[biz-engineer]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

The test images you've posted look like one was shot in JPG and the other RAW. The sharpening is totally different. Unless that's your point; if you're saying that they're both completely un-processed RAW files. My own tests certainly don't reveal differences at base ISO until you really, really push the files. But that is what I do, honestly, in many different real-world situations.

Yep, the difference is mostly the amount of sharpening and pixel peeping. Different photographers have different evaluation criteria. normhead evaluate practical photographic results, while others get deeper into the details. Practical photographic result evaluation and detailed evaluation with zooing in on a lcd displays are different. At home, I have large prints on walls from my K-3 and K-5 that are beautiful. But when I zoom in the same photos at 100% on my LCD , they don't look as good as on the prints on the wall. However, the issues that I experienced with prints were not about noise or resolution, it was about exposures and colors depending on the print supplier and lighting in the room.

[monochrome]

If the recent past is any indication I suspect it will be drastically overpriced to start.

If the 645Z is any indication, maybe not.

[Rondec]

The test images you've posted look like one was shot in JPG and the other RAW. The sharpening is totally different. Unless that's your point; if you're saying that they're both completely un-processed RAW files.

My own tests certainly don't reveal differences at base ISO until you really, really push the files. But that is what I do, honestly, in many different real-world situations.

If you are shooting portraits in controlled lighting, probably about any camera is going to be fine. There isn't a whole lot of difference at base iso between APS-C and full frame. But if you are maximizing the dynamic range of the camera and pushing shadows hard, trying to protect the highlights, then I am sure full frame files are a little more amenable to processing, even when shot at low iso.

The crops Norm posted are from imaging resource I am not sure if he converts them himself or if he uses their jpegs, but either way, they certainly aren't examples of someone shooting a landscape with high dynamic range and trying to capture all of the colors present in the sunrise. I'm sure for this image a D610 would perform almost exactly the same as a K3 or D7200.

[derekkite]

If you are shooting portraits in controlled lighting, probably about any camera is going to be fine. There isn't a whole lot of difference at base iso between APS-C and full frame. But if you are maximizing the dynamic range of the camera and pushing shadows hard, trying to protect the highlights, then I am sure full frame files are a little more amenable to processing, even when shot at low iso.

The crops Norm posted are from imaging resource I am not sure if he converts them himself or if he uses their jpegs, but either way, they certainly aren't examples of someone shooting a landscape with high dynamic range and trying to capture all of the colors present in the sunrise. I'm sure for this image a D610 would perform almost exactly the same as a K3 or D7200.

Photographic technique is about finding ways around the limitations of the medium so as to capture an image that does what you need it to do. A print displayed on a wall is pretty meaningless; what if it is to display and sell fabric? Or a landscape with very high contrast? Or as I do a bear in low light on a wet day in a very busy scene, where I saw it only because it moved?

Or at dawn, like I did the other day, a loon swallowing a fish, Iso 3200 1/200 shutter speed. I missed that shot by the way, too slow a shutter speed so it is a blur. I'm hoping I have another chance at a shot like that.

A stop in lenses in this situation is substantial weight and even more substantial cost.

I have no idea which body would give me the best results in that situation from photos of some cloth. I do know that the very minor flaws would be amplified the as shooting situations get closer to the edge of capability.

[biz-engineer]

Photographic technique is about finding ways around the limitations of the medium so as to capture an image that does what you need it to do. A print displayed on a wall is pretty meaningless; what if it is to display and sell fabric? Or a landscape with very high contrast? Or as I do a bear in low light on a wet day in a very busy scene, where I saw it only because it moved? Or at dawn, like I did the other day, a loon swallowing a fish, Iso 3200 1/200 shutter speed. I missed that shot by the way, too slow a shutter speed so it is a blur. I'm hoping I have another chance at a shot like that. A stop in lenses in this situation is substantial weight and even more substantial cost. I have no idea which body would give me the best results in that situation from photos of some cloth. I do know that the very minor flaws would be amplified the as shooting situations get closer to the edge of capability.

