It's Pentax week on DPReview TV, so Chris and Jordan review the DA* 11-18mm F2.8 ultra-wide zoom for Pentax APS-C cameras. Do they like it? They sure do! Enough to inspire Jordan to sing. And sing some more. Get out your earplugs.
I do miss the snow horrible into germany ! That horrible man-made climate change. Would love to shoot into your filming location. The past years have been that hot, sunny and unbearable. I can't stand the heat.
@Marc We crazy guys tend to question stuff. You know, critical thinking ... For example this guy https://youtu.be/xMc1o2tUBds Crazy conspiracy theorist with rock solid data... Btw, you are the one who will have fun without nuclear and coal, lol. Where will you get your energy from in the not so sunny and not so windy Germany? From nuclear plants in France and Poland. But you feel so virtuous, instead. So you, have fun:)
consider different spelling's for the screen name Will Sukmiof, and then look up English slang associated with the verb--if spelling the terms out in normal English don't tell you the story.
I own this Lens and edge softness is in fact field curvature. The trick to have edge to edge sharpness is to focus somewhere between center and edge, for example one vertical third line. It is a little annoying not to be able to focus in the center, but pictures dramatically improve with this trick.
Very good point! That is exactly what I thought. I didn't mention it in my post below because I think they are experienced enought to focus somewhere on say 1/3 of the scene or use hyperfocal distance to rule the field curvature impact out. Chris? Jordan? :D I don't have the 11-18 but I had soft corners with my Sigma 10-20 and Irix 15 when I didn't focus carefully due to field curvature. Both lenses can be quite solid when comes to the corner sharpness.
Field curvature is almost as bad as softness. It makes the act of taking photographs complicated and unreliable. Once in a while you get perfect results but most of the time there are odd looking changes in focus across the image plane.
Having areas in and out of focus is a normal part of photography. When the focal plane is curved it doesn't look "right" and becomes distracting. At least this is true for wide angle lenses where you are more likely to take "all in focus everything in the frame is important" shots.
You're right Lessiter, it makes act of taking photographs less fun and less reliable. You can't just use hyperfocal distance and have everything sharp in the picture. But with this lens, focusing a little off center work pretty well and is reliable enough. It seems that Pentax do not correct field curvature anymore on new lenses, I have also the problem with the 20-40 Limited but with this one, I never was able to fully correct field curvature... and I sold the lens.
The da 20-40 should be a different beast to this DA* lens. Limiteds are kind of supposed to have quirks that give the image character. I've never used the 20-40 but I've seen the reviews and sample photographs. It seems to have a very nice rendering, particularly for overcast weather. But sharpness across the field and aperture range looks like it hasn't been prioritized.
I don't have the 11-18 but I had soft corners with my Sigma 10-20 and Irix 15 when I didn't focus carefully due to field curvature. It makes act of taking photographs less fun and less reliable. You can't just use hyperfocal distance and have everything sharp in the picture.
Thanks Chris and Jordan for this video. Your videos always remind me of the great time we had in BC and Alberta in 2018.
This video in particular brought out the points I love Pentax for: The gear is highly weather resistant, made for using in the field and gives great results.
It is sad, that you were not able to get good results in terms of corner sharpness. As others metioned before, there are some reviews out there where the reviewers had more luck with the lens copy or the combination of a specific lens and body.
I'm glad you brought out the purpose Pentax has in the camera world. Keep on making such funny and informative videos.
I'm just glad you guys remembered to take your white balance card. I worry that one day you'll forget that and just have to abandon the shoot and drive home.
Taking the corner softness with a grain of salt, otherwise a very good review. Are his comments based on expectation of all new high end lenses to be corner to corner sharp at f2.8 and was there a lens/body minor issue? Pentax Forums show small edge fall off at f2.8 but perfect at f4.......nice lens.
Likely a sub-par copy of what should be an excellent ultra-wide zoom. Annoying as it may be, it happens. (If it does happen, return it and get a different copy.) And, frankly, it happens to other manufacturers as well. Is there any objective data suggesting that recent Pentax-branded products have significantly more pronounced quality control issues than their competitors? I doubt it. And when I hear the horror stories in the comments about Ricoh being unable to produce good copies of their lenses, I can't help scratching my head, since, over the last decade, I bought six different ones, with not a single one turning out to be decentered nor even needing focus adjustment. Or this BS about Pentax never having come up with an ultra-wide that was sharp in the corners. Do yourself a favour and check who's posting such poppycock. You'll quickly notice the patterns. (Some people really need to get lives.)
ANY other camera company, the mass failures of crappy Chinese-made solenoids (they actuate the shutter) in their cameras would have resulted in a recall. But Pentax is too broke.
