On Nov 16, 2008, at 3:13 AM, drew wrote:
So, at the end of the day, after all the arguing over semantics is
done ;-) Is the damn thing worth the £160 it sells for in the
UK? I mean should I ask my wife to get me one for Christmas or look
out an older manual focus version?
Yes, if a
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of drew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 November 2008 11:13
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
So, at the end of the day, after all the arguing over semantics is
done
So, at the end of the day, after all the arguing over semantics is
done ;-) Is the damn thing worth the £160 it sells for in the UK? I
mean should I ask my wife to get me one for Christmas or look out an
older manual focus version?
Cheers,
Drew.
Jos from Holland wrote:
What about
It's a tried true and solid design. It's thee least expensive option,
and if you don't use it to it's limits you'll not be disappointed.
Shooting absolutely wide open will not give optimum results, but then at
least you'll get the shot. If you worry about the not particularly
deeply
What about depency of eyesight quality?
People with reduced eyesight will always enjoy deeper depth of field? :-)
Maybe we just have to accept that there is only one subject to lens
distance sharp and we are lucky we can choose that point ourselfs (or
leave it to the camera)
Greetz, Jos
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dof HAS ZILCH to do with format, its all about
magnification which is object size vs image size.
object size vs image size ignores format.
That said, if you are using the same lens
focal length, and same distance of the
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Hunt
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:29 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In that case, FF and aps format would be the SAME DOF,
neither one would have deeper dof. And print size is
not a factor either
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:26 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, it depends purely on the magnification ratio and alowable COC.
Focal length doesn't matter, nor does subject distance.
Your statement is only an approximation, useful for close subject
distances. See:
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Hunt
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:26 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, it depends purely on the magnification ratio and alowable COC.
Focal length doesn't matter, nor does subject
]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew Hunt
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 7:38 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dof HAS ZILCH
1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dof HAS ZILCH to do with format, its all about
magnification which is object size vs image size.
object size vs image size ignores format.
That said, if you are using the same lens
focal
B.S. in capitols. DOF is format and print size independent.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew Hunt
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 8:06 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm
] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 9:49 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Hunt
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:26 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:27 AM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WRONG, FORMAT HAS NOTHING TO WITH DOF WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL IMAGE
PROPERTY.
DOF IS DETERMINED BY MAGNIFICATION AND F-STOP, FORMAT AND PRINT SIZE HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH DOF WHICH IS RELATIVE SHARPNESS OF FOREGROUND AND
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Hunt
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
Well, all I have on my side is a couple of degrees in physics,
experience teaching optics labs, references to Kodak literature and
textbooks. Since you have a full quiver of capital letters, you
2008/11/14 William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- Original Message - From: Matthew Hunt
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
Well, all I have on my side is a couple of degrees in physics,
experience teaching optics labs, references to Kodak literature and
textbooks. Since you
On 11/14/08, Matthew Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:27 AM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WRONG, FORMAT HAS NOTHING TO WITH DOF WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL IMAGE
PROPERTY.
DOF IS DETERMINED BY MAGNIFICATION AND F-STOP, FORMAT AND PRINT SIZE HAS
NOTHING TO DO
2008/11/15 Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 11/14/08, Matthew Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:27 AM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WRONG, FORMAT HAS NOTHING TO WITH DOF WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL IMAGE
PROPERTY.
DOF IS DETERMINED BY MAGNIFICATION AND
On 11/14/08, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since you have a full quiver of capital letters, you must
be right.
You must be new here.
MARK!!!
--
Rhetoric is a poor substitute for action, and we have trusted only to
rhetoric. If we are really to be a great nation, we must
Matthew,
Listen to Bill Robb. Lots of us have blocked posts from JC O'Connell.
Other, moderated lists have kicked him out for his boorish behavior.
He never gives in, right or wrong, and always has to have the last
word, IN CAPS!!!
Don't wrestle in the mud with pigs.
You'll get dirty and they
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Matthew Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, all I have on my side is a couple of degrees in physics,
experience teaching optics labs, references to Kodak literature and
textbooks. Since you have a full quiver of capital letters, you must
be right.
Yes, but
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 12:43 PM, frank theriault
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Matthew Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, all I have on my side is a couple of degrees in physics,
experience teaching optics labs, references to Kodak literature and
textbooks.
[...]
As I carefully explained above DoF depends on
the circle of confusion value,
Welcome to the PDML. JCO has a high circle of confusion value, and often talks a
lot of CoC.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:07:49 -, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[...]
As I carefully explained above DoF depends on
the circle of confusion value,
Welcome to the PDML. JCO has a high circle of confusion value, and often
talks a
lot of CoC.
Bob
Maybe so, but it's been a
: Friday, November 14, 2008 9:33 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 8:27 AM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WRONG, FORMAT HAS NOTHING TO WITH DOF WHICH IS A FUNDAMENTAL IMAGE
PROPERTY. DOF IS DETERMINED BY MAGNIFICATION
Friday, November 14, 2008, 6:36:21 AM, you wrote:
WR - Original Message -
WR From: Matthew Hunt
WR Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
Well, all I have on my side is a couple of degrees in physics,
experience teaching optics labs, references to Kodak literature
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bob Sullivan
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 12:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PDML
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
Matthew,
Listen to Bill Robb. Lots of us have blocked posts from JC O'Connell.
