Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-04-2016, 02:30 AM   #841
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 955
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
You given an examplen this doesn't mean that this really work. Last time I checked, hubble wasn't smaller than your typical m4/3 and there little change for that to happen.
You are comparing oranges to bananas. Hubble is far smaller then a 57600mm f/24 glass lens would be. A m43 camera with a 17,5mm f/,0,95 lens with natively m43 image circle is bigger then an hypothetical equivalent 4x3 inch CMOS sensor camera with a 114mm f/6 lens and bellow would be. An hypothetical m43 equivalent of that MF camera with a f/3,8 lens is probably on the edge of what is possible to make. The hypothetical m43 equivalent It would be huge, expensive, heavy and compromise on close focusing distance and image quality. Keeping good image quality with a f/3,8 lens on a 3x4 inch sensor camera is not a problem. Its actually quite easy. The only problem is that the hypothetical sensor doesnt exist and if it did it would be far too expensive. Now, have in mind that I use extreme examples to make the effects of sensor size choices more visible then it is with lets say APS-C vs FF. On the latter comparison, the effect would be smaller and in many cases not obvious and could be confused with other factors affecting size and weight.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Possible because of f/4 vs f/2.8 and because there no much more than a stop difference between APSC and FF. This doesn't scale to more different format outside of 1-2 lenses well choosed comparison
Thats true, but again, I must underline that I talk about the the future and predict the direction of how sensor sizes and lens sizes will develop over time, given the demands of customers and cost and weight affected by stipulating the current trends into the future.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
You assume this will happen, but since photography was invented, the long tendency is the opposite.
You forget the huge discontinuity of the film to digital age, and shift from per image rolling costs to initial sensor investment cost. You should look at only the digital side of the discontinuity to avoid getting confused by totally different factors influencing the film sizes. At the digital side we have seen over a decade and a half the exact same thing as I predict for the next decade or two. Sensors at all sizes have become cheaper, photography enthusiasts as a general group have shifted a sensor size upwards and the focus on small size have become stronger. Sorry that I'm a bad predictor, just predicting existing trends to continue.

03-04-2016, 04:18 AM   #842
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,230
I doubt that APS-C is going anywhere any time soon. The fact that the sensor is smaller lets it be priced somewhat below full frame prices. Obviously Canon and Nikon decided that it was worthwhile to release an upper end APS-C camera, as the D500 is coming out and the 7D MK II has been out for awhile. Often the biggest problem with APS-C cameras is that they don't have high end auto focus systems and buffers -- I suppose because the brands want to push photographers into full frame bodies. Every sensor size is a bit of a compromise, but I wouldn't be surprised if eventually APS-C sensors are pushed out of top tier cameras.

As to all the negativity in this thread towards Pentax, I am not surprised, but I think it is unwarranted. Pentax offers a lot of features for a given price point -- more than what other camera makers do. That said, they are not a huge company and there are certain areas where they lag behind -- one of those is definitely video performance. It is there, but it isn't great in their cameras. I hesitate to say what AF-C will be like on the K-1 because I haven't used one, but I think it will be adequate -- although probably not for sports (frame rate and 36 megapixels probably precludes that anyway). The K3 is adequate. My wife shoots weddings in dark situations and has had no trouble keeping up and getting sharp shots. Once again, it is about skill of the photographer and their ability to maximize their gear.

But in the end, life is too short to shoot gear that frustrates you. Try the other brands and if they click with you, it is fine to switch. For me, personally, I am excited by where Ricoh has taken Pentax already and the future looks bright.
03-04-2016, 05:32 AM   #843
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
You are comparing oranges to bananas. Hubble is far smaller then a 57600mm f/24 glass lens would be. A m43 camera with a 17,5mm f/,0,95 lens with natively m43 image circle is bigger then an hypothetical equivalent 4x3 inch CMOS sensor camera with a 114mm f/6 lens and bellow would be. An hypothetical m43 equivalent of that MF camera with a f/3,8 lens is probably on the edge of what is possible to make. The hypothetical m43 equivalent It would be huge, expensive, heavy and compromise on close focusing distance and image quality. Keeping good image quality with a f/3,8 lens on a 3x4 inch sensor camera is not a problem. Its actually quite easy. The only problem is that the hypothetical sensor doesnt exist and if it did it would be far too expensive. Now, have in mind that I use extreme examples to make the effects of sensor size choices more visible then it is with lets say APS-C vs FF. On the latter comparison, the effect would be smaller and in many cases not obvious and could be confused with other factors affecting size and weight.


