[uccemebug]

Shitty, shitty, shitty
Must be shitty
In Emac's world.
Shitty, shitty, shitty
Always shitty
In Emac's world.

Mmm, mindworm.

[pinholecam]

Dude, it's not the sensor performance that defines IQ but it's size. Look at 5d: it's sensor is much worse than one on K-5, but the IQ the camera produces is overall superior to pentax APS-C, especially at wide apertures.

I don't know how you come to this conclusion, but certainly K5 image quality is as good if not better than 5DII
Imaging Resource "Comparometer" ™ Digital Camera Image Comparison Page

You might want to state your sources than just make this claim.

[ghelary]

It was the case at the very beginning of the cheap digital era. It isn't such an imporant case due to general sensor technology progress. But there were no lenses one, the best optical schemes for fixed focal were achieved in 1970-1980s, almost no progress here since then.
Nikon guys tried to persuade everyone their APS-C aren't any worse than canon FF for a long time. Did they succeeded? Obviously no. They could to fake their fanboys, but not consumers who see how big was the difference.
As for me, I find both canon nikon primes to be shitty, I don't like rangefinders, I don't want to cut my LTDs. So I stay with Pentax stuff until mirrorless FF, where I can mount my lenses easily. But I stopped buying everything from modern Pentax which is just trashy compared to old stuff + shitty quality.

I don't know why I'm feeding the troll, maybe because I'm bored, but lets go.

The main point between comparing 5D and K5 is about comparing a FF from 2005 to an APSC camera from 2010.
And what the people are saying is that the technology progress made up for the advantage of the format. Nobody is saying that the K5 is better than the D3x.

And BTW there is a reason why Canon is sticking with APS-H for their higher end cameras.

Now extending to lens design, I cannot see anywhere that "lens design" has reach is best in the 1980s. Certainly computer assisted design has helped raising the bar, but there is no proof it has stalled since then.

There is more proof of the contrary as there are reports of the latest Leica and Zeiss designs to be significantly better than the previous versions.

[ntv1211]

Hi

Mine is Olympus Ep1, i want somehow it has APS-C sensor inside. Dynamic range of M4/3 sensor is not really good as APS-C. So I won't go for pentax evil if a smaller sensor used.

[Emacs]

The main point between comparing 5D and K5 is about comparing a FF from 2005 to an APSC camera from 2010.

Recently one guy at this forum asked if it was a good idea to abandon the K-5 in order to get OLD 5D.
The 5D sensor is obviously loses to K-5 in almost every aspect. But the fact it is 1.5 times bigger cancels them all, if you don't need 7 shot per second.

And BTW there is a reason why Canon is sticking with APS-H for their higher end cameras.

Their top is 1Ds, which is FF.
The APS-C 1D is positioned as a reporter tool. Specially for people who needs 1 million shots in a series.

Now extending to lens design, I cannot see anywhere that "lens design" has reach is best in the 1980s. Certainly computer assisted design has helped raising the bar, but there is no proof it has stalled since then.

There is more proof of the contrary as there are reports of the latest Leica and Zeiss designs to be significantly better than the previous versions.

Since you don't seem to be competent enough nor has competent friends. Computers used for such calculations for a long time already, since those 1970s. Latest lenses only were added coatings to prevent sensor reflections. May be some progress in materials that helps to increase glass resolution. At least CZ doesn't seem to have a progress for real. The leica's ASPH while getting smaller compared to non ASPH counterpart tends to be more ghost prone, due to increased amount of glass.

[Winder]

The comparisons really only prove that current ASP-C sensors are as good as 5-6 year old FF sensors.

Until we have a new FF from one of the big 3 we will not how much a difference there really is.

If Sony rolled out their 16MP sensor for the mid-level cameras like the A55/D7000/K-5 then it is a pretty safe bet that the 24MP sensor that is going into their A77 and probably the Nikon D400 is a step above in overall performance. I think it is also safe to assume that the 32MP+/- FF sensor going into the A920 or A99 is also going to be a really good sensor.

I just hope that Pentax is also working on a body for the new 24MP sensor with improved AF.

