Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-05-2012, 02:40 PM   #331
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
Getty and the other big stock agencies (at least the ones Getty hasn't already bought) have been updating the required gear on a regular basis. I think it's primarily to weed out the spurious submissions of amateurs which they have left for the micro-stock people
At one point Getty had a requirement of Canon or Nikon, they didn't even acknowledge leica lol. that has changed but trying to get them to look at anything not FF at this point is pretty hard.
Glossy's also sometimes have crazy demands for what they need - despite the fact that to print the way a glossy does any camera made at this point will provide a file that exceeds it (and if you are established you can still shoot whatever you want Terry Richardson uses a film point and shoot for all his stuff . Benjikan on the forum shoots for Harper's and others and uses Pentax
But if you are trying to break into the market shooting anything other than FF or better will be how they weed you out without even looking at your images (something like how I used to weed out resumes first by tossing any with spelling mistakes )
For this I was referring to sports images made indoor or at nightgames that the requirements where set hi to D3s/1Div level.

03-05-2012, 05:52 PM   #332
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 54
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote

The extra pixels don't negatively effect ANY camera property except file size and burst speed.
Hi Falk,

I'm curious about your assertion. It's often stated that for a given sensor size (and equal level of technology, i.e. similar photoactive area, similar noise levels, etc.), a higher number pixels implies smaller pixel sizes, thus reduced full well capacity and therefore reduced dynamic range.

Are you accounting for some kind of mitigating factors that make dynamic range irrelevant? Any information you can provide would be appreciated.
03-05-2012, 06:07 PM   #333
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Taylor, Texas
Posts: 1,017
Here's Kirk Tuck's take on the big camera vs small camera am I pro question.

The Online Photographer: Do Smaller Cameras Hurt Pros' Image?

Surely everyone can agree his a professional photographer????????????????????
03-05-2012, 06:15 PM   #334
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by EddieAmzel Quote
It's often stated that for a given sensor size (and equal level of technology, i.e. similar photoactive area, similar noise levels, etc.), a higher number pixels implies smaller pixel sizes, thus reduced full well capacity and therefore reduced dynamic range.
It is simply false.

Seems like everybody falls into the trap of confusing pixels and the image.

I.e., a smaller pixel may have a smaller full well capacity, but then there are more of them. So, the sensor's overall FWC isn't altered. Same for other properties. Look up the paper section on DxOmark to learn more about this urban legend.

It is particularly annoying in Nikon land where people have trouble to accept that they lived with only 12MP for no good reason..

03-05-2012, 07:12 PM   #335
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 54
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
It is simply false.

Seems like everybody falls into the trap of confusing pixels and the image.


I.e., a smaller pixel may have a smaller full well capacity, but then there are more of them. So, the sensor's overall FWC isn't altered. Same for other properties. Look up the paper section on DxOmark to learn more about this urban legend.
Thanks for the reference to DxOmark. In the DxoMark article "Contrary to conventional wisdom, higher resolution actually compensates for noise", I do not notice a mention of the exposure levels at which they measure the normalized SNR.

Near the bottom of the article Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter, the author presents results which indicate that at light levels closer to the noise floor, averaged noisy pixels (representing smaller pixels for a fixed sensor size) still result in lower overall image quality than less-noisy pixels (representing larger pixels for a fixed sensor size).

Does the concept of an overall "sensor FWC" hold over the entire range of exposure levels, or does it break down at some threshold? If the "large pixel advantage" is indeed an urban legend with no exceptions, does this then imply that Phase One's Sensor+ hardware pixel binning approach has no advantage over software pixel binning?
03-06-2012, 04:06 AM   #336
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by EddieAmzel Quote
Near the bottom of the article Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter, the author presents results which indicate that at light levels closer to the noise floor, averaged noisy pixels (representing smaller pixels for a fixed sensor size) still result in lower overall image quality than less-noisy pixels (representing larger pixels for a fixed sensor size).
This is related to read noise and his experiment increases read noise because he reads so many images. Moreover, he does it from a sensor which has fixed pattern noise.

By making the pixels smaller though you would decrease per pixel read noise too. Morever, read noise is almost no problem for Sony sensors with their column-parallel A/D converters.

And finally, there are studies that the small P&S pixels, when combined to a larger DSLR-sized pixel, have actually less read noise than the DSLR pixel. And even half of this value works fine with backlit sensors.

