[GlassJunkie]

Nikon F4, Sony A580, Olympus E-410 . What's a Ricoh Gs?

P&S 300G, 500G Wide..... CHanges to the GR Program?

[RonHendriks1966]

I was thinking maybe we can make this thread about cheese sandwiches.

Oh I don't know....I'm on a diet and cheese just puts to much calories on my bread.


Boy do I love cheese......

[philbaum]

Aperture and speed are strictly defined; it is not my claim or invention. It is also very useful definition that is not a moving target.
The relevant factor for IQ is another topic. This is about lens speed.
Sure F:4 is equally fast regardless of format as neither DOF or format are involved in the difinition of speed. Speed is tied to exposure by definition because it is a physical parametre based on the opening of the lens. This is THE most useful relation in photography cause I then know that regardless if I shoot with the Q or the 645z, I'll get the same shutterspeed at the same ISO. This is the fundament of the principle of reciprocity on which the theory of exposuer is based. I won't get the same image but this is not what this is about.

Pal has a good point. When i use the spot meter on my smart phone, it gives me the same light intensity reading in ev, lumens, foot-candles, no matter what the format size. Unless one is claiming that the sun shines brighter on FF than APS, the light intensity is the same for every sensor. While the larger sensor may collect more TOTAL light, the intensity level, i.e. lumens/area, is exactly the same, no matter what format size.

Yet we all know that as a practical matter, larger sensors are able to operate at higher ISOs than compacts. Since i will not concede that the sun shines brighter over FF cameras , than the only answer is, for whatever reason, that larger sensors collect photons and produce a signal more efficiently than smaller sensors.

[D1N0]

Pal has a good point. When i use the spot meter on my smart phone, it gives me the same light intensity reading in ev, lumens, foot-candles, no matter what the format size. Unless one is claiming that the sun shines brighter on FF than APS, the light intensity is the same for every sensor. While the larger sensor may collect more TOTAL light, the intensity level, i.e. lumens/area, is exactly the same, no matter what format size.

Yet we all know that as a practical matter, larger sensors are able to operate at higher ISOs than compacts. Since i will not concede that the sun shines brighter over FF cameras , than the only answer is, for whatever reason, that larger sensors collect photons and produce a signal more efficiently than smaller sensors.

But it is not helpful iq-wise The light intensity may be the same, but the surface and the pixel size are not. More surface en bigger pixels retain more information and give better IQ. That's why we are talking about equivalent. It's taking the size of the sensor into account.

[stevebrot]

So sometime in mid-September?

I was thinking maybe we can make this thread about cheese sandwiches.

I like cheese sandwiches! I wonder if there is a notion of cheese sandwich equivalence between those made with regular bread vs. those made with hoagie rolls? I know the length and width are different and cheese stacking is also present (effects flavor intensity), but have any objective studies been done?

The reason why I ask is that I really like cheese and want to move up to the larger format.


Steve

[ElJamoquio]

[GlassJunkie]

But it is not helpful iq-wise The light intensity may be the same, but the surface and the pixel size are not. More surface en bigger pixels retain more information and give better IQ. That's why we are talking about equivalent. It's taking the size of the sensor into account.

I am curious about the "larger sensors retain more information" what is the data capture from a triplet filtered pixel other than magnitude and averaging? There is no more "information" to process for a pixel. Processing below the pixel is pure math, interpolation, and calculation. FF loses. It's like trying to slalom in 222 dh skis. I'll take the 185's thx (sorry the ski analogy was cheap)....

And since we are talking light bending around corners (general knowledge, it doesn't), and in support of your idea, I can see a larger pixel getting a magnitude rating over a bigger area. Agreed. One also must recognize that the larger pixel causes higher pixelation over a given area (lxw) since resolution is lost significantly between a 24mpFF compared to the higher res (per sqMM) 24mp APSc sensor... A not so slight issue. So maybe the measurement is over a larger average it is better, and likely where the "1 stop more light" fable is born?

This is why we were all blown away with K-3 images as opposed to K-5, simple pixel density. Incidentally, the magnitude of pixelation with a 24mp FF compared to a 24mp APSC is worse than a 16mp APSC compared to a 24mp APSc. By a third... Simple test anyone can do... Take two identical pics one with K-3 and one with K-5, same glass, lighting etc. Zoom in with the editor of your preference the 16mp pixelates (squares becoming unusable first). Just in case you know where I am going, the K-5 has better resolution than ANY 24mpFF within the image circle. They are selling hype and crap for FF.

Maybe, but resolution and detail decline. FF Still loses for me.... and likely the engineers at Pentax and Sony.... Otherwise coatings and lenses would not be getting the R&D dollars, and we all would be dragging D4 clones.

So, in support of this thread...and directly addressed to Ricoh Pentax snoopers(I hope there are spies), Where is the next great APSc glass, the long 645HD glass, and maybe take the K-01, shoehorn the inferior 24mpFF sensor in it, add an EVF, so the enthusiasts can use their old glass (cut a deal with NISI for their LR filters, they work on FA* glass well), so the forum members can go take pictures, me included...

