Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-04-2011, 09:17 AM   #106
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,800
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
LOL, since you found 7d gives overall better IQ than 5d, your opinion is, hm, shouldn't be paid any attention
Do you actually read the posts?

Where did I say that I found the 7D give overall better IQ than the 5D? Can you please point that out to me?

05-05-2011, 08:38 AM   #107
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by nanok Quote
i think it's meaningless to talk about quality without taking into account your intended usage and sooting style. quality means nothing, on it's own. that was my point.
Good point, one I was trying to make also.

.
05-05-2011, 08:49 AM   #108
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
... The difference, for instance, between a FF and an APS-c becomes a rounding error when compared to the 645D and other MF digitals, and equally so between the tiny p&s sensors and the big boys. They're clustered together like this:

ps ==============4/3=APS-c=FF==============MF.
More accurately, considering both IQ and the performance typical with that format's available bodies:

ISO 100, f/8 outdoor portrait shooting:

ps=======4/3==aps-c==FF====MF

f/8 Landscape, resolution-centered:

ps====4/3===aps-c=FF===================MF

f/2.8, ISO 3200, low-light portrait:

ps==============================4/3====aps-c=========FF/MF

f/4, ISO 100 good-light, long distance sports:

ps==============MF==4/3==FF/aps-c

f/2.0, ISO 6400, low-light AF-tracking:

(ps does not qualify)

4/3=====aps-c==MF=====================FF

Point: Your intended usage determines what format is more valuable to you - there is no single common-ground image that can determine the relative worth of any format (yet you continue to search the web for this image, it seems - good luck )



.
05-05-2011, 09:15 AM   #109
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,247
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
More accurately, considering both IQ and the performance typical with that format's available bodies:

ISO 100, f/8 outdoor portrait shooting:

ps=======4/3==aps-c==FF====MF

f/8 Landscape, resolution-centered:

ps====4/3===aps-c=FF===================MF

f/2.8, ISO 3200, low-light portrait:

ps==============================4/3====aps-c=========FF/MF

f/4, ISO 100 good-light, long distance sports:

ps==============MF==4/3==FF/aps-c

f/2.0, ISO 6400, low-light AF-tracking:

(ps does not qualify)

4/3=====aps-c==MF=====================FF

Point: Your intended usage determines what format is more valuable to you - there is no single common-ground image that can determine the relative worth of any format (yet you continue to search the web for this image, it seems - good luck )



.
I think some of the thing that are mentioned here have more to do with bodies than they do with the format itself. Nikon chooses not to put its upper end auto focus systems in APS-C bodies because they really would far rather sell D700s than D7000s (a lot more profit per sale with full frame).

I also think that when it comes to long distance sports, a lot of shooters would prefer a crop body with proper specifications (Canon 7D, 1D Mk III) over a full frame body (5D). The "extra reach" given by APS-C comes in handy and the focus ability is equivalent or better as is the buffer.

As to the others, I really think you exaggerate the differences. Those may have been true in the past and they may be true again in the future, but not currently.

05-05-2011, 09:46 AM   #110
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
More accurately, considering both IQ and the performance typical with that format's available bodies:

ISO 100, f/8 outdoor portrait shooting:

ps=======4/3==aps-c==FF====MF

f/8 Landscape, resolution-centered:

ps====4/3===aps-c=FF===================MF
Only as long as the resolution is the same between the cameras. A D3S won't match the resolution of the D7000, for instance. Assuming you've got a good lens on the D7000 (apples to apples), you'd have to invert the FF and APS-c there. The D3S still has *slightly* better DR, though. Next gen D3s will revert to your chart, though, I'd say.

QuoteQuote:
f/2.8, ISO 3200, low-light portrait:

ps==============================4/3====aps-c=========FF/MF
Overly generous to the FF. I'd give the FF one "=" over APS-c. Much of the ( already slight ) advantage of FF disappears if you shoot RAW and do your noise control in software (which I do anyway, as computers have a lot more processing power to spend on it, and do a much better job). While MF cameras aren't optimized for low light the way APS-c and FF are, the same thing applies; shoot raw, NR in software, and MF is a clear winner with a bullet.

