Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-03-2008, 04:46 AM   #106
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,245
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I don't get this. I believe the best way to compare the two formats is to assume that when cropping an APS-C area from an FF sensor, you'll get as many pixels as the corresponding APS-C sensor has. It'll be odd to just exploit higher sensitivity and not increase the resolution.
Not true, it depends on the sensors (both APS-C and FF) and so depends on current APS-C camera owned and potential FF camera.
If I'd like to go FF but the only camera fitting my requirments is a Nikon D3 and I do apply your reasoning I will end with a 5Mpix (or around) shot (12Mpix cropped).
Since 12+Mpix is a requirment for me well... APS-C is the only viable solution.

I just can't see anyone not understanding this fact. In this situation there's simply only one solution.

10-03-2008, 05:53 AM   #107
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,175
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Not true, it depends on the sensors (both APS-C and FF) and so depends on current APS-C camera owned and potential FF camera.
Of course it depends on the sensors. That's why I stated my assumption that the FF sensor has more pixels. If you don't make any such assumption (could be a different one) then no useful comparison between the formats can be made.

You can compare specific camera models with each other, but any such result can not be generalised to a format comparison.

QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
If I'd like to go FF but the only camera fitting my requirments is a Nikon D3 and I do apply your reasoning I will end with a 5Mpix (or around) shot (12Mpix cropped).
Yes.

QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
Since 12+Mpix is a requirment for me well... APS-C is the only viable solution. I just can't see anyone not understanding this fact.
I fully understand your requirements and with these your conclusion makes sense.

My point is -- and you are welcome to disagree -- that when comparing a 12 MP FF to a 12 MP APC-C sensor, you are comparing apples to oranges.

The FF sensor can afford the higher resolution without any drawbacks so denying it this advantage doesn't seem to be fair in a comparison.

Why would anyone go FF without increasing the resolution? Just for the sensitivity and DOF? Isn't one typical application of FF / MF landscape photography and very large prints? The latter do not make sense if you do not go beyond APS-C resolution.
10-03-2008, 06:02 AM   #108
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,348
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
BTW, why are you calling yourself a Pentaxian when you seem to use every opportunity to bash Pentax? I really do admire your measurbations but I find it kind of sad that you are using a lot of energy in a negative way rather than being more positive (perhaps with a different brand?).
I have to agree. I thought RH's bashing of Pentax on this forum was odd enough, but when looking at his web page and blog I'm really amazed. Why he still bother about Pentax is impossible to understand. If he invested this enormous engagement to stop global warming, starvation in poor third world countries, against dictators, against environmental pollution, against torture in prisons, against extinction of species... I could understand this. If he invested this engagement for the advance of his political ideology or religion I could understand it even if those happened to be fundamentally different from my own ideas, because these are matters worthy of such engagement. But to devote so much time and effort on the bashing of a brand is incredible. If it was about Pentax polluting the environment, having child labors or something like that I could understand it. But it is only because he does not like Pentax products. So it is a free market. He should go to another brand and do something productive with all the time he invest in this. Like using the cameras of that other brand to take pictures. Or do fight the extinction of whales or something like that. But he is of course free to continue...but I notice I tend more and more to just ignore his posts. Not because the details is always wrong, but because they make me sort of sad. He might reply now that I'm a "fan-boy" hurt because he criticize my brand, since I do not expect him to understand that what makes me sad is to watch the results of a life at least partly wasted.

Wow, I'm usually more polite than that, but it has been growing inside me while watching his bashing and ranting. Back to main topic: I would not mind seeing Pentax FF, I certainly would like it from a technical and artistic point of view, and the possibility alone to mount the A*135 on FF digital would make it worth it. I'd also be happy to see a 645D...the 645 system was a dream I never fulfilled. This does not mean that I consider my current DSLR pentax bad or inferior, and I do understand and appreciate that Pentax decided to go for a very complete APS-C lens line. But while welcoming FF or 645D from a technical/artistic point of view, I would not like to see it if there is a risk that Pentax may suffer economically from it, and I do not understand enough of the camera market to feel certain that any of them would be an economical success. I choose to trust Pentax (or Hoya perhaps since the old Pentax might have just marketed something like that as soon as it was technically ready with not so much consideration of the economical side) if they decide to be careful. Historically, while Pentax often been innovative, they have just as often been conservative: they was late with bayonet, they were late both with auto focus and digital SLR. While they were wrong in those cases, I believe, as much as a layman dare to, that there is reason to be careful. For what we know, especially the 645D, but maybe the FF also, could be produced relatively soon, but Pentax/Hoya will not launch them if they don't think it will be profitable. You can argue as much as you want, but it will take some years before we know for sure if even the bigger companies are able to profit on FF, or if the medium format digital market will survive. Better late than broke.
10-03-2008, 07:02 AM   #109
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
To fight for the extinction of Pentax!