QuoteOriginally posted by EddieAmzel Quote
If the "large pixel advantage" is indeed an urban legend with no exceptions, does this then imply that Phase One's Sensor+ hardware pixel binning approach has no advantage over software pixel binning?
Yes.

Of course, it breaks if pixels become too small. Then the fill factor will deteriorate and per pixel circuits will become a weak point. But that's not going to happen above 2-3Ám.
03-06-2012, 04:07 AM   #337
Pentaxian
Transit's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Whanganui NZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,075
The man said they were looking for a new angle...SF would do it... square frame, all the DAs would work as a bonus

Pete
03-06-2012, 04:18 AM   #338
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Transit Quote
The man said they were looking for a new angle...SF would do it... square frame, all the DAs would work as a bonus

Pete
I still really really like the idea of a larger square sensor. Pentax indicated that lens lineup for FF is a issue to solve. But the square sensor would solve everything.

03-06-2012, 04:35 AM   #339
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I still really really like the idea of a larger square sensor. Pentax indicated that lens lineup for FF is a issue to solve. But the square sensor would solve everything.
Everything? How large can the square sensor be made to work with all DA lenses? If you want to keep it within the same image circle as the K-5 sensor, it can't be larger than 20.1x20.1mm - that's still less than half the area of a 24x36 sensor.
03-06-2012, 04:36 AM   #340
Veteran Member
parsons's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 389
surely the thing that would make a pentax FF different to the others is the shake reduction in the body.

i think that RICOH will plan to release a FF at some point. they need to have a full range to attract a large number of customers. i think that people go to Canikon because they aspire to getting pro quality images. even if they get the lowest entry level camera, they still have the badge. seeing that pentax have professional grade cameras (besides the 645- because these are not very common) will draw in the entry level folk IMO.
03-06-2012, 04:44 AM   #341
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,940
QuoteOriginally posted by parsons Quote
surely the thing that would make a pentax FF different to the others is the shake reduction in the body.
It wouldn't be that different, it's already done by Sony. But if they could keep the size down, that would be nice.
03-06-2012, 04:48 AM   #342
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Everything? How large can the square sensor be made to work with all DA lenses? If you want to keep it within the same image circle as the K-5 sensor, it can't be larger than 20.1x20.1mm - that's still less than half the area of a 24x36 sensor.
35x35 would work with most of the DA's. So? It won't work with the ultrawides; that's only 3 lenses. Much nicer ultrawides can be made for such a larger sensor anyway.
03-06-2012, 04:54 AM - 1 Like   #343
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
35x35 would work with most of the DA's.
So, if you can't get crop 1.5 lenses to work on a crop 1 body, you try a crop 0.87 body instead? You must be a very optimistic person
03-06-2012, 05:22 AM   #344
Veteran Member
parsons's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ENGLAND
Posts: 389
basically, what i want is a film sized body with a full frame sensor. no gaffing with film and a camera that doesn't weigh a tonne

now go make it. pretty please.
03-06-2012, 05:23 AM   #345
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
So, if you can't get crop 1.5 lenses to work on a crop 1 body, you try a crop 0.87 body instead? You must be a very optimistic person
With all the negativity on this forum nowadays, it's very easy for me to be the most optimistic person around.

I see multiple advantages:

1. A square 35x35 sensor would be very different. No other brand has that. It could be the niche that Pentax needs. (Or at least: which they say they need.)

2. It would give the missing upgrade path to every Pentaxian. Not only the ones that already have FF glass, or enough money to invest in FF glass.

3. It would buy Pentax some more time. In which they can engineer their FF maybe. Or work out some other brilliant plan.

4. I'm (clearly) not an engineer, but it could maybe fit into a K5 or K20D body?
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!
nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Picture of the Week POTW #181 Sept. 11, 2011-Sept 25, 2011 lukulele Weekly Photo Challenges 49 09-24-2011 01:00 AM
Picture of the Week POTW #180 Sept. 4, 2011-Sept 18, 2011 lukulele Weekly Photo Challenges 57 09-18-2011 06:30 AM
Pentax Q price rumor - $699 Adam Pentax News and Rumors 50 07-05-2011 07:08 AM
Rumor of Pentax D FA 645 25mm f/4 Noisychip Pentax News and Rumors 94 04-24-2011 02:41 PM
Rumor: One SLR, one prime plus two compacts on Sept. 9th Noisychip Pentax News and Rumors 75 09-09-2010 02:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:20 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