Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-18-2015, 01:13 AM   #136
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
where this all started^^^
Sure and where you are right is that it is expensive to get a good enough say 600mm lens that would outresolve a 24MP FF or 10.5 MP APSC. It would have to be something like a 600mm f/4 prime. Not a 150-600 consumer zoom that is outresolved by most sensors.

11-18-2015, 01:36 AM   #137
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
you are right 10mp my mistake. But the difference in image quality is still very close to the same.
If 10.5MP is very close to the 24MP, then you'r FF could be as well a 10MP camera. But the reality is it is quite different.

Basically for great A4 print (nearly 8x12") you need 8MP for 300dpi. Once you have that, I'd say that enought for most uses. Even if you do an A2" print 24x16" print that would still be 150dpi a very respectable resolution and looking great and say if you print to again the double in both direction 48x32" you get 75dpi. If you look near to it, it will not look extremely sharp close to it, but still refined with details. But from a bit distance to appreciate the whole picture it will still look great. To give perspective, 8MP is also 4K from TV... and cinemas.

So basically when you take a photograph the goal is to get a great 8MP (or greater) picture. In many situation at low iso, you frame, take the shoot and have much more than 8MP.. That's perfect. But that's the final product that need that.

In term of dynamic range a screen is 10EV max even if some screen in the future will be made to really exploit 12EV. Typically APSC is 13-14EV and typical FF maybe 1EV more. Except canon of course that is worse by 1-2EV. Again you have a significant margin. The noise is very low at iso 100 and with modern post processing you can really reduce it. An iso 800 APSC image is really sharp and I think on FF you can extend that to 1600 iso.

What all of this give you? Well the possibility to under expose a bit to ensure you highlight are not burned and correct in post. This allow you to push the shadows. This allow you to correct for different optical issues and still have lot of resolution. This allow you to crop to reframe, in particular if you don't have a long enough lens or if the subject moved fast. This allow you to adapt when using a prime and couldn't walk to zoom. This allow you to bump the isos and still get a great result. This allow to do all of this combined if you are not too extreme on one setting.

So when you are after wildlife getting a 24MP image from your 300mm on APSC allow you to use that margin to crop significantly a subject that still small in the frame... So you reframe say to 600mm and your have still 6MP. It may not be the best 6MP ever but there still enough details.

If you come from an FF at 24MP you'll get only 2.6MP and that will really start to be soft. But I agree that if you come from a say 42MP FF, you'll get 4.5MP and you are not that far.

What all of this mean? It is if you are after wildlife/birding etc you'd want sharp lenses whatever your format but you'll also want a camera with the best resolution possible, to be able to crop more. That 36-42MP on FF, 24MP on APSC. And the 24MP APSC still give you an edge.
11-18-2015, 03:31 AM   #138
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,304
All I can say is that with good lenses I did see a resolution bump in low iso (below iso 800) between the 16 megapixel K5 and the 24 megapixel K3. If you use a poor lens, if technique is bad, or if the iso is too high, that advantage goes away. But comparing the 10 megapixel K10 to a K3, purely with regard to resolution, would be no contest.
11-18-2015, 07:54 AM   #139
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,275
Here is a sample I found in a review with a 100% 600 FA* on a k3 680iso
so I think I can say My original statement holds most of its water and please keep in mind It is not meant to be a brand thing its a technical comparison of current aps-c pixel density vs pixel area.


A7 FF 10mp Aps-c crop 150%

Out of fairness A7 FF 10mp Aps-c crop 150% a 680iso



Last edited by Sliver-Surfer; 11-18-2015 at 08:32 AM.
11-19-2015, 08:29 AM   #140
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,305
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
you are right 10mp my mistake. But the difference in image quality is still very close to the same.
The IQ of a 24 MP APS_c image is pretty much the same as the image of a 24 MP FF camera... so unless you're saying any 10 MP image is close to the same as any 24 MP image, well, ya, I'm right there with you on that one.

Tested on Photozone.
A 10 MP pentax with a DA 35 at ƒ5.6 produces 2256 mph
A 16 MP Pentax with a DA 35 produces at ƒ4 produces 2723 mph

Tested On imagine resources.

A 10 Mph camera if memory serves me well was down around 1900
A 16 Mp K-5 produced 2200 lph
A k-3 produces 2700 lph
A Sony A-7 produces 2900 lph.

So, if what you're saying is true, then 1900 lph looks pretty much the same as 2900 mph. Which is pretty interesting in that I have often said that a 24 MP K-3 doesn't look that much different than a 36 Mp Nikon D810, or a Sony A7r... at 3500 lines of strong detail.

Now generally when I make this point people call me an idiot. But those are the simple facts. As you pay more and more you get less and less. And in a lot of images, if you stack them up side by side, people will not say a D810 / A7r image is even better than a K-01 16 MP image.

