Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

ogl · 07-08-2008, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Entropy

Not all pixels are created equal.

The 14.6MP sensor in the K20D is pushing the limits of most lenses today. I don't think it's possible to go very much farther with an APS-C sensor and get meaningful results other than a nice number for marketing.

12 MP at FF and 12 MP at APS-C are not the same in the field of resolution.

It's easy to produce 20+ MP FF with Samsung's technology in K20D's sensor without limits of lenses.

beaumont · 07-14-2008, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by ogl

12 MP at FF and 12 MP at APS-C are not the same in the field of resolution.

It's easy to produce 20+ MP FF with Samsung's technology in K20D's sensor without limits of lenses.

On a related note, I've seen mixed messages. Would a lens such as a DA 70 ltd be "limited" (pardon the pun) when used on a FF? (Some have stated that this is one of the reasons to choose a 77 vs the 70...)
thx

Alan 2 · 07-15-2008, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by ogl

12 MP at FF and 12 MP at APS-C are not the same in the field of resolution.

It's easy to produce 20+ MP FF with Samsung's technology in K20D's sensor without limits of lenses.

You may want to take a look at this

Canon 40D Hands-On Report

Also take a look at some Nikon forums. There appears to be very little difference in IQ between the Nikon D300 and the D3 at lower ISOs. FF isn't all it's hyped up to be. The only real advantage would be is if you shoot at wide apertures. If you shoot at smaller apertures your going to be limited by diffraction which essentially cancels out the increased resolution of a high MP camera.

**Pål Jensen** · 07-15-2008, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Alan 2

Also take a look at some Nikon forums. There appears to be very little difference in IQ between the Nikon D300 and the D3 at lower ISOs. FF isn't all it's hyped up to be. .

That is because they have the same number of megapixels. The only advantage of the FF sensor at low ISO's is in this case that lens imperfection get less magnified at the same output size. On the other hand, an FF image might display edge problems if the lens have such and the same lens is used on an APS camera.
At 28mp camera will be a totally different beast than 12mp one at FF.

Alan 2 · 07-15-2008, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

That is because they have the same number of megapixels. The only advantage of the FF sensor at low ISO's is in this case that lens imperfection get less magnified at the same output size. On the other hand, an FF image might display edge problems if the lens have such and the same lens is used on an APS camera.
At 28mp camera will be a totally different beast than 12mp one at FF.

I agree it's a beast. But a beast for whom. I've already heard reports that the Canon 1DsMKlll is no better then the 5D at F11 through F16 because of diffraction. A 28mp camera is just going to make the matter worse. You have to define who the camera is for and what there going to use it for.

Photomy · 07-17-2008, 10:20 PM

Years ago, Canon took market share from Nikon by having a top pro model 1, EOS 3 and EOS 5. I think Pentax is not in position at this time to put out the top model but the EOS 3 body was about $800 or so in the later years. With inflation and a sensor I think an $1800 - $2,000 or so price is feasible. The K20D body is really not much better as to features than the EOS 5 was. Eventually, Pentax then could put out a true pro body if they have the aspiration.

Duplo · 07-30-2008, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Alan 2

You may want to take a look at this

Canon 40D Hands-On Report

Also take a look at some Nikon forums. There appears to be very little difference in IQ between the Nikon D300 and the D3 at lower ISOs. FF isn't all it's hyped up to be. The only real advantage would be is if you shoot at wide apertures. If you shoot at smaller apertures your going to be limited by diffraction which essentially cancels out the increased resolution of a high MP camera.

I do not need to shoots a D3 (alongside my pentax gear) as my main body and have shot a D300 numbers of times too.
There are differences at base ISO, noise floor and DR being two of them.
Smoother tonal graduations as well and a better RAW file quality.

I do not mean to be rude but are you speaking from experiences or just what you read?

35mm digital and APS-C are two different formats each with a distinct set of pros/cons.
what you claim above is like claiming that a 1DsIII are more or less equal to a 20ish MP medium format digital back at base ISO.
A step up in format with equal pixel count means better ultimate image quality from what I have experienced.
The question is what set of pros/cons suits your style of shooting

Duplo · 07-30-2008, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

That is because they have the same number of megapixels. The only advantage of the FF sensor at low ISO's is in this case that lens imperfection get less magnified at the same output size. On the other hand, an FF image might display edge problems if the lens have such and the same lens is used on an APS camera.
At 28mp camera will be a totally different beast than 12mp one at FF.

From my experience that does not hold true, there area notisable difference in terms of niose floor and DR when shooting high DR scenes and a smoother tonal graduation too.

The lens thing is a matter of choosing the right lens for the job.
Ultrawides is where what you describe has been flagged as a culprit in the past, but lenses like the 14-24 are remarkably free of it. same goes for APS-C some lenses has poor corner performance others does not.

**Pål Jensen** · 07-31-2008, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Alan 2

I agree it's a beast. But a beast for whom. I've already heard reports that the Canon 1DsMKlll is no better then the 5D at F11 through F16 because of diffraction. A 28mp camera is just going to make the matter worse. You have to define who the camera is for and what there going to use it for.