@ LoneTree1 -there is a bit of a story there, in that the original manufacturer of the solenoid stopped producing them and they had to look for an alternative, and of course none of the newer cameras use this, but I agree, not ideal the way they dealt with it - I can only assume that Ricoh felt is was essentially an issue that predated their ownership, but, as I say, not ideal
As far as I know they were only ever in the cheaper models - I never had any of the affected cameras, but this Pentax Forums artice gives gives info on affected or potentially affected models -there are probably others also - it's a great resource :)
Ok - no slight or anything intended - I wasn't really looking at what was available on the market at that time, and I've never personally owned a camera that is prone to the problem - I was just chipping in with what little I know about it
Great review Chris & Jordan. I don't have a problem with video content vs written content, but I would like to say that from a WCAG Accessibility point of view, you need to have a text transcript in addition to just the video. Not only would this satisfy the people who don't like video-only content but it will save DPR from litigation and fines. Just a suggestion from someone who works in the Web-AX arena.
PS. Jordan blowing the horn at the final mention of Pentax really cracked me up.
Great review of a great lens. I have one myself, but I haven't noticed corner softness except on a handfull images at 11mm (probably due to SR as mentioned by @y0chang).
Question: this lens has an empty space between the focus ring and the bayonet mount, which Pentax advertised as a place to put a lens warming element (e.g. for astro). They also showed an image showing a red wire wound around that area (connected to an external battery). I've asked around, but this doesn't seem to be a commercial product, and existing commercial products do not fit... Any info on that?
Was the test shots done with SR turned off and on a tripod? tI have had issues with corner sharpness handheld with SR turned on. My guess is that Pentax shake reduction struggles with shake reduction in the z direction with ultrawide lenses. I think it's due to the limits of sensor shift. You can see this in the astrotracer function when using wide angles.
SR works fine on the K1ii with the 15-30/2.8 I think it's the lens, maybe a below average copy of a a generally not-so-sharp lens. I haven't been impressed with any sample images I've seen anywhere. Maybe the bulbous front element of the 15-30 is a good thing after all, because that one is sharp.
I don't understand the sentence. There is obiously a lot of lens opening until 1.2 available, and the classics Tamron 17-50 2.8, the same from Sigma, or the Sigma 16-35 1.8, so do they mean the only very wide angle opening at 2.8 ? Even then, there is an Irix 15mm 2.4, Samyang 12mm 2.8, Samyang 10mm 2.8, Samyang 16mm 2.0, Laowa 12mm 2.8
Hey guys, have you actually watched the video? Don't shoot the messenger, I'm simply giving a spoiler for those who want to know DPR thoughts about this lens ;)
Whats's Jordan on? That is why Chris is driving :-)
Fair play to them, only so unloved us Pentaxians have felt recently due to the never ending wait on lenses announced 3 years ago for FF, the APS-C line is already well established. The HD DA 20-40 f2.8 - f4 Limited would be an interesting one to do or redo in 2020, a modern lens with a full metal construction and styled like the legacy Takumar lenses of the past, but has HD coatings and DC AF motor. Even the lens cap is beautifully engineered in aluminium with felt inside. Lovely :-)
I had to return my first DFA*50 lens because it had weird white dots on the inner barrel surface. They might have been just cosmetic, but annoyingly obvious, if you see the lens. Didn't test it for decentering. Second copy had soft left side and they agreed to make a warranty fix. Now left side is much sharper. Maybe not optimal, perfect one, but pretty much transparent with minimal softness compared to right side.
It is stupid to experience this kind of things when the lens costs over a grand. Now I'm carefully inspecting any lens no matter the brand or promises and return it to the shop, if seeing problems. I mainly shoot at F5.6 for optimal sharpness and it was too late to return when I saw left side softness with wider apertures.
My copy of K-1 also suffers from shutter shock softness with DFA*50, so basically I cannot use anything slower than 1/250s - 1/320s for optimal sharpness. This means that IBIS is only useful for pixel shift. Electronic shutter for < 1/250 speeds.
People talk about mirror slap but I have never heard of shutter slap, you could compare shutter vs electronic on a tripod but would you not be seriously pixel peeping here? Such shutter shock wouldn't compare to the benefit of 5-axis IBIS, it is brilliant on all Pentax bodies. It saves me from using a tripod for a lot of daytime landscape photos and the resolution is amazing.
Yes - It is very difficult to understand why Pentax quality control - especially for star lenses - is not good enough. Way too many star lenses being tested as soft.
Poor Pentax. First it gets ommited by mistake in the New Year's Resolution video. Then when it finally gets some love from DPR, reviewers get a lousy copy of a lens which release was postponed by a year "to ensure better quality control". I don't know what to think anymore...xD
The problem is, that Pentax only seems to deliver lousy copies? unless they are hand-selected by Ricoh themselves, and sent to the reviewer directly. The other prime lens which DPR used for DSLR testing was also a decentered one, the Pentax fanb*ys had to arrange for Ricoh to send a non-lousy copy to DPR directly, because good samples don't seem to come through regular retail channels. Or maybe with incredible luck only.
That's a remarkably positive comment from dpthoughts - he seems to admit that trhere is a possibility that there might be good copies of a Pentax lens :D
It is more like the remote possibility, that UFOs exist, or Elvis is alive. Some UFO or Elvis fan(boys) swear that they have seen appearances, but it is extremely rare, and therefore not reproducible by normal mortals. 99.99% of people just never experience this in their lives ;)
Not senseless at all, Alex. The SDM-motor problems, and lousy response from Pentax, as well as major issues with the K5 are what talked this lifetime Pentaxian to move over to Sony.
