Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-26-2018, 05:19 AM - 1 Like   #46
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,686
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
However, it's not a hard rule. If someone ever made a FF sensor with the same pixel density as current APS-C cameras, that advantage would vanish.
There is the Canon 51 MP sensor, but as far as I can tell it has serious issues with false colour , moire, cross talk between pixels. But at low ISO pretty incredible resolution. But definitely not up to 645z standards.

But that's just what I've read. Maybe there are some Canon users who are just as negative as some Pentax users.

03-26-2018, 05:24 AM   #47
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 18,099
The Canon EOS 5DS is close to the same density. 50.6 mp yields roughly 22.5 mp on an apsc sized crop (1.5 not Canon's 1.6) so not quite as detailed but very very close.

---------- Post added 03-26-18 at 08:27 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There is the Canon 51 MP sensor, but as far as I can tell it has serious issues with false colour , moire, cross talk between pixels. But at low ISO pretty incredible resolution. But definitely not up to 645z standards.

But that's just what I've read. Maybe there are some Canon users who are just as negative as some Pentax users.
Your post is more informative than mine. I was posting while you finished, I'd have just liked yours had I seen it. Lol.
03-26-2018, 05:28 AM   #48
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,686
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
The Canon EOS 5DS is close to the same density. 50.6 mp yields roughly 22.5 mp on an apsc sized crop (1.5 not Canon's 1.6) so not quite as detailed but very very close.
That's not a difference I would worry about. In terms of IQ. Better to worry about things you can actually see. In a very large percentage of your images, the detail will be the same, 22 MP and 24 MP. There are those here arguing that 20 MP is all they need.

After the basic resolution threshold has been reached, say 16 MP, adding a few more MP doesn't make much if any difference. You need to add at least 50% more MP to e able to go "wow". And even then, on many images you won't be able to tell which is which.
03-26-2018, 05:44 AM   #49
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 18,099
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
That's not a difference I would worry about. In terms of IQ. Better to worry about things you can actually see. In a very large percentage of your images, the detail will be the same, 22 MP and 24 MP. There are those here arguing that 20 MP is all they need.

After the basic resolution threshold has been reached, say 16 MP, adding a few more MP doesn't make much if any difference. You need to add at least 50% more MP to e able to go "wow". And even then, on many images you won't be able to tell which is which.
Agreed, I've seen studies in perception that suggest about 2x the resolution is needed for untrained observers to tell the difference. This assumes normal size output, no pixel peeping.

03-26-2018, 11:04 AM   #50
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,048
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
After the basic resolution threshold has been reached, say 16 MP, adding a few more MP doesn't make much if any difference.
I've seen photos in the 300mm+ lens club, PF member Ducatigz shooting FA*600 on a K5... it just tells me 1) working distance and 2) good glass, make the difference.
03-26-2018, 11:54 AM - 1 Like   #51
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 36,686
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
I've seen photos in the 300mm+ lens club, PF member Ducatigz shooting FA*600 on a K5... it just tells me 1) working distance and 2) good glass, make the difference.

Good glass is sharp no matter what it's on. It will produce sharp images on 6 MP or 36 MP. Poor glass might be ok on 6 MP. But if it's soft on 6 MP it certainly isn't going to be sharp on 36 MP.

On 6 MP I thought my 70-300 was a pretty good lens. Anything 16 or over and it's pretty much unusable in the long end.
03-26-2018, 12:46 PM   #52
Pentaxian
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,201
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by angerdan Quote
For a wedding a prime lens for indoors and a zoom on the second body for outdoors could fit the needs. I'd use thre lenses with one camera.
Since the preferences of most people are different, only recommendations can be given here.
Like some prefer details/overview sceneries, large/small depth of field or small/lightweight gear. Doing a wedding just with Limiteds is also possible.
Hey good points, I never actually thought properly about the indoor aspect and being limited by f2.8 on most zooms. Primes do go wider and this in dimly indoor lit environments is a serious advantage. Perhaps instead of thinking in terms of covering all focal ranges I need to flip things on the side and think more in terms of 'all lighting conditions'

I have indeed shot a wedding with nothing but primes, and just last week a hectic concert where most photographers had a single body and 24-70 to work with I had two bodies with a DA15mm f4, a FA 50mm 1.4 and a DFA 100mm 2.8 to work with.

If I end up going down the 70-200mm 2.8 route I think I would have to flog the DFA 100mmm 2.8, I mean I can get that exact FL and aperture with the 70-200mm, all I'm missing out on is Macro. If I could then focus more intently on 'indoor' primes that also can Macro then I'm perhaps amassing a wiser and more versatile lens line up for my bodies. (suggest away lol)
03-26-2018, 12:51 PM   #53
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,398
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
. . . If I end up going down the 70-200mm 2.8 route I think I would have to flog the DFA 100mmm 2.8, I mean I can get that exact FL and aperture with the 70-200mm, all I'm missing out on is Macro. If I could then focus more intently on 'indoor' primes that also can Macro then I'm perhaps amassing a wiser and more versatile lens line up for my bodies. (suggest away lol)
as I understand it

the advantage of the 100mm F 2.8 macro family vs. other macros is that

1 - it can be easier to shoot macro with that focal length

2 - there are several different lenses and therefore price level which share the same optics: F, FA, D FA, D FA WR

3 - and macro lenses are " sharp " by their nature as a designated macro lens

03-26-2018, 01:07 PM   #54
Pentaxian
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,201
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Aslyfox Quote
as I understand it

the advantage of the 100mm F 2.8 macro family vs. other macros is that

1 - it can be easier to shoot macro with that focal length

2 - there are several different lenses and therefore price level which share the same optics: F, FA, D FA, D FA WR

3 - and macro lenses are " sharp " by their nature as a designated macro lens
Hmm... yeh, perhaps hold onto it and compare more directly before flogging it lol.

But really I think I'd rather have a 85/1.4 or a 135/2 for portrait work, and these would also work better indoors than the 100/2.8, and if I do get a 70-200/2.8 then it does make it hard to justify holding onto a prime that falls within the 70-200 domain. (i am a poor man and have to justify many things to the boss!).
Initially I was thinking the only prime I'd justify would be something like a 85/1.4 or 135/2 in amongst the 2 zooms i'd likely end up with (70-200 and 24-70 etc).

Still... lots of choices and options to factor in.
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!
asp-c, canon, canon eos 5ds, combos, da15mm, fa, ff, ff & asp-c, k-1, k-mount, kp, mp, pentax lens, post, primes, slr lens, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FF comparison: k15mm aspherical vs k15mm non-asp vs FA20mm Wild Mark Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 03-06-2018 03:33 PM
Color combos of the K-50 body fstop18 Pentax K-30 & K-50 5 07-21-2016 01:35 PM
Three new colour combos for the KS-1 JinDesu Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 95 11-17-2014 04:50 AM
K-01: help me choose from these lens combos PBandJ Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 28 01-24-2013 12:21 PM
K-01 B&H Some combos In Stock 03/06 monochrome Pentax K-01 14 03-07-2012 09:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:58 AM. | 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