Thats true, but again, I must underline that I talk about the the future and predict the direction of how sensor sizes and lens sizes will develop over time, given the demands of customers and cost and weight affected by stipulating the current trends into the future.
Oh but that my point, if one going to buy a system he isn't interrested in what he might be able to get in 20 or 50 years with hypothetic 3x4" sensor or whatever else... By that time the guy may have changed hobbies, be actually dead and photography as we know it today as popular as vinyl plus tube amplifier for music listening.

For your prediction to happen there must be a benefit. Having a bigger sensor just to compensate for something else, could be argued as a good enough reason, but that may not convince everybody to buy your future.

You insist on things that as you say yourself don't exist, are hypothetical or at best would be very expensive.

I'll go to Kenya this year. If I take your hypothetical gear with me, I'll get hypothetical picture with it and I'll to remind of the trip in mind because well nothing of that really exist. So that would be all I have, my memories. Not very useful in practice.

You sell us vaporware.

QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
You forget the huge discontinuity of the film to digital age, and shift from per image rolling costs to initial sensor investment cost. You should look at only the digital side of the discontinuity to avoid getting confused by totally different factors influencing the film sizes. At the digital side we have seen over a decade and a half the exact same thing as I predict for the next decade or two. Sensors at all sizes have become cheaper, photography enthusiasts as a general group have shifted a sensor size upwards and the focus on small size have become stronger. Sorry that I'm a bad predictor, just predicting existing trends to continue.
But that very relevant, people were predicting the future of photography with film in mind back in the time. Many didn't see the digital revolution. There could be other discontinuities at some point that make you projection moot.

Not long ago, for computers, there was the moore law... It was our future. I remember hardware designer explaining to me that in 2010 10Ghz processor would be common. After they said we no more increase frequency, we switch to multicore blablah, for same year 2010, 32 core processors were supposed to be common and by 2016, we should have commonly 256 core processors. I don't see many.

I brought my first dual core processor 10 years ago, they introduced 4 core processor 2 years after but till then we are stuck with 4 core in most cases.

Things almost never evolve as predicted for very long.

Ironically, processor and sensor share the same basic technology... That stoped its evolution a few years agos with only marginal improvements in the last years.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-04-2016 at 05:52 AM.
03-04-2016, 06:56 AM - 1 Like   #844
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 955
I don't think you understand what trend analysis are, since you are complaining of not being able to buy now what is predicted in the future.

Speaking of discontinuities, I think array cameras will become popular with phones and eat its way up towards high end compact cameras with fixed lenses.

---------- Post added 03-04-16 at 03:52 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by xandos Quote
Let me see if I understood you correctly. You are stating that you could have a similar-sized or even smaller lens on a larger format camera and get similar performance to a smaller sensor system with a larger lens. Okay, I never thought about it like that, but it makes sense. You then state that FF lenses don't have to be bigger, but that customers are simply more demanding. This is where the arguments gets a bit trickier. Of course, to some degree you are right, the customers that are willing to invest more do so only to get better performance.
Yes, I think you understand it correctly. People will upgrade camera sensor size at a higher rate then upgrading lens (exposure) qualities. For instance medium formats are often limited to around f/2,8 for primes and f/4 for zooms. "Worse" aperture numbers then usual in smaller formats.

