Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

What you see is what you get, including photography, displays, and video equipment.

Moderators: Dposcorp, SpotTheCat

Re: Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

Postposted on Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:11 pm

PenGun wrote: I dunno. It's been shown the D800 is right there in IQ with several MF cameras. The R2 and Pentax were in that little test.

Now that was D0X so take it how you will.

For what I do the a7R was made for, and the nice lenses are what I need.

http://carnagepro.com/photo/EX1/


Oh, I know that the D800 resolves as much detail as the Pentax 645D, but a few folks who use both have said that the images from the 645D have a greater sense of the depth and better color/tonality. It's worth noting that the 645D uses a CCD sensor, which might be at the root of those opinions.

I'm looking forward to perusing your site... I love looking at photos. :D
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

Postposted on Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:21 pm

Bigger pixels, bigger sensor, CCD better at base ISO- just don't try to shoot that Pentax in anything other than stellar light. That's what Canon is for :).
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Maximum Gerbil
 
Posts: 4993
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

Postposted on Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm

Yeats wrote:
Airmantharp wrote:And I sorely wish Pentax would get on the ball with a full-frame system and 35mm lenses that can keep up with their 645 lenses. The new K-3 won DSLR of the year at DPReview, but tests with their current lineup of lenses using the Sony 24MP sensor show Pentax sorely trailing the big five lens houses while their selection makes Sony look good.

But man can they make a camera body.


The lens selection is what the lens selection is. If you want small, high-quality primes and the best legacy glass support going, go Pentax. If you want inexpensive all-weather gear, go Pentax. If those specific niches aren't your tipple, if you are a gear-hound or measurebator, go someplace else. I've seldom recommended Pentax to people, because it's not a well-rounded system in the modern context.

I don't believe any well-regarded lens-review site* has measured the Pentax glass on the 24MP sensor, but I could be wrong as I'm not obsessed with numbers.

*Don't say DxOMark, their "Camera Lens Ratings" are the laughingstock of the photographic community.

As far as FF... eh, whatever. I realize it's the in-thing and all that, and that's why people want it, not necessarily because they want to work at becoming good photographers. Further development on Medium Format would be more interesting. The difference between MF and FF is greater than that between FF and APS-C.


DxOMark's ratings are as subjective as anyone else's- interpretations of measurements, weighing what they think is more important.

But their measurements are nearly always spot-on. They've tested plenty of Sony 16MP and 24MP sensors, and with the 24MP sensor on the K-3, the general lack of real resolving power among Pentax's otherwise very neat primes is a definite drawback. It'd be better if Sigma, Tamron and Tokina had a full lineup in K-mount, but even third-party lens selection is pretty anemic- and precious few of those lenses live up to the full potential of first-party lenses on other systems.

That said, the only 'quality' issue Pentax has is in lens resolution; from what I've seen and heard (and would love to experience first hand) their rendering is stellar, and that makes up more than the difference unless you're printing extremely large. Nikon's new 58/1.4G isn't three times the price of the 50/1.4G for nothing, after all.

On FF vs. APS-C vs. MF- this'll be different across different systems, but note that FF cameras are generally the most capable cameras in a system. It's not all about measurebating either- from personal experience, moving to FF meant being able to shoot well in far lower light, having even greater latitude with post-processing, and having even greater control over depth of field. I can get both shallower depth of field than a crop system is capable of realizing, while also being able to stop my lenses down further without butting up against the effects of diffraction. They're the sweet spot of this kind of shooting, where shallow depth of field requires more care on smaller sensors, and as PenGun mentioned above, diffraction from extremely narrow apertures on medium format and larger systems becomes a working limitation. And then there's the lack of CMOS sensors above 35mm format that keeps such cameras below ISO 1600, when a modern Canon can hit ISO 6400 with ease.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Maximum Gerbil
 
Posts: 4993
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

Postposted on Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:07 pm

Phase One's new MF is using a CMOS Sony sensor. Its good to 6400. The folks at Luminous Landscape love it so far. There is speculation that Sony will step into the MF market, but I am not so sure about that. Just what we need... another Sony mount and naming structure.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq250_back_announced.shtml
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

Postposted on Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:21 pm

TheEmrys wrote:Phase One's new MF is using a CMOS Sony sensor. Its good to 6400. The folks at Luminous Landscape love it so far. There is speculation that Sony will step into the MF market, but I am not so sure about that. Just what we need... another Sony mount and naming structure.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq250_back_announced.shtml


This will be interesting, especially considering that Sony is willing to sell sensors to just about everyone; I know that a second MF house has been rumored to be using the new 50MP CMOS as well.

The challenge, if there is one, will be fought at base ISO, but it's not hard to have high hopes considering Sony's dynamic range performance with the 35mm format. I'll add that it would be really cool if the MF houses actually try to build action oriented bodies and lenses out of this sensor- though I feel that the barrier to entry there, considering Canon's considerable lead in telephoto lenses and advanced auto-focus, will prevent such efforts in the near-term.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Maximum Gerbil
 
Posts: 4993
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

Postposted on Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:26 am

Airmantharp wrote:DxOMark's ratings are as subjective as anyone else's- interpretations of measurements, weighing what they think is more important.

