k-5 thoughts from a Canon user

robgo2 · 06-22-2011, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Bear in mind, no crop sensor gives extra reach, it just crops the reach the lens has.

This is not quite right. On APS-C, a lens effectively functions as a longer focal length in terms of the angle of view subtended onto the sensor. You could, if you wanted, just crop a FF image from a shorter lens to give the same angle of view, but then you would be sacrificing resolution. I don't know of many FF users who recommend this as a means of effectively extending the focal length of their lenses, whereas the crop factor of smaller sensors is widely regarded as a true "multiplier," and lenses are used accordingly. When I mount my FA77 on my K-7, I instinctively think of a 116mm focal length in 35mm format, because that is the field of view that will be projected onto the sensor. It works in the opposite direction with medium and large format cameras, of course, i.e. the angle of view is wider for any given focal length.

There is nothing magical about any particular sensor size, as long as the sensor records detail, tone and color accurately, while minimizing artifacts. Bigger sensors have always been better at this, but smaller sensors are improving to the point that the difference between FF and APS-C may no longer be of practical importance to most users.

Rob

Last edited by robgo2; 06-23-2011 at 09:44 AM.

aurele · 06-23-2011, 03:25 AM

Thanks for the review, it's always good to read such thread

i'd love that Pentax build a FF, but honestly, i don't think it will ever do

but if it does, i'd buy it

(and i'm serious)

Emacs · 06-23-2011, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

This is not quite right. On APS-C, a lens effectively functions as a longer focal length in terms of the angle of view subtended onto the sensor. You could, if you wanted, just crop a FF image from a shorter lens to give the same angle of view, but then you would be sacrificing resolution. I don't know of many FF users who recommend this as a means of effectively extending the focal length of their lenses, whereas the crop factor of smaller sensors is widely regarded assume a true "multiplier," and lenses are used accordingly. When I mount my FA77 on my K-7, I instinctively think of a 116mm focal length in 35mm format, because that is the field of view that will be projected onto the sensor. It works in the opposite direction with medium and large format cameras, of course, i.e. the angle of view is wider for any given focal length.

There is nothing magical about any particular sensor size, as long as the sensor records detail, tone and color accurately, while minimizing artifacts. Bigger sensors have always been better at this, but smaller sensors are improving to the point that the difference between FF and APS-C may no longer be of practical importance to most users.

Rob

LOL
You think it's for free? We paid for this "extra reach" with: 1.5 times more visible aberrations and diffraction (due to this "zoom") + we usually have 1.5 times less details for the same FOV

tibbitts · 06-23-2011, 03:48 PM

This was an excellent review - thanks for posting.

Paul

robgo2 · 06-23-2011, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Emacs

LOL
You think it's for free? We paid for this "extra reach" with: 1.5 times more visible aberrations and diffraction (due to this "zoom") + we usually have 1.5 times less details for the same FOV

What's the basis for this statement? Please show us an example of 1.5 times less detail from an APS-C sensor.

Detail is largely a function of lens resolution and sensor resolution. If the sensor is good enough, it should be able to resolve up to its limits, regardless of size. Sensor performance is being improved incredibly fast, and it is increasingly difficult to perceive a difference between FF and APS-C. What difference exists is irrelevant to most shooters at this point. This forum has had more than a few posts which attest to that fact from FF users who have switched to or are using the K-5 . The OP of this thread is one such person. On balance, he seems rather pleased with his K-5, even in comparison to his FF cameras. In some areas it lags, but in others it leads.

Rob

bobmaxja · 06-23-2011, 05:54 PM

I am so fed up to see everytime a fight with FF & APS-C. Again another post hijack by these peoples

Smeggypants · 06-23-2011, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Emacs

LOL
You think it's for free? We paid for this "extra reach" with: 1.5 times more visible aberrations and diffraction (due to this "zoom") + we usually have 1.5 times less details for the same FOV

You sound like an advertisement selling substanceless beauty products. Beauty product X has 1.5 times more freshness and age defiance than beauty product Y.

Emacs · 06-24-2011, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by robgo2

What's the basis for this statement? Please show us an example of 1.5 times less detail from an APS-C sensor.