That is armchair theory with very little (if any) bearing on reality

. With this kind of logic, neither medium format or large format would have worked as they almost always are used with lens stopped down way into diffraction. Sensor resolution and lens resolution cannot be directly compared. One has a brick wall effect; the other not. Besides, resolution is based on test charts; black and white lines that needs to be separated. Reality is different; ie a lens may not be able to separate two lines, but theres still something there; change of contrast, perception of detail. You may still be able to discern separate blades of grass due to lowering of contrast between them for example. Not so with a sensor...

lodi781 · 07-31-2008, 07:14 AM

Anyone seen this one yet, supposedly 31 mp...

Cambo · 07-31-2008, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by lodi781

Anyone seen this one yet, supposedly 31 mp...

and it's a POS. Going back to my 3.1 meg Canon point and shoot.

It's not out yet - this is the camera everyone's talking about.

Cheers,
Cameron

PollitowuzHere · 07-31-2008, 08:49 AM

Lodi- isnt that the mythical 645D that Pentax froze? Has the shape of a digital medium format camera, thats for sure

lodi781 · 07-31-2008, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by PollitowuzHere

Lodi- isnt that the mythical 645D that Pentax froze? Has the shape of a digital medium format camera, thats for sure

i just happen to come across it on the net while trying to find pricing on the 60-250. I have no idea what the hell this thing is but it sure is pig-ugly

thibs · 07-31-2008, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by lodi781

i just happen to come across it on the net while trying to find pricing on the 60-250. I have no idea what the hell this thing is but it sure is pig-ugly

You obviously never saw a 645 camera did you ?

lodi781 · 07-31-2008, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by thibs

You obviously never saw a 645 camera did you ?

I would have to go with "no" on this one.......

07-30-2008, 08:28 PM	#38
Duplo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 924	Originally posted by Pål Jensen That is because they have the same number of megapixels. The only advantage of the FF sensor at low ISO's is in this case that lens imperfection get less magnified at the same output size. On the other hand, an FF image might display edge problems if the lens have such and the same lens is used on an APS camera. At 28mp camera will be a totally different beast than 12mp one at FF. From my experience that does not hold true, there area notisable difference in terms of niose floor and DR when shooting high DR scenes and a smoother tonal graduation too. The lens thing is a matter of choosing the right lens for the job. Ultrawides is where what you describe has been flagged as a culprit in the past, but lenses like the 14-24 are remarkably free of it. same goes for APS-C some lenses has poor corner performance others does not. Last edited by Duplo; 07-30-2008 at 08:31 PM. Reason: forgot to add...

07-31-2008, 06:03 AM	#39
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Alan 2 I agree it's a beast. But a beast for whom. I've already heard reports that the Canon 1DsMKlll is no better then the 5D at F11 through F16 because of diffraction. A 28mp camera is just going to make the matter worse. You have to define who the camera is for and what there going to use it for. That is armchair theory with very little (if any) bearing on reality. With this kind of logic, neither medium format or large format would have worked as they almost always are used with lens stopped down way into diffraction. Sensor resolution and lens resolution cannot be directly compared. One has a brick wall effect; the other not. Besides, resolution is based on test charts; black and white lines that needs to be separated. Reality is different; ie a lens may not be able to separate two lines, but theres still something there; change of contrast, perception of detail. You may still be able to discern separate blades of grass due to lowering of contrast between them for example. Not so with a sensor...

07-31-2008, 08:00 AM	#41
Cambo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,016	Yeah, I've got one already... Originally posted by lodi781 Anyone seen this one yet, supposedly 31 mp... and it's a POS. Going back to my 3.1 meg Canon point and shoot. It's not out yet - this is the camera everyone's talking about. Cheers, Cameron

07-31-2008, 01:46 PM	#44
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by lodi781 i just happen to come across it on the net while trying to find pricing on the 60-250. I have no idea what the hell this thing is but it sure is pig-ugly You obviously never saw a 645 camera did you ? Last edited by thibs; 07-31-2008 at 01:51 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax F 35-135 quality level?	raymeedc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	11-05-2009 10:20 PM
Pentax PRO Feature that a Pro Photog couldn't find in CaNikon!	HermanLee	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	05-03-2009 09:36 AM
Doubts of a FF or "Pro" level Pentax.	Okami	Photographic Technique	11	09-20-2008 12:49 AM
Entry level Pentax 67?	germar	Pentax Medium Format	13	06-30-2008 08:17 AM
The K20D = Pro-Level Camera	imadethis	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	04-04-2008 04:28 AM

07-08-2008, 08:19 AM	#31
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Entropy Not all pixels are created equal. The 14.6MP sensor in the K20D is pushing the limits of most lenses today. I don't think it's possible to go very much farther with an APS-C sensor and get meaningful results other than a nice number for marketing. 12 MP at FF and 12 MP at APS-C are not the same in the field of resolution. It's easy to produce 20+ MP FF with Samsung's technology in K20D's sensor without limits of lenses.