And this Pentaxian from a Spotmatic. My 60-250 and 16-50 bit the dust with sdm issues. I will bet if anyone checks at B & H these two marvels of the industrial age are still being sold. And the beat goes on...…...
Best video on YouTube. Brought many tears to my eyes. We need more of Jordan singing.
I wish I could leave Pentax and explore the green fields of other manufacturer's lens options, but I'm too afraid it might rain and they'd insist their toys are put away :D
It may not be perfect but I never worry about Pentax gear in rough conditions!
Thanks for the review! I like the rendering of the images, quite nice OOF too. Just wondering about the resolution comment, as it is not directly in line with lab tests. There are not many out there but a french magazine has it tested http://www.lemondedelaphoto.com/TEST-HD-Pentax-DA-11-18-mm-f-2-8,15550.html Looking at the graphs there seems to be a (obvious) weakness in the corners at its widest setting wide open but it quickly goes to excellent when closed down. At other focal lengths it seems downwards amazing even in the corners from wide open on. Any idea why you got other results? Thanks.
Pentax lenses may have a pretty bad decentering randomness. I also remember DPR experienced decentering with the prime lens they used for testing Pentax cameras (K-1 II). Decentered Pentax lenses seem to be the norm, regardless of price range, unless they are pre-selected and supplied to the tester directly by Ricoh.
Additional possibility: In the video, DPR tests lenses like they are used in reality. One shot for a scene. Contrarily, some test chart testers re-focus on the outer test chart items using outer focus points, so that field curvature problems are "circumvented". This makes lenses look better in such test chart tests, than they actually are in real photos. I suspect, that the 11-18 suffers from a strong field curvature then.
I almost bought one can’t remember what it was called now but it was yellow and took my old 35mm k mount lenses. Kind of a square strange looking camera.
The lego yellow style camera was a Pentax K-01 styled by designer designer Marc Newson, a 40mm f2.8 XS extra small pancake lens was also released with it. All in all it was a bit of an art project and a collectors item.
He's done a lot of stuff, designs tend "to have an absence of sharp edges."
Few camera companies have done such a whacky arty design then you had a choice of multiple coloured panelled cameras, orange, purple, blue you name it in different panels.
The white bodies and lenses were particularly cool though particularly with snow photography.
I always thought the K-01 was cool as it had a very 90's futurist, "Frog Design" aesthetic that you saw Apple dabbling with on products like the Newton, Power CD, and 20th Anniversary Mac.
Apology accepted Chris and Jordan. Really nice of you to make up for that missing download :) Now if we can only get the rest of DPR to be as nice as Canadians.
Thanks to Chris and Jordan for this review of the HD Pentax-DA* 11-18mm F2.8 - nice to see it used on the hi spec super affordable K-70. Some good photos there, especially of these crazy ice climbers!
But I don't see Jordan making it as a vocalist, ever. Pleaase.
Sounds like a good lens, even if corner sharpness isn't great. I have often found that this is the case with wide angle zooms. Sometimes it's the lens itself, but more often it's attributable to DoF issues that are a consequence of such a wide field of view.
Because of the high cost, I am still undecided between this lens and the SMC Pentax-DA 12-24 F4 and the HD Pentax-D FA 15-30 F2.8 (both of which I have), but if the price drops or if I can pick up a used one, I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to let the 12-24 go.
I am a Pentax APS-C holdover and don't see myself upgrading from the amazing K-3 for a while (except maybe to go for KP which is slightly smaller APS-C body). So APS-C lenses are still very relevant to me. Also I like UWA and have been using the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 for years. It's a sweet lens, focuses fast, and the zoom range is perfect, but unfortunately its major drawback is very soft corners. Probably softer than I'm seeing on this 11-18. If Pentax/Ricoh provided a non-ideal copy to DPR it would be a marketing blunder. But I think I will seek out some other example shots with the lens and think about it.
Did I hear right? Pentax... week? I wonder what else you'll be talking about.
Too bad about the resolution. I guess it might be interesting to test the lens at astrophotography, if possible (as the lens was designed with that in mind).
P.S. With videos like this, I'd say there's no need to explain you don't hate Pentax. Seems pretty balanced to me.
Haha I couldn't believe my eyes, my second thought was they felt guilty :-) and then I thought it was a good idea, some more stuff for us Pentaxians so yap about in our forum. :P
I haven't seen the video yet but Pentax did build a groove in the 11-18 lens for a dew heater ring suggesting they have thought of resolution, coma, astigmatism etc. It is expensive enough although I make do with the fantastic miniature HD DA15 f4 Limited, I bought the Samyang 14mm f2.8 before it but although it has the resolution, low coma and astigmatism the images made by the DA15 have somewhat legendary imagery. I only use the Samyang 14mm for astrophotography.
