What happened to adam's FF is coming thread? Why was it pulled down?

Buschmaster · 09-16-2012, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

Sure. The need for high megapixel cameras for "big printing" is over rated, particularly considering that few people will take a magnifying glass to a print that is 36 inches on a side.

I just have a hard time believing that two sharp photos, one shot at 24 megapixels on a full frame camera and the other shot on a 16 megapixel APS-C camera (assuming landscape photo, stopped down, similar framing) would look that much different, or that for most prints, there would be much visible difference.

You nailed it! When a print is that big, people don't hold it in their hand and look at it as closely as they would a 4x6 or 5x7.

**Pål Jensen** · 09-16-2012, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by ElJamoquio

For landscape pics, you would get ~1.5x the resolution if you went FF; I don't know if that matters to you or not. If you never print it might not. You also might be able to use a smaller and cheaper lens; I don't know if that matters to you or not.

You don't. Photographs are two-dimentional; they form an area. You get about 15% increase in resolution from 16 to 24mp.

**Pål Jensen** · 09-16-2012, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I just have a hard time believing that two sharp photos, one shot at 24 megapixels on a full frame camera and the other shot on a 16 megapixel APS-C camera (assuming landscape photo, stopped down, similar framing) would look that much different, or that for most prints, there would be much visible difference.

I may have told this before but I have a friend who shoots Canon (APS + FF) with his own fine art gallery with large prints (his biggest is several meter - BTW sold to Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) for $5000). I was commenting on the amazing quality of modern FF camera from a large print when he told me it was shot with a Canon 10D

I can't spot which is FF and which is not and neither can his customers. BTW That large print was shot with the Canon 7D.

He basically says megapixels is bullshit; it just fill up the hard disk. I'm not there yet

. But he did say something that I havent thought about: "it isn't supposed to look like reality, it is a photograph. It is art".

janneman · 09-16-2012, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

I may have told this before but I have a friend who shoots Canon (APS + FF) with his own fine art gallery with large prints (his biggest is several meter - BTW sold to Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) for $5000). I was commenting on the amazing quality of modern FF camera from a large print when he told me it was shot with a Canon 10D

I can't spot which is FF and which is not and neither can his customers. BTW That large print was shot with the Canon 7D.

He basically says megapixels is bullshit; it just fill up the hard disk. I'm not there yet

. But he did say something that I havent thought about: "it isn't supposed to look like reality, it is a photograph. It is art".

Last year in a silly mood I bought an A2 print printer....
Not wasted I must say, I do print that size more often than I thought possible, not just photo's but for my work I make big signs too now... Anyway , pics with the humble K-5 (the old one, before this II sillyness) still look mighty good. Mind you , not all images I thought looked great look great at that size (but who cares). Even the off K10D image printed out nicely be it without the "ooh and aaah"factor.

ElJamoquio · 09-16-2012, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I print all the time and with my K5, I get good quality up to about 20 inches, which is the most that I ever print. Could it be better? Maybe, but the people who I show my prints like them, as do I.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I actually have a couple of pics at 20" that I like... that I shot with a circa 2005 Canon P&S.

If you're happy, great! I still wish I would've had a FF with me on that trip, though.

ElJamoquio · 09-16-2012, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

You don't. Photographs are two-dimentional; they form an area. You get about 15% increase in resolution from 16 to 24mp.

We're talking about lens resolving power here, Pål. Try to keep up, I've told you this before.

Cannikin · 09-16-2012, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

You don't. Photographs are two-dimentional; they form an area. You get about 15% increase in resolution from 16 to 24mp.

Might want to check your math.

Sqrt(1.5) ~= 1.225 = 22.5% increase in linear resolution

drumhead · 09-16-2012, 04:44 PM

I don't think that I could consistently tell apart random photos taken with the Q and K5, let alone FF vs APS-C.

ironlionzion · 09-18-2012, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

You don't. Photographs are two-dimentional; they form an area. You get about 15% increase in resolution from 16 to 24mp.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but since photographs are 2-d, shouldn't resolution be in terms of pixels/area. Therefore, if you are comparing two prints of the same size, the 24mp print will have 50% more pixels/area than the 16 mp print.

Class A · 09-18-2012, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by ironlionzion

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but since photographs are 2-d, shouldn't resolution be in terms of pixels/area.

No. Resolution is measured in each dimension separately. Hence, Cannikin is right by quoting an increase of 22.47% when going from 16MP to 24MP.

**Pål Jensen** · 09-19-2012, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Cannikin

Might want to check your math.

Sqrt(1.5) ~= 1.225 = 22.5% increase in linear resolution

Thats why I said "about"

(actually I didn't do any math just extrapolated from the fact that you need to quadruple the mp to double the resoluition)

navcom · 09-19-2012, 06:26 PM

Well, I pulled the trigger and bought a D600 today. Sorry Pentax. Been a Pentaxian for 25 years and a loyal one at that. Too many rumors. Life is too short.

Pentax as a company parted ways with me. They are focusing on equipment I'm really not interested in. Companies have to do what they feel is best for their bottom line. But so do customers.