Sure, several very relevant points in your post! The thing is that real life conditions by far exceed the capabilities of our camera. To adapt such wide range of natural lighting and motion conditions, we have Shutter speed that has the widest range of all (from an hour down to 1/8000 of a second... a huge range), other than that, we have a few stops of aperture range and a few stops of ISO range to play with. A full frame sensor offers 1 stop better ISO range compared to APSC, all the rest being equal, indeed compared to real life situation, the improvement of FF versus APSC is tiny. So with a FF cam. you get some of the shots you missed with APSC, but there will still be an infinite amount of conditions that you'll never match. If you exclude moving subjects, a tripod is the cheapest tool that offer the widest dynamic range (you can shoot at ISO100 in the dark and have a sharp image).

[normhead]

The crops Norm posted are from imaging resource I am not sure if he converts them himself or if he uses their jpegs, but either way, they certainly aren't examples of someone shooting a landscape with high dynamic range and trying to capture all of the colors present in the sunrise. I'm sure for this image a D610 would perform almost exactly the same as a K3 or D7200.

I just do a screen capture....
My point is, when I want to know about these kinds of things, I look for real world images.
As my tests have shown over the years, people can make all kinds of mistakes when they trust their impressions to make judgements, especially when it comes to the value of one format over another.

But in the end... I stick with... until I can see a difference in the images, there is no difference.
And until people can point out the difference in a blind test, even if there is pixel peeking difference, there is no practical difference. It may come as a shock to some, but pixel peeping is not an enjoyable way to view images.

Just a few highlights from over the years....

A forum member took a couple of side by side images with his K-01 and D800 and made 20 x 16 prints of a landscape. He showed both pictures to his wife and asked her which she liked. She like some parts of both better than the same parts of the other, and over all she couldn't decide which she liked.

A forum member teaching a beginner photography course, brought prints made at 72, 120 and 150 DPI to his students, 90% of them couldn't tell a 72 DPI from 150 DPI.

IN my own tests, those picking a prime lens from a group of zooms, some of them very cheap and poorly rated, the number recognizing the prime image was only slightly higher than chance.

I guess the problem for me, is I see relatively little real blind test type information, where conventional wisdom about sensor size, prime vs zoom, etc. are supported by any kind of blind test. To be more precise, a lot of "photographic wisdom" is just photographs voodoo. IN fact what I have seen over and over is someone who believes something like "more resolution make higher IQ photos" eat crow, over and over , when they actually do the work to find out if people can even tell.

In the process, I've heard unbelievable amounts of non-sense.

So my approach is simple. Discard all conventional wisdom, that can't be demonstrated with actual images. I don't think a test image like the one above is the best way to evaluate sensors and photographs, test in the circumstances you shoot. But, in the absence of that type of images, those images are crucial, in that they give you something real to form your opinion with.

The typical response is as above....that this type of studio image has no bearing on say a landscape shooter. And my response to that is "prove that." You can't just make shit up.. it's mind boggling to me that someone would think their opinion would be so strong as to negate actual test images. The only thing that negates the evidence presented by an image is another image. Talk is cheap. If there is no correlation between studio test images and images taken in a landscape setting, that should be easy to demonstrate. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't demonstrate it, ti doesn't exist as a concept.

But based on years of following everything I could find, and everything everyone has pointed me to.. my conclusions would be as follows.

In 99% of the images taken, a 10 MP image is good enough, and the format of the camera used is pretty much irrelevant.

People's preferences in lenses can not be determined by test charts.

Most people have purchased way more photographic capability than they will ever effectively use.

People love the gear they own. They bought what they wanted, and they are prepared to live with their decision and make it work. They are not looking for people to tell them they should have something else, and are not prepared to entertain the notion that they should have something better.

On this particular and on many sites, people are talking about minutae that don't make much difference to an image, as if these are really important things.
They aren't.
Composition is really important. The technical qualities of cameras rarely are.

If you don't believe me check it out yourself. The 300mm plus club is by far the most "liked" thread in part because, it doesn't differentiate on supposed "lens quality" , IQ, MP, or anything else. People take great images with 6,000 dollar systems, and they take great images with $800 systems.

One of my favourite responses of all time....
A student in my studio class asked the instructor "what's the difference between a really expensive camera and a really cheap camera.?"
A: "The expensive camera will cost you more to repair."