It is because of how the optics works: greater magnification, greater details. In real life it is frequently being described as "Full Frame images" which many (and me too) supposed to look better than APS-C. Although selectively blind Pentax fanboys usually see no difference

Emacs · 06-24-2011, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

You sound like an advertisement selling substanceless beauty products. Beauty product X has 1.5 times more freshness and age defiance than beauty product Y.

When magnified 1.5 times the distance between two aperture spots decreases in 1.5 times, so it's easier for the next glass in the lens to resolve them (and to resolve the spot between them which could be harder without magnification). That's why 645D produces slightly better looking images than FF, FF than APS-C, APS-C than four thirds, etc.

**Schraubstock** · 06-24-2011, 03:42 AM

Just a simple view from a photographer who wonders what all the fuss is about.

To "adjust" to the 24 x 36mm (FF image) in order to get equal dimensions of what you are capturing, APS-C size captured images represent only a blown up "center" of this FF image. The focal length of the lens has not changed, it is still the same. True, but there is a difference. The smaller APS-C sensor has its pixels concentrated into a smaller space.

When you take a 200mm lens stick it on a FF, say 24MP something camera, crop it to APS-C size you get approx. something like a 10MP image whereas the K-5 remains on 16.3MP. So you always stay a little bit ahead in any further enlargements. If you blow up your pics for large format printing this can be a real advantage. Also for wildlife photography.

Conversely of course the APS-C sensor is a disadvantage for wide angel shooters where the full framers have an advantage.

Greetings

Emacs · 06-24-2011, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Schraubstock

Just a simple view from a photographer who wonders what all the fuss is about.

To "adjust" to the 24 x 36mm (FF image) in order to get equal dimensions of what you are capturing, APS-C size captured images represent only a blown up "center" of this FF image. The focal length of the lens has not changed, it is still the same. True, but there is a difference. The smaller APS-C sensor has its pixels concentrated into a smaller space.

When you take a 200mm lens stick it on a FF, say 24MP something camera, crop it to APS-C size you get approx. something like a 10MP image whereas the K-5 remains on 16.3MP. So you always stay a little bit ahead in any further enlargements. If you blow up your pics for large format printing this can be a real advantage. Also for wildlife photography.

Conversely of course the APS-C sensor is a disadvantage for wide angel shooters where the full framers have an advantage.

Greetings

It's a matter of price and size. 900mm FF would produce much better IQ than 600mm + APS-C.
But right, since I tend to shoot at wide end and I find out even 77*1.5 or 85*1.5 being too long, I mostly pay my attention into wide angle (up to about 85mm). And I must say this is day and night difference. The 31Ltd is great, but it's not good enough to compete with any decent 50mm on FF. Even cheap 50 f1.8 on FF looks superior compared to 31 on APS-C in terms of sharpness. But I much prefer Pentax old glass rendition (not DA ones, which are pointless attempt to produce lenses which will look OK even on APS-C, failed in my opinion, I still prefer old glass even on APS-C) , so I will keep 31-43-A50f.2-77-FA*85 at least. I will wait for FF mirrorless in order to utilize them properly without the need to cut them.

robgo2 · 06-24-2011, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Emacs

It is because of how the optics works: greater magnification, greater details. In real life it is frequently being described as "Full Frame images" which many (and me too) supposed to look better than APS-C. Although selectively blind Pentax fanboys usually see no difference

Show us examples, please. Bet you can't, because what you claim is not true. Resolution is resolution, regardless of sensor size. Even though larger pixels are better light collectors, the difference between FF and APS-C is not nearly as great as it once was and is reaching the point of irrelevance for most photographers, including many serious ones. Even some current compact cameras are capable of showing quite amazing detail with their tiny sensors.

Rob

robgo2 · 06-24-2011, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by bobmaxja

I am so fed up to see everytime a fight with FF & APS-C. Again another post hijack by these peoples

I agree, and I am sorry that I got dragged into it by Emacs. All I did, in response to another post in this thread, was make a factual point about smaller sensors having certain advantages over larger ones, and he took off from there. I did not intend to trigger a FF vs. APS-C flame war, nor do I care what other people use. I use what suits my wants and needs. He can use what suits his.