No regrets with Pentax...just wish they could've come through sooner. I'll keep the K5. It's an awesome camera and a great backup.

KungPOW · 09-19-2012, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by navcom

Well, I pulled the trigger and bought a D600 today. Sorry Pentax. Been a Pentaxian for 25 years and a loyal one at that. Too many rumors. Life is too short.

Pentax as a company parted ways with me. They are focusing on equipment I'm really not interested in. Companies have to do what they feel is best for their bottom line. But so do customers.

No regrets with Pentax...just wish they could've come through sooner. I'll keep the K5. It's an awesome camera and a great backup.

Welcome to the dark side. I think I used my K10D twice since I went Nikon. I should have sold it ASAP but instead, I held onto it as a backup.

navcom · 09-19-2012, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by KungPOW

Welcome to the dark side. I think I used my K10D twice since I went Nikon. I should have sold it ASAP but instead, I held onto it as a backup.

I still have both a K10D and a K20D. I'll probably sell the K10 but I will be holding on to the K20. I actually still use it for many things, including as a second camera for the wife or other family/friends to use when out and about.

Don't get me wrong. I love the Pentax equipment I have. I wouldn't have continued with it if I didn't. It's just that the company seems to be heading in a different direction than I am. I could care less about the Q, entry-level DSLR after entry-level DSLR, or colored bodies. I may be in the minority but that's where I'm at personally. I was hoping to keep advancing with Pentax through the years but they aren't in it for the whole photographer...just the entry level and certain prosumer niches it appears.

I wish them well and I will still poke around here!

Class A · 09-19-2012, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by navcom

I was hoping to keep advancing with Pentax through the years but they aren't in it for the whole photographer...just the entry level and certain prosumer niches it appears.

I appreciate that Pentax is developing too slowly for your own needs, but your statement is not true in an absolute sense.

In March 2013, we'll see a seriously advanced APS-C camera and surely a Pentax FF is being developed as we speak. I have no idea when that Pentax FF will eventually surface, but I guess it won't take more than two years from now.

So Pentax will cater to the semi-professional photographer again, they were unfortunately just a bit too slow to demonstrate that this year.

09-16-2012, 11:12 AM	#167
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by ElJamoquio For landscape pics, you would get ~1.5x the resolution if you went FF; I don't know if that matters to you or not. If you never print it might not. You also might be able to use a smaller and cheaper lens; I don't know if that matters to you or not. You don't. Photographs are two-dimentional; they form an area. You get about 15% increase in resolution from 16 to 24mp. Last edited by Pål Jensen; 09-16-2012 at 11:19 AM.

09-16-2012, 11:18 AM	#168
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Rondec I just have a hard time believing that two sharp photos, one shot at 24 megapixels on a full frame camera and the other shot on a 16 megapixel APS-C camera (assuming landscape photo, stopped down, similar framing) would look that much different, or that for most prints, there would be much visible difference. I may have told this before but I have a friend who shoots Canon (APS + FF) with his own fine art gallery with large prints (his biggest is several meter - BTW sold to Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) for $5000). I was commenting on the amazing quality of modern FF camera from a large print when he told me it was shot with a Canon 10D I can't spot which is FF and which is not and neither can his customers. BTW That large print was shot with the Canon 7D. He basically says megapixels is bullshit; it just fill up the hard disk. I'm not there yet. But he did say something that I havent thought about: "it isn't supposed to look like reality, it is a photograph. It is art".

09-16-2012, 11:32 AM	#169
janneman Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 908	Originally posted by Pål Jensen I may have told this before but I have a friend who shoots Canon (APS + FF) with his own fine art gallery with large prints (his biggest is several meter - BTW sold to Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) for $5000). I was commenting on the amazing quality of modern FF camera from a large print when he told me it was shot with a Canon 10D I can't spot which is FF and which is not and neither can his customers. BTW That large print was shot with the Canon 7D. He basically says megapixels is bullshit; it just fill up the hard disk. I'm not there yet. But he did say something that I havent thought about: "it isn't supposed to look like reality, it is a photograph. It is art". Last year in a silly mood I bought an A2 print printer.... Not wasted I must say, I do print that size more often than I thought possible, not just photo's but for my work I make big signs too now... Anyway , pics with the humble K-5 (the old one, before this II sillyness) still look mighty good. Mind you , not all images I thought looked great look great at that size (but who cares). Even the off K10D image printed out nicely be it without the "ooh and aaah"factor.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What happened to my thread about leaving Pentax?	cueball73	Pentax DSLR Discussion	8	10-13-2010 12:54 AM
A selling thread being pulled-- Appeal to forum	CGJung	General Talk	41	01-07-2009 03:38 PM

09-16-2012, 10:52 AM	#166
Buschmaster Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 806	Originally posted by Rondec Sure. The need for high megapixel cameras for "big printing" is over rated, particularly considering that few people will take a magnifying glass to a print that is 36 inches on a side. I just have a hard time believing that two sharp photos, one shot at 24 megapixels on a full frame camera and the other shot on a 16 megapixel APS-C camera (assuming landscape photo, stopped down, similar framing) would look that much different, or that for most prints, there would be much visible difference. You nailed it! When a print is that big, people don't hold it in their hand and look at it as closely as they would a 4x6 or 5x7.