QuoteQuote:
In general people don't look at it this way. Basically people don't want lenses that are significantly outperformed by the sensor. Lenses that do that are seen as being bad lenses. Cameras with bigger sensors and a bigger pixel-count do need better engineered lenses to match the bigger sensor with a higher pixel count.
There is two things here. Larger sensors "give" shorter DoF and less noise, well, thats at least the general understanding I see floating around the web. But the sensor size its not the true cause of these effects. Its the larger aperture diameter. When using longer focal lengths to achieve a certain field of view on a larger sensor, and keeping the same aperture number, that means the aperture diameter gets bigger. This is the true cause of the shallower depth of field and more light gathering ability (less noise at a given f-number). Lens resolution is a different thing. Its not related to the aperture number or diameter as the noise levels are. In very general term, resolution is far more dependent on the sensor. If we compare DXOmark Perceived megapixels or line pair per mm and multiply by the sensor dimensions its very clear that bigger sensors in general give better resolution then smaller ones, when they are coupled with optics in the same quality class, or weight or price class if you will. In other words, you are likely getting better system resolution from a 200$200 gram lens on a full frame camera then you are getting with a 400$ 400 gram lens on a m43 camera or a 1000$ 1 kg lens on a 1/2" sensor camera. Resolution fanatics would benefit from choosing larger sensors, even if they choose to upgrade to proportionally more expensive optics. Short DoF fanatics will benefit from choosing larger sensors both because it enables larger aperture diameters and because they can get the same aperture diameter at a lower cost. Noise fanatics will benefit from larger sensors if they don't downgrade the aperture number more then the change in sensor sizes. Witch also means they could get the same noise levels with a cheaper lens, so they only shift money from the lens budged to the camera budget.

QuoteQuote:
I personally found your post slightly confusing because of the tricky ways in which the word 'resolution' can be used. Usually resolution is indicated as number of pixels per area. However, in the linked example, the pixel-pitch of the sensor was huge. The amount of pixels and the field of view was the same between the huge sensor with the pinhole lens and the 35mm-format 50mm f/38 camera and lens. So in the conventional way of using the word resolution, the resolution between these two hypothetical cameras is different. However, as the cameras have the same number of pixels and the same field of view, this might indicate that we should use another type of resolution, where we simply divide number of pixels by the area-of-view (for example as a fraction of the surface of a sphere). Using that as a definition for resolution, the resolution of the two different systems becomes the same, and your statement that a large sensor with smaller optics can perform the same as bigger optics with a smaller sensor is valid.
I'm sorry for the confusing part. I use the word resolution as a description of the level of details, for the total system, camera with lens included.

QuoteQuote:
When we now go back to FF vs ASPC, we should note that often (although not always), the FF camera will have a higher megapixel count. For two lenses giving the same field of view, the requirements on the FF lens will be higher if it is to match the full-frame resolution.
To match the sensor megapixel count or per area resolution yes. But that is often irrelevant to the final product on paper. In my mind its the final product resolution that matters. Line pairs per image height or with.

QuoteQuote:
The last point in your post is interesting to think about: having budget systems with worse optics and better sensors as the prices of sensors become lower compared to lenses. I guess it would make perfect sense for that to happen, limited of course by the size of cameras people are happy to put up with. I think most people (those which need huge glass excluded) will always prefer to get the same performance out of a system that is easier to carry around, so there will be some compromise. Anyway, thanks for the interesting post!
Yes absolutely! Thanks for putting it much more clearly then I did. English is not my native language so I struggle a bit with formulation of explanations.

QuoteQuote:
Disclaimer: I do not understand lens design, and do not know what extra difficulties present themselves when optimizing for corner sharpness for a lens with a larger sensor and the same flange-to-rear-element distance. I suspect that the simplified reasoning used above and in the link might break down there.
That goes for me too. I don't know much about lens designs although I would love to learn. Most of what I write on this topic is gathered from different databases and other sources of resolution, lens databases, camera databases with price history, physics of the basic principles of sensor sizes, apertures, focal lengths and so on. And of course my understanding of what other photographers want and willingness to pay.

03-05-2016, 03:09 AM   #845
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
I don't think you understand what trend analysis are, since you are complaining of not being able to buy now what is predicted in the future.
No that just you make assumptions and hypothesis on things that do not exist.

We are not manufacturer of camera and lenses ourself. You neither, you said it explicitely, you have no particular knowledge on that area so you just try to extrapolate. At some point people were buying house for whatever price and banks accepting to give mortage to people that couldn't pay because well the house will always resell higher... This was the trend. Each years the prices when higher. Until the prices collapsed.

