolve most available
lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space
>with little or no improvement in image quality.
Of course you won't notice the difference on the web or 4x6 print.
But remember way back when *all* ou
Jack Davis wrote:
>And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a
>significant step.
Since the current 36-megapixel camersa already out-resolve most
available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or
no improvement in image quality.
As John says, whet
I'm not denying that there is an appropriate place to use percentages.
It is especially useful in apples to apples comparisons.
I'm just saying that comparing APS-C to full frame AND to a completely
different era is apples to oranges, in my book.
To go back to Mark's numbers, he's saying a 27% inc
On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
> That's a funny way of looking at it. First of all, almost all change
> is incremental, but that doesn't mean it is insignifcant. If reducing
> things to percentage increase was a valid way of comparing things,
> then someone who went from bench p
And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a
significant step.
Jack
- Original Message -
From: "John"
To: "PDML"
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 6:07:45 AM
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 9/11/20
On 9/11/2014 6:33 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Comapred to the current 36-megapixel full-frame sensor, a 46 megapixel
sensor represents in increase by a factor of about 1.27. So if you had
an old 6-megapixel ist-D it would be equivalent to upgrading to a
7.6-megapixel camera.
In other words, it's a s
That's a funny way of looking at it. First of all, almost all change
is incremental, but that doesn't mean it is insignifcant. If reducing
things to percentage increase was a valid way of comparing things,
then someone who went from bench pressing 460 lbs from 360 lbs
shouldn't be any prouder of th
Comapred to the current 36-megapixel full-frame sensor, a 46 megapixel
sensor represents in increase by a factor of about 1.27. So if you had
an old 6-megapixel ist-D it would be equivalent to upgrading to a
7.6-megapixel camera.
In other words, it's a silly marketing game.
--
Mark Roberts - P
P.J. Alling wrote:
46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of
physics.
That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml
46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of
physics.
On 9/10/2014 3:43 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
and new line of Sony cameras using them in January?
Reported...
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-no-other-new-camera-from-sony-at-photokina-sr5-new-generation-sensor-and-c
67 matches
Mail list logo
