https://www.flickr.com/photos/101533246@N02/albums/72177720310649025 Yes, they’re both older hardware. But comparisons of top-end equipment are still useful. The Sony A7RII was equipped with the G24-105/4. The K-1 with the 77/1.8 Limited. Two outstanding lenses. Both of these pairs are crops from the same image (1 P, 1 S) to show both detail and DOF. Sony image at 98mm, f4, 1/100, iso 2000. Pentax image at 77mm, f2.2, iso 400. Neither sensor was accurate on the brick color. The Sony had too much yellow and the Pentax too much red. Reality was about half-way between the two. I wonder what the digital version of the 77/1.8 would have done with the brick color. The 77 was better on edge sharpness, though the 24-105 is quite respectable for a zoom. (I understand that there is a next gen of the f4 zoom that is even better. Sony is doing a good job, though quite pricey.) Both lenses do render DOF quite nicely. Though this isn’t formally a “macro” shot, some lenses do exhibit too much curvature in close-up work. Both of these perform nicely. I don’t have a Pentax zoom that is the equivalent of the Sony or I would have used it. The 300/4.5 might have been a bit unwieldy. The short of it is this, and it’s something we all know: Pentax still holds its own. I state this because people sometimes need this type of reassurance. Also … why do I have two bodies? I have two because the SLR works much better when shooting anything that might be in motion while a mirrorless body works better for streaming, recording, and informal gatherings (due to general compactness).

It is obvious that there is a difference in DOF, f2.2 versus f4. In the K-1 picture the focus is not on the eyes. Henk Op di 22 aug 2023 om 15:27 schreef <collinb@brendemuehl.net>: > https://www.flickr.com/photos/101533246@N02/albums/72177720310649025 > > Yes, they’re both older hardware. But comparisons of top-end equipment are > still useful. > > The Sony A7RII was equipped with the G24-105/4. The K-1 with the 77/1.8 > Limited. Two outstanding lenses. > > Both of these pairs are crops from the same image (1 P, 1 S) to show both > detail and DOF. > > Sony image at 98mm, f4, 1/100, iso 2000. > > Pentax image at 77mm, f2.2, iso 400. > > Neither sensor was accurate on the brick color. The Sony had too much > yellow and the Pentax too much red. Reality was about half-way between the > two. I wonder what the digital version of the 77/1.8 would have done with > the brick color. > > The 77 was better on edge sharpness, though the 24-105 is quite > respectable for a zoom. (I understand that there is a next gen of the f4 > zoom that is even better. Sony is doing a good job, though quite pricey.) > > Both lenses do render DOF quite nicely. Though this isn’t formally a > “macro” shot, some lenses do exhibit too much curvature in close-up work. > Both of these perform nicely. > > I don’t have a Pentax zoom that is the equivalent of the Sony or I would > have used it. The 300/4.5 might have been a bit unwieldy. > > The short of it is this, and it’s something we all know: Pentax still > holds its own. I state this because people sometimes need this type of > reassurance. > > Also … why do I have two bodies? I have two because the SLR works much > better when shooting anything that might be in motion while a mirrorless > body works better for streaming, recording, and informal gatherings (due to > general compactness). > >

OF course. DSLR is, for the most part, better than mirrorless for focus accuracy. I did this handheld and before leaving for work this a.m. No time for a tripod. Also, the Sony is more pixels but the Pentax still looks generally better. Now if I put the 77 on the Sony … it would best any of their lenses.

On 8/22/2023 11:39 AM, collinb@brendemuehl.net wrote: > OF course. DSLR is, for the most part, better than mirrorless for focus accuracy. This actually isn't true. The (IMHO only) advantage of mirrorless is focusing directly on the sensor rather than via a secondary method (either focusing screen or an AF sensor that isn't on the imaging sensor. For a DSLR to focus accurately, the secondary systems used must be in absolutely perfect registration to the sensor, something that is next to impossible to obtain in a consumer level device. Contrast this with a mirrorless where there is no need for this registration accuracy as focusing is done on the sensor plane. With mirrorless, focus accuracy is primarily determined by the resolution of the focus motor. With the DSLR, focus accuracy is determined by the accuracy of placement of the focusing system, be it the view screen or AF sensor, in relation to the sensor plane as well as the resolution of the focus motor. To get the same accuracy of focus in a DSLR, you need to use liveview, effectively turning your DSLR into a mirrorless camera. bill

