Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-10-2013, 05:34 AM   #316
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by NicholasJong Quote
No, this is not true. Because APSC cameras have a larger focus points coverage.

D7100 and D800 use basically the same 51 points focus system. The focus points are mostly in the center in the D800, but they spread out in a D7100, since the points are there, and the CMOS in a D7100 is smaller

And this can be very useful when you have a high demand on focusing
I fail to see how this is at all relevant to my point that a cropped FF image will appear identical to an APS-C image of the same pixel density.

Also, your premise is flawed. If they have the same focusing system, and you crop the FF to APS-C, the focusing point coverage of the final frame will be the same.


Last edited by Cannikin; 12-10-2013 at 05:44 AM.
12-10-2013, 06:01 AM   #317
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,117
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
I fail to see how this is at all relevant to my point that a cropped FF image will appear identical to an APS-C image of the same pixel density.

Also, your premise is flawed. If they have the same focusing system, and you crop the FF to APS-C, the focusing point coverage of the final frame will be the same.
Except they won't be, unless it is the same image using the same lens on the same camera with the same settings? Otherwise, if different cameras are involved, all the other usual factors will kick in - lens, sensor, settings, imaging software et al. Perhaps this is why, to my eyes anyway, FF images nearly always look superior to APS-C ones. The FF images I see online frequently look almost effortless whereas a lot of APS-C ones look a little brittle - too much sharpening, clarity and de-noising in order to try to get to where FF is already. Perhaps APS-C camera-owners typically use less capable lenses? Who knows. All subjective, of course, but I suspect many people know this even if they'd like the data measurement crowd to convince them otherwise. One can reject FF on grounds of size, weight and cost but not image quality, I'd guess.
12-10-2013, 06:06 AM   #318
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Except they won't be, unless it is the same image using the same lens on the same camera with the same settings?
Yes, that's kind of the whole point of this line of discussion. I'll save you the trouble of going back and reading my original post by quoting the relevant portion:
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin:
Take a D800, stick any lens on it, FF or APS-C, crop the image and it will be indistinguishable from a shot taken with the D7000 with the same lens and same settings.
12-10-2013, 06:11 AM   #319
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,117
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
I'll save you the trouble of going back and reading my original post by quoting the relevant portion:
Lol, thanks. But I'm not convinced of the quality side (not the size/scale side). The sensors are not the same even if the pixel coverage is the same after a crop. Can you point me to some comparative pics somewhere online?

12-10-2013, 06:35 AM   #320
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Lol, thanks. But I'm not convinced of the quality side (not the size/scale side). The sensors are not the same even if the pixel coverage is the same after a crop. Can you point me to some comparative pics somewhere online?
You might want to go back and follow the discussion. This doesn't really have anything to do with "quality". This is regarding the myth that somehow an APS-C camera can produce an image that a FF cannot for some fundamental reason. My point is to illustrate that there is no fundamental DOF or "reach" advantage to APS-C, as a crop of a FF of the same pixel density and technology can replicate it.

Anyway, if you're really curious about "evidence" for quality scaling, all I can offer you is some math: Nikon D800 versus Nikon D7000 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

DXO measures by scaling all cameras to a standard size (8MP I believe). Assuming they are based around the same technology, this scaling means the "ISO" rating of DXO should be directly proportional to the ratio of the sensor areas (total light gathered). The D7000's APS-C sensor has a "crop factor" of about the 1.53, meaning the area of the D800's FF sensor is 1.53^2 times bigger. Divide the D800's ISO score of 2853 by this to get the "equivalent" APS-C crop, and you get ~1219, very close to the D7000's 1167 (probably within the margin of error).

Last edited by Cannikin; 12-10-2013 at 07:20 AM.
12-10-2013, 08:12 AM   #321
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,868
The key to his assertion, is "same pixel density", he knows very well FFs don't match APS-c in pixel density right now, and even with the D800 and K-5, never did, although for one year it was close. But I agree with him. ANd with the same pixel density an MF can match any FF, and with the same pixel density any 4x5 can match any FF, and on and on. WHy discuss things that don't exist.