07-14-2008, 10:12 AM	#32
beaumont Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 505	Originally posted by ogl 12 MP at FF and 12 MP at APS-C are not the same in the field of resolution. It's easy to produce 20+ MP FF with Samsung's technology in K20D's sensor without limits of lenses. On a related note, I've seen mixed messages. Would a lens such as a DA 70 ltd be "limited" (pardon the pun) when used on a FF? (Some have stated that this is one of the reasons to choose a 77 vs the 70...) thx

07-15-2008, 12:04 PM	#33
Alan 2 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Madison WI U.S.A. Posts: 60	Originally posted by ogl 12 MP at FF and 12 MP at APS-C are not the same in the field of resolution. It's easy to produce 20+ MP FF with Samsung's technology in K20D's sensor without limits of lenses. You may want to take a look at this Canon 40D Hands-On Report Also take a look at some Nikon forums. There appears to be very little difference in IQ between the Nikon D300 and the D3 at lower ISOs. FF isn't all it's hyped up to be. The only real advantage would be is if you shoot at wide apertures. If you shoot at smaller apertures your going to be limited by diffraction which essentially cancels out the increased resolution of a high MP camera.

07-15-2008, 12:48 PM	#34
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Alan 2 Also take a look at some Nikon forums. There appears to be very little difference in IQ between the Nikon D300 and the D3 at lower ISOs. FF isn't all it's hyped up to be. . That is because they have the same number of megapixels. The only advantage of the FF sensor at low ISO's is in this case that lens imperfection get less magnified at the same output size. On the other hand, an FF image might display edge problems if the lens have such and the same lens is used on an APS camera. At 28mp camera will be a totally different beast than 12mp one at FF.

07-15-2008, 01:24 PM	#35
Alan 2 Forum Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Madison WI U.S.A. Posts: 60	Originally posted by Pål Jensen That is because they have the same number of megapixels. The only advantage of the FF sensor at low ISO's is in this case that lens imperfection get less magnified at the same output size. On the other hand, an FF image might display edge problems if the lens have such and the same lens is used on an APS camera. At 28mp camera will be a totally different beast than 12mp one at FF. I agree it's a beast. But a beast for whom. I've already heard reports that the Canon 1DsMKlll is no better then the 5D at F11 through F16 because of diffraction. A 28mp camera is just going to make the matter worse. You have to define who the camera is for and what there going to use it for.

07-17-2008, 10:20 PM	#36
Photomy Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 174	Years ago, Canon took market share from Nikon by having a top pro model 1, EOS 3 and EOS 5. I think Pentax is not in position at this time to put out the top model but the EOS 3 body was about $800 or so in the later years. With inflation and a sensor I think an $1800 - $2,000 or so price is feasible. The K20D body is really not much better as to features than the EOS 5 was. Eventually, Pentax then could put out a true pro body if they have the aspiration.

07-30-2008, 08:25 PM	#37
Duplo Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 924	Originally posted by Alan 2 You may want to take a look at this Canon 40D Hands-On Report Also take a look at some Nikon forums. There appears to be very little difference in IQ between the Nikon D300 and the D3 at lower ISOs. FF isn't all it's hyped up to be. The only real advantage would be is if you shoot at wide apertures. If you shoot at smaller apertures your going to be limited by diffraction which essentially cancels out the increased resolution of a high MP camera. I do not need to shoots a D3 (alongside my pentax gear) as my main body and have shot a D300 numbers of times too. There are differences at base ISO, noise floor and DR being two of them. Smoother tonal graduations as well and a better RAW file quality. I do not mean to be rude but are you speaking from experiences or just what you read? 35mm digital and APS-C are two different formats each with a distinct set of pros/cons. what you claim above is like claiming that a 1DsIII are more or less equal to a 20ish MP medium format digital back at base ISO. A step up in format with equal pixel count means better ultimate image quality from what I have experienced. The question is what set of pros/cons suits your style of shooting

07-31-2008, 07:14 AM	#40
lodi781 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: southern CT Posts: 219	Anyone seen this one yet, supposedly 31 mp...

07-31-2008, 08:49 AM	#42
PollitowuzHere Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Puerto Rico Posts: 110	Lodi- isnt that the mythical 645D that Pentax froze? Has the shape of a digital medium format camera, thats for sure

07-31-2008, 09:22 AM	#43
lodi781 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: southern CT Posts: 219	Originally posted by PollitowuzHere Lodi- isnt that the mythical 645D that Pentax froze? Has the shape of a digital medium format camera, thats for sure i just happen to come across it on the net while trying to find pricing on the 60-250. I have no idea what the hell this thing is but it sure is pig-ugly

07-31-2008, 03:16 PM	#45
lodi781 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: southern CT Posts: 219	Originally posted by thibs You obviously never saw a 645 camera did you ? I would have to go with "no" on this one.......

Why would Pentax come up with a pro Level FF?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!