Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-03-2012, 02:34 AM - 1 Like   #136
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by TomTextura Quote
I just want a Pentax FF to placate and finally truly satisfy my little FA Limiteds. The poor fellas are all bummed out that the greatness of their image circles are not being taken full advantage of. All they want is to live up to their full potential! Is that asking too much?
Possibly only to discover that the LTDS aren't sharp from in the corners? They're great lenses, and APSC is using only the very best part of those great lenses. So would they really perform better on FF? Or wil it just reveal possible weaknesses in the corners?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trolling. I've been discovering corner issues with my Pentax lenses myself since I've been mounting them on my Canon 5D. I dislinke corner softness enough to prefer using some "FF" lenses on APSC only.

So using the 5D gave me new appreciation of the APSC format. I value IQ enough that I prefer to use only the very best part of a lens.

10-03-2012, 03:04 AM   #137
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trolling. I've been discovering corner issues with my Pentax lenses myself since I've been mounting them on my Canon 5D. I dislinke corner softness enough to prefer using some "FF" lenses on APSC only.

So using the 5D gave me new appreciation of the APSC format. I value IQ enough that I prefer to use only the very best part of a lens.
In another thread I asked which lenses those that want FF would like to use with their cameras, and I mentioned the Nikon 2.8 zooms as a reason to buy a FF Nikon - but that would result in too bulky combos for my taste. I don't think there really are that many great prime lenses in the Canikon systems that really make use of the full age circle of FF. And those that hope to use only old primes may get quite disappointed.
10-03-2012, 05:23 AM   #138
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
"Literally two to four times better"?
Megapixels alone the Nikon would be 1.5 times greater, but also one has to factor in the size of the sensor - which would then make it three times greater then any sensor that Pentax has, sans medium format
10-03-2012, 06:25 AM   #139
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,326
Sorry, but your maths seems a little strange. You are adding the resolution difference and the sensor size difference? Yet the sensor size (area) difference is somehow negated by the smaller pixel density, on those "full frame" sensors.
For example, when comparing the K-5 with the D800, what would you get? Over 5 times "better"? But that can't be, the D800 sensor is a K-5 sensor made 2.33 times larger (and a correct math should return this factor, 2.33).

Besides, you were talking about results, not math. I would like to see the results that are "Literally two to four times better" than the K-5

10-03-2012, 08:30 AM   #140
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by TomTextura Quote
Any high dollar product is going to have some buyers who buy whatever it may be for little more reason than to impress others with it. Me, however, I just want a Pentax FF to placate and finally truly satisfy my little FA Limiteds. The poor fellas are all bummed out that the greatness of their image circles are not being taken full advantage of. All they want is to live up to their full potential! Is that asking too much?
QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
It is here. Asking for the full potential of the mirror box and glass prism we're already carrying is too much to ask for too. APS-C is the best didn't you know? (but only with a mirror...)
Told ya.
10-03-2012, 11:48 AM   #141
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Denver
Photos: Albums
Posts: 570
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Possibly only to discover that the LTDS aren't sharp from in the corners? They're great lenses, and APSC is using only the very best part of those great lenses. So would they really perform better on FF? Or wil it just reveal possible weaknesses in the corners?
Honestly, corner sharpness is about the last of my concerns for virtually all of my shooting other than ultra-wide angle. I don't compose very close to the edges and I only ever end up caring about maximum depth of field when shooting ultra-wide. And with ultra-wide angle, when I would like to have uniform sharpness across the frame, I might just be able to sacrifice a little bit of the edges to remove any softness if it's really bothering me that much. When it comes to corners, I often add vignetting in post and I've even started to play a little with a minor amount of blurring using the different options in the latest PS blur gallery. I haven't entirely warmed up to adding blur in post though and the times I have used it have been to salvage a missed focus shot where I wanted to alter what would be perceived as the sharpest area of the image. My point is that corners can be degraded and I will often end up happier as a result. I'll admit though that if I were shooting landscapes, architecture, products, maybe even group portraits, or in some other situation where corner sharpness can be important, I might feel differently about softness in the corners and vignetting. Truth be told, lens vignetting is rather easy to fix with the degree of exposure latitude available in the raw files from most, if not all, current sensors.


QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
Asking for the full potential of the mirror box and glass prism we're already carrying is too much to ask for too. APS-C is the best didn't you know?
Oh, it would be very nice indeed to have a larger viewfinder (optical, of course). APS-C is excellent, but I don't think it is the pinnacle of DSLR excellence, though I do very much appreciate the relatively diminutive size that a lot Pentax gear offers.
10-03-2012, 11:57 AM   #142
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by TomTextura Quote
Oh, it would be very nice indeed to have a larger viewfinder (optical, of course). APS-C is excellent, but I don't think it is the pinnacle of DSLR excellence, though I do very much appreciate the relatively diminutive size that a lot Pentax gear offers.
I do too. it's why many of us picked Pentax in the first place and why we're still waiting for their implementation of FF. the mirrorbox size is FF already
10-03-2012, 04:19 PM   #143
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: BC
Posts: 93
QuoteOriginally posted by TomTextura Quote
Any high dollar product is going to have some buyers who buy whatever it may be for little more reason than to impress others with it. Me, however, I just want a Pentax FF to placate and finally truly satisfy my little FA Limiteds. The poor fellas are all bummed out that the greatness of their image circles are not being taken full advantage of. All they want is to live up to their full potential! Is that asking too much?
Hahaha!!! I love this!! I'm totally with you. Those Limiteds are like Adam and Ev. Almost there, but Ev (the APS temptress) prefers pears. Eve is still out there somewhere lurking with apples we can only dream of.

I finished almost a full bottle of Chilean blended wine tonight. Forgive me.

10-04-2012, 11:17 AM   #144
Banned




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Charleston & Pittsburgh
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,683
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Besides, you were talking about results
That's what is wrong with the megapixel race, because it's not just about megapixels it's more about sensor size.

And perhaps electronics should be taken out of the equation; just think of it as exclusively sensor size - almost like taking a sheet of film that is a specific size.

If the K-5 has an image sensor size that is of any size smaller than full frame it's all simple division. If the size of the image sensor is one half then the results of the larger sensor would in fact be four times better - by math. Throw the megapixels in and one could even keep the same exact megapixels between any two different size sensors - the results would still be the same, because...

I'll be darned if everyone wants to go around and look at the same size image that the image sensor caught - they want to normally have that image basically enlarged. It's the same exact technology that's been around for many, many decades; but instead of having film, and an enlarger in a darkroom - it's all now just a digital version of that.

Which is why in the past the Kodak disc camera never flew - or flew well. Because such a small image sensor device (although film) never did translate well to such large numbers once enlarged. Otherwise everyone would be a profesional photographer running around with a 100 megapixel mobile phone.

I'll take the size of the sensor any day of the week. And yes,the Nikon is still 3x better than any Pentax non medium format - it's that good
10-04-2012, 11:45 AM   #145
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
QuoteOriginally posted by Medium FormatPro Quote
That's what is wrong with the megapixel race, because it's not just about megapixels it's more about sensor size.

And perhaps electronics should be taken out of the equation; just think of it as exclusively sensor size - almost like taking a sheet of film that is a specific size.

If the K-5 has an image sensor size that is of any size smaller than full frame it's all simple division. If the size of the image sensor is one half then the results of the larger sensor would in fact be four times better - by math. Throw the megapixels in and one could even keep the same exact megapixels between any two different size sensors - the results would still be the same, because...

I'll be darned if everyone wants to go around and look at the same size image that the image sensor caught - they want to normally have that image basically enlarged. It's the same exact technology that's been around for many, many decades; but instead of having film, and an enlarger in a darkroom - it's all now just a digital version of that.

Which is why in the past the Kodak disc camera never flew - or flew well. Because such a small image sensor device (although film) never did translate well to such large numbers once enlarged. Otherwise everyone would be a profesional photographer running around with a 100 megapixel mobile phone.

I'll take the size of the sensor any day of the week. And yes,the Nikon is still 3x better than any Pentax non medium format - it's that good
While I broadly agree, given what I've seen from the new Nikon FF cameras, there's still the question of whether smaller sensors can be coaxed into giving better results using non-Bayer methods - Fuji, Foveon, etc. I guess we may see more of this over the next few years if such methods prove to work well and be economical. In the end, though, it may all even out because if any new method turns out to be that good, and is extensible up the scale as well as down it, then larger sensors will start using it too. I suspect that for some brands, at the moment, these new methods are really a way of eking out APS-C and delaying the inevitable but as with all else, we'll see.
10-04-2012, 12:26 PM   #146
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,326
QuoteOriginally posted by Medium FormatPro Quote
That's what is wrong with the megapixel race, because it's not just about megapixels it's more about sensor size.

And perhaps electronics should be taken out of the equation; just think of it as exclusively sensor size - almost like taking a sheet of film that is a specific size.

