[Matthew Saville]

....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.

A completely valid point, that 75-90% of photographers out there should take under strong advisement. I sometimes lose sight of this fact, however recently I've honestly been more and more of an advocate of 1.5x sensors being the hands-down winner in value, and all-around performance from a practical everyday standpoint. In other words, I've been agreeing with you for a while now, but this time I just wanted to make a point about envelope-pushing.

There are still the last 5-10% of us who truly do push the envelope in a crazy, even bizarre ways. Where every last bit of image quality that can possibly be pixel-peeped out of a camera or lens could potentially make a rather noticeable difference in a final product, when viewed as big as it deserves to be...

Here's a couple examples of what I mean by crazy shenanigans: (Please excuse the use of non-Pentax cameras. Using a full-frame sensor was very important for these projects. I'm really looking forward to using the full-frame Pentax in similar, or even worse, conditions soon!

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

In these environments, I'll take every fraction of a stop of better IQ that I can, in almost every aspect possibly measurable. (Dynamic range, high ISO, dynamic range AT a high ISO, per-pixel acuity, resistance to weird artifacts, coma, vignetting, ...the list is long!)

In other environments, yes I do sometimes push my shadows and blacks to +100, my Highlights and Whites to -100, and my exposure to anywhere between -2 and +2.

Not because I'm a measurbating pixel-peeper, but because I actually use these settings, this equipment, to get certain photos that would be difficult or impossible to capture any other way.

=Matt=

---

Last edited by Matthew Saville; 09-25-2015 at 01:26 PM.

[derekkite]

Norm it was funny to read your thesis. You could have said it much shorter. 95% of the shots taken could be taken successfully with an Iphone. I would agree, and many many shots are indeed taken with an Iphone.

But you make the mistake of generalizing. The other 5% can't be taken with the iPhone. And the people taking those shots cannot be generalized either.

Rondec commented on this, and I challenge you to look at the shots he gets. I would posit that 95% of the photos taken in Indiana are pretty mediocre and don't make the place look very nice, but his do. Consistently, with a wide array of different lenses. Can you tell the difference between his shots taken with the 31mm and other lenses? If you can't, you aren't seeing, because they have a very nice and unique quality.

The fact that 30 random people see no difference is meaningless.

Now if you don't have a need for that extra stop, fine. You won't believe the difficulties I face in gaining an extra stop, in cost, complexity, equipment, learning techniques. The added resolution from 16 mp to 24 mp added about 100mm effective length to my DA*300. I spent money and time learning to improve noise removal in post processing, gaining about a stop higher Iso. I've improved technique and hardware to remove vibration from my lens and body while shooting long, probably gaining two stops shutter speed. What that means is the western grebes that I could barely capture last year are within reach, and I might get a shot I will print.

I could not take 3/4 of the shots I routinely capture now with my first DSLR. Every purchase I have made since then has widened the latitude I have.

Those differences you can't see are the differences that the 5% will use to get unique or outstanding shots.

I think I have been lucky. The people I have been learning from are exacting in their craft, and set a very high standard for the results they want to attain. Equipment is a means to an end, something to solve a problem that they struggle with. Indeed they produce excellent results from what they have in their hands. Oddly with something better they produce even better results.

[monochrome]

@derrekkkite A bit tangential - but - the essential camera manufacturer conundrum is the concurrent diminishing return and increasing cost producing cameras with the capability to meet the needs of the 5%, versus how many rich fools in the 95% they can seduce into buying cameras with features they haven't the skill patience, need, desire or peripheral equipment to properly use. Canon - Nikon - sure, they have the resources to produce and support the cameras and lenses, and the marketing budget to embark on a plan of intentional seduction, but --

Who among (most of) us - and certainly among the general buying public - actually would use more than the K-S2 and a DA16~85 can produce?

[timcatn]

Who among (most of) us - and certainly among the general buying public - actually would use more than the K-S2 and a DA16~85 can produce?

I'll freely admit that I'm part of the 95% of fools Norm is referring to. However, I am also aware that I am part of that 95%. For me the equipment, or rather gadgets i should say, is part of the fun. This does not mean that i actually believe an expensive lens or whatever makes me a better photographer. Photographing, RAW development and cool equipment is all part of the hobby.