[Winder]

Hi

Mine is Olympus Ep1, i want somehow it has APS-C sensor inside. Dynamic range of M4/3 sensor is not really good as APS-C. So I won't go for pentax evil if a smaller sensor used.

If you are currently invested in m4/3 then I would just stay with that system. The current 12MP m4/3 sensor is just as good as the APS-C in the K-7. The next generation of m4/3 is going to be competitive with cameras like the K-x and K-r.

43 Rumors | Blog | (FT5) 12mm f/2.0 is an all metal lens and has a distance scale!
and if Olympus continues to produce lenses like the 12mm f/2 the system might really start to reach its potential.

[Aristophanes]

The comparisons really only prove that current ASP-C sensors are as good as 5-6 year old FF sensors.

Until we have a new FF from one of the big 3 we will not how much a difference there really is.

If Sony rolled out their 16MP sensor for the mid-level cameras like the A55/D7000/K-5 then it is a pretty safe bet that the 24MP sensor that is going into their A77 and probably the Nikon D400 is a step above in overall performance. I think it is also safe to assume that the 32MP+/- FF sensor going into the A920 or A99 is also going to be a really good sensor.

Exactly.

There is a continuum of quality, but smaller sensors (due to lesser costs and higher consumer product turnover) allows for faster development.

FF takes BIG leaps less often, and APS-C and M43 and P&S take smaller leaps more often.

IQ is partially subjective and partially non. DR is is non. Resolution input is non. Sharpness can be subjective because, frankly, the scales used defy the user's eye and the digital noise vs. sharpness tradeoff is a constant negotiation. Frankly, all manufacturers make very sharp glass at center, and only more extreme designs (WA for example) display some flaws, which is inevitable in optics. Every manufacturer has a dud lens or two.

Sensor IQ is a continuum. Smaller sensors will reach a ceiling on advances faster than larger sensors. M43 will get there 1-2 generations before APS-C, and the latter will get there 2-3 generations before FF, and on to MF, etc.

This is why the Sony NEX mount can handle and FF sensor and the Pentax 645D can handle a larger sensor as well. They are future-proofing for the day when incremental quality improvements can only be made when the sensor is larger. Getting there will depend more on economics than anything else.

The Nikon D400 and D800 will be interesting cameras, for sure.

[Pentaxor]

Recently one guy at this forum asked if it was a good idea to abandon the K-5 in order to get OLD 5D.
The 5D sensor is obviously loses to K-5 in almost every aspect. But the fact it is 1.5 times bigger cancels them all, if you don't need 7 shot per second.

can you answer these 2 questions just to clarify what you meant?

1.> is the Canon 5D MK I with an old FF sensor better than the current Canon 7D with a newer APS-C sensor in terms of overall IQ ( resolution, S/N ratio, DR ,etc... not FOV and DOF related) used with the same FF lens? can you specifically explain why?

2.> is the Canon 5D MK I with an old FF sensor is as good or still better than any upcoming Canon FF/ APS-H camera with a newer sensor in terms of the same overall IQ performance mentioned in the first inquiry and used with the same FF lens? can you specifically explain why?

[deejjjaaaa]

This is why the Sony NEX mount can handle and FF sensor and the Pentax 645D can handle a larger sensor as well.

645D can handle larger sensor simply just because it is a legacy mount- - (like K mount is for FF) and MF sensor from Kodak is simply smaller than MF film used for 645, unlike NEX which was designed that way.

[deejjjaaaa]

The next generation of m4/3 is going to be competitive with cameras like the K-x and K-r.

and those by that time will be 2-3 generations old APS-C sensors ... because Sony Semiconductor will make its 24mp APS-C before Panasonic will make that mythical Kx equivalent.