When first I clicked on this item it was because I thought it was a Full-frame lens. It came as a VERY big shock to learn it costs as much as my 14-24mm Nikkor did new. That lens IS a full-frame lens and this is a half-frame lens and should be half the price it is , as at this price it rivals Leica half-frame lens prices. They are charging new Sigma Art prices for a half-frame, sorry to go on and on.... It is only 17-27.5mm as well, which rather limits its use as a landscape or interior lens; and thats a shame, but happliy the old lens is still available if you want this wide on a half-frame sensor (plus it is much smaller and lighter)
Yeah, everything should be for free...companies (especially the tiny ones without large-scale production) don't need money to exist...and their employees don't need all this fancy stuff like apatments, food, healthcare. The main thing is, we consumers can enjoy our low cost-life.
It's an APS-C lens, not half frame. Full frame is only 1.5 times larger than APS-C. If you want "half frame," that's four-thirds. This is also meant as a top flight lens to be in the same category as the 14-24/15-30 lenses found in full frame systems. Not a kit or low grade wide angle lens so of course it's going to cost a similar amount as a full frame 14-24 or 15-30. Quality doesn't come cheap. If you want a cheap wide angle, you can find plenty of older Tamron 10-24s.
A fullframe sensor is 1.5² = 2.25 times bigger than aps-c. A fullframe sensor is about 2² = 4 times bigger than m43. The cropfactror is a linear measurement while the sensor is an area.
No : APS-C IS half frame, 36x24 is fullframe and so half-frame is 18x24 in area. Advanced Photo System type-C (APS-C) is an image sensor format approximately equivalent in size to the Advanced Photo System film negative in its C ("Classic") format, of 25.1×16.7 mm, an aspect ratio of 3:2. It is therefore also equivalent in size to the Super 35 motion picture film format, which has the dimensions of 24.89 mm × 18.66 mm (0.980 in × 0.735 in). And 4/3rds :The usual size of the sensor is 18 mm × 13.5 mm (22.5 mm diagonal), with an imaging area of 17.3 mm × 13.0 mm (21.63 mm diagonal).[3][4] The sensor's area is about 30–40% smaller than APS-C sensors used in most other DSLRs. Go to Wikipaedia as I did and stop bothering me!
I was a big Pentax aps-c fan and have three Pentax digital cameras (also have three, top Pentax film cameras), but stopped after the k5iis, due to lack of articulating screen and no improved DR on the K3 series. Since the Pentax 12-24 is a non-WR and 2006 design, I am on my second Sigma 10-20mm. The reasons I see for buying this lens: Weather-sealing and 2.8 aperture. However, there are more reasons to not buy: 1. Price = three times the cost of my Sigma 10-20mm. 2. Weight, the heaviest aps-c lens besides the Fuji, which is much wider! 3. Lack of Sharpness in the corners and/or QC. 4. If you do not have and love an old K3 and/or the Pentax KP - preferably with a grip for proper balance- this lens is in search of a new camera body that has up-to-date features and handling. Frankly, I see this lens as a tool mostly for astro-photographers, but not having sharp corners is definitely a downer in that area as well. Forgot to mention - not wide enough for me and many others...
The Pentax K-5 series were only bettered by Nikon 7200 according to DXO, 14.6 vs 14.1 for landscape. The move to K5 24Mp from K3 16Mp seemed to lower the dynamic range by 0.5 stops. In reality this will not matter very much when it comes to high DR landscape photography. Modern APS-C bodies have pixel shift and RAW HDR which bracket and merge in camera to output a single RAW.
DXO didn't show the current lineup because of the accelerator chip that works with the sensor. It does an excellent job and at high ISO the noise is more film like in grain.
Very well could be. I was pretty surprised myself. Maybe we have a poor copy. Still for the amount of money these lenses are, QC should be up there too.
The former sample shots made by DPR when the lens was just released looks much better resolution-wise. Looks indeed like bad copy; it happens to everyone, but Pentax should know better than bring a lousy copy to a test by a major review channel.
Anyway, thanks for giving Pentax a week of attention, Chris. Much appreciated.
The briefly shown corner crops also look like they would be improved by correcting CAs, a process that typically improves overall sharpness as well. Agree these crops are not as good as other samples we've seen.
I have this lens and I've been very pleased with it. Very, very sharp in the center and reasonably sharp corners, definitely better than the 12-24mm I upgraded from. Then again, I almost never shoot wide open. I'm often at 7.1 or 8 in daylight.
Shaky Pentax QC? Their QC is no worse than any other camera company.
The soft corners are the fault of Ricoh/Pentax any way you slice it, because DPReview reviews samples supplied by the manufacturer. Right? DPReview doesn't use "secret shoppers" to buy lenses at random. So it's safe to assume that companies are sending their best samples.
If the corner sharpness is soft, that means either Ricoh sent DPReview the best copy they could find, and it was still very soft. That's a big problem. -or- Ricoh didn't bother checking the copy they sent to DPReview. That's an equally big problem.
Bad marketing is just as big a problem for a company as bad manufacturing.
I'm pumped for Pentax week. Let's see some videos with the HD fish-eye!
