Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-21-2012, 04:23 AM   #136
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,800
Some of this recent FF enthusiasm here seems either:
(a) some sort of hardware religion;
(b) attempts to psychologically self-justify a planned purchase; or simply
(c) trolling.

Logic isn't a part of any of those.

10-21-2012, 05:01 AM - 1 Like   #137
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Some of this recent FF enthusiasm here seems either:
(a) some sort of hardware religion;
(b) attempts to psychologically self-justify a planned purchase; or simply
(c) trolling.

Logic isn't a part of any of those.
Religion is faith without proof.

FF is superior to APS-C. It's rather easy to prove. Whether the superior camera is "worth it" or not is entirely up to you.
10-21-2012, 05:45 AM   #138
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Religion is faith without proof.

FF is superior to APS-C. It's rather easy to prove. Whether the superior camera is "worth it" or not is entirely up to you.
I don't understand why this arrogant person hasn't been banned from this thread. Read the title of the thread ElJamoquio. Does it have anything to do with FF? Then maybe you should go to an FF thread, where probably everyone will agree with your faith.

Unbeleiveable. Now accusing everyone who doesn't agree with him as holding religious faith. How much insult and ridicule are APS-c supporters, and by definition all Pentax users supposed to endure from people like this before the mod team steps in, and says "this is a Pentax site, you can't derisively dismiss everyone here without consequence."

Last edited by normhead; 10-21-2012 at 05:51 AM.
10-21-2012, 06:06 AM   #139
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,744
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
FF is superior to APS-C.
And yet you have heaped the burden of proof on the rest of us to prove otherwise. I can say right here and now that with all the years I have had teaching photographers of all levels of skill that in the end it is the image that matters - not the format - not the lens - but the image. I have seen brilliant work done with 16"X20" format polariod cameras, I have seen brilliant work done on a pentax Auto 110.

and this is all I could find in your gallery ElJamoquio :


If the above photograph is representative of your level of skill and knowledge of photography then you have much to learn about the art of photography. If you want there are some books and blogs I can recommend you to read - so you can learn to do work like this:




I don't know about you but I have already placed my order for a K5IIs - and I look forward to finally getting the most out of my lenses.


Last edited by Digitalis; 10-21-2012 at 06:13 AM.
10-21-2012, 06:17 AM   #140
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,054
From my perspective all other things being equal, there will always be an IQ advantage to FF, and I don't think it's insulting to APSC users (of which I am one!) to point it out. The insult (if you can call it that) was towards people who do not accept the principle that a larger sensor generally equates to better IQ - which is a fairly common sense proposition - NOT all Pentax users. However I would ask all contributors in this discussion to chill out and simply be grateful that

- APSC is perfectly good enough and capable of excellent IQ
- Pentax offers top quality APSC kit with a compact form factor that FF kit canot match
- For pixel-peepers, the K5IIs apparently considerably closes the gap between APSC and FF
- If you must have FF, and have the $$$ and the strong shoulder muscles required, other brands have some excellent offerings and maybe Pentax one day will too

If the bickering continues I am sure a mod will have to step in, so please either try and keep the debate nice and polite, or find something more constructive to do.
10-21-2012, 06:30 AM   #141
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
And yet you have heaped the burden of proof on the rest of us to prove otherwise. I can say right here and now that with all the years I have had teaching photographers of all levels of skill that in the end it is the image that matters - not the format - not the lens - but the image. I have seen brilliant work done with 16"X20" format polariod cameras, I have seen brilliant work done on a pentax Auto 110.

and this is all I could find in your gallery ElJamoquio :


If the above photograph is representative of your level of skill and knowledge of photography then you have much to learn about the art of photography. If you want there are some books and blogs I can recommend you to read - so you can learn to do work like this:

That picture was taken from quite a ways away; but as close as a human without helicopter could go. It was imperfect light. Most importantly, it was cropped to about 1500mm eq. from a sigma 150-500mm and was intended to show the limits, good or bad, of that lens. Please do your homework the next time you go around badmouthing my pics.

I agree with everyone that it's the picture that's important; that's really a strawman as I have never disagreed with that statement.

The fact remains that FF has about 50% better linear resolution than APS-C, all else the same. For about the 50th time, whether that's important enough to you or not to purchase is up to you. Some of my all-time favorite pics were done with sensors smaller than the Auto 110 you've mentioned. I'd pay you quite a bit of money to be on the spot to be back there, in the same light, etc., with a K-5 (or better yet a FF!).

If someone here, tomorrow, says APS-C with the best primes has better resolution than FF I'll correct that person again.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 10-21-2012 at 06:42 AM.
10-21-2012, 06:41 AM   #142
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by ihasa Quote
- If you must have FF, and have the $$$ and the strong shoulder muscles required, other brands have some excellent offerings and maybe Pentax one day will too
Thank you for trying to bring politeness back to all of us.

Every time I go to look at the data behind the quoted statement above I come away with a different opinion.

