Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2016, 04:01 PM   #781
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 947
--- please delete duplicate ---


Last edited by Simen1; 03-06-2016 at 04:30 PM.
03-06-2016, 04:15 PM   #782
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 947
Speaking of lens weight, size and cost, its been a public fact that sensors should always be larger then the image circle of the indented optics, and not the other way around. But a few m43 cameras and a Nokia phone did come with a slightly larger sensor then image circle. They called it multi aspect sensor and crop away the corners. I think thats a great idea because they effectively increases the sensor without increasing the size, weight and cost of the lens. A larger portion of the image circle is used. The mentioned products don’t offer a full readout of all the pixels, but if they did, you could choose aspect ratio in post processing. With ASP-C lenses on K-1 you effectively have a multi aspect sensor with more freedom to choose. You could even make almost circular 180 degrees fisheye images with a fisheye lens made for rectangular APS-C with 180 degree diagonal. Quadratic images could use a lot more of the APS-C image circle area, compared to using a APS-C camera. Most lenses have a variable image circle. In some cases a FF lens might actually cover a 33x44mm MF sensor.

What I'm trying to say here is that I can easily see the sensors grow more then the image circles, because the latter drives size and weight more then the former. If lets say a 33x44mm sensor gets cheap enough It can replace a FF sensor even without changing the mount. A K mount camera with a 33x44mm multi aspect sensor could actually have meaningful advantages over FF, worth paying extra for. Likewise, having a FF camera with only APS-C lenses can prove to give meaningful advantages over having a APS-C camera with the exact same APS-C lenses.

Last edited by Simen1; 03-06-2016 at 04:54 PM.
03-06-2016, 04:41 PM   #783
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 59
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
...
And there fortunately is no law of physics which sets a lower limit for the space-time volume or energy required to do a computation. Even quantum physics sets no such barrier.
...
Not that it matters at all for the discussion or cameras at the moment, but doesn't thermodynamics and entropy laws set those limits? =) (Like the ones mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_computation)
03-06-2016, 07:06 PM   #784
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Igor123 Quote
Not that it matters at all for the discussion or cameras at the moment, but doesn't thermodynamics and entropy laws set those limits? =) (Like the ones mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_computation)
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.

03-06-2016, 11:12 PM   #785
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,215
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
They called it multi aspect sensor and crop away the corners.
Yep and Panasonic does just that on their LX serie. Quite nice IMO: whatever aspect (4:3, 3:2, 16:9) you get almost same pixel amount.

---------- Post added 07-03-16 at 07:16 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I agree that Moore's law does no longer apply. Point taken.

But Moore's law never was a law, it was a stupid extrapolation from observation. Unlike the laws of physics.
...
I'm often desperate reading the other way around. Thank you.
03-07-2016, 12:56 AM   #786
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Yep and Panasonic does just that on their LX serie. Quite nice IMO: whatever aspect (4:3, 3:2, 16:9) you get almost same pixel amount.
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
03-07-2016, 01:11 AM   #787
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by Simen1 Quote
I'm sorry If I contributed to that impression. I use the equivalency term more widely. I.E. when carefully trying to get the same large enough DoF at the same distance and field of view on different formats. When I claimed two stops larger apertures available for FF then MF, it was meant in the context "even at the ends of the aperture and ISO scales, this holds true".
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.
03-07-2016, 01:23 AM   #788
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 947
Nicolas06: If they did put a m43 capable lens in the LX100, it would work against its mission on being small and light. And If they did, they could have upgraded it to a APS-C sensor also, to bring back the multi aspect functionality.

The only thing I don’t like about multi aspect sensors is that current implementations takes away the freedom to choose aspect ratio in the post process (without unnecessary cropping)

03-07-2016, 03:25 AM   #789
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,164
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Because size and weight of the glass to put in front of a sensor is (as a first order approximation) independend of the sensor size
yes, if glass is independent of sensor size => larger sensor with the lens equivalent of the one use on the smaller sensor => that mean longer and slower lens on FF. Ok , I see.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 03-07-2016 at 03:59 AM.
03-07-2016, 03:55 AM   #790
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,002
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   #791
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,215
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   #792
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
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   #793
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,070
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   #794
Pentaxian




Join Date: Aug 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,009
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   #795
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 947
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.
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 04:04 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