Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-06-2009, 06:05 PM   #46
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by baltochef920 Quote
m8o

I have got to assume that your post timed at 2:46 PM is directed at my first post on this thread timed at 1:37 PM, since it comes directly after mine..

I ask this in all seriousness, and with the fullest of respect towards you as a fellow member of this forum, "What purpose does your post serve??"..

Even though your sentence has a smiley face after it, its purpose is both inflammatory, and derogatory..[um... ahem...snip]
lol, you're taking it and whatever you felt you needed to convey way too seriously.

It means it's extremely long. It implies the question "who has time to read that much?" I'd have read it but don't have time to read that much during working hours, which'll still be about another 6 for me tonight; so maybe this weekend. I have only a few seconds to maybe a few dozen seconds to allow for reading any one post. So if you're "all about respecting time" consider that.

But no matter. I'll stay away from ya. Yes, this is a largely friendly forum and the last thing I expect was you to not realize it should be taken as "dude lol, who has time to read a thesis like that?" So with what I see of you from the follow-up before I stopped reading, l8r.

03-06-2009, 06:25 PM   #47
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
According to Lloyd L. Chambers "Diffraction" in the Jan/Feb 2009, once the Airy's disc laps 1/2 way onto the adjacent photosite, contrast is being lost, and eventually resolution.

"For the 21MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, the problem is acute: with a top=performing lens, the loss of contrast from diffraction is already an observable factor by f/8. By f/11, image contrast drops noticeably. By f/22, the degradation is enough that only a critical need for depth of field justifies its use"

The K20 has many improvements that i wish i had on my K10, such as focus adjustments, higher ISO, better sensor cleaning to name a few. But my K10 has less diffraction problems with small apertures and so i'm not in any hurry to trade up. Why buy an expensive camera like the Canon EOS 1 Mk III and be limited to f/8?
Sorry but I have to completely disagree with what you have quoted.
I have used the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III and I have not encountered the so called issues mentioned.
BTW have you actually tried the K20D? The diffraction issues you mention is no worse on the K20D than the K10D.
If anything the image quality from the K20D is much better than the K10D, speaking as a one time K10D user.

Last edited by creampuff; 03-06-2009 at 06:30 PM.
03-06-2009, 06:42 PM   #48
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baltimore, Maryland USA
Posts: 162
And in reply to Bruce (baltochef290)

Ouch ! God forbid that any mere working-class amateur digital photographer ever pop their head above the parapet…….lol !

Best regards
Richard

P.S. Don't worry, I know my place, guvnor !
______________________________________________________________
Richard

I find it constantly amazing how even the most innocuous words can be misconstrued, or misinterpreted when people communicate over the internet..A lot of this, I believe, is deliberate..

When I typed the description, middle class serious amateur digital photographer, I intended for that description to include all digital photographers that were not so wealthy that they could afford to purchase anything that they so desired without having to consider the costs of those purchases..At least in the United States the line between the working class and the so-called middle class has, in my opinion, become quite blurred..The standard of living, and the wages earned by a fair number of working class people, has certainly propelled them into what 50-60 years ago would have been called the middle class..In those days the middle class was considered to be white collar workers, small business owners, etc..Certainly, few people that worked hard with their hands were considered middle class in those days..People that work with their hands to earn a living now earn very good incomes compared to just 30 years ago..

As my screen name implies, I am a chef..Thus, I work with my hands to create food each and every day..This makes me a working class citizen..Before I became a chef I delivered newspapers as a child, worked stocking shelves in a grocery store, was a machinist, served as a medic in the military, sold and repaired bicycles, set choker chains as a logger one summer, tended bar, worked in a bakery, and worked as a lift operator at a ski resort..I have never had a white collar job..I do, however, consider myself to be a member of America's middle class..

I do not know exactly what your meaning in the above highlighted words is supposed to mean..If you took offense at what I wrote, then so be it..I did not intend to insult working class digital photographers, as I am interpreting your words to have thought I did..

Bruce
03-06-2009, 07:08 PM   #49
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baltimore, Maryland USA
Posts: 162
QuoteOriginally posted by m8o Quote
lol, you're taking it and whatever you felt you needed to convey way too seriously.

It means it's extremely long. It implies the question "who has time to read that much?" I'd have read it but don't have time to read that much during working hours, which'll still be about another 6 for me tonight; so maybe this weekend. I have only a few seconds to maybe a few dozen seconds to allow for reading any one post. So if you're "all about respecting time" consider that.