What happened to the discussion on DPR teaming up with LensRentals to do more thorough lens reviews? I was hoping they'd begin testing with multiple lens copies, which would be a little better than testing the one. If memory serves me, they needed at least 10 copies but I'd be happy if you simply tested with 2 or 3 for a review.
Looking at the other examples from throughout the internet. this lens doesn't have a lot of sharpness in the corners wide open, but these parts of the frame sharpen up nicely at narrower apertures. This isn't the case here, as Chris said, he couldn't get acceptable sharpenss even at F/9. Some field curvature is pretty much expected in the UWA zoom, but I dunno how big it would have to be to get such blur there even at such apertures. Looks like a bad copy.
A bad copy is still bad news for Ricoh/Pentax, because it's on the manufacturer to pick out the very best lens of each batch to send in for testing. I'm sure Canon/Sony/Olympus send only their best copies, right? Sending in a randomly-selected lens would be PR malpractice.
Get over the corner thing. That is REALLY only important for people who obsess about corner performance at 1:1. The same people the hate bokeh because they can't see if a lens sucks in the corners. Those people can only look at corners and don't see anything else.
Why do we need new lenses then? If sharpness is irrelevant doesn't that also make new lens releases irrelevant as we already have lenses?
I would argue that ultrawide lenses that are used for astrophotography or landscape prints are one of the few lenses where you can actually appreciate every bit of additional detail. Both in the center and in the corner. After all corners on those images usually still cover the subject unlike photos in portrait photography for example
I'm pretty forgiving myself of corner softness but if I shoot at f9 I would expect my corners to be sharp enough to avoid distraction in a landscape photo. I agree that many situations will be totally unaffected by corners but I also see how a landscape or architecture photographer will dislike what they are getting here.
This seems to be a common Pentax fanb*y argument. Because Pentax seems to be unable to make standard or wide-angle zoom lenses sharp to the edges, since ever in its history, the Pentax fans assert since ever, that noone would actually need edge sharpness. Sounds very familar, since many years if not decades.
While edge sharpness is irrelevant where it would drown in bokeh anyway (e.g. for portraits), for most other subjects (landscape, cityscape, architecture, night sky, ...) blurry edges would be perceived as distracting and annoying by most. This would spoil the image for most.
Corner sharpness matters in some types of photography, especially if you print very big. It doesn't have to be super duper Sigma level of sharpness, but at least on a level that's not distracting.
I agree people who look at far corner sharpness ... wide open ... on a portrait lens for example ... are obsessing over something unimportant. But when it is a landscape lens stopped down, then it becomes relevant.
Chris, I can't really judge from the samples or the video. Pentaxforums did an extensive test and they were pretty satisfied (And they don't go easy on their own brand) I think from looking at the real life samples at F8 it is acceptable at full magnification. Above that diffraction kicks in and equalizes it. https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/hd-pentax-da-11-18mm-f28-ed-dc-aw/sharpness.html
Well, I think that Pentax never approached sharpness the way other manufacturers do. Their lenses tend to deal more with fine and subtle contrast than sharpness per se.
Admittedly, for this price one should expect this lens to perform better. Fuji 8-16 also has blurry corners at 8-11mm range, but at least they get somewhat better at narrow apertures. CA's not terrible, but not amazingly corrected either. At least build and weather sealing quality seems top, and I bet it's miles better than Sigmas and Tokinas when it comes to flare and ghosting.
This lens is certainly a welcome addition to the lineup, but I don't see it as strong member of the portfolio as D-FA* 50mm.
I know that this might be a bit controversial but DSLR ultra-wide-angle lenses are just not exciting anymore.
17-27mm F4 equivalent at 704g You can get an FF 17-28mm F2.8 at 420g which is brighter, lighter and sharper and on top of that is 500$ cheaper.
I mean Full Frame DSLR ultrawides have a hard time creating excitement over all the amazing benefits of native mirrorless UWA designs and all their weight savings and sharpness advantages. Same goes for most smaller sensor mirrorless UWAs this day. But APS-C DSLR UWA? With the current state of body and lens prices I am sure most UWA shooters have probably at least adapted a different sensor format even in the Pentax system, if not gone mirrorless.
That is no fault of Pentax or this lens. But optics simply seem to favor larger sensors (and thereby longer focal lengths) and shorter flange distances if it comes to UWA design
@Heliar Those are pretty respectable corners, on a 42MP body. Have you seen the gallery posted by DPreview? Doesn't seem like the Pentax is competing
And you are of course right most UWAs are not bought for their bokeh. Although some travel photographers might disagree. But light gathering is actually a very important part in UWA lenses, especially for astro photography
You always have to take into account the equivalent. Full Frame sensor is going to give you a good stop of ISO performance or more, the FOV is extremely important also. Full frame camera bodies are now well under $2000, it starts to make less sense to pay as much or more for APSC equipment, especially if they are heavier.
I agree with most points but with such a wide angle I don't see the relevance in talking about DoF equivalence. People are not buying a f2.8 UWA to have a shallower DoF (or at least they shouldn't).
I think the issue with the lens is that it's not wide enough for the price tag and size/weight. Most of the APS-C UWA lenses are like 10-24mm or 10-18mm. I would miss that 1mm...