Rob

aurele · 06-25-2011, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by robgo2

Show us examples, please. Bet you can't, because what you claim is not true. Resolution is resolution, regardless of sensor size. Even though larger pixels are better light collectors, the difference between FF and APS-C is not nearly as great as it once was and is reaching the point of irrelevance for most photographers, including many serious ones. Even some current compact cameras are capable of showing quite amazing detail with their tiny sensors.

Rob

Ok, let's try

Credits : Asahiflex View Profile: Asahiflex - PentaxForums.com

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1474568-post49.html

one is from a 5D and the other is from a K5.

See ? no differences

i got you !

My point is that basically, there is no more "great" difference between a 5D and a K5 for exemple. Use the one that suit you best, not the one that seems the best.

And don't forget to take pictures, instead of discussing about wich one is suppose to be the best body !

Cheers !

Emacs · 06-26-2011, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by aurele

Ok, let's try

Credits : Asahiflex View Profile: Asahiflex - PentaxForums.com

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1474568-post49.html

one is from a 5D and the other is from a K5.

See ? no differences

i got you !

My point is that basically, there is no more "great" difference between a 5D and a K5 for exemple. Use the one that suit you best, not the one that seems the best.

And don't forget to take pictures, instead of discussing about wich one is suppose to be the best body !

Cheers !

Some time ago this pictures forced a friend of mine (Pentaxian too) to admit full frame images are sharper. Don't you notice the Takumar image is slightly sharper? If you are looking for the clearer proof, just compare 77Ltd full frame image vs A50 f1.2 both wide open

Day and night difference in terms of sharpness

06-24-2011, 03:17 AM	#38
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by robgo2 What's the basis for this statement? Please show us an example of 1.5 times less detail from an APS-C sensor. It is because of how the optics works: greater magnification, greater details. In real life it is frequently being described as "Full Frame images" which many (and me too) supposed to look better than APS-C. Although selectively blind Pentax fanboys usually see no difference Last edited by Emacs; 06-24-2011 at 04:39 AM.

06-25-2011, 03:32 PM	#44
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	Originally posted by robgo2 Show us examples, please. Bet you can't, because what you claim is not true. Resolution is resolution, regardless of sensor size. Even though larger pixels are better light collectors, the difference between FF and APS-C is not nearly as great as it once was and is reaching the point of irrelevance for most photographers, including many serious ones. Even some current compact cameras are capable of showing quite amazing detail with their tiny sensors. Rob Ok, let's try Credits : Asahiflex View Profile: Asahiflex - PentaxForums.com https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1474568-post49.html one is from a 5D and the other is from a K5. See ? no differences i got you ! My point is that basically, there is no more "great" difference between a 5D and a K5 for exemple. Use the one that suit you best, not the one that seems the best. And don't forget to take pictures, instead of discussing about wich one is suppose to be the best body ! Cheers ! Last edited by aurele; 06-25-2011 at 03:45 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thoughts on the Canon FS2710 Film Scanner?	Abstract	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	3	01-14-2011 06:16 PM
Help for ex-Canon user	excanoneer	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	8	12-16-2010 11:24 PM
Nikon D700...thoughts from a user.	ll_coffee_lP	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	24	10-14-2010 04:00 AM
Canon user has arrived	str8talk83	Welcomes and Introductions	7	09-30-2009 06:19 PM
Canon 5D MKII user switches to the K-7	jogiba	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	08-20-2009 05:44 AM

06-22-2011, 09:53 PM	#31
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Ash Bear in mind, no crop sensor gives extra reach, it just crops the reach the lens has. This is not quite right. On APS-C, a lens effectively functions as a longer focal length in terms of the angle of view subtended onto the sensor. You could, if you wanted, just crop a FF image from a shorter lens to give the same angle of view, but then you would be sacrificing resolution. I don't know of many FF users who recommend this as a means of effectively extending the focal length of their lenses, whereas the crop factor of smaller sensors is widely regarded as a true "multiplier," and lenses are used accordingly. When I mount my FA77 on my K-7, I instinctively think of a 116mm focal length in 35mm format, because that is the field of view that will be projected onto the sensor. It works in the opposite direction with medium and large format cameras, of course, i.e. the angle of view is wider for any given focal length. There is nothing magical about any particular sensor size, as long as the sensor records detail, tone and color accurately, while minimizing artifacts. Bigger sensors have always been better at this, but smaller sensors are improving to the point that the difference between FF and APS-C may no longer be of practical importance to most users. Rob Last edited by robgo2; 06-23-2011 at 09:44 AM.

