Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-07-2016, 03:55 AM   #781
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,725
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
There of course are limits at a finite temperature.
And there also is a lower limit for energy required per computation per second.
The black hole limits are pseudo-science as no theory for quantum gravity is established. None of which is in contradiction with my previous statement.
Don't use that word. Psuedo science. It is theoretical physics


Last edited by D1N0; 03-07-2016 at 04:34 AM.
03-07-2016, 04:27 AM   #782
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,450
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
On average, it is not as good as if they had put an m4/3 capable lens and you cropped when creativity call for another aspect ratio. Worse, if you don't get the aspect ratio right at shooting time, then you are penalized 2 time. You start from 12MP only that you need to crop.

The only true benefit for me is that it allowed to keep the optics lighter/smaller. Look like you get an f/2.8-4 18-50 APSC equivalent
Nope 'cos then you always lose Mpix.

That said, chosing the aspect when developing the RAW wouldn't be stupid at all.
RAW should be full sensor IMO with metadata providing info about the selected crop. The same is applicable to FF crop modes but with a custom menu option only. Otherwise it would not allow for faster FPS in crop modes.
03-07-2016, 04:47 AM   #783
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 17,326
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
But reality is a bit different. Only at the end of appertures and ISO scale does it truely matter.

Noise levels of APSC, m4/3 or APSC are so good at low iso that it doesn't matter. When I take a landscape at f/8 iso 100 with DA15 or a portrait at f/2.8 iso 100 with FA77 I don't feel like I would absolutely need an FF or MF body for the terrible noise I get.

I understand I could get less noise on FF with a 22mm at f/11 or 115mm at f/4, but this doesn't really matter because the picture I good enough to be printed quite large.

You'd need go past 30x40" to really see an issue and only looking from near distance.

It does only matter if I need to shoot past iso800 on APSC or if I need an apperture larger than my FA77 can handle (f/1.8). And even I'd find a 85mm f/1.4 if I wanted so...

Biggest gain for me with FF is the constant f/2.8 zoom behemoh that give lot of deph control, great AF capabilities and light gathering all with the conveniance of zoom. At the expense of price, weight and size.
The whole point is that a larger sensor benefits people who are pushing the extremes of photography -- they are shooting in really low light situations, they need really shallow depth of field, they are pushing dynamic range to its max, or they are printing/viewing their images really big. As you say, if you are shooting with a K3 at iso 100, unless you have to brighten your photo 3EVs after the fact, you just aren't going to see noise. At iso 800 and above, it is a different story. To me, it is tolerable up iso 3200, but using a little noise reduction may be needed and you certainly can't push your images a lot at the range.

The biggest problem I have with most of this stuff is that it ignores the fact that the improvement in noise and dynamic range is only applicable when you can tolerate less depth of field. If, you are shooting a landscape and it is sunrise and you need to use f8 on your K3 to get the boulder close to your camera in focus and the background in focus too, you will have to use f11 on your K-1 to do the same thing. If you are on a tripod, its no big deal and probably both images will be shot at iso 100, but if you are hand held, you will have to push your iso up a stop on full frame and lose that noise/dynamic range improvement that full frame proponents gloat about.

Overall, Falk is probably right about the shift to full frame and larger sensors. Although the issue to me isn't necessarily the cost of the camera (which will continue to come down), but the cost of the lenses, which continue to be pretty pricey. A K 30 with 18-135 is dirt cheap right now. A K-1 with 28-105 will be over 2000 dollars. And I was surprised at how cheap the K-1 was on release. Certainly APS-C will continue to be around for a fewer more years with a cost differential like that.
03-07-2016, 06:14 AM - 1 Like   #784
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,469
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Once that problem is solved though, we can leave all other problems to them (i.e., those artificial brains).
You mean problems like freeing the planet from unnecessary, resource wasting and self-destructive organic units?

