Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-07-2012, 12:43 PM - 1 Like   #91
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,828
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Well, I guess the question is how much improvement in resolution there is, even between the D600 and the D800.
The actual resolution increase is about 20%. Or, if you printed at 360 dpi, it's about 2 inches.

Perhaps the real question people should be asking is: will the improvement in resolution make me a better photographer? The answer to that question is almost always no.

Most photographers suffer from a lack of skill, experience, talent, and critical judgment. Resolution should be the least of their worries. A camera like the D800 is a specialist camera. It's a camera for professionals and advanced amateurs who have the skill, talent, and the glass to put that 20% of extra resolution (or 70% if they are upgrading from a 12 MP FX camera) to good use.

12-07-2012, 12:57 PM   #92
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteQuote:
Perhaps the real question people should be asking is: will the improvement in resolution make me a better photographer?
If you have to ask the question, the answer is, no you don't. As I've often said, I can't see this making a difference on prints 30 inches or less absolutely, and 50 or less as a distinct possibility. On prints of 92" you will see a difference if you walk right up to the picture and view them from a foot away. SO we're talking about people who are looking for super-realism in large prints.

There are a fraction of the people who work in the professional ranks who currently need such images. YOu can always argue that maybe at some point we might have technology that can make use of this kind of resolution, but you'd be betting that what we do today won't be followed by an even better, possibly 3D technology. It's just as likely that in the future these images will be obsolete and completely useless as it is new technologies will be able to make use of this kind of resolution.

This is more about what you want than it is about what you need. At least I've enver heard anyone say they need D800 images to do what they do. Having sad that I'm sure someone will jump in and tell me they have to have 36 MP files when a year ago, they didn't exist in the DSLR world.
12-07-2012, 07:55 PM   #93
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I understand, however for now, the only full frame camera that truly equals APS-C with regard to reach is the D800, which is still pretty pricey.
Actually, in my closing point, I was arguing that the "reach" doesn't really matter anymore. It doesn't matter whether there is one or more FF cameras that get similar pixel density to APS-C. What matters is that if you get a FF camera these days, you can crop its images to APS-C dimensions and still be left with enough resolution. So the "reach" is no longer a practical concern, just a theoretical argument.

I was interested in the X-E1 but now I am pondering if I should ever get another APS-C camera again. Two years from now, a FF model will probably be available anyway.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
One other question is if Pentax decides that they can't do sensor stabilization with a full frame sensor, would that even the score between the cameras? Certainly you gain a couple of stops with shake reduction that you would lose going to full frame, particularly when using existing primes.
Sony offers image stabilization in their A99, so the concept is proven. If Ricoh cannot figure out how to stabilize a FF sensor, that is their problem; it is not an argument for APS-C.
12-07-2012, 08:52 PM   #94
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
Even though the point has been made a thousand times, once more, real slow.

If the FF camera has less pixel density than the APS-c which I believe is around 5 mu for a K-5 or D800 but is 6 or more mu for many other FF cameras, you will need to get a longer lens to get the same resolution and detail on the FF camera. A D800 will give you the same image with the same focal length lens.

My K-5 gives me an image like this with my DA* 60-250 at full reach. Using an older FF camera with a 7 mu pixels I would need 7/5 x 250 = a 350 mm lens to get the same size image. I'm not sure why you keep flogging this, but I have to say, you are determined.

Let me correct these statements so they read correctly

QuoteQuote:
What matters is that if you get a FF camera these days, you can crop its images to APS-C dimensions and still be left with enough resolution. So the "reach" is no longer a practical concern, just a theoretical argument.
Should read.
What matters is that if you get a FF camera these days (excluding the D800) , you can crop its images to APS-C dimensions and s but you will still be left with less resolution, using the same focal length of lens.

QuoteQuote:
So the "reach" is no longer a practical concern, just a theoretical argument.
Should read.
To achieve the same resolution you obtain on the APS-c lens you would still have to go to longer glass at more cost and a heavier lens. To increase the image size on the less dense sensor.

It's actually quite practical.

There are a lot of images where any crop is going to hurt the images. Especially with longer lenses, where keeping the cost down is where APS-c really shines.