---

Last edited by GlassJunkie; 08-13-2014 at 12:38 PM.

[Quicksand]

Well, I have to say, after trying to keep up with this thread for a while, I just want Photokina to actually happen so we can at least reduce the flow of endless speculation and opinion by a notch or two...

You SAY you want that, but are you going to be happy after Photokina happens and the inevitable forum wailing and teeth-gnashing and rending of garments dies down and this News and Rumors forum goes as dry as the Mojave in August?

[D1N0]

This is why we were all blown away with K-3 images as opposed to K-5, simple pixel density.

And that is also why noise starts to appear sooner on the k-3. Smaller pixels with the same technology.

[Nicolas06]

But it is not helpful iq-wise The light intensity may be the same, but the surface and the pixel size are not. More surface en bigger pixels retain more information and give better IQ. That's why we are talking about equivalent. It's taking the size of the sensor into account.

Apperture is not linked with IQ. In fact neither apperture, speed, iso or exposure say anything about quality.

To get anything from a quality, you need first to define what kind of quality you are after. Sharpness? Color Deph ? Dynamic Range? Then you have to look at your shooting conditions and at your sensor.

Using a bigger sensor (up to a point) is the easiest but give only small improvements if the sensor size is not much different. Modern sensors APSC and FF sensor have nearly the same color deph and dynamic range anyway (well Canon is behind on all bodies included FF for dynamic range and some prefer CCD color fidelity rather than CMOS). Sharpness larger sensor can provide more... If you go the 36MP route.

And to benefit of theses gains you have to be at a limit anyway. In many case, just open more on the smaller system, or reduce the shooting speed.


If you need more than theses small gain anyway you have to do differently:

- if you really need more dynamic range, that HDR you need.
- if you really need more color deph, you need to take many shoots (with same exposure) and merge them.
- if you need more details, you can stich a panorama.

I have also to say that this is all because our camera and software are fairly basic. For example, to take more dynamic range in one shoot, all photosites do not need to stay active the same time. Some can be exposed for hightlight, some for shadows.

The camera could work like an eye, look at the scene not instantly as a whole, but take a longer time, and focus on different part of the scene to reconstruct everything. Even if subject move, this is no problem. We are able to see the detail of some object and recall where it was initially even if it moved. This seems absurd but some phone already just use video mode to stick panorama constinously. Of course there is room until a camera get the same capacities as an human brain.

[ElJamoquio]

I dunno. The blind comparison that Adam did (between a K-5IIs and a K3) showed something like a 40/60 split - 40% of the people thought the K-5IIs picture looked better than the K-3.

That's one datum (or a few dozen) of not being really 'blown away' by simple pixel density, in my view.

It seems that, with some moderately priced normal lenses, the K-3 should have 10-20% better resolution because of pixel density. It should have another 20-30% over a K-5 because of the AA filter.

Put together, BOTH of them produce a change, but it's tough (not impossible) to see half of the change.

[GlassJunkie]

And that is also why noise starts to appear sooner on the k-3. Smaller pixels with the same technology.

Noise has a capture component, but most solutions are software based in-camera, post capture.

---------- Post added 08-13-14 at 04:06 PM ----------

I dunno. The blind comparison that Adam did (between a K-5IIs and a K3) showed something like a 40/60 split - 40% of the people thought the K-5IIs picture looked better than the K-3.

That's one datum (or a few dozen) of not being really 'blown away' by simple pixel density, in my view.

It seems that, with some moderately priced normal lenses, the K-3 should have 10-20% better resolution because of pixel density. It should have another 20-30% over a K-5 because of the AA filter.

Put together, BOTH of them produce a change, but it's tough (not impossible) to see half of the change.

I liked Adam's study. In workflow, it shows up like a siren....

[MarkJerling]

I like cheese sandwiches! I wonder if there is a notion of cheese sandwich equivalence between those made with regular bread vs. those made with hoagie rolls? I know the length and width are different and cheese stacking is also present (effects flavor intensity), but have any objective studies been done?

The reason why I ask is that I really like cheese and want to move up to the larger format.


Steve

We had Cheese Rolls on national TV news last night. So, goes to show, cheese is very important!

[thibs]

I dunno. The blind comparison that Adam did (between a K-5IIs and a K3) showed something like a 40/60 split - 40% of the people thought the K-5IIs picture looked better than the K-3.

That's one datum (or a few dozen) of not being really 'blown away' by simple pixel density, in my view.

It seems that, with some moderately priced normal lenses, the K-3 should have 10-20% better resolution because of pixel density. It should have another 20-30% over a K-5 because of the AA filter.

Put together, BOTH of them produce a change, but it's tough (not impossible) to see half of the change.

Let's do the very same test with a Sigma ART 35/1.4 on those cams. Should be easier to spot differences with a sharpness monster.

[ElJamoquio]

With a perfect lens, it will be easier to spot, that's for sure. I don't know if the Sigma is really that dramatically better than the 35mm Macro stopped down, though.