QuoteQuote:
f/4, ISO 100 good-light, long distance sports:

ps==============MF==4/3==FF/aps-c
Again overly generous to the FF; the two arenas where APS-c is arguably superior to FF is long-tele work and macro work, where magnification and pixel density win over sensor area. There should be an "=" between 'em. But only one.

QuoteQuote:
f/2.0, ISO 6400, low-light AF-tracking:

(ps does not qualify)

4/3=====aps-c==MF=====================FF
I think you got a little overly excited with the "="s, but I'll give you a FF win there, with more than one "=" - I'd say more like five or six. I would also invert MF and APS-c, with three "=" between 'em, simply because there aren't a whole lot of F2.0 lenses available for MF, and MF AF is abysmal for moving subjects - yes, even worse than Pentax's AF

QuoteQuote:
Point: Your intended usage determines what format is more valuable to you - there is no single common-ground image that can determine the relative worth of any format (yet you continue to search the web for this image, it seems - good luck )
.
I don't disagree with your basic point, and never have; Application matters, indeed. The point *I* have been trying to make is that FF and APS/C aren't significantly different in the mechanics of application NOR in image quality. Even though FF cams are a little bigger than their APS-c siblings, it's not like the difference between my T-90 and my Hassleblad EL. There's no real usability difference between FF and their APS-c siblings (of similar 'level') - that is, the D300s weighs 30 oz, and the D700s weighs 35oz. Five ounces of difference. Not much mechanical or logistical difference.

I'm not defending APS-C. I'm an old medium format shooter, with probably just as many 6x6 exposures as 24x36. I'm not trying to 'argue up'. I'm saying that the difference between APS-c and FF is insufficient to justify they hype or the cost. You wanna say "I really like shooting with FF", I'll say "good on ye." You say "You gotta have FF to do X well" (like many do) I'll call bull. If you need the IQ of MF, you gotta buy MF, you can't 'get by' with FF. The images produced by MF cameras are distinct from those produced by FF *and* APS-c, and frequently easily discernable. Not so the images from FF vs APS-c, or, conversely, APS-c vs FF.
05-05-2011, 10:01 AM   #111
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think some of the thing that are mentioned here have more to do with bodies than they do with the format itself. Nikon chooses not to put its upper end auto focus systems in APS-C bodies because they really would far rather sell D700s than D7000s (a lot more profit per sale with full frame).
Yes, which is what I was getting at in the lead-in sentence to that post (although Nikon did put a top-o-line AF system in the aps-c D300.)

Point is it's something you should consider when laying down money for a system.


QuoteQuote:
I also think that when it comes to long distance sports, a lot of shooters would prefer a crop body with proper specifications (Canon 7D, 1D Mk III) over a full frame body (5D). The "extra reach" given by APS-C comes in handy and the focus ability is equivalent or better as is the buffer.
Yep, as would I, which is why I put aps-c slightly ahead or tied with FF in that graph. (the only way FF is really 'ahead' there (in good light shooting) is if you have a massive, expensive long/fast telephoto on FF vs. a more modest telephoto on aps-c.)

QuoteQuote:
As to the others, I really think you exaggerate the differences. Those may have been true in the past and they may be true again in the future, but not currently.
I was putting the 'differences' in appropriate relation to Steve's initial be-all-end-all graph, which I quoted. I also think his general IQ difference between MF and FF (or aps-c) is out of proportion to reality.

The point is that you can't look for that one image that defines the format as better/worse/the same - each format has their own strength. If you are bumping into limits in areas of your photography that a format change could address, then it's time to seriously think of 'upgrading'. Looking for reasons to not shoot FF (or MF) by trying to see differences in non-comparitive images, or comparative images shot in ideal circumstances is sort of a waste of time.