03-07-2016, 06:17 AM   #785
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Iloilo City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,211
Nothing lasts forever. APS-C format will be around for a while as long as there will be people who'll use it or probably until photo companies come up with new formats which would make it obsolete. But I still like to see it improved. I hope someday Pentax can make the AF a lot faster and noise handling a lot better. Somehow for low light and high ISO shots, I favor my k-5II over my k-3II.
03-07-2016, 06:23 AM   #786
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,013
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Overall, Falk is probably right about the shift to full frame and larger sensors. Although the issue to me isn't necessarily the cost of the camera (which will continue to come down), but the cost of the lenses, which continue to be pretty pricey. A K 30 with 18-135 is dirt cheap right now. A K-1 with 28-105 will be over 2000 dollars. And I was surprised at how cheap the K-1 was on release. Certainly APS-C will continue to be around for a fewer more years with a cost differential like that.
The K-1 is very affordable for its class but still expensive for me. I have to stretch the economy a bit to be able to buy it. Including selling a K-5 and a couple of good APS-C lenses. That also means I don't have any budget left for expensive D-FA lenses, at least not this year. But I will do fine without. I plan to two APS-C lenses in combination with an old Tamron 28-200 zoom for FF, and a few good manual focus prime lenses. So, is it worth having a K-1 if I don’t also have a line up of expensive D-FA lenses? In my opinion, absolutely. I expect both better resolution and lower noise with all the FF capable. In addition I will get a versatile multi aspect sensor for my remaining APS-C lenses. I think it will be well worth the upgrade.
03-07-2016, 08:50 AM - 1 Like   #787
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,273
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
the small format (which somehow is now called "full frame", I don't quite get why)
In the waning years of film there were larger formats {such as "120"/"620" and "127"} and smaller formats {such as "110" and "126"}, but "35mm" (actually a 24mm x 36mm frame} was the standard film. When we moved to digital, most of us couldn't afford a sensor of that size, but it has remained the standard against which everything else is measured.
03-07-2016, 08:58 AM   #788
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 10,216
It was just popular, it never was "the standard"

03-07-2016, 09:02 AM   #789
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,725
Mainly because the ecosystem the first digital slr camera's were based on were full frame. crop has always been a cost decision (except maybe for Olympus).
03-07-2016, 10:53 AM   #790
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,273
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
It was just popular, it never was "the standard"
Depends on how you define "standard". When people talk about field-of-view, we still do it in terms of focal-length of 35mm lenses. And, going back to sensors, we still measure "crop" in terms of 35mm frame. So you can use whatever term you want, our thinking is still based on 35mm concepts.
03-07-2016, 11:07 AM   #791
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 10,216
Sure. But I wouldn't say "we still do it", AFAIR we started doing it only after the advent of the digital, and terms like "crop format" and "full frame"
I really don't remember people with medium format cameras relating their lenses to the small format, back in the old day. It's a digital thing.
03-07-2016, 11:11 AM   #792
Veteran Member
disconnekt's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 609
Before 35mm came around, people were using 8"x10" film which was the "standard" size for a long time (in some cases 4x5), or medium format (the "more affordable" film size eg. Kodak's Brownie being a 6x6 format, was sold for $1 when released). And when 35mm came out, since it was smaller then even MF, people considered it a "small format" of what was available at the time.
03-07-2016, 11:31 AM   #793
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21,797
QuoteOriginally posted by disconnekt Quote
Before 35mm came around, people were using 8"x10" film which was the "standard" size for a long time (in some cases 4x5), or medium format (the "more affordable" film size eg. Kodak's Brownie being a 6x6 format, was sold for $1 when released). And when 35mm came out, since it was smaller then even MF, people considered it a "small format" of what was available at the time.
35mm as a still photograph format came about after Thomas Edison and George Eastman settled on 35mm as a compromise standard for movie film and projectors in 1909. Cine film has half as many pull holes per frame ad still film but otherwise the base product has been nearly identical. Economics drove still camera makers to standardize on 35mm for consumer rangefinders. SLR's camped on the ubiquitous film format afterward.
03-07-2016, 11:42 AM   #794
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,104
Cartier-Bresson in Europe and Capra in the US really gave respectability to the once derided 35mm format.
03-07-2016, 11:55 AM   #795
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
acoufap's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,043
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Sure. But I wouldn't say "we still do it", AFAIR we started doing it only after the advent of the digital, and terms like "crop format" and "full frame"
I really don't remember people with medium format cameras relating their lenses to the small format, back in the old day. It's a digital thing.
I think the crop discussion startet extensively because we can use same lenses with different sized sensors and the easy way to crop digital images extensively in post. After that the discussion brings us to the point where we talk about crop factors in case we want to express "What's the needed focal length to get the same image crop using different sensor sizes". We get there by changing focal length and/or subject distance. Am I right? Hm - when we do latter, we get same image crop but a totally different image because angle of view changes and thus perspective. Then we bring in depth of field. Ah - this has something to do with apertures ... mixing up ideas keeps the threads alive ... just my two cents.

Last edited by acoufap; 03-07-2016 at 12:06 PM. Reason: Got dizzy from my words ;)
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 08:50 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