The other side of this is that you get better good light resolution with a K-3 than you do with an FF 6D…the FF with less pixel density can't match the APS-c, in fact you can probably crop your APS-c and get a very similar image to your uncropped FF. It's the Mp making the difference.

No FF camera at low ISO can match an APS-c with Higher Mp, in resolution. There you go. Only this statement is true in the real world with real cameras, unlike the
QuoteQuote:
I fail to see how this is at all relevant to my point that a cropped FF image will appear identical to an APS-C image of the same pixel density.
statement, a K-3 will actually outperform a few FFs, where as there are no FFs that will outperform a K-3 for resolution, in the area of the crop sensor.
12-10-2013, 08:25 AM   #322
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
where as there are no FFs that will outperform a K-3 for resolution, in the area of the crop sensor.
True, and it's still a long wait untill there are:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/137-photographic-industry-professionals/2...sors-sony.html

The rumored 54mp Sony sensor should crop to 24mp...
12-10-2013, 10:03 AM   #323
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,117
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
You might want to go back and follow the discussion. This doesn't really have anything to do with "quality". This is regarding the myth that somehow an APS-C camera can produce an image that a FF cannot for some fundamental reason. My point is to illustrate that there is no fundamental DOF or "reach" advantage to APS-C, as a crop of a FF of the same pixel density and technology can replicate it.

Anyway, if you're really curious about "evidence" for quality scaling, all I can offer you is some math: Nikon D800 versus Nikon D7000 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark

DXO measures by scaling all cameras to a standard size (8MP I believe). Assuming they are based around the same technology, this scaling means the "ISO" rating of DXO should be directly proportional to the ratio of the sensor areas (total light gathered). The D7000's APS-C sensor has a "crop factor" of about the 1.53, meaning the area of the D800's FF sensor is 1.53^2 times bigger. Divide the D800's ISO score of 2853 by this to get the "equivalent" APS-C crop, and you get ~1219, very close to the D7000's 1167 (probably within the margin of error).
Many thanks for your helpful post and sorry to have bothered you. This website - Guess the Format - is quite fun. I tried 10 images and got 8 correct.


Last edited by mecrox; 12-10-2013 at 10:22 AM.
12-10-2013, 10:14 AM   #324
Pentaxian
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,117
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The key to his assertion, is "same pixel density", he knows very well FFs don't match APS-c in pixel density right now, and even with the D800 and K-5, never did, although for one year it was close. But I agree with him. ANd with the same pixel density an MF can match any FF, and with the same pixel density any 4x5 can match any FF, and on and on. WHy discuss things that don't exist.

The other side of this is that you get better good light resolution with a K-3 than you do with an FF 6D…the FF with less pixel density can't match the APS-c, in fact you can probably crop your APS-c and get a very similar image to your uncropped FF. It's the Mp making the difference.

No FF camera at low ISO can match an APS-c with Higher Mp, in resolution. There you go. Only this statement is true in the real world with real cameras, unlike the statement, a K-3 will actually outperform a few FFs, where as there are no FFs that will outperform a K-3 for resolution, in the area of the crop sensor.
Strange that despite all this, the 6D produces terrific images as does the D600/610 ... The problem with all this is that it ends by saying that a one square mm crop from a 1/1.7 sensor is superior to the same proportional crop from a Phase One. Somewhere you have to draw a line and say that the resolution specs are only part of the story, In reality the larger sensor tends to win almost every time someone looks at the whole, finished picture, perhaps walking out of the gallery with a fine print in their hands.