There are many non-photographic reasons why people believe in their gear. Owning really expensive gear helps with confidence, it can impress clients, it can help you achieve a "look" through the employment of photographic cliches like narrow DoF. But as a photographer, those, at least to me, are not important things. The answer is as above. And until someone shows me different, I'm going with that. Watching the forum over the last 5 years, I'd also add, spending more money enables you to keep spending more and more money. Buying a DSLR enables you to blow a pile on lenses. Buying a 645z enables you to push the amount of money spent on lenses over $50,000 if you choose to go that route. It's a kind of gamesmanship.

But every year, I go out with my mountain of gear, with Tess and my buddy David, along with the 4 or 5 photographers a year who hire me to take them somewhere, and every year, the number of my friend David's pictures, taken with his point and shoot are among my favourites. If it's a three photographer trip, his images will comprise about 33% of my favourites. Really, your biggest photographic assets are your perspectives, your composition skills, and your opportunities to be where you can get good images. You can talk about gear all you want, but, there's David's point and shoot images will still hold their own, no matter who you are, and what you're shooting with. It suits the way he shoots. Maybe you need a bit more for what you shoot, maybe you need dynamic range for sunsets, maybe you are one of the rare people who actually prints 60 inches wide, who might benefit from more resolution. It's possible.

But most of the people on here when they talk about the need for upgrading are just blowing smoke. I've talked to people who take arial photographs, or who are in very specialized areas of photography where the right equipment is absolutely crucial. There's a lot of people on the site that confuse themselves thinking they are that type of person. That they need some kind of special technical spec to do what they do. Most of them just need to learn how to set up a shot with what they have. And guess what, if you won't do what it takes to get the shots you want with what you have, you probably won't do what it takes to get it with your new equipment either.


Call me skeptical, but, I just don't buy 99% of the non-sense, and the posturing that goes with it.

I read it and smile, but people shouldn't think for a second I'm taking much of this seriously, and I feel most of the more experienced guys are the same. We smile and nod our heads, because it's just not worth getting into, most of the time.

[biz-engineer]

Man, with this post, you are killing the marketing efforts of Ricoh and other companies trying to sell digital full frame cameras.

[normhead]

Man, with this post, you are killing the marketing efforts of Ricoh and other companies trying to sell digital full frame cameras.

I'll delete it if they pay me... I'm not too high and mighty to be bought...

Besides, I have no problem with people thinking they want full frame, for the whole social thing...
And I'm quite happy, when my buddy Brian tells me he's getting the better picture because he's shooting with his D800, even though when I post my prints and he posts his, it's hard to see what he's getting for his money.. people are going to believe what they want to believe. I do think Rondec and I, and people who shoot in the best light, are always going to want the most DR we can get. Right now the camera for that is the Nikon D810 or Pentax 645z...so if the Pentax has the DR of a D810, that could be of interest, technically.I Just don't see a lot of other people paying the price, getting up in the morning and planning our evenings to shoot in that light. A lot do, don't get me wrong, but, if you aren't doing that, I doubt increasing your Dynamic Range will help you much. Certainly not in enough situations to make it worth your while buying a camera for.

[D1N0]

Don't worry. I didn't read it because it was to long. There is an acronym for that, but I don't know you people are savvy enough to understand.

[normhead]

don't worry. I didn't read it because it was to long. There is an acronym for that, but i don't know you people are savvy enough to understand.

a.d.d. ?

[boriscleto]

a.d.d. ?

tl;dr

[Rondec]

I'll delete it if they pay me... I'm not too high and mighty to be bought...

Besides, I have no problem with people thinking they want full frame, for the whole social thing...
And I'm quite happy, when my buddy Brian tells me he's getting the better picture because he's shooting with his D800, even though when I post my prints and he posts his, it's hard to see what he's getting for his money.. people are going to believe what they want to believe. I do think Rondec and I, and people who shoot in the best light, are always going to want the most DR we can get. Right now the camera for that is the Nikon D810 or Pentax 645z...so if the Pentax has the DR of a D810, that could be of interest, technically.I Just don't see a lot of other people paying the price, getting up in the morning and planning our evenings to shoot in that light. A lot do, don't get me wrong, but, if you aren't doing that, I doubt increasing your Dynamic Range will help you much. Certainly not in enough situations to make it worth your while buying a camera for.