The numbers are the numbers - you should be able to infer from them how your photography would be affected - or not affected - by a format change.




.
05-05-2011, 11:35 AM   #112
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
Only as long as the resolution is the same...



Overly generous to the FF. I'd give the FF one "=" over APS-c. ...



Again overly generous to the FF; the two arenas where APS-c is arguably superior t...



I think you got a little overly excited with the "="s, but I'll give you a FF win there, ...
Forest for trees...

Do you see how different graphs apply to different shooting situations - and accept that?

Your single graph, IMO, represented a single shooting situation. You can't accurately define the differences in formats with that kind of thinking.


QuoteQuote:
I don't disagree with your basic point, and never have; Application matters, indeed. The point *I* have been trying to make is that FF and APS/C aren't significantly different in the mechanics of application NOR in image quality.
For you, for your intended applications. After shooting both formats for a year and a half, I'd disagree.


QuoteQuote:
...I'm not trying to 'argue up'. I'm saying that the difference between APS-c and FF is insufficient to justify they hype or the cost.
If the shooting world consisted of $5000-$8000 FF bodies and $300-$1000 aps-c bodies, I'd probably agree. The $1400 K-5 and $2300 D700 (or $2000 A850) kinda muddle that point, for some, because the cost delta isn't astronomical.

And again, 'hype' is subjective, and the cost/value is personal based on what you want to spend on photography or what you can afford. (and what your intended use is - a wedding shooter in competition with other wedding shooters might find the $800 difference in bodies a non-issue.)


QuoteQuote:
You wanna say "I really like shooting with FF", I'll say "good on ye." You say "You gotta have FF to do X well" (like many do) I'll call bull.
How about, "I need FF to do X better"?

QuoteQuote:
If you need the IQ of MF, you gotta buy MF, you can't 'get by' with FF. The images produced by MF cameras are distinct from those produced by FF *and* APS-c, and frequently easily discernable. Not so the images from FF vs APS-c, or, conversely, APS-c vs FF.
I think your fixation on MF and it's relative IQ with other formats is causing you to take an odd approach here - you should simply think about what FF could bring you over aps-c and decide if that helps you enough to justify the cost of an upgrade. You should think in terms of ISO, shutter speed at equiv apertures that brings, more DOF control at equiv FOVs, viewfinder differences , and then the AF performance that goes with those FF bodies. Forget about MF for the time being. Unless you have $10K burning a hole in your pocket right now.




.

Last edited by jsherman999; 05-05-2011 at 11:42 AM.
05-05-2011, 12:04 PM   #113
Veteran Member
Smeggypants's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,536
Surely if you need FF that much then go out and buy one? It's not like they don't exist.

05-05-2011, 12:44 PM   #114
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote

Do you see how different graphs apply to different shooting situations - and accept that?
Sure. Quibbles about specifics aside, I certainly do.

QuoteQuote:
For you, for your intended applications. After shooting both formats for a year and a half, I'd disagree.
I get that you like FF. I'm ok with that.


QuoteQuote:
If the shooting world consisted of $5000-$8000 FF bodies and $300-$1000 aps-c bodies, I'd probably agree. The $1400 K-5 and $2300 D700 (or $2000 A850) kinda muddle that point, for some, because the cost delta isn't astronomical.
And the $1400 D7000 will beat the D700s IQ in many ways. And then you have to buy glass.

QuoteQuote:
And again, 'hype' is subjective, and the cost/value is personal based on what you want to spend on photography or what you can afford. (and what your intended use is - a wedding shooter in competition with other wedding shooters might find the $800 difference in bodies a non-issue.)
Absolutely. I make no judgment of personal preference.

QuoteQuote:
How about, "I need FF to do X better"?
I'd go along with "I like doing X better with FF." Depending, of course, on your definition of "need".