But their measurements are nearly always spot-on. They've tested plenty of Sony 16MP and 24MP sensors, and with the 24MP sensor on the K-3, the general lack of real resolving power among Pentax's otherwise very neat primes is a definite drawback. It'd be better if Sigma, Tamron and Tokina had a full lineup in K-mount, but even third-party lens selection is pretty anemic- and precious few of those lenses live up to the full potential of first-party lenses on other systems.

That said, the only 'quality' issue Pentax has is in lens resolution; from what I've seen and heard (and would love to experience first hand) their rendering is stellar, and that makes up more than the difference unless you're printing extremely large. Nikon's new 58/1.4G isn't three times the price of the 50/1.4G for nothing, after all.


I - and many, many other folks - find DxO's lens measurements to be off. /shrug Just because a number is put to something doesn't make it factual.

You can attach a Zeiss or Leica or whatever lens to a Pentax body and it's stabilized lens. That's my "third-party lens selection", among the best in the industry.

On FF vs. APS-C vs. MF- this'll be different across different systems, but note that FF cameras are generally the most capable cameras in a system. It's not all about measurebating either- from personal experience, moving to FF meant being able to shoot well in far lower light, having even greater latitude with post-processing, and having even greater control over depth of field. I can get both shallower depth of field than a crop system is capable of realizing, while also being able to stop my lenses down further without butting up against the effects of diffraction. They're the sweet spot of this kind of shooting, where shallow depth of field requires more care on smaller sensors, and as PenGun mentioned above, diffraction from extremely narrow apertures on medium format and larger systems becomes a working limitation. And then there's the lack of CMOS sensors above 35mm format that keeps such cameras below ISO 1600, when a modern Canon can hit ISO 6400 with ease.


I don't believe I ever mentioned anything negative about FF, nor implied that APS-C is superior. All I said is that most people who want it don't actually need it.

Yes, you can stop down lenses further before hitting diffraction (pending the lens design, of course), but given the shallower DoF inherent in FF, that does not translate to greater DoF. While "DoF control" is desirable, shallow DoF is frequently used as a crutch by people who can't shoot interestingly or creatively. And it's frequently abused by people not having enough of their subject in precise focus. f/64

Any modern camera can hit ISO 6400 with ease, so I don't see a problem there... except maybe for modernist noobs who freak out at a hint of imager noise.

Since you mention "personal experience", I'll mention that mine includes m4/3, APS-C, FF, MF and LF; the latter two not digital, though.

The point lurking in the background of my posts is that the nature of the gear is... just not that important. The common stuff gets obsessed over and talked to death. I just got an MTO 500/8 mirror lens that's actually 548/8.8. It passed factory inspection in 1970, the certificate filled out by hand and lens resolution measured at 32 lp/mm. Sounds fun...
Yeats
Gerbil XP
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:53 pm
Location: NJ, USA

Re: Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

Postposted on Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:38 am

Yeats wrote:I - and many, many other folks - find DxO's lens measurements to be off. /shrug Just because a number is put to something doesn't make it factual.

You can attach a Zeiss or Leica or whatever lens to a Pentax body and it's stabilized lens. That's my "third-party lens selection", among the best in the industry.


We could be very well looking at different sets of information, but in general, DxO agrees with other available empirical testing. While they're popular to hate on, particularly if you look at their 'DxOMark score', their actual lens measurements rarely differ from user experience and are very good at comparing different aspects of lenses within a system and between similar systems.

Yeats wrote:Yes, you can stop down lenses further before hitting diffraction (pending the lens design, of course), but given the shallower DoF inherent in FF, that does not translate to greater DoF. While "DoF control" is desirable, shallow DoF is frequently used as a crutch by people who can't shoot interestingly or creatively. And it's frequently abused by people not having enough of their subject in precise focus. f/64


Not entirely a subject of diffraction, as one might assume that the FF camera/lens combination would be able to be stopped down further than a crop camera only enough to make up for the loss of depth of field produced by the larger sensor before hitting the diffraction limit, a larger sensor with better pixels would typically put the FF camera ahead of the crop camera when trying to maximize both resolution and depth of field. I'd assume larger formats carry roughly the same advantage over smaller formats at base ISOs, but I've never shot one :).

Yeats wrote:Any modern camera can hit ISO 6400 with ease, so I don't see a problem there... except maybe for modernist noobs who freak out at a hint of imager noise.


Any current FF camera can produce acceptable results at ISO6400, but I that's about the limit outside of the very best cameras- only the Canon 1D X really handles higher than that well. But crop cameras tend to lose realized resolution due to noise very quickly, though they are getting better as evidenced by Fuji's X-Trans, which continues to impress. I will admit that starting with Canon crop cameras has made me a little more noise averse than perhaps I should be; both my 60D (18MP) and Rebel T1i (15MP) generated noise patterns that came across as jarring, while my 6D (20MP FF) and EOS-M (18MP crop) look quite a bit better.

