[Asahiflex]

Only a new update in the FF teaser can take us away from this meaningless vicious cycle of sensor performance. To be true I've also stopped reading this thread because I find it hard to understand and of very little interest the controversy. Everyone knows what he needs for his kind of photography and that doesn't change. Cool down everybody and enjoy your hobby or your profession for some of you!

I completely agree with you; in the last few years it's been the same old s*** over and over again, just a different (Groundhog!) day. I'm convinced that the "theorist photographers" (you know, the ones who know everything there's to know about a single pixel) will never disappear from any of the forums.

[Kunzite]

But what if the update will be about the sensor performance compared to APS-C?
<ducks>

[Mistral75]

But what if the update will be about the sensor performance compared to APS-C?
<ducks>

Firebug!

[redpit]

But what if the update will be about the sensor performance compared to APS-C?
<ducks>

[Fogel70]

The good thing is that there can't be any difference in sensor performance, as you can only compare them when they perform the same.
If you see any difference there must be something wrong with the measurement, because all sensor are of equal value, just like people in a democracy.

[Simen1]

Sure this is possible even if complex and expensive, but if you are in the market for ultimate shallow deph of field, you'll buy an FF because the lenses are actually there. That they could be there on APSC but are not there in practice, it is not that interresting.

I think large aperture wide angles are much more about exposure time vs ISO then it is about DoF. Those lenses cant be made without large compromises on optical performances so the largest apertures are more a kind of emergency modes to reduce exposure time or ISO on the cost of optical performances.

Living a perfect place for aurora borealis, northern lights, I would love a large aperture wide angle for that purpose, but I don't like the idea of needing to focus precisely or having much coma or curved focal plane. The nicest APS-C lenses I have found for this, at what I call resonable prices, is the Samyang 8mm f/3,5 and Sigma 18-35 f/1,8. Both have high resolution and low coma. A hypothetical 8-16mm f/1,8 (same wideness as the Samyang and same zoom factor and aperture as the Sigma) would probably not be possible. If it was it would probably be huge, expensive and much worse at coma and resolution.

Note that Pentax as well as other brands choose to have the same flange distance in their first APS-C cameras as in their earlier FF cameras because of lens compatibility. That means that the possible (and favourable in technical ways) downscaling of the flange distance wasn't done. I'm happy with that choice but understand it has shortcomings for lens designers.

[bxf]

Especially pics taken with ISO3200+ and is suppose to be printed bigger

I don't think anyone here claims that FF never has an advantage. Rather, the contention is that the advantage occurs in limited situations. The above quote essentially confirms that position.

[kenspo]

I let this thread live on without me..lol..i Just picked up a 645Z today to play with..Much more fun

[normhead]

Is it something wrong with me? Because i dont see the point in a discussion? I'm allowed to have a rant here, just as everybody else

Well as you said, you were warned about us... we were blind sided, nobody warned us about you.."

I am not here to make friends! I always speak from the heart and i dont sweet talk anything to please you or others. But that said, i have made many nice friends here. So you speak for everyone do you?

And why is it me and not you who should find the door? I've noticed, that you are not that good to make friends here either

But Mr Know It All, if i bother you that much, just ignore my posts

Did someone force you to read the thread?

I am not here to make friends! I always speak from the heart and i dont sweet talk anything to please you or others. But that said, i have made many nice friends here. So you speak for everyone do you?

Ya, but apparently you have a problem with other people who speak from the heart and behave the same as you. You've become another one of those Nikon guys talking about Nikon gear on a Pentax forum, spouting the "my Nikon FF is better than your Pentax K-3" nonsense we've heard so many times before. You guys just don't get it. "We don't care." We are happy getting it done with what we have, we aren't changing brands and if you can't respect that go somewhere else. This is mostly a Pentax users helping other Pentax users forum. Why Pentax thought you could be some kind of ambassador is beyond me.


We want Benjikan back, at least he gave us a great photoshoot that was shot with Pentax gear and published in a major magazine once a month. What exactly is it you're bringing to the table?

You love your Nikon 36x24 and you hope the Pentax is as good. Is that your pitch? That will help Pentax out a lot. What exactly is it you're supposed to do for Pentax again?

SO if you're not here to make friends, that's a good thing, cause you're succeeding.

I've been the first one defending you a couple of times in the past. But, you've crossed the Nikon FF snob line this time.

Lets see who comes to your rescue this time.

Probably all the other "My 20 year old Nikon FF is better than your K-3." clowns.

It's like some guy saying "My 20 year old Mercedes is better than your new Toyota." It doesn't matter if it's true. The only thing being said in that statement is the speaker is solely lacking in social grace.

[mee]

This is mostly a Pentax users helping other Pentax users forum. Why Pentax thought you could be some kind of ambassador is beyond me. We want Benjikan back, at least he gave us a great photoshoot that was shot with Pentax gear and published in a major magazine once a month. What exactly is it you're bringing to the table?

You love your Nikon 36x24 and you hope the Pentax is as good. That will help Pentax out a lot. What exactly is it you're supposed to do for Pentax again?

SO if you're not here to make friends, that's a good thing, cause you're succeeding.

I've been the first one defending you a couple of times in the past. But, you've crossed the Nikon FF snob line this time.

Lets see who comes to your rescue this time.

The fact that people are agreeing with him and not with you should give you a hint that is probably time for you to take a seat.

[Kunzite]

norm, please don't make things uglier than they already are.

[discharged]

Usually I agree with you ... but this time I don't understand it all, and the parts I do understand I don't agree with. He did not insult the whole forum; I'm a member of this forum, and I certainly don't feel insulted. I was going to say more, but the wiser action is probably just for me to say that there are people here who need a hobby.

I do believe the problem is that they have a hobby, and they are obsessing a bit...

...
How do you win the 36x24 noise argument? You claim that one of the metrics is irrelevant. Depth of Field is irrelevant, shutter speed is irrelevant, something always doesn't count. With all due respect, this is like little kids up on the playground making up rules to some game they are playing, so they win.

The fact is, sometimes shutter speed is relevant, sometimes Depth of Field is relevant. Sometimes (as in the above images) they are both relevant at the same time.Now there are photographers for whom depth of field is kind of a fuzzy thing. They've never been trained to pay attention to it. In fact they've never had a camera where you can actually see it in their little viewfinder. So for the untrained photographer it is easy to make that kind of statement. For those of us who have been in the studio struggling to get all of a product in focus with an 8x10 or 4x5 film camera, we are acutely aware of depth of field , and for those of us who understand that when we are struggling with noise, we are always also struggling with reciprocity, we are also acutely aware of what is happening with our light intensity and shutter speed.

Apparently many of these people who profess 36x24 noise advantage are not fully understanding those things, or they wouldn't be making this same mistake over and over again.

Same picture same noise. You cannot change this without altering the picture. That's equivalence. "It doesn't matter if I change the picture or this or that function." isn't an argument. There is always an instance where it does, that negates that type of argument, every one of them.

You probably know what you are talking about, and you might be theoretically correct, but does that matter when in reality you are wrong?

ISO 100 will always be the same when it comes to how sensitive it is to light. but there is a difference between different sensors on how much noise or false positive the same ISO setting will give you. I can show you significant difference between different sensors with the same size and resolution, and for some reason, I am not at all sure why... But full frame or 36x24 sensors seem to be able to handle noise or false positives better than any APS-C sized sensor commercially available. technically there is no difference on construction, they are all CMOS sensors. What you focus on in all of your argumentation is saying that FF sensors handle noise better than APS-C sensors based on the size and format of the sensor is nonsense.

but what people really say when they state that FF sensors handle noise better than APS-C sensors is actually about APS-C and FF sensors commercially available

And if I ask you, out of the cameras/sensors commercially available which one handles noise the best?

I let this thread live on without me..lol..i Just picked up a 645Z today to play with..Much more fun

I did the same today aswell... Oh, right... that didn't really happen. My bad...

[Gimbal]

I let this thread live on without me..lol..i Just picked up a 645Z today to play with..Much more fun

Don’t get your hopes up to high though, remember that due to the law of equivalence you are not allowed to use any setting that produces images that cannot be replicated on an APS-C system.

Also remember that the dxomark print graphs are a load of crap for suggesting that a 645 produces less noise then a Nikon D2H from 2003. It is the screen graph that tells the truth, they are both equal (well the Nikon is slightly better due to bigger pixels.)

Ok, just having a little fun, don't take it to serious.

[normhead]

norm, please don't make things uglier than they already are.

No problem, I've had my say.

---------- Post added 01-05-16 at 10:21 AM ----------

And if I ask you, out of the cameras/sensors commercially available which one handles noise the best?

Imagine Resources has their test shots taken at all different ISOs and on every camera out there. SO, anyone who wants to know can check this. So the simple fact is some full frames have almost a full 2 stop advantage, and some full frames have hardly any advantage at all.

It's all about the individual cameras, not about APS-c vs Full Frame. Exactly the point I've been making since day one.

That and that up to 1600 ISO I have very little problem with noise on my K-3 and K-5. I have 5 stops to work with,instead of 6 or 7. So what we are talking about in most cases are images that are so far up the ISO curve that they have already lost noticeable dynamic range. IN good light even a Lumix FX1000 1 inch sensor produces great images.

But this is what the Full Frame guys want to do. You want to talk about your best images. They want to talk about low light images. What are you going to do? IN most cases your best images are not low light images.

[redpit]

No problem at all! Things have cool down I think as we are on the same boat in here I believe!

If Pentax-Ricoh has humor and monitors what is going on in PF the next update will be about high ISO performance and noise levels, as they did with the squirrel photo in the previous one! :-P