I think you are stuck on the DOF, this is equal to a full frame 17-27mm F4, and those lenses are light and cheaper. When comparing lenses from m43 to APSC to full frame it is not a one to one. With full frame bodies like the canon RP being released at $1200, it is making the window for APSC smaller. This is why we will likely see m43 disappear in the next few years. There is no room for a $2000 m43 camera as in the past. $2000 is going to be the average price of a full frame camera, and when you take into account the equivalent lenses they are close in price and size.
@worldaccordingtojim To be fair I think that shouldn't be a general assessment. I was just talking about ultrawide photography specifically and not other kinds of photography and their lens needs. I also didn't want to start a general "APS-C" is going to die discussion. I just think that in the case of dedicated UWA shooting there is a serious lack in competitevness in long flange distance smaller sensor designs
@worldaccordingtojim: it is indeed a matter of price. Guess which is the bestselling M43 in Japan? not the E-M1X but the E-PL9. But as with cars, if you don't sell a very expensive highend model it's tough to find your place in the sun. You can have the best quality/price ratio with your lower end cameras, if you only sell $500 cameras you won't be taken seriously (and also won't make much money).
And even if we can find cheap FF bodies, lenses are still expensive and only 3rd party options are making it more affordable, which is not the case yet for RF and Z mounts.
Maybe there won't be a market for $2000 M43 cameras, but M43 won't die because of it, they might just remember what M43 is about and stop trying to apeal to pros.
Um no. I am a big UWA lens shooter, and didn't all of a sudden decide I needed to ditch APS-C and trade my entire system of bodies and lenses for FF because of your statement for one use.
Maybe I am the only photographer in the world that shoots different type of subjects and thus, have compromises as a whole.?
DoF equivalence is important, because there is no SNR gain in the shot noise for the larger sensor at the same DoF.
At the same DoF, the total light gathering is the same. Which means that shot noise is the same. Which means that there is no advantage in these situations for the larger sensor in terms of shot noise.
Where larger sensors do have the advantage is in situations in which a shallower DoF is accepted to gain either faster shutter speeds or lower ISO. For still landscapes, not so much.
Larger sensors don't magically produce higher IQ, there is always a trade-off involved. No such thing as a free lunch.
Of course, you might also want to talk about other considerations, such as resolution, or DR, or weight, or price, but those are different discussions.
"At the same DoF, the total light gathering is the same. Which means that shot noise is the same."
If you what you are shooting, requires 1/250 f2.8 and to get correct exposure you need ISO 6400, very common for indoor events. The noise on a full frame sensor is going to be close to the noise on a m43 at ISO 1600. Its a fact, it is reproducible over and over.
@Auf Reisen True, but only if both cameras have to use the same shutter speed. If you can take a long exposure on tripod or if there is simply enough light, both cameras can use base ISO but mft equivalent base ISO is 2 to 3.3 stops higher compared to fullframe and will thus produce about 2-3 stops more noise.
Of course. And this is 100% in line with what I said. For the same total light, you need ISO 1600 for correct exposure on MFT but ISO 6400 on FF because the same total light is spread over a larger area resulting in less light per unit area on the FF. So you have to up the ISO on FF otherwise your shot will be 2 stops underexposed. It really pays off to pay attention to the difference between total light gathering and light per unit area (I confused it myself at least 2 times while I was typing this).
@JochenIs
Depends on the specific camera and its low ISO setting of course (wasn't there a Nikon that even went down to ISO 25 or something?) but in general you are correct I'd say.
I was thinking most current fullframe cameras have base ISO 64/100 and most mft cameras ISO 100(?)/200 which is ISO 400/800 equivalent. But i know only some cameras.
"Of course. And this is 100% in line with what I said. For the same total light, you need ISO 1600 for correct exposure on MFT but ISO 6400 on FF because the same total light is spread over a larger area resulting in less light per unit area on the FF. "
That is absolutely not true, using a light meter you can determine correct exposure, exposure settings have nothing to do with sensor size. If you need 1/250, F2.8, ISO 6400 for example, you need that on any sensor, it could be a smartphone to a medium format. Exposure values do not change based on sensor size. What does change is the amount of noise at any given ISO. So on my iphone ISO 1600 is unusable, on a m43 is is perfectly usable, on a full frame sensor there will be almost no noise. As you raise the ISO the smaller the sensor the more noise it has.
"the same total light is spread over a larger area resulting in less light per unit area on the FF."
This is correct, that is why a 2.8 lenses is a lot larger on a fullframe camera vs a m43. To achieve the same f stop the lens needs to be bigger. But there is no penalty for exposure.
You are still confusing total light gathered and light per unit area. Note how I said "for the same total light". This means, for example, 1/250 F/8 on FF and 1/250 F/4 on MFT. This comparison has the same DoF, but for the same apparent image brightness, you will need, say, ISO 1600 on MFT but ISO 6400 on FF. Note that this comparison has the same shot noise.