But this thread and subject is about 2016 not 2025 or 2035. Will there be an APSC camera this early this year or not using A7000 sensor or not. Short term. And it is likely implicitely more precise than that. Ricoh/Pentax, K-mount and of course, what we could expect of it.

People are arguing then why a new APSC camera is of any interrest or not, make sense because it might drive Ricoh decision. Some say that there no need for more APSC body now the K1 is out. Some say there is still good reason. Some reasons being price/weight/size.

Theses reasons are valid today. They might not be valid anymore in 2025... That your point. But this doesn't give a practical solution on how to take photos until then. Lot of things can happen in 10 years. A good share of this forum member will have shifted interrest or even died (trends say to us not all photographers are young).

I don't think that some manufacturer or Pentax even would change everything this year to make things you predict from trends happen right now instead of maybe in 5, 10, 20 years, if it happen at all.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-05-2016 at 03:14 AM.
03-05-2016, 03:52 AM   #846
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 955
I'm sorry that I talked of topic, I just love to talk about things that are not quite obvious right around the corner.

I think the K-1 will take some of the market from the top APS-C line, so the K-3II is probably not the first to be replaced. But the rest of the APS-C line are still very important both because its a much larger market then FF, and because it bottom feeds the upgrade path within K mount. Without APS-C K mount the FF K mount would suffer badly.

I think the K-S1 are the first to be replaced. Then the K-S2 and maybe a K-01 replacement with EVF.
03-05-2016, 04:07 AM   #847
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
I'm sorry that I talked of topic, I just love to talk about things that are not quite obvious right around the corner.

I think the K-1 will take some of the market from the top APS-C line, so the K-3II is probably not the first to be replaced. But the rest of the APS-C line are still very important both because its a much larger market then FF, and because it bottom feeds the upgrade path within K mount. Without APS-C K mount the FF K mount would suffer badly.

I think the K-S1 are the first to be replaced. Then the K-S2 and maybe a K-01 replacement with EVF.
I am pessimistic about K-01 with OF and say K3 AF performance and sensor. I would buy it in a heartbeat, but I don't think it will happen soon.

For this year, the most likely if the previous trends are valid is Pentax will replace first the mid/entry level body so K50/K-S1/K-S2 announcing likely 1, maybe 2 bodies for theses segments. A mix between current K-S2 and K3/K3-II.

Then at the end of this year to target Christmass or april 2017 if they missed that, replacement for K3. Likely using a good share of K1 technology: improved AF-C, maybe K1 ergonomics, one of their articulated screens (either from K-S2 or K-1), 5 stops SR and futher improved pixel shift, potentially a better sensor/processor with bump in video formats.
03-08-2016, 08:18 PM   #848
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
Elsewhere on the web I'm hearing some amazing features of the new Nikon D500:
(1) 21 MB
(2) no OnBoard Flash
(3) use sensor to level image

I think I've been there before - like roughly a year ago when the Pentax K-3ii was announced.
Remember, the next time someone complains about something Nikon has that Pentax isn't doing yet,
sometimes Nikon gets there first, but sometimes they don't.

03-08-2016, 08:35 PM - 1 Like   #849
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,426
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Elsewhere on the web I'm hearing some amazing features of the new Nikon D500:
(1) 21 MB
(2) no OnBoard Flash
(3) use sensor to level image

I think I've been there before - like roughly a year ago when the Pentax K-3ii was announced.
Remember, the next time someone complains about something Nikon has that Pentax isn't doing yet,
sometimes Nikon gets there first, but sometimes they don't.
10,000 words arguing about IDK what. Finally a post about a real rumor.
03-23-2016, 10:27 AM   #850
Pentaxian
The Squirrel Mafia's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 878
I just downloaded an ISO 6400 RAW file from the new Sony A6300.

Sony A6300 Review: Now Shooting! - Thumbnails

The luminance noise looks a lot better & when comparing the A6300's RAW file to the Sony A6000 & Pentax K-3/K-3II ISO 6400 RAW file, it's almost 1 stop better! The luminance grain is finer than the A6000 & K-3/K-3II which leads to better fine detail preservation. It's like ISO 6400 on the A6300 is about ISO 3200 on the A6000 & K-3/K-3II. That's pretty darn good!

