[Cannikin]

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.

[normhead]

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

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.

[Clavius]

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...

[mecrox]

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.

[mecrox]

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.

[normhead]

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.

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.

[Cannikin]

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 :

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.

[normhead]

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.

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.

[NicholasJong]

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.

[Cannikin]

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.

[Cannikin]

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?

[Cannikin]

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.

I am getting the sense, with your constant "propaganda" accusations, that you are assuming that I am some FF fanatic trying to sell people FF cameras. I am not interested in "converting" anyone to the "FF cause". I am simply trying to provide objective information to a discussion about the properties of formats, and clear up the misrepresentations being thrown around as fact. Spin it as "propaganda" all you want.

I am not opposed to smaller formats than even APS-C, being a multi-system user, currently with both a Pentax APS-C and Micro Four Thirds system. I am well aware of the relative mertis of every system. I bought Pentax APS-C for their rugged, smaller, feature packed cameras compared to other manufacturers' price-class equivalents. Later, I decided I wanted a system with smaller, high quality zooms for everyday carrying around, and dead on focusing accuracy for situations where I don't have the time and/or inclination to double check the focusing accuracy of PDAF, which led me to the Micro 4/3 system.

I don't try to sell people cameras that they don't need, formats or brands. I try to give objective information for questions so as to give people the clearest picture. When my friends and family ask me why my photos look better than their cell phone shots, I don't tell them it's "because my sensor is bigger", which is a gross oversimplification/misrepresentation of the advantages of large sensor system cameras, nor do I bombard them with specs about specific cameras, which is not meaningful information to them or their fundamental question. I tell them that system cameras have the capability (indirectly tied to sensor size) and direct control to get the photos I want. If they want my old cameras, or want to buy a camera like mine, I usually end up suggesting they get an advanced compact like the RX100 which gives them manual control if they care to really learn photography, while still having plenty of automatic functions and pocketable size for when they inevitably don't (even if I give them a photography book or offer to teach them). Pushing any format for whatever reason doesn't help them if they don't really understand the capabilities, or how to take advantage of them. I'm assuming people on this forum are more informed on the principles of photography, and so information on the inherent properties of different formats is more relevant to them, particularly with the prevalence of these FF rumors which inevitably degenerate into theoretical FF vs APS-C arguments.

Now, if you want my "real world", subjective opinion on FF, I will say I believe Ricoh should come out with one, not because I believe it is the ultimate format, or that everyone should buy one, but that it will give people actively dissuading people from Pentax less excuses to use. I have seen discussions on Amazon about people buying their first DSLR and considering Pentax, with others directly telling them that it's a "dead end" system because there is no "FF upgrade path". Even if most people probably will not buy one even if it did come out, the halo effect will boost the standing of the entire brand.

If Ricoh does come out with a FF that follows the Pentax philosophy of small, rugged and feature packed, I will probably get it because low light performance and fast wide angles appeal to me for my own shooting interests. Even if I do get it, it would not replace APS-C and M4/3 as my everyday cameras, with the zoom lenses being too big and heavy to carry around all day. If they don't release one, then I don't see myself picking up a FF anytime soon. I have held a D800, 5D Mark III and A99 in my hands, and I did not like them because they are huge. The Sony A7s don't appeal to me either, as I would like to AF with my FA lenses, and the current Sony FE lenses are relatively slow, meaning they don't allow you to take advantage of many of the inherent capabilities of FF.

(Sorry to all for the triple post )

[Grokh]

Dear colleagues, I have just visited Pentar Russian Pentax) and now I have two news to us. As usually the one news is good, the second is bad.
The good news is that the FF system has a good and predictable future.
The bad news is that I have promised do not distributed widely what I have been told about it.
At least I should say that the things are going more and more exiciting and promising.
But in some future.

[Kunzite]

You can post it here, we won't tell anybody!

[LFLee]

Dear colleagues, I have just visited Pentar Russian Pentax) and now I have two news to us. As usually the one news is good, the second is bad.
The good news is that the FF system has a good and predictable future.
The bad news is that I have promised do not distributed widely what I have been told about it.
At least I should say that the things are going more and more exiciting and promising.
But in some future.

I would like to believe Pentax Russia have close relation with Pentax Japan...
If no FF next year, it will be "why bother?" for Pentax...

SONY A7/A7r changes everything.
People can get A7 for $1700.
or they can get K-3 + 18-135 for about the same amount.
It is smaller, lighter and can adapt lots of glass (minus AF), but they will think hard.

The longer they delay, they harder they pull out something interesting.
Seeing the price drop on K-3 seem faster than K-5II/K5IIs and much much faster than K-5, the competition just don't wait for Pentax.

If they have something in mind, they need to announce it: Those who want APSC won't stop buying K-3, those who want FF will wait.