Obviously there are a mixture of situations where you use a given camera. Full frame basically gives you one stop improvement over APS-C. Whether or not that is important to you depends on what style of photography you shoot. There are plenty of folks who do fine with four thirds or even smaller cameras.

There is a big skill factor in photography that can't be over rated. I have seen good photos taken with full frame and some pretty bad photos as well (same with APS-C), but I do think that there are more folks who invest in full frame who are willing to take the time and effort to make great photos than there are with smaller formats. Medium format is even more so that way. If you take your time setting up your shot, make sure the light is right, and then process your photo well, it will probably end up a good photo. If you take snap shots, whatever size camera you use, what you will end up with is snaps -- nothing more or less.

[mecrox]

I'll delete it if they pay me... I'm not too high and mighty to be bought...

Besides, I have no problem with people thinking they want full frame, for the whole social thing...
And I'm quite happy, when my buddy Brian tells me he's getting the better picture because he's shooting with his D800, even though when I post my prints and he posts his, it's hard to see what he's getting for his money.. people are going to believe what they want to believe. I do think Rondec and I, and people who shoot in the best light, are always going to want the most DR we can get. Right now the camera for that is the Nikon D810 or Pentax 645z...so if the Pentax has the DR of a D810, that could be of interest, technically.I Just don't see a lot of other people paying the price, getting up in the morning and planning our evenings to shoot in that light. A lot do, don't get me wrong, but, if you aren't doing that, I doubt increasing your Dynamic Range will help you much. Certainly not in enough situations to make it worth your while buying a camera for.

I quite agree with this. If you want el ultimo then yes a D810 or a 645z may be just the ticket but try bringing those out at that intimate family gathering, in a crowded street, on vacation when the airline has strict carry-on limits, while out hiking, and so forth. The fact is that most of this big stuff, and that includes a lot of APS-C stuff just as much as FF, is completely impractical and in my experience takes all the pleasure out of photography. It's also completely pointless unless the aim is to print large, very large, and generally make money out of one's photography. Fine, but in 99 per cent of cases that doesn't apply and the image will be printed fairly small if at all and otherwise put on a monitor. As for DR, there are workarounds such as bracketing and recombining using luminance masks, for example. Maybe not ideal but perfectly serviceable when the alternative is $10,000 out plus lumbago..

If all the gear, the endless lenses, the bits and pieces makes someone happy that is great by me. But it doesn't work in my case. In fact, and partly for this reason (the other reason being one too many camera breakdowns, my fairly new K3 already calling in sick), I sold all my gear yesterday bar a couple of smc MF lenses and went instead for a much, much simpler set-up: one very good camera, two very good lenses, all easily portable in the kind of bag you can take anywhere, even on a cutprice HellAir flight. If I get the big stuff again, it will be one body and one very good lens for landscape lengths, on a tripod, and chances are I'll use it all of once or twice a month. If someone is a pro, I can see a lot of point in a Pentax (or Canonikon) FF line but otherwise, for anyone else, I just can't. The same outlay would buy a fantastic round-the-world trip that one would never forget. I know which I'd prefer. But if it makes you happy ...

[normhead]

Full frame basically gives you one stop improvement over APS-C.

Only if you sacrifice DoF for an improvement in SNR.
I'm starting to wonder if people say this just to irritate me.

APS-c ƒ5.6, 100 ISO, 1/100s, is the same as FF ƒ8, 200 ISO, 1/100s.

Same total light, same Signal to Noise Ration, same DoF, same shutter speed, = same picture.
Where is the extra stop better for FF?

one very good camera, two very good lenses, all easily portable in the kind of bag you can take anywhere, even on a cutprice HellAir flight.

Something like this....
http://www.amazon.ca/Panasonic-DMC-FZ1000-Digital-Camera-Accessory/dp/B00MH5...mix+dmc+fz1000

Gets more and more tempting all the time.

[Kunzite]

Same total light, same Signal to Noise Ration, same DoF, same shutter speed, = same picture.

There be dragons...