If the K-5 has an image sensor size that is of any size smaller than full frame it's all simple division. If the size of the image sensor is one half then the results of the larger sensor would in fact be four times better - by math. Throw the megapixels in and one could even keep the same exact megapixels between any two different size sensors - the results would still be the same, because...

I'll be darned if everyone wants to go around and look at the same size image that the image sensor caught - they want to normally have that image basically enlarged. It's the same exact technology that's been around for many, many decades; but instead of having film, and an enlarger in a darkroom - it's all now just a digital version of that.

Which is why in the past the Kodak disc camera never flew - or flew well. Because such a small image sensor device (although film) never did translate well to such large numbers once enlarged. Otherwise everyone would be a profesional photographer running around with a 100 megapixel mobile phone.

I'll take the size of the sensor any day of the week. And yes,the Nikon is still 3x better than any Pentax non medium format - it's that good
I'd say that, like in the old times, it's more about the "emulsion" used (pixel density and their characteristics) and the enlargement required (sensor size vs. print size). So, megapixels also matters

But what really matters is if a specific format gives us the quality we need. For me and many others, APS-C is enough.

Nope, the D600 is not 3x better, not "literally". It is, for you, subjectively better by such a large amount (maybe even larger) - and I'm perfectly fine with that.

mecrox, a non-Bayer sensor, I would love to see that taking off (which Foveon couldn't do). I wouldn't care if larger sensors would also be improved, in fact I hope for my pics to get that good, so I would say "I absolutely need to print those larger, hmm, for that I need a "full frame""

Last edited by Kunzite; 10-04-2012 at 01:03 PM.
10-04-2012, 12:46 PM - 1 Like   #147
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
the problem is, nobody new is going to buy into a brand whose motto is "Pentax, good enough for me".

"Pentax, we're good with B+"

"Pentax, not the best, but not trying to be either"

"Pentax, the very best of the middle tier"

"Pentax, a solid 8 on a good day"

etc. etc.
10-04-2012, 12:57 PM   #148
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,115
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
mecrox, a non-Bayer sensor, I would love to see that taking off (which Foveon couldn't do). I wouldn't care if larger sensors would also be improved, in fact I hope for my pics to get that good, so I would say "I absolutely need to print those larger, hmm, for that I need a "full frame""
Have you seen pics from the new Sigma DP2 or DP1 Merrill large-compact cams? E.g. here They are fantastic imho. But, yes, Foveon is problematic. I would guess its major downside is cost of electronics and power drain from having to compute 3x the number of photosites to arrive at the same pixel dimensions as a Bayer sensor, though maybe I have this all wrong. And there is colour cast stuff too apparently. Even so, I am tempted. If you don't mind slow photography and slow PP, a movement in itself haha, they probably can't be bettered at less than three times the price and it sounds as if Sigma have put really very good lenses on them. A very refreshing take on photography even if not for everyone.
10-04-2012, 01:13 PM   #149
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,326
Foveon is indeed special, too bad no major camera manufacturer invested in it (as it probably can be significantly improved). I hope we'll see similar approaches, with same qualities, less issues and better funding.

QuoteOriginally posted by illdefined Quote
the problem is, nobody new is going to buy into a brand whose motto is "Pentax, good enough for me".
[...]
I couldn't care less about marketing
But FYI, even the "full frame" can't escape from being "good enough". True, it's a better "good enough".
10-04-2012, 01:29 PM   #150
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I couldn't care less about marketing
But FYI, even the "full frame" can't escape from being "good enough". True, it's a better "good enough".
many people here don't care about marketing. why should they? it's ostensibly a photography forum right? well no, it's actually a brand forum, and how this brand markets itself and it's position in the overall market affect us all greatly. whether people here choose to acknowledge it or not.

there's something legitimately marketable in being an underdog brand ("be interesting"), but that implies the brand is still fighting the good fight and not sitting still or resting on their laurels (K-5 comes to mind..)....even the great photo traditionalist and ultra-niche Leica has felt market pressure and has not only gone digital, but taken up video, gone FF, and even accepted the use of EVFs.....is Pentax really more special than Leica?

Last edited by illdefined; 10-04-2012 at 01:46 PM.
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!
bit, camera, course, ii, k-5, k30, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cheer me up.. Tell me this is a scam, $300 K-r?? PandaSPUR Pentax K-r 40 07-30-2012 06:30 AM
Anyone shooting gymnastics / cheer w. K-r? tacticdesigns Pentax K-r 1 07-17-2011 09:50 PM
Some Christmas Cheer Griswald style :) vievetrick Post Your Photos! 0 11-26-2007 08:06 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:24 PM. | 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