[Emacs]

1. It's pointless to consider one lens. We must consider lenses with the same FOV. Yes, the 5D provides overall better IQ than 7D at wide apertures. In order to get it we should consider two lenses with similar FOV. The one for full.frame will have 1.6 times more magnification ratio than one for crop. So it should provides 1.6 times more details. Although the 7D sensor is more capable to represents them, but it looks like the lest won't resolve it at wide apertures but will show more aberrations instead (which will be seen 1.6 times larger due to sensor "magnification"). So, at relatively small prints the 5 images should look better (at wide apertures). When stopped down the 7D should catch and outperform the 5D (18 mp), but then lose again due to diffraction. But the lens on crop should be really good to provide enough resolution and eliminate abberations.

2. The 5D may have some advantage over 1D mk III or IV but it's not so much because of their relatively small crop factor. The mk II is without doubt better in every aspect due to better sensor.

[deejjjaaaa]

And another myth propagated... In the early 2000, Kodak released some full frame sensors (and a camera Kodak Pro DCS-14n) that were so shitty that it was a massive failure. At the same time Canon and Nikon started to release APSC cameras that were massively of higher "IQ".

Actually no... what happened is that at the same time w/ 14n (Announced: Sep 23, 2002) Canon made its FF camera 1Ds (Announced: Sep 24, 2002) and that was it for FF Kodaks... they managed to try for 1.5 more years (SLR/c and SLR/n = early 2004 ) and quit... Kodak FF never competed w/ APS-C cameras

[Winder]

and those by that time will be 2-3 generations old APS-C sensors ... because Sony Semiconductor will make its 24mp APS-C before Panasonic will make that mythical Kx equivalent.

Yes, but Samsung is already trying hard to get Olympus's business, and given the delays Panasonic has had and the problems with low yields I think Olympus is ready to give someone else their business. One of the main failures of the 4/3 & m4/3 system has been the slow development of sensors. The next generation of Samsung sensors is rumored to be very good. The Samsung sensor used in the K20 was very competitive when it was new. Samsung's #1 target is Sony, and the next generation of Samsung sensors will compare very well to what we are seeing from the A55/D7000/K-5. Yes, the 24MP APS-C sensor from Sony will probably be better than the 18MP sensor from Samsung, but how many of us really need 24MP? I have done promotional posters 24"x36" with both a 12MP 5D and a 10MP E-3 with great results.

Will we see a Samsung sensor in the next generation of 4/3? I don't know. The current 4/3 sensors are already as good as the K-7 APS-C, so the next generation could easily be as good as the K-x. If Olympus is finally serious about producing SGH glass for they system then it could be very competitive.

[Pentaxor]

Yes, but Samsung is already trying hard to get Olympus's business, and given the delays Panasonic has had and the problems with low yields I think Olympus is ready to give someone else their business. One of the main failures of the 4/3 & m4/3 system has been the slow development of sensors. The next generation of Samsung sensors is rumored to be very good. The Samsung sensor used in the K20 was very competitive when it was new. Samsung's #1 target is Sony, and the next generation of Samsung sensors will compare very well to what we are seeing from the A55/D7000/K-5. Yes, the 24MP APS-C sensor from Sony will probably be better than the 18MP sensor from Samsung, but how many of us really need 24MP? I have done promotional posters 24"x36" with both a 12MP 5D and a 10MP E-3 with great results.

Will we see a Samsung sensor in the next generation of 4/3? I don't know. The current 4/3 sensors are already as good as the K-7 APS-C, so the next generation could easily be as good as the K-x. If Olympus is finally serious about producing SGH glass for they system then it could be very competitive.

I'm not really exactly sure how or if a 24MP camera could outresolve a 12MP camera if the resolution size are both set at 12MP. a 24MP definitely have the advantage in situations that needs a much larger image prints, but does render more detail and better IQ at such similar print size?

as you pointed out, how many of us really need such crop value or cropping capability? I admit that 24MP can really be useful and is a nice capability to those who really need it and know when to use it for, but honestly it is more of an attractive marketing tool. IMO, the quality and type of a sensor and the type of lens used on a smaller 12MP camera outresolves a larger 16-24MP camera with an outdated sensor. if both cameras, however have the same sensor used, I believe that the only advantage that the larger MP resolution camera has is on much larger prints. of course, camera manufacturers always find a way of crippling one camera over the other even if they use similar sensors.