To answer your question I think very few (ignoring the lack of range)

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I would say they are awfully close. Certainly the difference is not enough to make or break this image. I understand that on the forum folks find it necessary to attack different size sensors. "Full frame is the best!" "Not if you need more depth of field." And so on. The reality is that at low iso there isn't a lot of difference. We forumites wax eloquently about these things, but if you take the final product, in many cases there is little enough difference.

Few photographers are truly wringing every ounce of dynamic range or sharpness out of their sensor. Few are shooting to the limit with regard to iso. Few truly benefit from extremely shallow depth of field. Most images are made in the middle with only a few photos being made at the extremes.

I know that you do shoot at the extremes with your wildlife photography and have spent more money in gear than most APS-C photographers would spend in twenty years, but not everyone needs that kind of performance.

This brings me back to the point of FF being more versatile and for lenses of the same low light performance like a 50-135 F2.8 for cropped and the 70-200 F4 for full frame the price difference is negligible. But when pushed with ether cropping to gain more reach or with a TC there is very little fine detail loss

Shot with a 36mp FF camera in 24mp crop 1.25 crop with a 70-200 F4 and 1.4 TC,


While this is not giving the full resolution advantage of what a FF 24mp body would you still see very little loss with a tc on a zoom wide open


You had a quibble with my run down a few weeks back on why someone would only buy FF and use equivalent lenses to what one would use on a cropped camera and this is why, with that single walk around lenses and TC priced in the ballpark of what a cropped cameras lenses cost I get a very sharp 70-350mm lens on a d800 cropped to 24mp

If all I have to do is pay the additional cost of the 24mp FF body to gain this resolution (versatility ), then only to realize that now any of my equivalent lenses, old out dated lenses, expensive primes and fast wide-angle lenses benefit from this cost it kind of makes the price of going FF not so bad. Spend more on a 36mp even more versatility



More of the people you speak of that don't need the benefits of FF are the very same that buy the K7 then the k5 then the K3 for less improvement than what we see between the k3 and a FF version of 24mp I bet you they'll still spend more next release in this chase next year. But once someone utters the 2 letters FF we have the brigade come along telling us how FF is not need for those people. I hope to see you in the next thread "should I up grade my K3II to the K3V"
I am out of this chase with the d800 that is 3 years old and in the next 3 years still be in the lead with IQ that I seek over apsc (only costing me $0.01 per photograph more). I only have 2 lens that cost me more than what I would have paid over a smaller format, the 28mm F1.8 $250 but its also a faster lens and the 35 F1.4 but if I went with F1.8 FF would have not cost me that much more

This photograph cost me 1 cent more going to a FF36 camera, I spent more on coffee that night than I did using a FF camera

[normhead]

Sorry Ian, I'm not giving shots like this up for what you are posting....







And please don't get into that thing where you criticize my work and build up yours. People can see with their own eyes, what's there. Or that long ramble where you spin everything. I'm being nice here.

But you make the mistake of generalizing. The other 5% can't be taken with the iPhone. And the people taking those shots cannot be generalized either.

Actually, unlike many of the 5% who don't even pay lip service to the 95% , I at least acknowledge that there is another 5%.

People who get into specialized parts of photography need special gear. That's all that needs to be said.

I'll freely admit that I'm part of the 95% of fools Norm is referring to. However, I am also aware that I am part of that 95%. For me the equipment, or rather gadgets i should say, is part of the fun. This does not mean that i actually believe an expensive lens or whatever makes me a better photographer. Photographing, RAW development and cool equipment is all part of the hobby.

People like the 5% owe people like you huge debt. In reality there is probably not enough to make manufacturing our gear possible. The segment of the market who support the production of equipment that they will never fully take advantage of, subsidizes the cost for people who regularly max out their equipment. If everyone bought a camera that handled 95% of their needs and ignored the top 5%, how expensive would those cameras and lenses be?

[monochrome]

I'll freely admit that I'm part of the 95% of fools Norm is referring to. However, I am also aware that I am part of that 95%. For me the equipment, or rather gadgets i should say, is part of the fun. This does not mean that i actually believe an expensive lens or whatever makes me a better photographer. Photographing, RAW development and cool equipment is all part of the hobby.