You are talking about something different. A shot at 1/250 f/2.8 on MFT and a shot at 1/250 f/2.8 on FF will indeed need the same ISO for the same apparent image brightness. Your example has the same light per unit area, but not the same total light gathering (FF gets two stops more). In this example, DoF is not the same. It is twice as deep on MFT. Here, you also have lower noise on FF, but you have to be prepared to make the trade-off in DoF.
This is why it doesn't make sense to compare ISO for ISO. It's also why it's important to think about DoF equivalence and the difference between total light and light per unit area.
DOF has nothing to do with the light gathered, or the sensor size. It has to do with the distance to the subject. Because of the crop you have to move back to achieve the same field of view.
fstoppers has a great article explaining how DOF is not effected by the sensor, but by the distance to the subject. Same it true about compression.
Shallow DoF is of no use to someone who's using a UWA to shoot landscape, they want everything to be in focus and sharp. If you pick a f2.8 lens instead of a f4.0, it's because you need the extra light. Sure, bigger sensor will present less noise, but in my experience, if you have very low light, a lens with a bigger aperture or the use of a longer shutter speed works better than increasing the ISO.
I'd suggest to everyone that they test it for themselves and stop relying on theory and equivalence. Until recently I was thinking f1.2 lenses for M43 are stupid expensive and I'd be better off with a f1.8 on FF. But that 17mm f1.2 is sharp wide open, and with IBIS I can stick to ISO 200 in a dark street. As long as you shooting static landscape, it's very useful.
I would put it this way: if you want the DOF and you want to handhold your camera then m43 is at an advantage in lowlight. This is because m43 has better IBIS and very efficient small sensors. However, if you manage to use base ISO on fullframe there is no way m43 can achieve the same quality (ISO64/100 vs 400/800 equivalent which is 2-3 stops of noise). This is why i recommend a tripod for fullframe if you want maximum quality. Also you could use a faster lens if you don't need the DOF and fullframe will beat m43 this way too. If image quality is most important go fullframe with a tripod. Go m43 for practicality and less weight
I'm afraid I still failed to make my point come through to you. DoF is important because you sometimes want to achieve a certain DoF for a given subject (at a given distance). How do you do that? You choose the aperture that corresponds to the DoF you want on the format you are using. This is where equivalent aperture comes into play. Now, for the same DoF, and the same shutter speed, you have the same total light gathering. Which will result in different amounts of light per unit area on sensors of a different size. Which means that you have to adjust the ISO accordingly to achieve the same apparent brightness.
1/250 F/8 ISO 6400 on FF and 1/250 F/4 ISO 1600 on MFT = Same DoF, same shot noise, same apparent brightness.
1/250 f/8 ISO 1600 on FF and 1/250 f/8 ISO 1600 on MFT = Different DoF, different shot noise, same apparent brightness.
What you see here is the trade-off between DoF and shot noise. No free lunch.
@auf reisen: DoF is a "side-effect" if we're talking about exposure. In this case you're not looking for DoF when using a bigger aperture, you want more light reaching your sensor.
if you shooting an object that is 100m away with a UWA lens, DoF is out of the equation. Then it's all about the noise that the smaller sensor will produce if all exposure parameters are the same (and maybe a few other parameters, like light transmission from the lens). There we can only make a rule of thumb, as different cameras with the same sensor size can provide different levels of noise, different qualities too, and then it's up to each of us to define what looks acceptable to them, but we're not talking about facts anymore.
I am really not sure how I can make my point any more clear.
I have specifically said, repeatedly actually, that there are some situations in which the DoF/noise tradeoff is acceptable or desirable. For other situations, like landscapes with a close foreground, group photos where not all people are on the same plane, close-ups etc., not so much. For these situations, where you DO want to achieve a certain DoF, it is certainly not a "side-effect" but a main consideration. If you want to take a picture of an object 100m away with an UWA and don't care about an out-of-focus foreground, a DoF/noise trade-off is certainly acceptable. It's an odd artistic choice in my opinion, but to each their own.
@Auf Reisen: I understand your point. It's just that the equivalence discussion tends to say "it's only a f4 lens in the FF world, no big deal" and people don't get the point of a f2.8 UWA on a smaller sensor. People won't buy it because it can separate the subject better, people will buy it because it helps keeping the noise down or the shutter speed fast enough to freeze motion. A quick DoF calculation shows that with this lens everything is in focus 2m away wide open at 11mm. Unless you aim at your feet you should avoid the out of focus foreground. You can of course shoot groups of people with an UWA lens, not sure it's the best tool, but again, if you're standing 2m from them, they should all be in focus.
Thank you both, I'm glad we found some common ground.
Seeing how often I fail to get this point of mine across, the fault has to be with me to a large degree. For future reference, do you have any advice on how I could do a better job of making my point?
Thank you for the great conversation. Honestly everything you said and how you said it was fine. I think everyone has such a defensive guard up because most people on here are trolls and just want to argue. This was a healthy debate. I enjoy discussing advanced topics like this with like minded adults.
I'm happy this didn't go into another sterile discussion. Of course there are trolls, but I think also a lot of people are very defensive of their choices, a brand, a sensor size, and take any criticism on the gear personally.
