Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-04-2012, 01:58 PM   #61
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,674
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
WIth a 1.5 crop, a 24 MP camera is the same pixel count as a K-5 per inch so no. (1.5 x 16 is 24.)
Pixel count scales by area, so 16MP on APS-C
would scale up to 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36 MP on FF.

You'd need a D800 to get the "reach" of a K5.
The cropped D600 image is more like a K10.

12-04-2012, 02:02 PM   #62
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,651
QuoteQuote:
Pixel count scales by area, so 16MP on APS-C
would scale up to 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36 MP on FF.
Thanks, I knew the number but didn't understand how to get there.... I'll know next time.
12-04-2012, 07:21 PM   #63
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,073
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
WIth a 1.5 crop, a 24 MP camera is the same pixel count as a K-5 per inch so no. (1.5 x 16 is 24.) So still one camera. YOu get the same picture essentially but smaller. But if you expand the K-5 image to the same size (24 MP) as a D600 image they look almost identical. So really no advantage. I've done it a few times with the test pictures from Imaging Resource) so I'm pretty confident that's true. If you want to blow up some images that show a difference I'll look at them, but, I've done my work on this issue to my satisfaction, and while words are nice, really, what my eyes see is worth more than what somebody says.
You're actually making the argument that APSC doesn't offer a reach advantage. It would of course be silly to automatically crop a FF image but the discussion is regarding how an APSC DSLR suddenly makes your 300mm lens longer. It doesn't. It's simply a crop.

here is an example from this thread

QuoteQuote:
2. I like shooting sports - what I would lose in "reach" would probably kill me!
12-04-2012, 08:16 PM   #64
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,651
If you have a 16 MP FF camera and a 16 MP APS-c camera, you will have more reach with the APS-c with the same lens. If you fill your frame with the subject on the APS-c, you will not be able to fill the frame, with the same lens on the FF. That's what we're talking about. So when does the APS-c advantage end? When the FF gets to the same pixel pitch as the APS-c or more. One camera does that right now, the D800. With every other full frame, especially those 24 MP and under, you won't get the same reach.

It's really pretty simple.

People will try and counter this with all kinds of crazy arguments... that don't address the issue as I've framed it, which by the way as a photographer , is the only one that matters. People really tie their knickers up in a knot trying to avoid this obvious fact.

12-04-2012, 10:32 PM   #65
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Pixel count scales by area, so 16MP on APS-C
would scale up to 16 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 36 MP on FF.

You'd need a D800 to get the "reach" of a K5.
The cropped D600 image is more like a K10.
Fair enough. APS-C still has a few years then.
12-04-2012, 10:52 PM   #66
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,683
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you have a 16 MP FF camera and a 16 MP APS-c camera, you will have more reach with the APS-c with the same lens.
Incorrect, Norm. It is simply a matter of the APS-C cropping more of the image off giving you 'less' of the image area to work with for the same lens and focal distance. This shouldn't be confused with 'reach'.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you fill your frame with the subject on the APS-c, you will not be able to fill the frame, with the same lens on the FF. That's what we're talking about.
And that's precisely the crop factor of the APS-C doing this. The advantage of 'reach' is lens focal length dependent. The advantage of 'more photo in the frame' is sensor-size dependent.
12-04-2012, 10:57 PM   #67
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tampere, Finland
Posts: 191
QuoteOriginally posted by snake Quote
You should never, ever definitely buy something not even released yet just because it has the name on it you want. If it's a stinker, then what's the incentive from manufacturers to do better when they know they have people that will buy any junk they make?
Most likely that would be the only FF (digital) camera that will take my Pentax primes without adapter So I don't have much choice, do I?

Over almost 10 years (since the *istD) I haven't seen Pentax camera that has been "stinker". I never buy anything because of the name, but because of confidence and trust. I have no reason to assume that the not-yet-released unnamable camera would be "stinker" as Pentax has always did very well with the budget they've had. Trust is earned over the years.
12-04-2012, 11:37 PM   #68
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,683
QuoteOriginally posted by jpyykonen Quote
Over almost 10 years (since the *istD) I haven't seen Pentax camera that has been "stinker".
Yep. Haven't disappointed me yet after 7 bodies. And I'm also brand agnostic - but I have liked Pentax products - especially their bodies and Limited lenses.

12-06-2012, 12:52 AM   #69
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by jpyykonen Quote
Over almost 10 years (since the *istD) I haven't seen Pentax camera that has been "stinker".
That sets a real high bar indeed. Even the stinky K-01 would have no challenge hopping over it.
12-06-2012, 04:39 AM   #70
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,434
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
That sets a real high bar indeed. Even the stinky K-01 would have no challenge hopping over it.
Have you used a K-01?
12-06-2012, 01:35 PM   #71
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Incorrect, Norm. It is simply a matter of the APS-C cropping more of the image off giving you 'less' of the image area to work with for the same lens and focal distance. This shouldn't be confused with 'reach'..
That is only true if you mean by the same lens litterally the same lens and not a lens with the same focal lenght. Smaller format give you indeed more reach at the same focal lenght. Or, the same reach at a shorter focal lenght.
Saying that APS is just a cropped APS is not very meaningful as FF is just cropped 645 which is cropped 6X7 which is cropped 4X5 which is cropped 8X10 ad infinitum. Does this give any useful information?
12-06-2012, 01:52 PM   #72
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,651
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Incorrect, Norm. It is simply a matter of the APS-C cropping more of the image off giving you 'less' of the image area to work with for the same lens and focal distance. This shouldn't be confused with 'reach'.