Last edited by normhead; 12-07-2012 at 09:02 PM.
12-08-2012, 12:33 AM   #95
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
Norm, you haven't read Bob Atkins' article yet if you're still asserting APS-C 'reach' advantage.
Perhaps then you can go for a 4/3 format or a Nikon 1/Pentax Q for more of your desired 'reach' over APS-C.
12-08-2012, 07:38 AM   #96
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
The point is that FF is a good compromise between FoV and cost effectiveness for the general consumer.
No it isn't. 99% of all digital cameras sold have smaller sensors than FF.
That is because FF is not cost effective for the general consumer.

All things equal you use physically shorter focal lenhgt with smaller formats for the same magnification compared to larger formats. This is whats called reach. It has nothing to do with cropping although you can get the same effect by cropping a larger sensor (but why buy one in the first place then?).

Smaller formats give you shorter focal lenghts. Bigger formats give you better image quality (all else equal). Each one of us must decide where the cost/size/image quality equation makes the most sense. The vast majority set it at smaller size than FF.
12-08-2012, 09:17 AM   #97
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteQuote:
Norm, you haven't read Bob Atkins' article yet if you're still asserting APS-C 'reach' advantage.
DId you provide a link to it? Went to his site and couldn't find it.

I'm not talking an APS-c reach advantage per se... I talking a smaller pixel size had a reach advantage. It has nothing to do with format. You're assuming I don't understand what you posted. I'm not arguing what you've posted. I'm arguing that the way the subject is framed is irrelevant.

It's simple. Shooting a bird on a fence at 50meters. With a 16 MP FF camera, 16 MP APS-c camera. The subject in the APS-c camera will appear to be bigger on your computer screen. 1.5 times bigger. What's to understand? You will need a 300 mm FF lens to get the same image you'd get with a 200mm APS-c lens. That's the real world. If you don't have a real world example of what you're talking about, why do you even bother? It's all theory.
12-08-2012, 01:43 PM   #98
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
I provided a link to it with a practical example in post #74. I've noted you mention pixel pitch a couple of times, but your argument has been chiefly over format. I'm not assuming you don't understand, but saying
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you don't have a real world example of what you're talking about, why do you even bother?
is a little patronising.

Sensor technology has developed well enough by now (as with the D800 sensor) to eclipse any resolution advantage APS-C may have over a larger format camera. But if you want more practical examples of a FF FoV and what it could capture with Pentax's existing FF compatible lenses, this thread is full of them: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/110876...-thoughts.html

12-08-2012, 01:53 PM   #99
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
No it isn't. 99% of all digital cameras sold have smaller sensors than FF.
That is because FF is not cost effective for the general consumer.
I've not made any comparisons, I'm talking absolute values here. Of course P&S cameras will outsell APS-Cs, which will outsell FFs, which will outsell MFs... The point is that the Pentax FF camera will likely be as proportionally successful as the Canikon offerings for Pentax (if it indeed outperforms the K-5), and will be sought after by prosumers and enthusiasts.

Remember that sale numbers are only one indicator of popularity. Of all the lenses I have purchased, I got three brand new from B&H, one used from KEH, and the rest second hand from guys on this forum. And of all the bodies I have purchased, only one (my first dSLR, the K100D) was purchased new. I can foresee a lot of interest in a Pentax FF camera not only once the street price comes down a few months after release, but when the first lot start appearing for sale on marketplaces like this forum's. Many Pentaxians will want one even if their budget is considerably less than the RRP.
12-08-2012, 02:00 PM   #100
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteQuote:
Sensor technology has developed well enough by now (as with the D800 sensor) to eclipse any resolution advantage APS-C may have over a larger format camera.
No again, the D800 is in a class of it's own. No other of the full frames benefit from this advantage. it's not an FF sensor advantage it's a -5 mu pixel size advantage. The Pentax K-5 has the same advantage.