I wonder if Pentax will be using this sensor on the next APS-C flagship. The image quality out of that sensor is pretty amazing. Hmmm........ I do hope so!
03-23-2016, 03:15 PM   #851
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 955
Did you download the NR0 file or the NR2D file?
03-23-2016, 03:33 PM   #852
mee
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,916
To me, ISO 800 looks OK.. a little soft but that is to be expected at that ISO.

ISO 1600 looks rough but somewhat usable.. ISO 3200 is atrocious. This sensor still falls off at ISO 800 just like the current Pentax used APS-C sensors and degrades IQ rapidly. I suspect there isn't much more improvement that can be gained on this sensor size.
03-23-2016, 05:08 PM   #853
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by The Squirrel Mafia Quote
I just downloaded an ISO 6400 RAW file from the new Sony A6300.

Sony A6300 Review: Now Shooting! - Thumbnails

The luminance noise looks a lot better & when comparing the A6300's RAW file to the Sony A6000 & Pentax K-3/K-3II ISO 6400 RAW file, it's almost 1 stop better! The luminance grain is finer than the A6000 & K-3/K-3II which leads to better fine detail preservation. It's like ISO 6400 on the A6300 is about ISO 3200 on the A6000 & K-3/K-3II. That's pretty darn good!

I wonder if Pentax will be using this sensor on the next APS-C flagship. The image quality out of that sensor is pretty amazing. Hmmm........ I do hope so!
I didn't manage to develop the raw file of the Sony in DxO (not yet supported), but I developped the equivalent JPEG from K3 and compared both on a crop with A6300.

The K3 with DxO prime is much much better... I don't know what you got from the A6300 raw, would be interresting to compare...

In attachment you can find a crop of this. First is A6300 JPG crop, second is K3 prime denoising from raw

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.
03-23-2016, 05:57 PM   #854
Pentaxian
The Squirrel Mafia's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 878
^ You have to compare RAW outputs. When DXO gets the update, you should be good to go. RawTherapee can develop the A6300 RAW file already.


QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
Did you download the NR0 file or the NR2D file?
Digital Cameras, Sony A6300 Digital Camera Test Image
^ Sony A6300 ISO 6400 NR0

Digital Cameras, Pentax K3 II Digital Camera Test Image
^ Pentax K-3II ISO 6400 NR0
03-24-2016, 12:51 AM   #855
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
So I given RawTherapee a go.

First one is Sony A6300, second one is K3, both from raw using same denoising parameters from raw therapee. I agree there more remaining luminance noise on the K3 and that overall the K3 picture is more saturated/colorfull. As to say there 1EV difference, I don't think so, theses picture has about the same level of detail available in raw therapee, the A6300 being mostly less saturated colorfull/contrasted that reduce a bit also the contrast of the noise.

No really significant difference to me. We might find one has 0.1-0.3 EV better Snr or something but the whole the new 6400 is like the old 3200 stuff, I don't buy it.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.
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!
a7000, aps, aps-c, apsc pentax, budget, camera, delay, dollar, dslr, ff, frame, generations, glass, info, k-3, k-5, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, photography, product, quality, release, replacement, request, ricoh, rumor, sensor, sony, sources, sub, time, weight
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Pentax 645D2014 also uses the 50MP Sony CMOS sensor! ElJamoquio Pentax News and Rumors 442 03-21-2014 12:57 AM
Using 67 lenses on Pentax APSC bodies-focal length setting cleffa Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 2 11-26-2013 05:22 AM
K-3 with 24mp Sony A77 sensor will be announced in early October jogiba Pentax News and Rumors 35 10-01-2013 02:07 PM
Behold! Sony's new trojan horse DSLR, the A7000 Z-shift JohnBee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 09-02-2013 06:26 AM
New APSC/FF sensor news beginning to take shape... JohnBee Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 4 07-06-2011 04:11 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:23 AM. | 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