09-16-2012, 11:45 AM	#170
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Rondec I print all the time and with my K5, I get good quality up to about 20 inches, which is the most that I ever print. Could it be better? Maybe, but the people who I show my prints like them, as do I. I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I actually have a couple of pics at 20" that I like... that I shot with a circa 2005 Canon P&S. If you're happy, great! I still wish I would've had a FF with me on that trip, though.

09-16-2012, 11:47 AM	#171
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by Pål Jensen You don't. Photographs are two-dimentional; they form an area. You get about 15% increase in resolution from 16 to 24mp. We're talking about lens resolving power here, Pål. Try to keep up, I've told you this before.

09-16-2012, 02:22 PM	#172
Cannikin Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: SW Washington Posts: 833	Originally posted by Pål Jensen You don't. Photographs are two-dimentional; they form an area. You get about 15% increase in resolution from 16 to 24mp. Might want to check your math. Sqrt(1.5) ~= 1.225 = 22.5% increase in linear resolution

09-16-2012, 04:44 PM	#173
drumhead Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 71	I don't think that I could consistently tell apart random photos taken with the Q and K5, let alone FF vs APS-C.

09-18-2012, 03:21 PM	#174
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	Originally posted by Pål Jensen You don't. Photographs are two-dimentional; they form an area. You get about 15% increase in resolution from 16 to 24mp. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but since photographs are 2-d, shouldn't resolution be in terms of pixels/area. Therefore, if you are comparing two prints of the same size, the 24mp print will have 50% more pixels/area than the 16 mp print.

09-18-2012, 10:21 PM	#175
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by ironlionzion Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but since photographs are 2-d, shouldn't resolution be in terms of pixels/area. No. Resolution is measured in each dimension separately. Hence, Cannikin is right by quoting an increase of 22.47% when going from 16MP to 24MP.

09-19-2012, 01:38 PM	#176
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Cannikin Might want to check your math. Sqrt(1.5) ~= 1.225 = 22.5% increase in linear resolution Thats why I said "about" (actually I didn't do any math just extrapolated from the fact that you need to quadruple the mp to double the resoluition)

09-19-2012, 06:26 PM	#177
navcom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minnesota USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 807	Well, I pulled the trigger and bought a D600 today. Sorry Pentax. Been a Pentaxian for 25 years and a loyal one at that. Too many rumors. Life is too short. Pentax as a company parted ways with me. They are focusing on equipment I'm really not interested in. Companies have to do what they feel is best for their bottom line. But so do customers. No regrets with Pentax...just wish they could've come through sooner. I'll keep the K5. It's an awesome camera and a great backup.

09-19-2012, 06:29 PM	#178
KungPOW Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Vancouver, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,699	Originally posted by navcom Well, I pulled the trigger and bought a D600 today. Sorry Pentax. Been a Pentaxian for 25 years and a loyal one at that. Too many rumors. Life is too short. Pentax as a company parted ways with me. They are focusing on equipment I'm really not interested in. Companies have to do what they feel is best for their bottom line. But so do customers. No regrets with Pentax...just wish they could've come through sooner. I'll keep the K5. It's an awesome camera and a great backup. Welcome to the dark side. I think I used my K10D twice since I went Nikon. I should have sold it ASAP but instead, I held onto it as a backup.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-19-2012, 06:46 PM	#179
navcom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Minnesota USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 807	Originally posted by KungPOW Welcome to the dark side. I think I used my K10D twice since I went Nikon. I should have sold it ASAP but instead, I held onto it as a backup. I still have both a K10D and a K20D. I'll probably sell the K10 but I will be holding on to the K20. I actually still use it for many things, including as a second camera for the wife or other family/friends to use when out and about. Don't get me wrong. I love the Pentax equipment I have. I wouldn't have continued with it if I didn't. It's just that the company seems to be heading in a different direction than I am. I could care less about the Q, entry-level DSLR after entry-level DSLR, or colored bodies. I may be in the minority but that's where I'm at personally. I was hoping to keep advancing with Pentax through the years but they aren't in it for the whole photographer...just the entry level and certain prosumer niches it appears. I wish them well and I will still poke around here!

09-19-2012, 09:36 PM	#180
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by navcom I was hoping to keep advancing with Pentax through the years but they aren't in it for the whole photographer...just the entry level and certain prosumer niches it appears. I appreciate that Pentax is developing too slowly for your own needs, but your statement is not true in an absolute sense. In March 2013, we'll see a seriously advanced APS-C camera and surely a Pentax FF is being developed as we speak. I have no idea when that Pentax FF will eventually surface, but I guess it won't take more than two years from now. So Pentax will cater to the semi-professional photographer again, they were unfortunately just a bit too slow to demonstrate that this year.