06-23-2011, 03:25 AM	#32
aurele Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Paris, France Photos: Albums Posts: 3,217	Thanks for the review, it's always good to read such thread i'd love that Pentax build a FF, but honestly, i don't think it will ever do but if it does, i'd buy it (and i'm serious)

06-23-2011, 03:31 PM	#33
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by robgo2 This is not quite right. On APS-C, a lens effectively functions as a longer focal length in terms of the angle of view subtended onto the sensor. You could, if you wanted, just crop a FF image from a shorter lens to give the same angle of view, but then you would be sacrificing resolution. I don't know of many FF users who recommend this as a means of effectively extending the focal length of their lenses, whereas the crop factor of smaller sensors is widely regarded assume a true "multiplier," and lenses are used accordingly. When I mount my FA77 on my K-7, I instinctively think of a 116mm focal length in 35mm format, because that is the field of view that will be projected onto the sensor. It works in the opposite direction with medium and large format cameras, of course, i.e. the angle of view is wider for any given focal length. There is nothing magical about any particular sensor size, as long as the sensor records detail, tone and color accurately, while minimizing artifacts. Bigger sensors have always been better at this, but smaller sensors are improving to the point that the difference between FF and APS-C may no longer be of practical importance to most users. Rob LOL You think it's for free? We paid for this "extra reach" with: 1.5 times more visible aberrations and diffraction (due to this "zoom") + we usually have 1.5 times less details for the same FOV

06-23-2011, 03:48 PM	#34
tibbitts Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Oklahoma USA Posts: 2,193	This was an excellent review - thanks for posting. Paul

06-23-2011, 04:30 PM	#35
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Emacs LOL You think it's for free? We paid for this "extra reach" with: 1.5 times more visible aberrations and diffraction (due to this "zoom") + we usually have 1.5 times less details for the same FOV What's the basis for this statement? Please show us an example of 1.5 times less detail from an APS-C sensor. Detail is largely a function of lens resolution and sensor resolution. If the sensor is good enough, it should be able to resolve up to its limits, regardless of size. Sensor performance is being improved incredibly fast, and it is increasingly difficult to perceive a difference between FF and APS-C. What difference exists is irrelevant to most shooters at this point. This forum has had more than a few posts which attest to that fact from FF users who have switched to or are using the K-5 . The OP of this thread is one such person. On balance, he seems rather pleased with his K-5, even in comparison to his FF cameras. In some areas it lags, but in others it leads. Rob

06-23-2011, 05:54 PM	#36
bobmaxja Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Laval, Quebec Canada Posts: 2,171	I am so fed up to see everytime a fight with FF & APS-C. Again another post hijack by these peoples

06-23-2011, 07:34 PM	#37
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by Emacs LOL You think it's for free? We paid for this "extra reach" with: 1.5 times more visible aberrations and diffraction (due to this "zoom") + we usually have 1.5 times less details for the same FOV You sound like an advertisement selling substanceless beauty products. Beauty product X has 1.5 times more freshness and age defiance than beauty product Y.

06-24-2011, 03:20 AM	#39
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by Smeggypants You sound like an advertisement selling substanceless beauty products. Beauty product X has 1.5 times more freshness and age defiance than beauty product Y. When magnified 1.5 times the distance between two aperture spots decreases in 1.5 times, so it's easier for the next glass in the lens to resolve them (and to resolve the spot between them which could be harder without magnification). That's why 645D produces slightly better looking images than FF, FF than APS-C, APS-C than four thirds, etc.