Other, moderated lists have kicked him out for his boorish behavior. He
List
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 9:32 AM, Matthew Hunt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, all I have on my side is a couple of degrees in physics,
experience teaching optics labs, references to Kodak literature and
textbooks. Since you have a full quiver
]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Bob W
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 3:08 PM
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'
Subject: RE: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
[...]
As I carefully explained above DoF depends on
the circle of confusion value
Hey dudes, JC is correct on DoF. Chill.
Mixing CoC and DoF is a no win argument unless a value of CoC is fixed
before you start. You can achieve a deeper DoF from any projected
image if you decide after the fact that a sloppier focus (larger CoC)
is acceptable in your resultant print or
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Dario Bonazza
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/
Dario
They certainly don't seem impressed with its open-aperture performance, do they?
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:03 PM, frank theriault
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Dario Bonazza
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/
Dario
They certainly don't seem impressed with its open-aperture performance, do
On Nov 13, 2008, at 12:10 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
test on FA50/1.4
They certainly don't seem impressed with its open-aperture
performance, do they?
It seems not. I never found mine soft, the detail was there but there
was a 'glow' to it that made it one of the best portrait lenses I've
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/
At times it sounds like a sales pitch for the Sigma lens the author
keeps mentioning.
One thing that confuses me was this text about the distance scale:
A distance scale is provided with ... a depth of field scale marked for
F11, F16 and
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:31 PM, John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/
At times it sounds like a sales pitch for the Sigma lens the author
keeps mentioning.
One thing that confuses me was this text about the distance scale:
A distance
DoF changes somewhat between formats. Also I've generally found that
the acceptable CoC used for DoF marking calculations is rather
optimistic for digital use (30 micron CoC's don't play well with 6
micron sensor sites)
Could you restate that in less technical language? I'd appreciate it.
John,
I can answer your first question or the second but not both (the
answer to the first precludes intelligibly answering the second as
it's a very technical answer).
Essentially it comes down to how big a blurry circle projected on the
sensor can be before it's no longer perceived as a sharp
On Nov 13, 2008, at 12:31 PM, John Celio wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/
One thing that confuses me was this text about the distance scale:
A distance scale is provided with ... a depth of field scale marked
for
F11, F16 and F22. As a legacy film lens, this is
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 3:44 PM, John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could you restate that in less technical language? I'd appreciate it.
Also, how exactly does DoF change somewhat? What causes this change?
A print of a certain size from APS-C is more enlarged than a print of
the same size
frank theriault wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Dario Bonazza
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/
Dario
They certainly don't seem impressed with its open-aperture performance, do they?
cheers,
frank
Dpreview is seldom impressed
The sentence is poorly written. The DOF scale is calibrated to 35mm
format, so it will be off a bit, but then it's really just a guideline
anyway, I just use the next smallest marked aperture, it seems to work
OK unless I miss the focus entirely.
John Celio wrote:
Acceptable DOF changes based on a number of things. Print size, viewing
distance etc. However all other things aside the smaller the circle of
confusion the greater the DOF and the COC is directly related to the
aperture.. However sharpness will be effected by diffraction as the
aperture
2008/11/14 P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
frank theriault wrote:
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Dario Bonazza
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/
Dario
They certainly don't seem impressed with its open-aperture performance, do
they?
Subject: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/pentax_50_1p4_p15/
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions
John Celio wrote:
DoF changes somewhat between formats. Also I've generally found that
the acceptable CoC used for DoF marking calculations is rather
optimistic for digital use (30 micron CoC's don't play well with 6
micron sensor sites)
Could you restate that in less technical language? I'd
Thise jist of the post below has it backwards. Yes DOF is a function
of magnification but its got nothing to do with print size, print
size changes nothing. The magnification that affects DOF is defined
as object size to image size ***in camera***. So with a fixed field of
view
using a shorter
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:03 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So with a fixed field of view using a shorter lens on a smaller format like
APS-C,
the image DOF is Deeper or greater with APS compared to FF 35mm film
format at the same shooting F-stop and angle of view.
We're not
JC OConnell wrote:
Thise jist of the post below has it backwards.
Oops, I always get that backwards.
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
, 2008 7:36 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 7:03 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So with a fixed field of view using a shorter lens on a smaller format
like APS-C, the image DOF is Deeper or greater with APS compared
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:29 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In that case, FF and aps format would be the SAME DOF,
neither one would have deeper dof. And print size is
not a factor either.
You are incorrect.
The DOF depends on the following factors:
Lens focal length (f)
Lens
In that case, FF and aps format would be the SAME DOF,
neither one would have deeper dof.
And print size is not a factor either.
For me print size is definitely a factor.
When considering if something is adequately in focus, or within acceptable
DOF, it is really the final result that
: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 9:29 PM, JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In that case, FF and aps format would be the SAME DOF, neither one
would have deeper dof. And print size is not a factor either.
You are incorrect.
The DOF depends on the following
: Re: FA 1.4/50mm tested by DPReview
In that case, FF and aps format would be the SAME DOF, neither one
would have deeper dof. And print size is not a factor either.
For me print size is definitely a factor.
When considering if something is adequately in focus, or within
acceptable
DOF
Peter,
The standard reference used for DoF scales has been an 8x10 inch
target print since almost forever. If you're printing larger than
that, the usual assumption is that the increased viewing distance
compensates for the larger size to give the perception of sharpness
consistent with
55 matches
Mail list logo