Last edited by mecrox; 12-10-2013 at 10:21 AM.
12-10-2013, 10:28 AM   #325
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,868
QuoteOriginally posted by mecrox Quote
Strange that despite all this, the 6D produces terrific images as does the D600/610 ... The problem with all this is that it ends by saying that a one square mm crop from a 1/1.7 sensor is superior to the same crop from a Phase One. In reality the large sensor tends to win almost every time someone looks at the whole, finished picture, perhaps walking out of the gallery with a fine print in their hands.
I don't know why you all make this so complicated, interpreting data from different sites etc. The simple analysis… go to Imaging Resources and look at the comparisons, and you'll see an FF 6D looks about the same as a K-3, looks about the same a D610.… but with a 300mm lens on both of them, you get a much larger subject on a K-3. You can make up all kinds of scenarios extolling the benefits of large sensors… but a bit of advice.. try and stick to what is testable. I know of no galleries where people have a choice of FF and APS_c images side by side shot of the same scene, so what image folks would walk out with were one to function that way, is pure speculation.

QuoteQuote:
Strange that despite all this, the 6D produces terrific images as does the D600/610
A K-3 produces terrific images… I'm not sure how that is in any way relevant… no one is saying you can't take a good picture with an FF, there are advantages, well documented, but to say there are advantages, without pointing out there are also disadvantages, is just propaganda. This whole "anything you can do on APS-c you can do on FF" is pointless propaganda. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses. But with equal Mp, they are pretty close to the same images produced on both with some differences that probably don't matter, 95% of the time, for daylight shooters.

The larger pixels on an FF system are good for reducing noise in low light and the larger format is good for producing narrow DoF, those are specific situations not conducive to broader generalizations about the overall usefulness of another system. WIth smaller sensors, you give up low light, high ISO performance for more magnification and DoF. It's a trade off, not an upgrade or downgrade. It's a matter of understanding what you should be using where.

If you don't do the kind of photography an FF excels at, you'd be a fool to buy one.

Last edited by normhead; 12-10-2013 at 10:36 AM.
12-10-2013, 04:04 PM   #326
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The key to his assertion, is "same pixel density", he knows very well FFs don't match APS-c in pixel density right now, and even with the D800 and K-5, never did, although for one year it was close. But I agree with him. ANd with the same pixel density an MF can match any FF, and with the same pixel density any 4x5 can match any FF, and on and on. WHy discuss things that don't exist.

The other side of this is that you get better good light resolution with a K-3 than you do with an FF 6D…the FF with less pixel density can't match the APS-c, in fact you can probably crop your APS-c and get a very similar image to your uncropped FF. It's the Mp making the difference.

No FF camera at low ISO can match an APS-c with Higher Mp, in resolution. There you go. Only this statement is true in the real world with real cameras, unlike the statement, a K-3 will actually outperform a few FFs, where as there are no FFs that will outperform a K-3 for resolution, in the area of the crop sensor.
I can't help but notice you went from talking about inherent capabilities of sensor formats (talking about "equivalent f-stops" and such), to rambling about specific cameras. I regret bringing up the D800/D7000 (which I thought might help people visualize the concept), because people (on both sides of the argument) are now chasing the logical fallacy of "proving by example".

If you're going to argue about the pros/cons about formats (which by the way is a discussion revolving around a hypothetical Ricoh-Pentax FF camera with unknown capabilties), cherry picking specific examples doesn't prove a point, as you seem to be basing your whole argument around. Cause, you know, I can do that too:

"In the Real World with Real Cameras, the fastest shooting DSLR by far is the 1-DX @ 12 FPS, far faster than the fastest APS-C DSLR (K-3) @ 8.3. The fastest shooting DSLR at any given point in time in the last decade has always been a FF or APS-H camera. This obviously means that bigger sensor formats can shoot faster than APS-C".

See how this doesn't prove anything? There's nothing stopping any manufacturer from putting a faster mirror/shutter cycling mechanism in an APS-C camera (which I would imagine would be easier with a smaller mirror and shutter), besides cost/demand, any more than there is a reason why they cannot make a FF with equal pixel density to any given APS-C camera.