Is that "worth" now? ;-)


QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
I have to agree. I thought RH's bashing of Pentax on this forum was odd enough, but when looking at his web page and blog I'm really amazed. Why he still bother about Pentax is impossible to understand. If he invested this enormous engagement to stop global warming, starvation in poor third world countries, against dictators, against environmental pollution, against torture in prisons, against extinction of species... I could understand this. If he invested this engagement for the advance of his political ideology or religion I could understand it even if those happened to be fundamentally different from my own ideas, because these are matters worthy of such engagement. But to devote so much time and effort on the bashing of a brand is incredible. If it was about Pentax polluting the environment, having child labors or something like that I could understand it. But it is only because he does not like Pentax products. So it is a free market. He should go to another brand and do something productive with all the time he invest in this. Like using the cameras of that other brand to take pictures. Or do fight the extinction of whales or something like that. But he is of course free to continue...but I notice I tend more and more to just ignore his posts. Not because the details is always wrong, but because they make me sort of sad. He might reply now that I'm a "fan-boy" hurt because he criticize my brand, since I do not expect him to understand that what makes me sad is to watch the results of a life at least partly wasted.

Wow, I'm usually more polite than that, but it has been growing inside me while watching his bashing and ranting. Back to main topic: I would not mind seeing Pentax FF, I certainly would like it from a technical and artistic point of view, and the possibility alone to mount the A*135 on FF digital would make it worth it. I'd also be happy to see a 645D...the 645 system was a dream I never fulfilled. This does not mean that I consider my current DSLR pentax bad or inferior, and I do understand and appreciate that Pentax decided to go for a very complete APS-C lens line. But while welcoming FF or 645D from a technical/artistic point of view, I would not like to see it if there is a risk that Pentax may suffer economically from it, and I do not understand enough of the camera market to feel certain that any of them would be an economical success. I choose to trust Pentax (or Hoya perhaps since the old Pentax might have just marketed something like that as soon as it was technically ready with not so much consideration of the economical side) if they decide to be careful. Historically, while Pentax often been innovative, they have just as often been conservative: they was late with bayonet, they were late both with auto focus and digital SLR. While they were wrong in those cases, I believe, as much as a layman dare to, that there is reason to be careful. For what we know, especially the 645D, but maybe the FF also, could be produced relatively soon, but Pentax/Hoya will not launch them if they don't think it will be profitable. You can argue as much as you want, but it will take some years before we know for sure if even the bigger companies are able to profit on FF, or if the medium format digital market will survive. Better late than broke.


10-03-2008, 07:03 AM   #110
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
It's senseless examples....
Dont' you really know such simple things that it's not correct to compare lenses with different focal length

If Pentax has FF camera, welcome...Please, compare and discuss...
Different focals? Yes, but the same FOV and AOV. If not, what to compare? How to be fair?
10-03-2008, 07:10 AM   #111
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
As described in FullFrame WARS! this problem was counteracted for the Leica M8 but addressing the problem for a large range for focal lengths isn't that easy, or is it? (This is a genuine question).
Thats the typical useless and misleading articles on the net written by those persons who know nothing about technical stuff but tried to write something technical: A few wrong examples: he doesn't know how to read the MTF chart, the unit is in 10 and 30 *Line Pairs* per mm not 10mm and 30mm. Also, the MTF chart cannot be compared directly as the resolution for measuring MTF of a cropped sensor should be multiplied by the same factor so to give the same resolution but not comparing the same figures. Third, Olympus is not an APS-C system but a 4/3. Fourth, the current APS-C DSLRs are not built on a new standard, but just a cropped format based on old 135 systems! Fifth, the main advantage of much lower noise, wide DR and higher resolution of FF DSLRs are intentionally omitted - if his "arguments" are right, the P&S DCs should be the best! since they are the *true* "modern" standards.

Well, if anyone believes in what the author told, then just believe it but all you will be wrong then!
10-03-2008, 07:49 AM   #112
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Why would anyone go FF without increasing the resolution? Just for the sensitivity and DOF? Isn't one typical application of FF / MF landscape photography and very large prints? The latter do not make sense if you do not go beyond APS-C resolution.
I made this case earlier in this thread, but it's worth repeating. If quality of large size print is your main goal then you will see virtually no difference between the 15 megapixel Canon 50D and the 21 megapixel Canon 5D. Lets say you want to make a 20x30 print:

50D = 4752 x 3168: 158dpi at 20x30"
5D = 5616 x 3744. 187dpi at 20x30"

I said it then, and I'll say it again now. A 29dpi difference is indiscernible to the naked eye. You'd have to use a loop to notice any difference at all.