At mid range focal lengths, say, 24-200mm (35mm equivalent), FF lenses that produce an equivalent DOF are slightly lighter, slightly cheaper, and slightly smaller than APS-C lenses.

Of course, slow lenses in FF are not nearly as widespread as slow lenses in APS-C (where's the 23mm f/6.2 that's equivalent to the 15mm f/4?); or conversely, fast lenses are not available in APS-C.

I think this is another advantage to FF, in that you can choose whether you'd prefer

1) slightly cheaper, slightly smaller, and slightly faster (i.e. 24-105 f/4 instead of 15-68 f/2.6)
or
2) (much) more expensive, larger, and much faster lenses. (i.e. 24-70 f/2.8 instead of 15-45 f/1.8)
10-21-2012, 06:53 AM   #143
Veteran Member
bogiesbad's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lower AL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 355

I opened the thread for the first time today and read page one.

I opened the last page and as it loaded I thought: "FF free for all"

Y'all do not disappoint.

10-21-2012, 07:01 AM   #144
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Religion is faith without proof.

FF is superior to APS-C. It's rather easy to prove. Whether the superior camera is "worth it" or not is entirely up to you.
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
That picture was taken from quite a ways away; but as close as a human without helicopter could go. It was imperfect light. Most importantly, it was cropped to about 1500mm eq. from a sigma 150-500mm and was intended to show the limits, good or bad, of that lens. Please do your homework the next time you go around badmouthing my pics.

I agree with everyone that it's the picture that's important; that's really a strawman as I have never disagreed with that statement.

The fact remains that FF has about 50% better linear resolution than APS-C, all else the same. For about the 50th time, whether that's important enough to you or not to purchase is up to you. Some of my all-time favorite pics were done with sensors smaller than the Auto 110 you've mentioned. I'd pay you quite a bit of money to be on the spot to be back there, in the same light, etc., with a K-5 (or better yet a FF!).

If someone here, tomorrow, says APS-C with the best primes has better resolution than FF I'll correct that person again.
Why are you speculating on what someone might say? And how is that relevant to the topic. This is a thread about the K-5 II and K-5 IIs images. Who made you the god of camera evaluation to the point where you should come into a thead evaluating the K-5 images. MF is higher resolution than FF. 8x10 film out -resolved them all. None of that is relevant to a discussion of the K-5 IIs images.

Here's what is relevant in my opinion..

Given an FF sensor, the second highest sensor on the planet rated by DxO, for the area covered by the APS-c sensor the K-5 IIs has better IQ for that selected area of the images, than the FF sensor does...

D600 crop on the left - K5 IIs crop on the right. 1:1 crops of full size images. What's your explanation?



What's your explanation. Who cares if you get more resolution, if the IQ isn't as good. IQ is more than resolution. And you could do this same evaluation with possibly every FF camera other than possibly the D800. And I guarantee you the K-5 IIs would do very well in every comparison.

Last edited by ihasa; 10-21-2012 at 03:31 PM.
10-21-2012, 07:16 AM   #145
Veteran Member
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by ihasa Quote
From my perspective all other things being equal, there will always be an IQ advantage to FF, and I don't think it's insulting to APSC users (of which I am one!) to point it out. The insult (if you can call it that) was towards people who do not accept the principle that a larger sensor generally equates to better IQ - which is a fairly common sense proposition - NOT all Pentax users. However I would ask all contributors in this discussion to chill out and simply be grateful that - APSC is perfectly good enough and capable of excellent IQ - Pentax offers top quality APSC kit with a compact form factor that FF kit canot match - For pixel-peepers, the K5IIs apparently considerably closes the gap between APSC and FF - If you must have FF, and have the $$$ and the strong shoulder muscles required, other brands have some excellent offerings and maybe Pentax one day will too If the bickering continues I am sure a mod will have to step in, so please either try and keep the debate nice and polite, or find something more constructive to do.
+100!

FF proponents keep arguing that FF is technically better. APS-C proponents keep replying with "I've seen pro shots on APS-C, 110, pinhole, etc." Those are two different arguments. For the people who think "FF is the holy grail" and that it is a requirement to be a pro, they should check out Kerrick Jame's post here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/199855-pentax-intervie...ml#post2122462

For all those who keep arguing there is no advantage of FF over APS-C, well I think you guys are the ones justifying to yourself Pentax's decision to not currently offer a FF model. Like I've said in the past, if people agree that a 645D is a step up in IQ from APS-C, then why can't we agree that a sensor size intermediate of the two would be a smaller, but significant, step up from APS-C? I often hear people saying "FF is bigger, more expensive, less DOF, etc" in an attempt to downplay the IQ advantages of FF. I don't hear too many people saying that about the 645D.

