Camera gear discussions

Yep that's for sure. Anything more than that and you need probably need a full-time photography job to justify the purchase.

 

If digital had not made its entry I would have kept my old Nikon F100 and F90X. Now I have the EM5 which is a lot of camera. I am quite content.

 

Anyone use a small tripod (for tables & ledges, not full standing height) for micro 4/3 cameras? Looking for a decent one that won't break my wallet and my camera.

 

Wait, am I reading this right? I've never seen anything that expensive from Pentax, their full-frame K1 is $1,900.

Well see a lot of the fun with photography is also the gear acquisition. I won't be buying any new lenses for a while, but I am happy as heck that I bought what I have so far. The only lens I don't use is the 18-55 kit lens.

 

They have a full-frame, no? The K-1?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-645Z-Camera-3-Inch-Black/dp/B00LHWDZUC
My bad, it is only $7000. I must have remembered the local price for it in Singapore.

 

Oh wow. What's the purpose of a medium format camera? How does it differ from crop and full-frame?

 

Larger sensor, meaning: Larger photosites for a given megapixel count, longer lenses to obtain the same field of view as 35mm. The net result is a different "look" and high image quality.

 

Increased depth of field, which with the right lenses can bring out better separation in images. The larger sensor also capture more light, which allows it to render lowlight photo details better with less noise. Currently, the medium format sensors also appear to have better colour rendition, especially in the intense reds. As with music, to properly appreciate the differences, you'd need to be familiar not just with the gear compared, but with the "recording" itself, i.e. the skills and style of the photographer who took the shots.

 

Decreased or shallower depth of field would be more accurate. Less is in focus, due to longer lenses being used for the equivalent field of view relative to 35mm. Though I think that's what you're getting at...

 

I think increase is correct for the same aperture, focal length and focusing distance. Note FOV will be different.

 

I disagree. If you're taking FOV out of the equation, there wouldn't be any difference at all. They would be equal in terms of DOF at a given aperture. 50mm is 50mm, 90mm is 90mm, etc.

 

You can check on any DOF calculator.

 

I'm not quite sure how to put it so perhaps an example would be in order:
https://www.facebook.com/blog.mingt...6534239103590/964338420323165/?type=3&theater

For this shot, even though the aperture isn't wide open (more of the image is in focus), there isn't the pancake-flat impression that you might get with other stopped-down wide-angle lenses.

Also, I didn't take that picture.

 

I'll drop it after this - promise, as the discussion is getting sidetracked. Theoretical depth of field nonsense aside, the important thing to note (i.e. actually has some bearing on practical use in the field) is that for a given field of view, depth of field at a given aperture decreases as sensor or film size increases, due to increasingly longer lenses being used to achieve the same FOV. I've used various medium and large format cameras for the last 10 years and am quite aware of the challenges in obtaining sufficient DOF for landscape photography with these larger formats. Anyone expecting to gain DOF at a given FOV and aperture by moving to medium or large format is in for a rude awakening.

That said, there are obvious rendering benefits to using a larger surface area for a sensor. As Friday stated, with medium format, this equates to larger photo sites for a given megapixel count and lower pixel density, and as stated there is simply more light gathering capability. Any discussion of aps-c vs full frame, or m43 vs full frame essentially applies here - simply replace the larger format with "medium format" and insert full frame (or whatever smaller format) as the smaller format. It's just a step further beyond full frame. The potential resolution and tonal quality larger formats can be spectacular.

Cheers.

 

Was there even a proper objective to begin with?

So, would it be fair to say that the challenges include having to stop down more? And that would come with its own can of worms, like reduced exposure and possibly sharpness due to diffraction, although would the larger sensor offset those as well? (If I recall correctly, you can stop down more on larger sensors before diffraction starts to occur.)
Finally, if the better "separation" in stopped down/ "fully focused" images isn't increased DOF, what would be a better way to describe or explain the effect?

 

What do you mean by better separation?

 

As mentioned in an earlier post, less pancake-flat images despite most of the elements being in focus.

 

Right. I am not sure that is due to lens or DoF. In my experience, it is in the lighting and how the subjects/elements are placed and lit. Now, my DoF calculator cannot prove this - just what I thought worked for me.

 

Ah yes, the impression that every part of the image is sliced neatly into their respective planes rather than compressed into a single one.