Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-01-2009, 11:13 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,169
QuoteOriginally posted by er1kksen Quote
I see a pretty serious difference for my purposes between my K20D and my older 7mp DSLR as far as the quality of images produced. I like to print often and large. With my old camera, an 11x14 was pushing it, and you certainly couldn't expect to see anything sharp at that size if you put your nose up to it. Last week I got a few 18x12 prints back from my K20D, and they're sharp and stunning as close as you dare to look.
Sure, but how often do you put your nose to a print when viewing it? Just like pixel peeping at 1:1 will reveal differences, so will sticking your nose to a 18x12 print. But in real world use, people don't tend to do that...

06-01-2009, 11:22 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Borås, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,169
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
Ha, your response is hillarious.

My images from a 6mp DSLR that I owned and a 12mp DSLR that I owned really have no difference in pixels. The only real difference is in the lens that I was using.
Clearly you lack a discerning palate.
06-02-2009, 12:10 AM   #18
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,793
Original Poster
My palate also doesn't like cameras that are $1000 more expensive.
06-02-2009, 07:24 AM   #19
Veteran Member
er1kksen's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Forestville, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,801
QuoteOriginally posted by pingflood Quote
Sure, but how often do you put your nose to a print when viewing it? Just like pixel peeping at 1:1 will reveal differences, so will sticking your nose to a 18x12 print. But in real world use, people don't tend to do that...
Well, that's the thing, it's about my enjoyment of the images. I find a joy in higher and higher image quality not dissimilar to the joy I find encountering beauty in nature; I'm the kind of person who would own a MF digital setup even if it had nothing to do with supporting myself financially, if I were in a situation where I could afford it. I'm well aware that 98% of the viewing public who might see my images wouldn't be able to tell either way. But for what it's worth, the older 7mp images at 11x14 are starting to look a little soft even when I'm NOT looking at them very closely.

On a much more debatable and subjective level, it's the opinion of many users of higher-end imaging technology (whether larger format or more pixels) that this higher measurable image quality, when printed at the same size as a file from, say, a digital rebel, might not show any more detail per se (being limited by the printer), but display subtleties and tonal gradations that the smaller-sensor (or lower-pixel-density) files cannot produce. Of course this is a hotly contended idea, but I tend to believe in it, both from the images I've seen produced by some other artists and my own observations with equal-sized prints from my old camera and my new camera.

Basically, if you feel that this is all a bunch of hogwash and that the images produced by digital cameras haven't gotten any better since the digital rebel, why don't you just shoot with what works for you and let all the silly people who think buying newer cameras will give them the potential for higher-quality images keep injecting funds into your favorite company?

06-02-2009, 07:45 AM   #20
graphicgr8s
Guest




So what is so great about medium format over 35mm? Same discussion. Different way to image. One of many things is larger pixel count enables you to print larger. Or crop more at the same size. This discussion is dumb.
06-02-2009, 10:06 AM   #21
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
So what is so great about medium format over 35mm? Same discussion. Different way to image. One of many things is larger pixel count enables you to print larger. Or crop more at the same size. This discussion is dumb.

what is so great about large format over medium?
06-02-2009, 10:21 AM   #22
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
what is so great about large format over medium?
You tell me.

Personally I think this discussion was stupid to start in the first place.

Is this Wendy B?

06-02-2009, 12:38 PM   #23
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
You tell me.

Personally I think this discussion was stupid to start in the first place.

Is this Wendy B?
I don't know anything to tell you.
06-02-2009, 04:03 PM   #24
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,793
Original Poster
You did NOT just call me Wendy B.

*gets all black on your ass*
06-03-2009, 06:45 AM   #25
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
You did NOT just call me Wendy B.

*gets all black on your ass*
No I didn't. Read the question. I asked if this was Wendy B. A question usually requires an answer. So: Are you Wendy B? Known facts so far

1 You are a whiner (By one of your previous posts)
2 You are an Internet Drag Queen (by your own admission)

What the heck is *gets all black on your ass* suppose to mean anyway? If it is what I think it is then you may want to reconsider before I swat you like a fly.
06-03-2009, 10:17 AM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 470
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
After seeing a few of the sample images of the K-7, I thought to myself "These look exactly like the ones from my Digital Rebel (original) that I had last year, just over twice as many pixels in the same sensor sized image. So I just started thinking, all these cameras, all these brands, and the images from nearly every one of them looks identical when photos are taken in the RAW format, and the differences are merely in the gimmicks that the cameras have. Of course a few cameras have other things than some, and are faster than older ones, but the image quality really hasn't changed much from the older to newer DSLR.
Double the pixels in the same sensor size with as good or improved high iso performance IS a meaningful improvement. At least if you like taking pictures with less than ideal light and if you like printing images large.

If you shoot in studio lighting and your images never leave a monitor, then no, the improvements are largely meaningless.
06-03-2009, 10:24 AM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toronto (for now)
Posts: 1,748
It baffles me why anyone expects the sensor to work miricles and the expectation of contiued leaps in IQ is a bit weird.

The extra features are no tgimmicks, IMHO pixel for pixel my K100D is far better than my 20D but the 100D has not been used ONCE since i got the 20D. It's faster, easier to use, faster, more cutom features, faster, uses two weels, faster and it's also faster.
06-03-2009, 10:44 AM   #28
Veteran Member
ve2vfd's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,433
QuoteOriginally posted by graphicgr8s Quote
2 You are an Internet Drag Queen (by your own admission)
Er... it's DRAMA queen!

Milton Berle and Dame Edna are DRAG queens



Pat
06-03-2009, 10:48 AM   #29
graphicgr8s
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by ve2vfd Quote
Er... it's DRAMA queen!

Milton Berle and Dame Edna are DRAG queens



Pat
What's a letter or two among friends? He could be a drag queen.I had the gender correct so partial credit.
06-03-2009, 01:21 PM   #30
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by Alfisti Quote
It baffles me why anyone expects the sensor to work miricles and the expectation of contiued leaps in IQ is a bit weird.

The extra features are no tgimmicks, IMHO pixel for pixel my K100D is far better than my 20D but the 100D has not been used ONCE since i got the 20D. It's faster, easier to use, faster, more cutom features, faster, uses two weels, faster and it's also faster.
of course not, how could they be gimmicks when you prefer these aspects over pure IQ. some people think the exact opposite and thus they become gimmicks. offering something essentially unneeded to the process of photography instead of concentrating on what truly counts. image quality.
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!
cameras, image, images
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New to DSLRs drew39k Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 27 05-27-2010 05:47 PM
New to DSLRs thefragger Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 33 09-30-2009 04:57 PM
new to DSLRs qclabrat_1 Welcomes and Introductions 2 01-28-2009 01:12 PM
Pentax DSLRS RAW + JPEG, and all DSLRs for that matter. ebooks4pentax Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 10-01-2008 01:59 PM
New to DSLRs mediaslinky Welcomes and Introductions 6 03-20-2007 08:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:44 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