All these tools have advantages and disadvantages. All come with a tradeoff. Like Digitalis said, and Kerrick James proves with his professional career, it's all about the final image. If it was only about resolution, color depth, shallow DOF, we'd all be carrying around large format monsters wherever we went.
10-21-2012, 07:18 AM   #146
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Why are you speculating on what someone might say? And how is that relevant to the topic.
I'm not really speculating. Someone already said that. Actually two people.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/200863-official-k5ii-k...ml#post2138317

I responded to two people saying that in this thread. If someone else states the same thing tomorrow I'll restate it. I'm seriously considering writing a FF FAQ, because it always comes up.

So it's relevant to the discussion because two other people had already discussed it.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
This is a thread about the K-5 II and K-5 IIs images. Who made you the god of camera evaluation to the point where you should come into a thead evaluating the K-5 images. MF is higher resolution than FF. 8x10 film out -resolved them all. None of that is relevant to a discussion of the K-5 IIs images.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/200863-official-k5ii-k...ml#post2121488

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/200863-official-k5ii-k...ml#post2121557

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/200863-official-k5ii-k...ml#post2121571

You should review the thread. I was the fourth person to comment on FF. Since that point I've only been responding to other people's opinions on FF. If you'd prefer to stop discussing FF advantages or disadvantages, I'd suggest you stop discussing them.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
What the hell is the matter with you?
There'll be a FAQ for that as well.

Last edited by ihasa; 10-21-2012 at 03:09 PM.
10-21-2012, 08:33 AM   #147
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 896
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
What exactly is your allegation? It started with "FF". Now it's massively reduced to "new Nikon" only (2-3 models out of what: 20 FF models out there)? So even body-wise the statement is supposedly true only in 10% of cases?

Any "new Nikons" from late 2010 around (that is K-5 sensor technology)? Name it please.

Any ones specifically with 16 MPx resolution (again that is K-5 technology)?

In my world there is a major difference between "A is always better than B" and "in one specific combination of cases out of 10.000 possible ones A is better than B".

You know, the funny thing is: You started with the simplistic general allegation.
And that means any single chosen combination which shows otherwise proves you completely wrong. That is logic.
And not surprisingly that proof has already been made.

If you want to call your original statement false and reduce it to a very specific scenario then name the specific assumptions. Just wildly picking a single specific FF body model is not good enough for a well defined case.
  • sensor technology: maker, year (need to be same for APSC and FF)
  • scene
  • people viewing: average family member, amateur, pixel peeper etc.
  • viewing distance
  • sensor resolution (need to be same on both bodies)
  • print sizes
  • print qualities
  • which same lens to be used on both bodies
And then please show us the pictures proving your allegation using the above setup.

As is obvious that will then only make a point for about 1:10.000 possible situations and thus be quite irrelevant. Again: that is logic.
This is an inspired amount of run-around just to deny recognizing that over 2x the surface area of current gen sensor technology is appreciably better than less than half of it.
10-21-2012, 08:35 AM   #148
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,744
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I'd pay you quite a bit of money to be on the spot to be back there, in the same light, etc., with a K-5 (or better yet a FF!).
no matter what camera you use, in that kind of light that photograph would still look bad. You could even use a Leica S2 with that 2 Million dollar lens and that photograph of those birds would not be improved in the slightest.
10-21-2012, 09:24 AM   #149
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
no matter what camera you use, in that kind of light that photograph would still look bad. You could even use a Leica S2 with that 2 Million dollar lens and that photograph of those birds would not be improved in the slightest.
Although I disagree with your absolutes, I agree with your sentiment.


I was talking about other pictures, which should be obvious; FF wouldn't have helped the picture you're mocking at all; and wouldn't have been helped by a 'k-5' as it was taken with a k-5.
10-21-2012, 10:51 AM   #150
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
Hey ElJ, you haven't answered my question..

How could it pooissbly happen that in the above posted images the k-5 IIs image is clearly better than the d600 image of the same thing, despite the K-5 image having less resolution and not being FF? I'm really waiting for your explanation... it outlines the whole conmundrum for you FF guys. FF compared to APS-c, same subject, higher FF resolution... lower IQ. Because until you have that figured out, you really have nothing to contribute.

QuoteQuote:
You should review the thread. I was the fourth person to comment on FF. Since that point I've only been responding to other people's opinions on FF. If you'd prefer to stop discussing FF advantages or disadvantages, I'd suggest you stop discussing them.
And if you need to discuss FF, you need to start your own thread, not hijack this one.
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!
k5ii and k5iis, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K5IIs sample? pinholecam Pentax News and Rumors 349 12-20-2012 12:00 PM
Samyang 24mm 1.4 (OFFICIAL SAMPLE PHOTOS) joe.penn Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 36 10-03-2012 07:07 PM
10 things to know about the K5II/K5IIs jpzk Pentax K-5 16 09-24-2012 05:33 AM
Nikon D3 ISO 3200 Official Sample vinzer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 6 09-13-2007 11:10 AM
Scary Tokina 16-50/2.8 ATX Pro Official Sample Photos RiceHigh Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 29 03-08-2007 08:54 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:46 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