QuoteQuote:
I think your fixation on MF and it's relative IQ with other formats is causing you to take an odd approach here - you should simply think about what FF could bring you over aps-c and decide if that helps you enough to justify the cost of an upgrade. You should think in terms of ISO, shutter speed at equiv apertures that brings, more DOF control at equiv FOVs, viewfinder differences , and then the AF performance that goes with those FF bodies. Forget about MF for the time being. Unless you have $10K burning a hole in your pocket right now.
Well, that's kind of the point, yeah? A one-and-a-third stop difference in DOF? Really? That's the big deal? If you buy a D3S you get better DR and better noise profile. I can see that for some applications, sure. But a D700s? Better AF, but that has NOTHING to do with FF. Beyond that, it's all personal "taste". Which, again, I don't judge. It's one thing to say "I like the way this thing looks better than that thing", and another to say "this thing is *better* than that thing".
05-05-2011, 01:09 PM   #115
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
Well, that's kind of the point, yeah? A one-and-a-third stop difference in DOF? Really?
No, that's not it. 1 to 1.5 stops better ISO performance, better VF, pixel-pitch is very forgiving of lenses and handheld shooting. Then there's the much faster AF, far better tracking, etc. C'mon Steve, we've been through this!

QuoteQuote:
That's the big deal? If you buy a D3S you get better DR and better noise profile. I can see that for some applications, sure. But a D700s? Better AF, but that has NOTHING to do with FF.
Nothing directly to do with the format, but it comes with the body that carries the format. (D300 = exception.) So it is directly tied to your purchase decision and what you get for your dollar.

And D3s is huge, and costs twice what the D700 costs. D700 really, really hits a sweet spot here. You should try one!

QuoteQuote:
Beyond that, it's all personal "taste". Which, again, I don't judge. It's one thing to say "I like the way this thing looks better than that thing", and another to say "this thing is *better* than that thing".
As long as you're not saying "There's no discernible difference between this thing and that thing - or the difference does not matter to me, I think, so I cast doubt on whether it should matter to anyone." Because it sounded like you were getting close to implying something like that, up there a ways.

Anyway, getting back to my point (again) - looking for the 'wow' image is a fool's errand, because all you're really seeing is really the photog's skill. You need to look at the numbers and think about how that could help you in your typical shooting situations, or not.

I could show you a blog that's featured a kid shooting an iphone the past couple weeks, and his images are mind-blowing (and nationally recognized, now) - should I take from that that an iphone camera is 'good enough' for everything I'd want?



.
05-05-2011, 02:02 PM   #116
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
No, that's not it. 1 to 1.5 stops better ISO performance, better VF, pixel-pitch is very forgiving of lenses and handheld shooting. Then there's the much faster AF, far better tracking, etc. C'mon Steve, we've been through this!
Heeh. Yeah, I just don't agree that all those are currently true. But they will be again once the sensor technology migrates to FF, so *shrug*.

QuoteQuote:
Nothing directly to do with the format, but it comes with the body that carries the format. (D300 = exception.) So it is directly tied to your purchase decision and what you get for your dollar.

And D3s is huge, and costs twice what the D700 costs. D700 really, really hits a sweet spot here. You should try one!
Yeah, that's true, but unrelated to the format, as I said.

QuoteQuote:
As long as you're not saying "There's no discernible difference between this thing and that thing - or the difference does not matter to me, I think, so I cast doubt on whether it should matter to anyone." Because it sounded like you were getting close to implying something like that, up there a ways.
Oh, no. I mean, I got rid of one Pentax 35mm (the 35mm LTD Macro) and kept the other one (FA 35mm f2) because I couldn't tell the difference in sharpness, and I liked the color of the FA better. Nobody but me would be able to tell the difference in blind tests, I promise. (Or maybe someone else who made the same decision ) So I got no judgement of personal preference.

QuoteQuote:
Anyway, getting back to my point (again) - looking for the 'wow' image is a fool's errand, because all you're really seeing is really the photog's skill. You need to look at the numbers and think about how that could help you in your typical shooting situations, or not.