And that's precisely the crop factor of the APS-C doing this. The advantage of 'reach' is lens focal length dependent. The advantage of 'more photo in the frame' is sensor-size dependent.
That's incredibly semantical.. practically, you need a 600 FF on a 16 MP lens to fill the frame the same as a 400 mm on APS-c 16MP lens would. If you don't want to call it reach fine. What do you want to call it? All that matters is on APS-c you get functionally the same image on a shorter lens. I don't know why everyone has to dance around this fact of life. Everyone wants to correct you when you point it out, point out flaws in your diction or expression.

No one wants to face the fact. I notice you pointed out the "incorrect part" but couldn't express the correct part, even though I know you know what I'm talking about. Everyone seems to feel they have the right be totally obstructionist on this issue.

Why is that?
12-06-2012, 06:07 PM   #73
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,683
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
you need a 600 FF on a 16 MP lens to fill the frame the same as a 400 mm on APS-c 16MP lens would. If you don't want to call it reach fine. What do you want to call it?
It's just called crop. You get no extra detail/IQ from the same lens put on an APS-C camera as opposed to a FF camera. There is just more periphery captured in a FF shot. And yes, of course, the same thing applies with a 645 vs a FF, and a 67 format vs a 645. The point is that FF is a good compromise between FoV and cost effectiveness for the general consumer. Plus it means we can use the FA limiteds straight onto the camera and get more frame to work with. A good reason to keep the FA Limiteds still selling...

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
All that matters is on APS-c you get functionally the same image on a shorter lens.
No, man. That's only true if with the shorter lens on the APS-C you stand CLOSER to the subject than with the longer lens on a larger format camera. There is no extra REACH. If you stand at the same subject to camera distance and shoot with a shorter lens, you get a crop of the same FoV on an APS-C compared to a FF camera or any other larger camera.

See here: Crop Sensor (APS-C) Cameras and Lens Confusion
plus you've been through this already in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-technique/187306-aps-c-does-...ld-view-3.html

If you're still not convinced, see it diagramatically from Bob Atkins' article above:





and a practical example:
12-06-2012, 06:14 PM   #74
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,434
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
It's just called crop. You get no extra detail/IQ from the same lens put on an APS-C camera as opposed to a FF camera. There is just more periphery captured in a FF shot. And yes, of course, the same thing applies with a 645 vs a FF, and a 67 format vs a 645. The point is that FF is a good compromise between FoV and cost effectiveness for the general consumer. Plus it means we can use the FA limiteds straight onto the camera and get more frame to work with. A good reason to keep the FA Limiteds still selling...


No, man. That's only true if with the shorter lens on the APS-C you stand CLOSER to the subject than with the longer lens on a larger format camera. There is no extra REACH. If you stand at the same subject to camera distance and shoot with a shorter lens, you get a crop of the same FoV on an APS-C compared to a FF camera or any other larger camera.

See here: Crop Sensor (APS-C) Cameras and Lens Confusion
plus you've been through this already in this thread: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/photographic-technique/187306-aps-c-does-...ld-view-3.html

If you're still not convinced, see it diagramatically from Bob Atkins' article above:





and a practical example:
Well, as far as I can tell, you get additional magnification as long as pixel density is higher on the APS-C than on full frame (often true). If you have a D700 (12 megapixels) and a K5, there is no cropping the D700 to equal the K5 image, even if the K5 image is really just a crop of the D700 image.

Currently the only full frame camera that could crop to a 16 megapixel APS-C image is the D800, otherwise there is some extra reach with the APS-C sensor versus the full frame ones (although this is not based on the crop factor, but pixel density).
12-06-2012, 06:59 PM   #75
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,073
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Well, as far as I can tell, you get additional magnification as long as pixel density is higher on the APS-C than on full frame (often true). If you have a D700 (12 megapixels) and a K5, there is no cropping the D700 to equal the K5 image, even if the K5 image is really just a crop of the D700 image.

Currently the only full frame camera that could crop to a 16 megapixel APS-C image is the D800, otherwise there is some extra reach with the APS-C sensor versus the full frame ones (although this is not based on the crop factor, but pixel density).
Are you really expecting the mythical Pentax FF camera to use an old sensor like the D700? The discussion is about the loss of reach if someone upgrades to the Pentax FF when it is released.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
aps-c, ff, k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What would you do if Pentax does not announce a FF for 2013? LeDave Pentax DSLR Discussion 125 08-08-2012 08:38 PM
Would you buy the first FF if it is a K-01 or wait for the FF DSLR? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 07-18-2012 10:09 PM
How does THIS impact your hopes for FF iCrop Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 27 06-05-2012 11:52 AM
Does this indicate a FF problem. Mychael Pentax K-5 9 11-20-2011 11:23 AM
If pentax release a FF, wouldn't they have to release a FF wideangle. pcarfan Photographic Technique 10 12-26-2009 04:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:57 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top