06-24-2011, 03:42 AM	#40
Schraubstock Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,386	Just a simple view from a photographer who wonders what all the fuss is about. To "adjust" to the 24 x 36mm (FF image) in order to get equal dimensions of what you are capturing, APS-C size captured images represent only a blown up "center" of this FF image. The focal length of the lens has not changed, it is still the same. True, but there is a difference. The smaller APS-C sensor has its pixels concentrated into a smaller space. When you take a 200mm lens stick it on a FF, say 24MP something camera, crop it to APS-C size you get approx. something like a 10MP image whereas the K-5 remains on 16.3MP. So you always stay a little bit ahead in any further enlargements. If you blow up your pics for large format printing this can be a real advantage. Also for wildlife photography. Conversely of course the APS-C sensor is a disadvantage for wide angel shooters where the full framers have an advantage. Greetings

06-24-2011, 04:53 AM	#41
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by Schraubstock Just a simple view from a photographer who wonders what all the fuss is about. To "adjust" to the 24 x 36mm (FF image) in order to get equal dimensions of what you are capturing, APS-C size captured images represent only a blown up "center" of this FF image. The focal length of the lens has not changed, it is still the same. True, but there is a difference. The smaller APS-C sensor has its pixels concentrated into a smaller space. When you take a 200mm lens stick it on a FF, say 24MP something camera, crop it to APS-C size you get approx. something like a 10MP image whereas the K-5 remains on 16.3MP. So you always stay a little bit ahead in any further enlargements. If you blow up your pics for large format printing this can be a real advantage. Also for wildlife photography. Conversely of course the APS-C sensor is a disadvantage for wide angel shooters where the full framers have an advantage. Greetings It's a matter of price and size. 900mm FF would produce much better IQ than 600mm + APS-C. But right, since I tend to shoot at wide end and I find out even 771.5 or 851.5 being too long, I mostly pay my attention into wide angle (up to about 85mm). And I must say this is day and night difference. The 31Ltd is great, but it's not good enough to compete with any decent 50mm on FF. Even cheap 50 f1.8 on FF looks superior compared to 31 on APS-C in terms of sharpness. But I much prefer Pentax old glass rendition (not DA ones, which are pointless attempt to produce lenses which will look OK even on APS-C, failed in my opinion, I still prefer old glass even on APS-C) , so I will keep 31-43-A50f.2-77-FA*85 at least. I will wait for FF mirrorless in order to utilize them properly without the need to cut them.

06-24-2011, 02:30 PM	#42
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by Emacs It is because of how the optics works: greater magnification, greater details. In real life it is frequently being described as "Full Frame images" which many (and me too) supposed to look better than APS-C. Although selectively blind Pentax fanboys usually see no difference Show us examples, please. Bet you can't, because what you claim is not true. Resolution is resolution, regardless of sensor size. Even though larger pixels are better light collectors, the difference between FF and APS-C is not nearly as great as it once was and is reaching the point of irrelevance for most photographers, including many serious ones. Even some current compact cameras are capable of showing quite amazing detail with their tiny sensors. Rob

06-24-2011, 02:41 PM	#43
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by bobmaxja I am so fed up to see everytime a fight with FF & APS-C. Again another post hijack by these peoples I agree, and I am sorry that I got dragged into it by Emacs. All I did, in response to another post in this thread, was make a factual point about smaller sensors having certain advantages over larger ones, and he took off from there. I did not intend to trigger a FF vs. APS-C flame war, nor do I care what other people use. I use what suits my wants and needs. He can use what suits his. Rob

06-26-2011, 04:13 AM	#45
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by aurele Ok, let's try Credits : Asahiflex View Profile: Asahiflex - PentaxForums.com https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1474568-post49.html one is from a 5D and the other is from a K5. See ? no differences i got you ! My point is that basically, there is no more "great" difference between a 5D and a K5 for exemple. Use the one that suit you best, not the one that seems the best. And don't forget to take pictures, instead of discussing about wich one is suppose to be the best body ! Cheers ! Some time ago this pictures forced a friend of mine (Pentaxian too) to admit full frame images are sharper. Don't you notice the Takumar image is slightly sharper? If you are looking for the clearer proof, just compare 77Ltd full frame image vs A50 f1.2 both wide open Day and night difference in terms of sharpness