Yeats wrote:Since you mention "personal experience", I'll mention that mine includes m4/3, APS-C, FF, MF and LF; the latter two not digital, though.

The point lurking in the background of my posts is that the nature of the gear is... just not that important. The common stuff gets obsessed over and talked to death. I just got an MTO 500/8 mirror lens that's actually 548/8.8. It passed factory inspection in 1970, the certificate filled out by hand and lens resolution measured at 32 lp/mm. Sounds fun...


Few people need more than the camera on their phone, making the m4/3 or APS-C/H or FF or MF or LF argument pretty silly; they're all pretty damn good. You need APS-C at least to get good tracking AF of course, but otherwise, the quality is largely there. The main FF draw as of late has been the pricing of FF bodies near $1500 from three different companies. If photography is a significant interest, it's hard to say no to today, given that a semi-pro APS-C body or m4/3 body is already most of the way there. There's also a recent episode of a lack of features in crop cameras compared to their FF siblings that varies between manufacturers but did tend to push people up the chain; this is also one of the reasons that I admire Pentax's cameras. They're photographer's cameras, not products of marketing department product segmentation.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Maximum Gerbil
 
Posts: 4993
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Re: Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

Postposted on Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:38 am

Airman, Pentax has a lot of awesome lenses. Sure, they're all MF and 30 years old, but that just means they're cheap! My SMC 55mm f/1.8 and my Vivitar 70-210mm f/3.5 were about $30 each. I know I can get a Vivitar 35mm f/2.5 lens for $50 as well, but I'm holding out for a better deal (there are a lot of Minolta mounts for less than $30, but I'm looking for m42). For those of you counting along at home, that's two decently fast primes and a very sharp telephoto lens for less than the cheapest Canon lens (50mm f/1.8 is ~$100 new). The cost here is a major benefit, but the lenses are still top notch (as long as you don't need AF, or practice with MF).

Yeats wrote:Any modern camera can hit ISO 6400 with ease, so I don't see a problem there... except maybe for modernist noobs who freak out at a hint of imager noise.


My T1i (hey! it's modern compared to my K1000!) has visible chroma noise at ISO 100. There's a lot of visible luminance noise past around 800, and I can't shoot above 1600 with it. At that point, the loss of detail is visible even at low resolutions.
Lenovo W520
IBM dx340
Nokia Lumia 928
Sony a7 with far too many lenses to list or even count
lonleyppl
Gerbil XP
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

Postposted on Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:02 am

Airmantharp wrote:We could be very well looking at different sets of information, but in general, DxO agrees with other available empirical testing. While they're popular to hate on, particularly if you look at their 'DxOMark score', their actual lens measurements rarely differ from user experience and are very good at comparing different aspects of lenses within a system and between similar systems.


Except when they are just wrong. See ISO50 example on Sony. For some reason, they believe there is more dynamic range. Sony themselves say it is less dynamic range. There is something off, and because they are not transparent with their methodology, no one can find the proverbial "fly in the ointment." If TR did their product reviews this way, I would not take them seriously.
Sony a7
Sony Zeiss 55/1.8 SSM, 24-70/4 SSM
Minolta 17-35/2.8-4 D, 100-300 APO
TheEmrys
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Silver subscriber
 
 
Posts: 2153
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 8:22 pm
Location: Northern Colorado

Re: Off-Centered Focal point indicator - D800

Postposted on Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:55 pm

TheEmrys wrote:
Airmantharp wrote:We could be very well looking at different sets of information, but in general, DxO agrees with other available empirical testing. While they're popular to hate on, particularly if you look at their 'DxOMark score', their actual lens measurements rarely differ from user experience and are very good at comparing different aspects of lenses within a system and between similar systems.


Except when they are just wrong. See ISO50 example on Sony. For some reason, they believe there is more dynamic range. Sony themselves say it is less dynamic range. There is something off, and because they are not transparent with their methodology, no one can find the proverbial "fly in the ointment." If TR did their product reviews this way, I would not take them seriously.


Those results on the a99 did look weird, but do note that clipped ISOs on other systems also produce irregular results, and have very little practical use outside of JPEG rendering in super-bright situations. I won't claim that they're perfect, as their testing methodology tends to highlight base ISO usage over high ISO usage as well, which results in glorifying Nikon sensors' ability to lift shadows while passing over Canon's high ISO performance for sports/action/wildlife.
Canon 6D||[24-105/4L IS USM|100/2.8L Macro IS USM|70-300/4-5.6 IS USM|40/2.8 STM|50/1.4 USM|85/1.8 USM|Samyang/Bower 14/2.8 Full-Manual Rectilinear Wide-angle|
Canon EOS-M|11-22/4-5.6 IS STM|22/2 STM|EF-M 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS STM|
For sale!|24/2.8 IS USM
|
Airmantharp
Maximum Gerbil
 
Posts: 4993
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:41 pm

Previous

Return to Visual Haven

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests