Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2016, 03:39 AM   #751
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
@D1N0: Yes, in some cases (like studio) its an advatage that 645Z don't need pixel shift to reach its level of sharpness. In other situations where pixel shift is usable, its not longer an advantage over K-1, but more or less equal.

No, a bigger sensor don’t mean you can shoot in another perspective. You select perspective by selecting lenses.

Rondec: I haven’t seen ISO and DR comparizons between 645D and modern FF cameras, but since it had CCD and other 33x44 CCD cameras show they was behind FF cameras on both DR and ISO in 2010 I suspect also the 645D is somewhat in the same area. I cant be sure, but I suspect. Going over to the CMOS sensor in 645Z its far better then its older CCD predecessor, and according to the DXO withdrawn results somewhat better then Sonys best FF cameras. But the difference isn’t large enough to compensate for the much larger apertures available in FF lenses. So a photograper wanting less noise would be better of using a Sony FF with f/1,4 and ISO 400 in stead of a 645Z with F/2,8 and ISO 1600 and the same shutter speed. 645Z doesn’t have a 2 stop advantage.
There are very few situations where f1.4 on full frame would actually be a good idea. Even with sharp lenses, the depth of field is often narrow enough that this is pretty unusable.

As to the 645D, DXO Mark did test it and it isn't near the top of the lists either with regard to high iso performance or to dynamic range. But certainly based on images on the forum, it does a great job, even now.

Anyway, I can't afford a 645Z or even 645D, but can afford a K-1. In a perfect world, I would still love to get a 645Z and a 28-45 zoom and use it basically for landscape photography. I think those who can afford it will still gravitate in that direction.

03-06-2016, 03:52 AM   #752
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,164
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
It seems to me that MF is more used for studio, fashion, advertisement, landscapes, picture of antiquities and art... So at base iso most of the time.
Like Raymond Depardon of magnum photo , using large format camera on a wooden tripod. I'm not sure if he is looking at DXO mark figures, but he once said that Nikon FF wasn't about art, but this kind of camera was for people in hurry, not his style he said ;-)
03-06-2016, 04:23 AM   #753
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 947
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
There are very few situations where f1.4 on full frame would actually be a good idea. Even with sharp lenses, the depth of field is often narrow enough that this is pretty unusable.
If you stop it down to f/2,0 and use ISO 800 you would get equal depth of field and noise levels as the 645Z with f/2,8 and ISO1600. Since its equal its not an advantage or reason to pay a lot more for the 645Z.

But if you use the 645Z at ISO100, there is no ISO50 to push the K-1 into. Then the 645Z would in theory make cleaner images. Cleaner then very very clean is not necessarily visibly cleaner.

In a perfect (or utopic) world, I would have a medium format camera with f/1,4 primes and f/2,8 zooms, all light weight and affordable priced.

biz-engineer: Film are quite interesting, but its severely hindered by its film "sensor" technology. So it needs a huge area to compensate for the per area shortcomings. Large format are more then large enough to compensate for shortcomings in noise and detail that would be common with FF film vs FF digital. In the right hands, large format film cameras can produce stunning results that are impossible to imitate with current digital cameras, even medium format. In a perfect/utopic world we would have large format CMOS sensors.. Even with astronomic budgets its currently not feasible. The worlds largest telescopes in space and on ground uses multiple medium format* sensors side by side with a gap in between. (*I guess 10x5 cm can be called medium format)

Last edited by Simen1; 03-06-2016 at 04:31 AM.
03-06-2016, 04:33 AM   #754
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
If you stop it down to f/2,0 and use ISO 800 you would get equal depth of field and noise levels as the 645Z with f/2,8 and ISO1600. Since its equal its not an advantage or reason to pay a lot more for the 645Z.

But if you use the 645Z at ISO100, there is no ISO50 to push the K-1 into. Then the 645Z would in theory make cleaner images. Cleaner then very very clean is not necessarily visibly cleaner.

In a perfect (or utopic) world, I would have a medium format camera with f/1,4 primes and f/2,8 zooms, all light weight and affordable priced.

biz-engineer: Film are quite interesting, but its severely hindered by its film "sensor" technology. So it needs a huge area to compensate for the per area shortcomings. Large format are more then large enough to compensate for shortcomings in noise and detail that would be common with FF film vs FF digital. In the right hands, large format film cameras can produce stunning results that are difficult or impossible to imitate with current digital cameras, even medium format.
Even f2 isn't particularly usable in many situations. I get frustrated with the ignoring depth of field issues. I have seen a lot of good photos spoiled by too little depth of field. If you are a long way away from your subject, then probably f1.4 or 2 is usable, but even with portraits on APS-C I tend to stop down a little.

Be that as it may, there are a lot of cameras out there now that are "good enough" for the average photographer and you could make similar arguments about APS-C versus full frame as you would make full frame versus medium format. But for most of us, it is a question more of (a) Can I afford it? and (b) Do I want it? I think people will be more likely to answer yes to both those questions with regard to the K-1 than with a 645Z -- particularly once you factor in lenses.

03-06-2016, 04:40 AM   #755
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
If you stop it down to f/2,0 and use ISO 800 you would get equal depth of field and noise levels as the 645Z with f/2,8 and ISO1600. Since its equal its not an advantage or reason to pay a lot more for the 645Z.

But if you use the 645Z at ISO100, there is no ISO50 to push the K-1 into. Then the 645Z would in theory make cleaner images. Cleaner then very very clean is not necessarily visibly cleaner.

In a perfect (or utopic) world, I would have a medium format camera with f/1,4 primes and f/2,8 zooms, all light weight and affordable priced.
But that would not improve your pictures one bit, quite the contrary if you abuse of very large apperture on very large sensor. People always assume that more is better, it can be only if used wisely.

Thinking 1cm of deph of field is not narrow enough and that you need to have 1mm or less to achieve anything is not the goal of theses MF bodies. And on purpose there not that many lenses that follow.

Personnally for a perfect or utopic world, I'll give up all the MF or even FF photographic gear in exchange of no more wars, enough food for everybody... But that's just me. Unfortunately, it is more likely we get what you ask for a perfect world that what I ask.

Anyway what is arround the corner is that in a few years, you'll get the OOF rendering of your dream in software without much work, almost all automatic so people would be able to choose render like a large format camera with an f/0.7 lens and be done a bit like today we get tons of picture with sepia old look from instagram, you'll get that on every post processing software. Once the 13 year old kit will get better shallow deph of field picture effect with his iphone 12 or 13 than you get with your 50000$ MF, it will not be that fashionnable anamore for "serious" photographer, ahem, gear heads.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-06-2016 at 04:47 AM.
03-06-2016, 04:57 AM - 1 Like   #756
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,841
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
If you stop it down to f/2,0 and use ISO 800 you would get equal depth of field and noise levels as the 645Z with f/2,8 and ISO1600. Since its equal its not an advantage or reason to pay a lot more for the 645Z.

But if you use the 645Z at ISO100, there is no ISO50 to push the K-1 into. Then the 645Z would in theory make cleaner images. Cleaner then very very clean is not necessarily visibly cleaner.

In a perfect (or utopic) world, I would have a medium format camera with f/1,4 primes and f/2,8 zooms, all light weight and affordable priced.
If you are interested in a forum-level theoretical comparisons between formats, look no further: the small format (which somehow is now called "full frame", I don't quite get why) is the best. Period.
Actually every such discussion should start with "hey, in theory, which format..." responded with "OK, say no further, "full frame" is for you"

OTOH, I saw large medium format prints which were truly jaw dropping. Perhaps a K-1 with its pixel shift resolution can reach a similar level.
But that's not theoretically, thus it's uninteresting.
03-06-2016, 05:15 AM   #757
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 947
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Even f2 isn't particularly usable in many situations. I get frustrated with the ignoring depth of field issues. I have seen a lot of good photos spoiled by too little depth of field. If you are a long way away from your subject, then probably f1.4 or 2 is usable, but even with portraits on APS-C I tend to stop down a little.
If you prefer a certain DoF in portraits, then all of the situation under will give you the same DoF and noise levels (as in DXO print, not screen), assuming you use lenses with the same field of view and same camera-subject distance.

APS-C with f/4 ISO 400, 1/200s
FF with f/5,6 ISO 800, 1/200s
MF with f/8 ISO 1600, 1/200s

So even with the restraint of having the same DoF, you will get the same low noise levels with FF as you do with MF. The sensor size related noise difference is compensated by the aperture number.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Be that as it may, there are a lot of cameras out there now that are "good enough" for the average photographer and you could make similar arguments about APS-C versus full frame as you would make full frame versus medium format. But for most of us, it is a question more of (a) Can I afford it? and (b) Do I want it? I think people will be more likely to answer yes to both those questions with regard to the K-1 than with a 645Z -- particularly once you factor in lenses.
Yes, I have heard that argument about good enough for sizing down formats and lens apertures, but that is not the case here between MF and FF. As said above you get the same noise levels with both formats (given the restraints mentioned). Its generally not the same situation between APS-C and FF because both formats usually scales to f/1,4 primes and f/2,8 zooms. The same aperture numbers. If there was many f/0,7 APS-C primes and many f/1,4 APS-C zooms the situation would be similar to the FF vs MF, but thats not the case. In other words, A selection of f/1,4 primes and f/2,8 zooms for MF would change the situation to be similar to the APS-C vs FF situation. Today MF simply lacks those lenses. And I must add, I agree it wouldn't be much useful for portraits due to the thin DoF. Maybe that is what holds lens makers back.
03-06-2016, 05:56 AM   #758
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
If you prefer a certain DoF in portraits, then all of the situation under will give you the same DoF and noise levels (as in DXO print, not screen), assuming you use lenses with the same field of view and same camera-subject distance.

APS-C with f/4 ISO 400, 1/200s
FF with f/5,6 ISO 800, 1/200s
MF with f/8 ISO 1600, 1/200s

So even with the restraint of having the same DoF, you will get the same low noise levels with FF as you do with MF. The sensor size related noise difference is compensated by the aperture number.
APSC crop factor is 1.5 (and it depend a bit if you choose Canon or Pentax for example). now for MF it depend what MF format you speak of? 6x4.5 is 1.66 time FF 645Z more like 1.3 and 6x9 is 2.5 time more difference than m4/3 vs 24x36.

So f/4, iso400, 1/200s 50mm on APSC is like f/6 (not f/5.6) 1/200, 75mm on FF.

f/5.6, 1/200, 50mm on FF is like f/7.3 1/200 65mm on 645Z but on 6x4.5"it is f/9.3, 83mm... in 6x9 this give us f/14, 125mm...

For the iso part, this assume same sensor technology/performance. There 1 stop difference between 5D-II and A7R-II or even 0.7 EV between 5D-III. Even for same generation same brand, there 0.5 EV between A7R-II and A7-II. Until now, I didn't see an APSC camera that match what the math would say for high iso perf of A7R-II. An APSC body should give 1800 score for high iso in DxO mark, a full 0.5EV gain but there no APSC camera that does that to my knowledge. Nikon made Sony design a specific sensor for them, with iso 50 support and there sensor like A7-S that are not impressive for most, but shine at iso high iso only.

But there more than iso equivalence because most of the time picture are taken at base iso so iso 100 or for some cameras, iso 50. People will simply shoot at 1/100 or 1/50 if necessary, or add more power to the flash. They may even have 2 minutes shutter speed for what we now (astrophotography, long exposure of water...).

And of course there more than dof equivalent as the bokeh and rendering will be quite different too even of dof the same.

To go back to your wonderfull orange vs clementine metaphor, you compare orange with clementines.


Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-06-2016 at 06:03 AM.
03-06-2016, 06:00 AM   #759
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
to f/1,4 primes and f/2,8 zooms. The same aperture numbers. If there was many f/0,7 APS-C primes and many f/1,4 APS-C zooms the situation would be similar to the FF vs MF
You don't need f/0.7 APSC-primes and f/1.4 zooms to match, 1.4/1.5 = 0.93 so that f/0.93, you can round it to f/1.

f2.8 / 1.5 = 1.86, so f/1.8 or f/1.9 is enough and now with sigma there 2 f/1.8 zooms: 18-35 and 50-100. This narrow the gap.

Question is if you really need f/1... of even f/1.8... for most shots.

The worst is that changing the f number doesn't change the dof that much, there almost no different between f/1.2 and f/1.4 for both light gathering and dof, but some pay huge money for that tiny change.

Even f/1.4 vs f/1.8 is not that noticable 23% less dof like 1.5cm dof instead of 2... and say iso 160 vs iso 100... It is enough to have an A7-RII instead of A7II to eat the difference. But often manufacturer ask more than twice money for the difference. Chance are the guy with the f/1.8 if he is only a tiny better photographer, this would make much greater difference in the end.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-06-2016 at 06:09 AM.
03-06-2016, 06:09 AM   #760
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,001
28-50 and 75-150 aren't really long zooms compare to 24-70 and 70-200. There is a trade of for going 1.8 on a zoom. You also loose your size advantage.
03-06-2016, 06:16 AM - 2 Likes   #761
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,234
But if you are shooting mf, you are not going after the same results or same scenarios.

Think not how a specific photo would look using the various formats. Think what scenario best fits the format. The specs are immaterial. Look at the photos and you will find mf shots that couldn't be replicated with another format.

For example, there is a wildlife/landscape photographer on the West coast Canada who uses mf for bears. I shoot bears, and had a situation like this last year that I could not capture. One shot has this exquisite scene of greenery and water and a sleeping bear. No light, all in sharp focus, the larger the print the more it took your breath away. Film, 4x5. I stared at it a long time, both seeing the impossibility of getting that shot with apsc, and recognizing that my style and shooting assumptions would never even have seen that shot in the first place.

So if you fail to see the value of MF, don't look at specs. Look at photos. The 645D has pretty poor specs, but in skilled hands produces exquisitely beautiful tones. It would take me two years of concerted effort to get something decent out of one. I know that, and the problem isn't the camera; it would take me that long to begin to approach the vision and skill level of more skilled artists.
03-06-2016, 07:09 AM   #762
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote
But if you are shooting mf, you are not going after the same results or same scenarios.

Think not how a specific photo would look using the various formats. Think what scenario best fits the format. The specs are immaterial. Look at the photos and you will find mf shots that couldn't be replicated with another format.

For example, there is a wildlife/landscape photographer on the West coast Canada who uses mf for bears. I shoot bears, and had a situation like this last year that I could not capture. One shot has this exquisite scene of greenery and water and a sleeping bear. No light, all in sharp focus, the larger the print the more it took your breath away. Film, 4x5. I stared at it a long time, both seeing the impossibility of getting that shot with apsc, and recognizing that my style and shooting assumptions would never even have seen that shot in the first place.

So if you fail to see the value of MF, don't look at specs. Look at photos. The 645D has pretty poor specs, but in skilled hands produces exquisitely beautiful tones. It would take me two years of concerted effort to get something decent out of one. I know that, and the problem isn't the camera; it would take me that long to begin to approach the vision and skill level of more skilled artists.

Yeah, its not just numbers, iso f stops and alike.
03-06-2016, 08:28 AM   #763
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsø, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 947
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
APSC crop factor is 1.5 (and it depend a bit if you choose Canon or Pentax for example). now for MF it depend what MF format you speak of? 6x4.5 is 1.66 time FF 645Z more like 1.3 and 6x9 is 2.5 time more difference than m4/3 vs 24x36.
Just for the ease of the discussion I simplified to estimate a square root of two crop factors in between all the formats (1", m43, APS-C, FF, MF) and the same aspect ratio. I think readability is lost if i'm too detailed.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
You don't need f/0.7 APSC-primes and f/1.4 zooms to match, 1.4/1.5 = 0.93 so that f/0.93, you can round it to f/1.
According to the simplification above, MF got a 1 stop advantage over FF in sensor size, while FF got a 2 stop advantage over MF in terms of available apertures. If the situation had been the same between APS-C and FF, then APS-C would have f/0,7 primes and f/1,4 zooms, when FF "only" has f/1,4 primes and f/2,8 zooms. (I'm going way of topic now, but I actually got a 6x zoom lens with constant f/1,0 aperture, but thats for a much smaller format. It was a stupid buy because I haven’t been able to use it on my Q yet. Sorry, I'm way of topic now.)

QuoteOriginally posted by derekkite Quote
So if you fail to see the value of MF, don't look at specs. Look at photos.
This sounds like a statement that could have come from a LP and speaker cable salesman. It could easily be fended of by referring all the excellent photos taken with phone cameras in the hands of good photographers. I absolutely respect and admire good photographers, but I think its not just about the people. Why would anyone buy an expensive camera in stead of a phone if that was 100% true? I think great photos are a conjunction between good photographers, good gear and good luck. Just like a photography equivalent to the fire triangle. Luck might be taken out of the equation with careful planning, but I think that will take away the some of the magic. For instance, take look at Nick Brandt or Ansel Adams most famous photos. They wouldn’t have been the same if Nicks animals posed badly or if it had been raining the days Ansel was out to take those photos. I'm sure there was a lot of rainy days in between the best images and quite a lot of animal photos that was thrown away. Although in the digital age (photographers state of digital thinking), the throw away ratio would have been orders of magnitude higher.

Last edited by Simen1; 03-06-2016 at 08:38 AM.
03-06-2016, 09:13 AM   #764
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,215
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
Sure, me too. Thats why I'm asking someone to elaborate the reasons I struggle to see myself. I already started to learn some of those reasons: high resolution single exposures of moving subjects, and lens sharpness.
Ever looked through a 645Z VF? No? Then you can't understand (this is serious and not trying to insult you or something).
Do it but you'll cry looking in any other VF then
03-06-2016, 09:31 AM   #765
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
According to the simplification above, MF got a 1 stop advantage over FF in sensor size, while FF got a 2 stop advantage over MF in terms of available apertures. If the situation had been the same between APS-C and FF, then APS-C would have f/0,7 primes and f/1,4 zooms, when FF "only" has f/1,4 primes and f/2,8 zooms. (I'm going way of topic now, but I actually got a 6x zoom lens with constant f/1,0 aperture, but thats for a much smaller format. It was a stupid buy because I haven’t been able to use it on my Q yet. Sorry, I'm way of topic now.)
Well simplification doesn't work when the camera that get only 0.3EV on top on D810 still FF cost 3000$, the one that add 0.6-0.7 EV on top of same D810 cost 7000$ and the one that round that to 1EV like the phase one cost 30-40K$. The prices are exponential for very small gain each time. Approximation also make forget that in current state of affair for iso, there more 1.5EV high iso difference between APSC and best performing FF not 1.1 iso like the theory could make us think.

This make us forget that for high iso/noise that in the past ten years we easily got 3 from sensors and also 2-3 EV from noise removal software. In comparison the rest look quite small. Just switching to DxO prime instead of lighroom could make as much a difference than switching format.

On the opposite, when you are shooting at base iso (for me it is most of the time), the noise level as so low that this comparison of noise level per sensor format is simply not relevant, even on APSC. So that difference is simply irrelevant. And trust it or not, people don't buy a 645Z or phase one to shoot black cat on a nights without moon at 25600 iso and f/2.


QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
This sounds like a statement that could have come from a LP and speaker cable salesman. It could easily be fended of by referring all the excellent photos taken with phone cameras in the hands of good photographers. I absolutely respect and admire good photographers, but I think its not just about the people. Why would anyone buy an expensive camera in stead of a phone if that was 100% true?
Ask yourself man the gear exist, is very expensive and actuall used by many pro, some quite well known and respected. So either they got ripped of their money by the sale guy or there a reason they didn't buy a smartphone instead or even an FF. Hey most of them have MANY cameras so they have the MF on top on 1-2 FF, maybe a small compact or APSC for vacations or prepare for a shooting.

I was like you for audio cable. Ironically I have 10 meters of audio cable between my computer and amplifier and also I can use wifi + digital entry from a box. With the analogic cable you can ear a soft base noise when there no music. Wifi + digital (optical) out perfectly crisp sound. You can repeat for the speakers, my 5.1 system has maybe 25m of cable. My speaker were provided with high quality cable and I tried the previous more basic cable I had. There was quite a difference.

Because you didn't try, because you doesn't understand why there should be a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. And in all cases even if you understand this difference this doesn't mean you have to buy the best neither or people that actually buy are stupid.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-06-2016 at 09:46 AM.
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!
auto, base, camera, company, compression, d810, design, dr, electrons, fa, hardware, iso, k-1, k-3, lenses, pentax, pentax body, pentax k-1, pentax news, pentax rumors, photos, pre-order, risk, sensor, specifications, timelapse, trip, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-3 II Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 1015 07-03-2015 10:55 PM
Pentax K-S2 Officially Announced Adam Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 12 05-23-2015 06:49 AM
Pentax K-30 Officially Announced! Adam Pentax News and Rumors 245 09-12-2012 08:32 PM
Pentax K-5 Officially Announced Adam Pentax News and Rumors 533 03-06-2012 05:45 AM
K-5 Firmware 1.02 Officially Announced Ole Pentax K-5 50 01-20-2011 10:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:58 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