The inherent disadvantages associated with FF as far as the customer is concerned are the following, not the images it is capable of producing:

- Cost
- Size/weight of body (compared to an APS-C body with otherwise similar specs)
- Size/weight of most lenses


By the way, this statement makes no sense whatsoever, even by your own arguments :
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead:
in fact you can probably crop your APS-c and get a very similar image to your uncropped FF. It's the Mp making the difference.

Last edited by Cannikin; 12-10-2013 at 04:24 PM.
12-10-2013, 05:31 PM   #327
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,868
See, here's the thing, I've said what I want to say in the way I want to say it. If you don't get it, makes no difference to me.

QuoteQuote:
The inherent disadvantages associated with FF as far as the customer is concerned are the following, not the images it is capable of producing:

- Cost
- Size/weight of body (compared to an APS-C body with otherwise similar specs)
- Size/weight of most lenses
Well actually, when comparing to larger formats, the images it produces are one of it's disadvantages.

Taken with the above disadvantages, the fact that in many cases IQ is pretty much the same as APS-c, is a huge disadvantage.


So why is it at all relevant to understand inherent disadvantages if they don't apply in the real world?
If we're going to start making up imaginary scenarios, we'll be going on for ever. It's happened before way to many times.
Ground yourself in what's real. It makes things easier.
12-10-2013, 05:37 PM   #328
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 7
QuoteOriginally posted by Cannikin Quote
I fail to see how this is at all relevant to my point that a cropped FF image will appear identical to an APS-C image of the same pixel density.

Also, your premise is flawed. If they have the same focusing system, and you crop the FF to APS-C, the focusing point coverage of the final frame will be the same.
See this picture here: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJO8NzPs-VUJcW0W_naFFR...DZZ9J1Tk0lTKGg

notice the big difference of focus points coverage?

There are times when I just can't focus-first-and-compose-second due to DOF problems or other issues, and I just couldn't get a good focus due to focus points coverage problems.

There are, photos, that just can't be taken, or as easily taken, by FF cameras.
12-10-2013, 06:03 PM   #329
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by NicholasJong Quote
See this picture here: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJO8NzPs-VUJcW0W_naFFR...DZZ9J1Tk0lTKGg

notice the big difference of focus points coverage?

There are times when I just can't focus-first-and-compose-second due to DOF problems or other issues, and I just couldn't get a good focus due to focus points coverage problems.

There are, photos, that just can't be taken, or as easily taken, by FF cameras.
You are obviously not following this discussion. This is about an FF image cropped to APS-C size. If you crop the FF frame to APS-C to produce the same image, the focus point coverage of the final frame will be the same.
12-10-2013, 06:31 PM   #330
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
So why is it at all relevant to understand inherent disadvantages if they don't apply in the real world?
If we're going to start making up imaginary scenarios, we'll be going on for ever. It's happened before way to many times.
Ground yourself in what's real. It makes things easier.
Because this is a thread about an, as of now, hypothetical Ricoh-Pentax FF camera, and presumably other cameras in the future, for which the capabilities are unknown. So yes, these future cameras are limited only by the inherent capabilities of 135 format. Notice the thread's title says: "FF and Ricoh future", and not "D800/<insert any current market camera here> and Ricoh future".

If you are solely concerned with the Real World™ and Real Cameras™ that exist right now, then why do you persist in spreading your "FF inherent capabilities over APS-C are propaganda" line in these hypothetical future FF discussions?
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!
645d, ff, lenses, pentax news, pentax rumors, ricoh
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ricoh announces company name change - no more Pentax Ricoh Imaging, just Ricoh. rawr Pentax News and Rumors 528 10-28-2013 04:39 PM
Hoodie Pentax from Russia ogl General Talk 20 06-02-2012 06:31 AM
RICOH Establishes PENTAX RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Adam Homepage & Official Pentax News 20 10-13-2011 03:31 AM
Need Answers Quick! Good price for Pentax-M 50mm f1.7? LadyRo Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 06-03-2010 04:25 AM
Pentax France answers 3 important questions Gus Pentax News and Rumors 46 03-18-2010 10:26 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:27 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