I've been pointing this our for years. What I find funny is the folks who honestly believe they could tell the difference between a D750/A7R/D image and a K-3 image. There might be circumstance where you could, but in a blind test, my guess is people can't tell the difference 95% of the time.

So would it surprise me that a 10 MP image looks like a 24 MP image? Not at all. You're little bit of mis direction here is on setting it up so the 10 MP FF image is better than the 24 MP APS_c image. It could have been any 24 MP image FF or APS-c. You could have compared 10 MP FF crop and 24 MP FF and had much the same result. Sure you can see differences at 92 DPI on a computer screen, but when you are printing at 150 DPI or over, there's no practical difference. When you print at 150 DPI, you are reducing those tiny differences you see between an A7/D750 and a K-3 by 50%, making them even less noticeable than pixel peeping on a computer screen.

And the thing to take from that, which I noticed the other day, I have some great images taken with my 12 MP K-x, which hold up with anything I've taken recently. And I've talked to pros who have never upgraded from 12 MP.

This whole MP thing is blown way out of proportion.

I bought my K-3 for the vastly improved AF system and higher frame rate. For IQ my k-5 gives me enough crop room and IQ. And if at some point I do switch, which is still a possibility, it will be for an A7s. I can live with 12 MP if it gives me an extra 2 stops shutter speed for small birds. The MP isn't the issue. The other features are.

Honestly, you need to be discussing features other than IQ, I've never seen a blind test where people even care about the small difference between 2200 lwph and 3600 lwph, On a 30x20 inch print , you're talking differences of .02 inches. People don't see differences that small. Tests that say different are all anecdotal. There isn't one blind test conducted anywhere that says a 36 MP file is better in IQ than a 16 MP file, based on a viewer preference in a blind test, forget about a double blind, which is the normal scientific standard.

Enjoying art is not so much about fine detail as it is about the overall image being pleasing to look at. Resolution is not one of the attributes the make an image enjoyable to look at. An image does not have to be hi res to be high IQ.

QuoteQuote:
Out of fairness A7 FF 10mp Aps-c crop 150% a 680iso
Now compare to an un-cropped A7 image. taken the at the same size. You'll find you A7 in crop mode works almost as good as your A7 in FF mode for the same picture.

Last edited by normhead; 11-19-2015 at 08:58 AM.
11-19-2015, 09:04 AM   #141
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
....

Now generally when I make this point people call me an idiot. But those are the simple facts. As you pay more and more you get less and less. And in a lot of images, if you stack them up side by side, people will not say a D810 / A7r image is even better than a K-01 16 MP image.

I've been pointing this our for years. What I find funny is the folks who honestly believe they could tell the difference between a D750/A7R/D image and a K-3 image. There might be circumstance where you could, but in a blind test, my guess is people can't tell the difference 95% of the time.

.....
I tend to agree with you but I've read many posts on this message board from people who claimed they could see better sharpness when moving from a Pentax 16 MP camera to a K-3.
11-19-2015, 09:20 AM   #142
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,305
QuoteOriginally posted by IchabodCrane Quote
I tend to agree with you but I've read many posts on this message board from people who claimed they could see better sharpness when moving from a Pentax 16 MP camera to a K-3.
So have I, but, as I pointed out, never on a controlled test. Check out my thread on "Find that prime" I'm willing to bet a pile of people thought a prime image was so much better than a zoom, they'd be able to tell the difference, yet 80% of them couldn't.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/302815-35mm-find-prime.html

What people think they see, and what they actually see are two very different things....

I once saw a test of beer drinkers, people committed to one brand, doing a blind test (on film for a psychology course) of the five leading brands. Statistically, they couldn't tell the difference. When they couldn't pick out their brand, the first thing many of them did was attack the researcher. Next they made up excuses...
Sound familiar?

I came up with a couple of example images... one taken with a K-x (12 MP) , one taken with a K-3 (24 MP). Which image is higher IQ?

One should be twice as good as the other,,, no?





The standard response is "Well you can't tell anything at web size." To which I respond, well at what size can you tell the difference?" No one ever knows.

Last edited by normhead; 11-19-2015 at 09:34 AM.
11-19-2015, 11:27 AM   #143
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 301
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote

One should be twice as good as the other,,, no?
It is obvious that first image is at least twice as good as the second but I don't know what is the reason for that.
Could be a lot of things, sensor, lens, noise reduction, shutter speed or just bad example, but I am not sure which one is taken with K-x.
I had that camera for 2,5 years and took some really good images with it.


Last edited by banep; 11-19-2015 at 11:33 AM.
11-19-2015, 11:41 AM   #144
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
All I can say is that with good lenses I did see a resolution bump in low iso (below iso 800) between the 16 megapixel K5 and the 24 megapixel K3. If you use a poor lens, if technique is bad, or if the iso is too high, that advantage goes away. But comparing the 10 megapixel K10 to a K3, purely with regard to resolution, would be no contest.
Sounds about right. As a practical point, the biggest benefit of many mp may be that one can crop and crop and crop. Is that useful. You bet. Don't have to carry around as many lenses for one thing, although this statement seems to outrage some. With FF cameras with lots of mp, one can choose to use generally lighter weight crop lenses to flesh out the bag with some FF lenses for specific purposes. The crop lens mp on a 42 mp sensor is 18mp. Some people are outraged that one would even consider using crop lenses on a FF camera, but i care more about functionality and what i have at hand and what i have to carry. Whatever floats your boat
11-19-2015, 12:33 PM   #145
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by Sliver-Surfer Quote
Here is a sample I found in a review with a 100% 600 FA* on a k3 680iso
so I think I can say My original statement holds most of its water and please keep in mind It is not meant to be a brand thing its a technical comparison of current aps-c pixel density vs pixel area.


A7 FF 10mp Aps-c crop 150%

Out of fairness A7 FF 10mp Aps-c crop 150% a 680iso
Could you please provide the source of the review? I think there really something strange to it here. No offence.

1) A 150% enlargement on the A7 look better than a non enlarged image on the K3... This quite counter intuitive as even if the A7 shoot was perfect it should look by definition a bit soft a 150% and in no way could it have more detail than the APSC shoot after all an APSC sensor is just a cropped FF sensor, nothing more, nothing less.

2) Ironically, the A7 and K3 shoot don't display the same thing, so that's not really comparable.

3) Last time you failed to produce a 100% crop. First one was 50% crop from APSC, second one with the A6000/A7 was either from an already cropped camera or more a 80% shoot than a 100% shoot. A 1024 image should be 1/6 of the full picture in both direction, not 5 or 4 time only as a 24MP picture is 6000px wide.

Why not just provide the full picture in a link from a picture on a tripod a say f/8 with both camera on same lens, same subject and provide the full raws/jpgs? That would let people review things a bit and in term of methodology allow to have something more meaningfull.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-19-2015 at 01:07 PM.
11-19-2015, 01:03 PM   #146
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The standard response is "Well you can't tell anything at web size." To which I respond, well at what size can you tell the difference?" No one ever knows.
If your technique is perfect, at iso 100 pointing the same subject with exactly same focus point etc... Well on a 60" wide print looking close. On a 100% crop you'll see one has less magnfiication, sure but outside of people editing pictures this make no sense.

Eventually if you try to capture wildlife shoot and have to perform to crop heavy, I think you'll notice quite a difference with on one side a 12MP sensor with low pass filter and 24MP without low pass filter. But that would be it.

Now in the field, I think the K3 would perfrom better in more cases because of its better AF, exposure handling and so on because you'll increase your chances to get a better picture technically. For common picture, 2 well done picture by both camera would not be much different, but you'll increase you success rate significantly with a K3, in particular with challenging subjects.

But anyway when you start to think of that you discover that well the format, the actual MP, the superb quality of that lens. All of that doesn't make that much of a difference. You could get an edge with slightly better gear from 2 photographers at same level... Say FF vs APSC, say 36MP vs 24MP vs 16MP. But in the field, what is going to make or break things is the photographer skills and artistics qualities. Even a slightly better photographer would make a more visible difference.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-19-2015 at 01:12 PM.
11-19-2015, 01:56 PM - 1 Like   #147
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
This whole MP thing is blown way out of proportion.
given that you've never owned a ff camera, and apparently never even processed any ff images, i can see how you might think that

more mp allows the photo to be downsampled, which improves all aspects of pq:

"As can be seen, high-resolution sensors will gain more SNR, DR, TR and CS when reduced to a lower reference resolution. For DxOMark Sensor Overall Score and Metrics, we chose a reference resolution equal to 8 Megapixels, which is a bit less than a 12" x 8" print with a 300dpi printer. However, any other resolution can be chosen, as doing so only shifts the normalized values by a constant (because the reference resolution appears only as a logarithm in the formulas above).
What should be remembered is that doubling the resolution adds:
3dB to the normalized SNR
0.5 bit to the normalized DR
0.5 bit to the normalized TR
1.5 bit to the normalized CS."

i proved that conclusively, just a couple of days ago... compare the visible noise between the k3ii 24mp photo, vs. the k3ii with pixel-shifting, all at print resolution.

notice also how the little 16mp om-d em-1 looks so weak, k3ii wipes the floor with it...

Detailed computation of DxOMark Sensor normalization - DxOMark

11-19-2015, 03:31 PM   #148
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Could you please provide the source of the review? I think there really something strange to it here. No offence.