To answer your question I think very few (ignoring the lack of range)

For some it is more about the fishing than the fish.*




*Me, too. I just like 70's gear.

[normhead]

For some it is more about the fishing than the fish.*

When I was a Cabinet maker I was in constant competition at auctions for antique tools that looked good. There would be something like a Stanley 45 with it's cool appearance, fancy box etc. and people would buy them to display them on their bookshelves. Some people just like the look and feel of a good tool and are happy to collect. I like the images from my cheap plastic 35-80... but it feels nothing like my DA*60-250. The 60-250 I could just hold in my hand and admire, while watching a football game.

But that's not about cabinet making (or photography) . That's about owning cool things.

[kenspo]

This has become a stupid discussion. Haven't read everything, but still...If you dont need FF, fine for you! Dont get one! But there a few of us who does! Luckily there will be a FF option for us too soon. For me, APS-C isn't quite up there! FF is crucial for me! If Pentax haven't promised me FF, i would go back to Nikon in a heartbeat.

[timcatn]

Kenspo.


The arguement was that only 5% actually NEED FF or whatever high-end equipment. I think that is quite correct. You are obviously among those 5%.

[kenspo]

yes, i am amongst those 5%..But we pros that need and use FF, will also generate sales for lower cameras. So I'm glad Pentax knows that, and that the people here are not the ones to decide that

[afan137]

This has become a stupid discussion. Haven't read everything, but still...If you dont need FF, fine for you! Dont get one! But there a few of us who does! Luckily there will be a FF option for us too soon. For me, APS-C isn't quite up there! FF is crucial for me! If Pentax haven't promised me FF, i would go back to Nikon in a heartbeat.

Exactly Kenspo. If Pentax is not releasing Fullframe I will get Nikon Df. Of course I can take a great picture with APS-C, even with smartphone I can get good pictures (at base ISO), but certain situations require camera with larger sensor. We don't need to extend the discussion further whether each should stay with APS-C or go beyond APS-C. I recently watch this video,

You Tube

You Tube

He went from Nikon and Canon Fullframe to Pentax 645z. There is a limitation with his works, which can only be overcome by medium format.

[normhead]

yes, i am amongst those 5%..But we pros that need and use FF, will also generate sales for lower cameras. So I'm glad Pentax knows that, and that the people here are not the ones to decide that

Wow... exactly wrong, it's the people here who are selling this camera to Pentax. As noted above, if it was just the few pros willing to shoot Pentax buying this camera, it would have never been released. This camera will be a success, because of people like myself, who will buy it as part of their upgrade cycle, because it will be nice to have, not because we have to have it. The guys who have to have it should be thanking us. We will be the folks keeping this camera alive, not them.

No, need to thank us though, we're good.

For many of us old Pentaxians, with 30 or more years experience with the brand, it will be our next K-01, it's there, it will take good pictures, it works with what we have. We'll give it a go. We'll figure out how to make it work for us, and our work flow.

[monochrome]

Kenspo.


The arguement was that only 5% actually NEED FF or whatever high-end equipment. I think that is quite correct. You are obviously among those 5%.

And quite a number of the 95%, who don't need it, want it and will buy it. And others who stick with APSc will buy new FF lenses, which helps Pentax implement their plan.

[derekkite]

There is a wildlife photographer in my area who has consistently gotten excellent results from whatever he had in his hands. Mostly due to persistence and technique, as well as knowing the critters he gets unbelievably close to. He had the shot of a bear looking through his long lens on a tripod last year that went viral. He shoots Nikon, and has a very nice collection of lenses. And a D810. The latitude it gives him, the quality of files. I got the impression that the camera body for a number of reasons rarely got in the way of him getting results he desires.

I'm certain that within some constraints, particularly financial, that if he could get another stop of dr or noise he would jump at it and use it.

I must be lucky. The photographers I encounter wear their equipment out. If someone said that 12 mp was adequate they would politely change the subject. They aren't hardware collectors or chauvinists and talk hardware rarely. But they know the hard walls they face with what they use. And every time there is an improvement from whatever source; new hardware, better lens, a new technique for getting closer, mastering the flash, whatever, it shows up immediately in the quality of their shots, and more subtly, in what shots they start taking successfully.