Also we're all having different experiences, like to shoot different things. For instance, I'm using mostly APS-C and Micro 4/3 cameras and shoot mostly landscapes or cityscapes when I'm travelling, and can openly admit I'm having more trouble when I shoot people with my FF camera because of the thinner DoF. This way I'm also slightly biased when talking about equivalence.
Check out these full resolution images shot with the Pentax DA* 11-18mm F2.8 ultra-wide zoom lens, captured while shooting this week's episode of DPReview TV.
We just got our hands on the new Pentax 11-18mm F2.8 DA* – a premium wide-angle zoom lens for Ricoh's APS-C format Pentax DSLRs. Check out our gallery of sample images.
Alongside the GR III, Ricoh is using the CP+ show in Yokohama Japan to give its customers a first look at the PENTAX-DA* 11-18mm F2.8 ED DC AW, a high-performance zoom for APS-C.
Ricoh is showing off two upcoming lenses at the Photo Plus Expo show in New York this week. The HD Pentax-D FA* 50mm F1.4 SDM AW and HD Pentax-DA* 11-18mm F2.8.
The Fujifilm X-T200 is what we wish the X-T100 had been, offering a solid AF system, proper 4K video and a more responsive interface. Click through to see what else is new and improved.
Since the launch of the EOS R line in 2018, Canon has mostly concentrated its attentions on high-end RF lenses. The RF 85mm F1.2L IS USM is among the very best.
It's inexpensive, lightweight and will keep going for days on a single battery charge. While it's not great for video and its wireless image transfer is slow, the D3500 is a simple and un-intimidating camera that's a great starting point for beginners.
Canon's latest flagship, the EOS-1D X Mark III is a big, fast, tough DSLR that hides an impressively refined mirrorless camera within it. We've taken a pre-production model to a basketball game, a low light concert, and even a blacksmith shop. Find out how we think it stacks up.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
What’s the best camera for under $1500? These midrange cameras should have capable autofocus systems, lots of direct controls and the latest sensors offering great image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $1500 and recommended the best.
Looking to get in on the instant camera fun? We tried every model and think the Fujifilm Instax Mini 70 strikes the right balance between price and feature - the Instax Wide 300 is our choice if you crave a larger format.
The Fujifilm XC 35mm F2 prime lens has the same optical formula as the company's XF 35mm F2 WR prime but costs half as much. How can this be? Chris and Jordan explain the differences.
In the latest episode of DPReview TV, Chris and Jordan compared the new, inexpensive Fujifilm XC 35mm F2 with the more durable XF version that's twice the price. See some of the photos they took side-by-side in this sample gallery.
The updates mostly address only a single issue for each lens, but it continues to show Sigma's continued dedication to addressing various issues, even small ones, across its lens lineup.
While nearly all of Tokina's F-mount lenses will work without issue on Nikon Z-series mirrorless cameras, there are a select few that can't use autofocus.
Last year, DJI announced they will be adding ADS-B sensors to their commercial-grade drones weighing over 250 grams. Now, it is rumored that 3 new drone models will be released this year.
The Fujifilm X-T200 is what we wish the X-T100 had been, offering a solid AF system, proper 4K video and a more responsive interface. Click through to see what else is new and improved.
Fujifilm just announced its newest camera, the X-T200. In this hands-on preview, Chris and Jordan explain how it fits into Fujifilm's lineup and why they like it.
Fujifilm will add the weather-sealed GF 45-100mm F4 to its medium format lens lineup in February. The approximately 35-80mm equivalent zoom will cost around $2300.
Fujifilm has refreshed its entry-level series with the X-T200, adding a giant touchscreen, proper 4K/30p video recording and shaving off 80g of weight compared to its X-T100 predecessor.
The telephoto zoom features a constant F4 aperture across its 70-210mm focal length range, uses Pentax's supersonic direct-drive motor (SDM), and weighs 859g (1.89lbs).
Advertising photographer Blair Bunting recounts one of his most memorable shoots—the time he photographed late New England Patriots football star Aaron Hernandez, no more than 24 hours after committing murder.
The public institution Paris Musées has launched a new online portal that provides the public with direct access to tens of thousands of high-resolution public domain images showcasing some of France's historic photography.
The ten-minute video shows how much thought and effort went into every second of the World War I film that's made to look as though it was shot in one, continuous take.
The 512GB Thunderbolt 3 NVMe drive is effectively unchanged from its previously-announced 1TB and 2TB counterparts, complete with its sequential read speeds up to 2,400MB/s and write speeds up to 1,800MB/s.
Since the launch of the EOS R line in 2018, Canon has mostly concentrated its attentions on high-end RF lenses. The RF 85mm F1.2L IS USM is among the very best.
Following a number of reports in the DPReview forums and on Fuji X Forums, Fujifilm has confirmed that a 'very small percentage' of X-Pro 3 units are experiencing an issue with the EVF display being too bright.
The Fragment 8 from Loft Factory is a digital camera that aims to replicate the look, feel and image quality of 1960s and 70s Super 8 cameras using modern technologies.
Comments