If size is your ultimate goal, 130dpi or so is the absolute minimum I would feel comfortable printing at on an ink jet printer (250dpi on an offset press). At 130dpi the 50D can produce a print 36x24". The 5D can produce one 43x28". That is obviously larger, but that's hardly big difference. If you're going to want to make extremely large prints you're going to need something up in the 30megapixel range. The Leica S2 for example can make a print 58" wide at 130dpi. Of course if you push a 35mm sensor up into the 30megapixel range it will totally lose it's low light advantage it currently has just for the sake of resolution.

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 10-03-2008 at 07:55 AM.
10-03-2008, 01:26 PM   #113
Site Supporter
Douglas_of_Sweden's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stockholm
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,348
Did RH just admit he wants "to fight for the extinction of Pentax"?

QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
To fight for the extinction of Pentax!
Perhaps I'm deluded here by the English language, but I believe "To fight for the extinction of Pentax" does mean the same thing as to fight for the extinction of malaria or AIDS or against something else you don't want! To fight for the extinction of the whales would be the same as trying to kill all of them! ("To fight the extinction of whales" is something else.)

But "to fight for the extinction of Pentax" is perhaps what you really want? I have been wondering. Actually, I think a lot of us have.

QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
Is that "worth" now? ;-)
Presuming now that you meant to say "to fight (against) the extinction of Pentax" my answer is still no. It is just a brand. It is not worth such devotion. Find something else worthy of it.

Besides, you do it in a very strange way. If this is your purpose (to help save Pentax), I'm quite sure you achieve the opposite. Please consider finding different methods.

10-03-2008, 02:18 PM   #114
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vilcabamba, Loja
Posts: 216
Why They Rant...

QuoteOriginally posted by Douglas_of_Sweden Quote
Why he still bother about Pentax is impossible to understand.
You can block idiots from this forum in your control panel. He bashes Pentax because a competitor obviously gives him free/discounted cameras and/or lenses. It's a no-brainer on their behalf. Give someone a camera that can come out of a marketing budget at manufacturer's cost and the payback for creating Fear Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) is payed back in less than 3 gained sales vs. Pentax. There's him and Anistimgmat (sp.) who obviously just sets his RSS feeds to show any post mentioning 'sensor' and he'll do on a skewed rant about FF. It works on newbies I guess. If Canikony would send me a K20D, I'll crucify it under a different name here and on dpreview no problem (hint, hint, hint). Send me a couple DA*'s and you'll get a slander website too! It's a pretty good business model. Business is hard ball so caveat emptor baby...

Last edited by Mr. The Guy; 10-03-2008 at 02:28 PM. Reason: Added Sentence
10-03-2008, 03:28 PM   #115
Veteran Member
philmorley's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia
Posts: 472
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
Since you are not convinced, I suggest you to check out that:-

1. A F* 17-28 on Full Frame does not have the same huge amount of the DA 10-17 of CAs and purple fringing. You know in Hong Kong, many of we Pentaxians named the lens as "King of Purple Fringing"!

2. A FA 20/2.8 on FF has better corner sharpness and central resolution than a DA 14/2.8 on APS-C but then the former is lighter and more compact.

3. A DA 16-45 has more vignetting, CAs and distortion than what the FA 24-90 does and the DA counterpart is heavier and larger and with shorter range!

4. The DA 17-70 has a comparable range with the FA 24-90 but then it has even worse optical performance as shown in the review test above. Note that it is even heavier and bulkier!

5. And many more examples..

There are just two possibilities for all the above:-

1. APS-C DSLR system is inferior and more difficult to make it good, as what 24x36NOW states;

2. Pentax in recent years designed and made products which are inferior than what they were able to produce before!

3. Or BOTH!
looking through photozone (so limited sample), on average this appears to be the same across manufacturers, on apsc the crop lenses seem to have more ca etc than those designed for ff at same focal length. (obvisously exceptions but looking at nikon 12-24 dx compared to 14-24, sony 16-80 -> 24-70 etc etc. there is of course big price difference between lenses too so, could be designed for a price but on the face of it your possibilities seem to be yes to number 1 and/or 2 all manufacturers generally make crop lenses not of same optical quality re ca etc as their ff offerings.
10-03-2008, 04:45 PM   #116
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Art Vandelay II Quote
I made this case earlier in this thread, but it's worth repeating. If quality of large size print is your main goal then you will see virtually no difference between the 15 megapixel Canon 50D and the 21 megapixel Canon 5D. Lets say you want to make a 20x30 print:

50D = 4752 x 3168: 158dpi at 20x30"
5D = 5616 x 3744. 187dpi at 20x30"

I said it then, and I'll say it again now. A 29dpi difference is indiscernible to the naked eye. You'd have to use a loop to notice any difference at all.
You cannot judge the IQ just by the number of pixels or else the G10 which has about 15MP would have the same quality as the 50D according to you. It's obviously not true. FF has about 1 stop difference vs APS-C. That's what the crop factor means. FF collects 1 stop more of light due the sensor surface difference.

APS-C is mainly a trade-off of quality vs cost. For 10x less money, you just loose 1 stop. Great trade-off. But it's a trade-off nonetheless. What I mean is that APS-C is not a new mount, it's still based on the 35mm mount. The K mount is built for FF. And if you want ultimate quality, FF is better than APS-C, no question about it. But is the difference justify the price? it's down to the individual.
10-03-2008, 05:01 PM   #117
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland
Posts: 553
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
Thats the typical useless and misleading articles on the net written by those persons who know nothing about technical stuff but tried to write something technical
Do you honestly have no idea how ironic this statement is?
10-03-2008, 05:01 PM   #118
Veteran Member
philmorley's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia
Posts: 472
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
You cannot judge the IQ just by the number of pixels or else the G10 which has about 15MP would have the same quality as the 50D according to you. It's obviously not true. FF has about 1 stop difference vs APS-C. That's what the crop factor means. FF collects 1 stop more of light due the sensor surface difference.

APS-C is mainly a trade-off of quality vs cost. For 10x less money, you just loose 1 stop. Great trade-off. But it's a trade-off nonetheless. What I mean is that APS-C is not a new mount, it's still based on the 35mm mount. The K mount is built for FF. And if you want ultimate quality, FF is better than APS-C, no question about it. But is the difference justify the price? it's down to the individual.
I agree but its about 2.5x the price rather than 10x. much the same as paying 2.5x the price for top glass.
10-03-2008, 05:14 PM   #119
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by philmorley Quote
I agree but its about 2.5x the price rather than 10x. much the same as paying 2.5x the price for top glass.
I was talking about the sensor producing cost. It has been shown that it costs about 10 times the cost of APS-C. It may seem weird because APS-C is only 2.25 less but it's because the yield is lower for bigger sizes.

Of course, the sensor is one part of the camera cost. Hence your 2.5x figure.

But this sensor cost also means that FF will probably never be as cheap as APS-C. If that was not the case, APS-C would be dead in a few years, maybe even months. Somehow Pentax doesn't believe it and they decided a long time ago to concentrate on APS-C with lenses to match.
10-03-2008, 06:51 PM   #120
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Charlotte, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 886
QuoteOriginally posted by ManuH Quote
You cannot judge the IQ just by the number of pixels or else the G10 which has about 15MP would have the same quality as the 50D according to you. It's obviously not true. FF has about 1 stop difference vs APS-C. That's what the crop factor means. FF collects 1 stop more of light due the sensor surface difference
Nope, you didn't read my previous posts in this thread. I said in an early post that it's one thing if you're talking about 1/2.3" sensors, but the differences in 15 megapixel APS-C vs 15 megapixel FF are so minimal that no one would notice a difference in even very large prints. Both make large prints extremely well.

I also am fully aware what crop factor means, and to be honest it's a term I'm getting tired of. 4/3, APS-C, 35mm, and medium format are all different formats. One could say 35mm is nothing but a small crop of a medium format FOV. Then medium FOV is nothing more than a crop of 4x5" view cameras, and that is only a crop of 8x10" Large Format. The bottom line is there is always a bigger fish. Fortunately though APS-C is more than enough for 95% of all users.
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!
645d, development, ff, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax USA prez interview henryp Ask B&H Photo! 2 10-14-2010 02:13 PM
Pentax interview with AP Urmas R. Pentax News and Rumors 34 03-11-2009 06:53 PM
Japanese interview with Pentax/Hoya MrApollinax Pentax News and Rumors 1 03-09-2009 06:47 AM
another pentax interview philmorley Pentax News and Rumors 23 10-28-2008 04:22 AM
Interview with Pentax Japan ckanthon Pentax DSLR Discussion 0 06-22-2008 12:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:41 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