I could show you a blog that's featured a kid shooting an iphone the past couple weeks, and his images are mind-blowing (and nationally recognized, now) - should I take from that that an iphone camera is 'good enough' for everything I'd want?
.
Oh, I've been having a BLAST with autostitch on my iPhone lately:





I'm not confusing art with technique, nor am I suggesting there's no difference between FF and APS-c. I'm only questioning the degree of difference. Like i said in this thread or another, I know a fellow who used SX-70s and was a locally acclaimed photographic artist. *shrug*.
05-05-2011, 10:07 PM   #117
Pentaxian
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,221
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
More accurately, considering both IQ and the performance typical with that format's available bodies:

ISO 100, f/8 outdoor portrait shooting:

ps=======4/3==aps-c==FF====MF

f/8 Landscape, resolution-centered:

ps====4/3===aps-c=FF===================MF

f/2.8, ISO 3200, low-light portrait:

ps==============================4/3====aps-c=========FF/MF

f/4, ISO 100 good-light, long distance sports:

ps==============MF==4/3==FF/aps-c

f/2.0, ISO 6400, low-light AF-tracking:

(ps does not qualify)

4/3=====aps-c==MF=====================FF

Point: Your intended usage determines what format is more valuable to you - there is no single common-ground image that can determine the relative worth of any format (yet you continue to search the web for this image, it seems - good luck )



.
Wrong comparison. For landscapes aps-c==========FF, since there's no equivalent for Distagon T* 21 at the crop
The same with ≈30mm: there's no match to 31Ltd at the crop
05-05-2011, 10:23 PM   #118
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
Wrong comparison. For landscapes aps-c==========FF, since there's no equivalent for Distagon T* 21 at the crop
The same with ≈30mm: there's no match to 31Ltd at the crop
I love the Zeiss, don't get me wrong - I used to shoot Hasselblad in the film days. And I love the LTDs; I wish I could justify the breaking out of the cash for the 31ltd.

That said, if we're shooting landscapes, I can put both of those lenses to shame with my 100mm macro, a good tripod, and some quality stitching software. And, in fact, if I really needed the resolution (say, making a 450dpi 20x24 gallery print), that's the way I'd do it. You can't match it, even with MF, unless you do the same thing.

Yeah, I know, it's tit for tat; my purpose is not to suggest that there's no difference between the two, but to suggest there's not very much that FF can do that APS-C cannot, because the difference between them is not great.
05-14-2011, 09:54 AM   #119
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 214
Original Poster
Alright, check these photos out I found online. They were shot on a full frame and they look amazingly sharp and have a specific look to them. Is this possible on the K5 with good glass?

Frank Scallo Photography - Blog - Family Session: Golden Hour @Devine
05-14-2011, 10:24 AM   #120
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,012
QuoteOriginally posted by crossover37 Quote
Alright, check these photos out I found online. They were shot on a full frame and they look amazingly sharp and have a specific look to them. Is this possible on the K5 with good glass?

Frank Scallo Photography - Blog - Family Session: Golden Hour @Devine
Maybe the better question is can a FF do this? There are plenty of "Specific Looks' in here......
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/123731-no-more-tests-just-pictures.html

As Yogi Berra once said....
"You can observe a lot by just watching.".....and this thread ..."It's like deja-vu, all over again."

Regards!
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!
camera, dslr, frame, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, photos
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame or improved AF. What do you want in the "K-8"? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 73 06-04-2010 11:35 AM
News Category Prefixes added to "Post Your Photos" Forum! Adam Site Suggestions and Help 10 11-13-2009 12:50 PM
Nikon's 1998 vintage "full frame" DSLR pingflood General Talk 5 07-25-2009 05:44 PM
How does the camera "know" where the first frame starts? pbo Pentax Medium Format 9 07-08-2009 08:23 AM
German c't calls K-7 "full frame" falconeye Pentax News and Rumors 3 05-24-2009 11:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:16 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