1) A 150% enlargement on the A7 look better than a non enlarged image on the K3... This quite counter intuitive as even if the A7 shoot was perfect it should look by definition a bit soft a 150% and in no way could it have more detail than the APSC shoot after all an APSC sensor is just a cropped FF sensor, nothing more, nothing less.

2) Ironically, the A7 and K3 shoot don't display the same thing, so that's not really comparable.

3) Last time you failed to produce a 100% crop. First one was 50% crop from APSC, second one with the A6000/A7 was either from an already cropped camera or more a 80% shoot than a 100% shoot. A 1024 image should be 1/6 of the full picture in both direction, not 5 or 4 time only as a 24MP picture is 6000px wide.

Why not just provide the full picture in a link from a picture on a tripod a say f/8 with both camera on same lens, same subject and provide the full raws/jpgs? That would let people review things a bit and in term of methodology allow to have something more meaningfull.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/278403-pent...s-reviews.html
11-20-2015, 01:38 AM   #149
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
given that you've never owned a ff camera, and apparently never even processed any ff images, i can see how you might think that
That's sure an issue: if you need to have owned an FF camera (I had a film one for example) and not just any but the few with 36, 42 or 50MP to see the difference it can give and can't notice it from actual prints in magazines, galeries, books or shares on the web, it mean the practical improvement are quite limited.

If something doesn't bring clearly visible added value, it might just be a waste of money.

Ironically for Canon or Nikon, the flagship isn't 36 or 50MP but 24MP or less. They don't seems to share the motivation for ultimate resolution you have here.
11-20-2015, 03:01 AM   #150
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 337
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Everything I have read about the A6000 and the A7r II says that these cameras do not take a back seat to SLRs when it comes to auto focus and tracking. Biggest issues probably have more to do with the EVF black out while taking photos, but surely that is fixable in the future.

I would say that we are pretty far from mirrorless cameras being the go-to camera for wildlife and sports photographers, but the same is true for Pentax cameras and that doesn't stop me from recommending them to others who aren't interested in those types of photography.

Mirrorless cameras are actually more similar than different when it comes to SLRs. Ergonomically, they do best when they mimic classic SLR design. The goal of good EVFs is to be as close to a high quality OVF as possible, albeit with some extra helps added in. The goal with PDAF on the sensor is to achieve similar results with auto focus to SLR performance.
I agree with you on some of this ! Most folks commenting on here are all negative about mirrorless, and I don't really think they've seen whats come out ! Completely oblivious to the competition really!

The situation is that Sony 35mm mirrorles is there ! AF is now hot to trot in some of the markii models ! The only problem is Sony hasn't built up its f/2.8 zoom lens collection in FE mount. When that happens A LOT of people might switch. Long pro lenses are also missing in FE mount. Using the A-mount long lenses with the "4" adapter puts a translucent mirror in the way, but the "3" adapter takes it out. Sony's up "s" creek without a paddle without those lenses.

But Sony's Bionz X, Sony's color science is not exactly there yet though.

The Sony A6000 can boost low light AF with this hack:
In time this feature might be a simple button push.

The Fuji's have some pretty good lenses, and X-T1 and siblings have firmware 4.0 with better AF.

Watch a Panasonic apparently match a Nikon D4s :

I research everything I can. Even though mirrorless sales figures are down, it doesn't mean they're out, and they're really looking as good as a DSLR's, but lacking certain long lenses.

There are certain things you get with mirrorless and certain things you get with a Pentax DSLR, and both appeal to me. But I'd like to see a K-02, because simply mirrorless is a leak which Pentax needs to plug, like they decided to do with the Pentax 35mm dslr. Pentax has been hemorrhaging users to full frame for years.

If Pentax is not in mirrorless soon again, then it'll have a struggle on its hands. Especially where its all software driven, and patents are already established.

Mirrorless is by no means or stretch of the imagination a fad. Its another threat to Pentax. Canikon might laugh it off, but it is looming.
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!
a7, af, auto focus, cipa statistics, data, dslr, dslrs, evf, ff, fujifilm, increase, lens, magnification, market, milc, milcs, normhead, ovf, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, production, project, september, september those dslrs, split, statistics for september, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ebay: Fa* 600mm + K5 Silver Edition for those of you who just won the lottery mgbirder Pentax Price Watch 10 11-18-2014 08:18 PM
Mirror-less cameras hanging on to their sales better than DSLRs per CIPA philbaum Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 22 06-02-2014 09:57 AM
My *ist DS just won't die jhaji Pentax DSLR Discussion 4 04-12-2013 10:07 PM
Cityscape winter just won't let go.......... dcmsox2004 Post Your Photos! 6 03-01-2011 08:08 AM
CIPA Global Dslrs numbers for 2008 are out & forcasts 2009-2011 Samsungian Pentax News and Rumors 9 02-06-2009 11:32 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:12 PM. | 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