Good point, Bill. This makes sense. I use live view almost exclusively when shooting cars for editorial, but almost never when shooting birds or other things for my own entertainment. I may never graduate to mirrorless, since I’ve pretty much decided that I will keep using my current kit until I drop dead. Paul > On Aug 23, 2023, at 11:03 AM, Bill <anotherdrunkensot@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 8/22/2023 11:39 AM, collinb@brendemuehl.net wrote: >> OF course. DSLR is, for the most part, better than mirrorless for focus accuracy. > This actually isn't true. The (IMHO only) advantage of mirrorless is focusing directly on the sensor rather than via a secondary method (either focusing screen or an AF sensor that isn't on the imaging sensor. > For a DSLR to focus accurately, the secondary systems used must be in absolutely perfect registration to the sensor, something that is next to impossible to obtain in a consumer level device. > Contrast this with a mirrorless where there is no need for this registration accuracy as focusing is done on the sensor plane. > > With mirrorless, focus accuracy is primarily determined by the resolution of the focus motor. With the DSLR, focus accuracy is determined by the accuracy of placement of the focusing system, be it the view screen or AF sensor, in relation to the sensor plane as well as the resolution of the focus motor. > > To get the same accuracy of focus in a DSLR, you need to use liveview, effectively turning your DSLR into a mirrorless camera. > > bill > > -- > %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List > To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-leave@pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.

My K1 has been sitting pretty much idle since February, but my use of it since I got it has almost always been on a tripod using live view. The exception has been when I'm doing the now very rare portrait session. I prefer a bit more mobility than tripods give. I bought quite heavily into the Fuji system in 2013 when I bought an X-Pro1 and shortly after an X-T1 and used it instead of the K3 until the K1 came along. In 2016 I bought one and more or less forgot about the Fuji kit. In February I decided I really had to clean out the dumpster that my office had turned into, and there, under a stack of empty pizza boxes was my old Fuji kit. I thought to myself that the Fuji lenses are just too nice to not use, but 16mp is so last decade, so I looked at what Fuji had now. The X-T5 popped up in my search, I decided it met my wants, and so I bought one. And then LBA hit hard..... Eschewing my eschewing of zoom lenses, I built a really nice kit for the Fuji with the 8-16/2.8, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8, 80/2.8 macro, a Viltrox 75/1.2 and a 1.4 teleconverter (something I also have traditionally been loath to use). This was rather counterproductive in a way as the X-T5 is a very small body, similar in size to an LX, and the lenses rather dwarf the camera, but they are very good and make very nice pictures. The X-T5 is a very demanding camera regarding how it is used. Forty MP packed into an APS-C sensor means one's ducks really need to be aligned, but if the photographer is willing to put the work into it, the results from it are superb. One thing I've noticed is that the EVF in it doesn't give me the eye strain of previous generations. bill On 8/23/2023 11:27 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Good point, Bill. This makes sense. I use live view almost exclusively when shooting cars for editorial, but almost never when shooting birds or other things for my own entertainment. I may never graduate to mirrorless, since I’ve pretty much decided that I will keep using my current kit until I drop dead. > Paul > >> On Aug 23, 2023, at 11:03 AM, Bill <anotherdrunkensot@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 8/22/2023 11:39 AM, collinb@brendemuehl.net wrote: >>> OF course. DSLR is, for the most part, better than mirrorless for focus accuracy. >> This actually isn't true. The (IMHO only) advantage of mirrorless is focusing directly on the sensor rather than via a secondary method (either focusing screen or an AF sensor that isn't on the imaging sensor. >> For a DSLR to focus accurately, the secondary systems used must be in absolutely perfect registration to the sensor, something that is next to impossible to obtain in a consumer level device. >> Contrast this with a mirrorless where there is no need for this registration accuracy as focusing is done on the sensor plane. >> >> With mirrorless, focus accuracy is primarily determined by the resolution of the focus motor. With the DSLR, focus accuracy is determined by the accuracy of placement of the focusing system, be it the view screen or AF sensor, in relation to the sensor plane as well as the resolution of the focus motor. >> >> To get the same accuracy of focus in a DSLR, you need to use liveview, effectively turning your DSLR into a mirrorless camera. >> >> bill