I try and stay out of the FF shots and thought thread. The idea of a bunch of people sharing pictures based on what they perceive to be a superior format doesn't make sense to me. I find them elitist and ridiculously doctrinaire. They find me equally obnoxious. I think we have an unstated agreement to ignore each other. I was trained on 8x10 view cameras and taught photography for 15 years, I don't think I need DoF explained to me. Or FoV. And my opinion is, the difference between FoV and DoF are grossly overstated in that thread. To the point of being ridiculous.
12-08-2012, 02:13 PM   #101
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The idea of a bunch of people sharing pictures based on what they perceive to be a superior format doesn't make sense to me. I find them elitist and ridiculously doctrinaire.
I haven't seen much elitism in that thread at all.
It is your loss if you do not wish to see the evidence made available to you.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
They find me equally obnoxious.
Self-reflection may assist with more amicable interactions in the future.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I was trained on 8x10 view cameras and taught photography for 15 years
That's great norm. I don't discount that mate. Do realise though that technology continues to advance, and that it is hardly impossible for the sensor technology in the proposed FF camera to improve on that of the K-5 for resolution. The DoF advantage (given the same pixel pitch) is only one stop, and it is certainly stated in the FF thread many times (of course it will be if it is the raison d'etre of the thread). The thing is that it isn't ridiculous. You know what the larger format VF looks like. It is still a real difference in both FoV and DoF, and granted, it provides no resolution improvement over the K-5 until you get to a sensor like the D800's, but all of this has nothing to do with 'reach'. 50mm is 50mm on every format.
12-08-2012, 02:36 PM   #102
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,754
QuoteQuote:
50mm is 50mm on every format.
But a 50mm image is not the same on every format, because of pixel density, so that concept has lost a lot of meaning. A 50 mm lens is used differently on APS-c than it is on an FF camera. On APS-c it's a telephoto. On FF it's a Standard lens. On a Meduim Format it's a wide angle. Format changes function. That is the biggest mistake FF proponents make. If you said , I'm going to compare my wide angle with your telephoto you'd ask "what would that prove", they both might be 50mm, but they aren't the even the same type of lens.
12-08-2012, 04:01 PM   #103
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
I don't think we're discussing the same thing anymore, norm. I know what you're saying above but that was not the point of trying to nut out the concept of reach and focal length on different formats. Im done discussing it. Read Bob's article if you will and I'll bow out from this discussion.
12-09-2012, 03:02 PM   #104
Senior Member
bilybianca's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 221
IF a full frame materializes in the real, physical world as a touchable object, I'd wait and see. All of my lenses but two are full frame, designed for use with film cameras. Some of them with nice green stars on the barrel. I'm not quite convinced they will perform as well on digital FF as on film. NED BUNNELL: Op-Ed thoughts by the Spa
If they do, I'll happily read the real-world reviews of the early adopters and start saving/convincing the financial department of the family it's a necessity.
But till then I'll just shoot on with my wonderful K5 and *istDS cameras and admire the 20X30" award winning print taken with a K20D I have on the wall at the office for bragging purposes.

Kjell
12-10-2012, 12:05 PM   #105
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,828
QuoteOriginally posted by bilybianca Quote
I'm not quite convinced they will perform as well on digital FF as on film. NED BUNNELL: Op-Ed thoughts by the Spa
While I suspect that most of those zealous for a Pentax FF will be largely satisfied with the performance of Pentax's high end film lenses on digital, from Ned Bunnell's comments it would appear that the Pentax engineers may not be satisfied with such glass, which is rather perplexing. What could account for this? The only thing I can think of this that Pentax worries about comparisons with Nikon and Canon FF glass. Canon and particularly Nikon have really been pushing the envelope on their FF glass, producing some outstanding (albeit expensive) lenses. Right now Pentax has the bragging rights when it comes to APS-C SLR glass; but if they tried to compete in the FF space they would be going against much stiffer competition. Could Pentax make FF glass comparable to Nikon and Canon? Of course they could. But, because of their much smaller user base, smaller R&D budget, fewer resources, they could not make as many lenses; nor could they sell them at a comparable price point. This is the biggest reason why Pentax doesn't want to produce a me-too FF product: they just can't compete on price with companies that have considerable economy-of-scale advantages. Hence they talk about the need for a "unique" FF offering. They require this uniqueness to create a perception of value, so they can justify higher prices. When Pentax finally gets around to introducing an FF product, we may all be in for a bit of sticker shock.
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 01:43 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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