But no matter. I'll stay away from ya. Yes, this is a largely friendly forum and the last thing I expect was you to not realize it should be taken as "dude lol, who has time to read a thesis like that?" So with what I see of you from the follow-up before I stopped reading, l8r.
_________________________________________________________________

You know, I constantly see posts like this one where people claim that their internet time is so valuable that they cannot, no they WILL NOT read any post over a few sentences in length..

My response to that attitude is that it is absolute, utter BULLS**T!!!!..

If you did not take the time to read my original posting on this thread, then why in the hell did you bother responding to it in any fashion at all??..

I will repeat what I said in my rebuttal to your first post directed at me..It was, and is, a deliberate attempt to mock me for what I now know (due to this second post of yours towards me) is contempt for anyone that chooses to post a lengthy response in a thread..

If you are reading posts here at PF while you are working, and if you CHOOSE not to read any post over a few sentences in length; well I am totally cool with that..That is certainly your choice, and you are entitled to do as you choose..

I ask this question again, "If you are not going to contribute something positive to the thread, then why choose to comment at all??"..Just pass over any thread that is too long for you to consider reading while at work, and return to read it at a later time when you feel less hurried..Why do you, and so many others, feel compelled to mock people that do not conform to your ideas of proper internet behavior??..

As I see things, deliberately posting provocative, mocking posts to another member's post is no different than deliberately picking a verbal fight in a face-to-face conversation..Both are wrong, and should not be condoned..

And, I completely fail to see where a long post by any member on a thread here can in ANY way be construed as disrespectful..As you have suggested that mine was to you..

03-06-2009, 07:40 PM   #50
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by baltochef920 Quote
...And, I completely fail to see where a long post by any member on a thread here can in ANY way be construed as disrespectful..As you have suggested that mine was to you..
I hate to go so OT. One last one. ('suggestion' was on the overreaction reply) No insult was originally intended. Given my history here and comfort, I made the mistake I could joke around with you. But you don't know me, I don't know you. For all the time since you joined this was the 1st post I saw from your id, or at least noticed. My bad for thinking I could joke around with you as I often see joking of that very form being done around here. Which I appreciate much more than escalating arguments I see often break out.

It's like you're looking for a fight/debate on your original position or this escalation you are pursuing. But you won't get that from me. Please put me on your ignore list. Let me know if you need help finding it. I'll send you the link. But if you think that's the last time you'll see a joking quip like that from others or me (but I assure you not in reply to you as I won't be seeing your post without clicking an override link to see it), you are setting yourself up to be disappointed.

But back OT. Yes, Olympus comment. I agree, in large part. My position was stated a few pages previous.
<thread unsubscribe>
03-06-2009, 08:12 PM   #51
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Indeed making a virtue out of necessity is an old trick.

However he has a point. Very few consumers will ever see the benefit of more MP, but it will cost them more (in storage, processing time etc.) for no good purpose.
That wall has long cumbled, except for long term storage. TigerDirect (one of my favorite toy stores) had a 4 terabyte (1000gb X4) 4 GB RAM quad core system (barebones w/ case but no OS/ Optical drive) for $699.... Storage and processing is even more dirt cheap then before, and w/ the need to sell Chinese products, I predict even cheaper soon..
I would not even sweat 20-40mb files anymore...
03-07-2009, 07:54 AM   #52
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
According to Lloyd L. Chambers "Diffraction" in the Jan/Feb 2009, once the Airy's disc laps 1/2 way onto the adjacent photosite, contrast is being lost, and eventually resolution.

"For the 21MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III, the problem is acute: with a top=performing lens, the loss of contrast from diffraction is already an observable factor by f/8. By f/11, image contrast drops noticeably. By f/22, the degradation is enough that only a critical need for depth of field justifies its use"
The diffraction limit is known for >100 years, no need to cite a 2009 article about it

As I have outlined here:
About the relationship of sensor size and possible resolution
the diffraction limit is related to the physical size (aperture diameter in mm) of the lens used (the bigger the better) rather then the size of the sensor.

Of course, at a certain point it would be impossible to make a large-sízed lens for a tiny sensor (because of the tiny focal length required).

So, if we talk about diffraction limits, we talk about lenses, not cameras or their mega pixels.

And excellent lenses have their sweet spot at f/4 anyway...
03-07-2009, 08:13 AM   #53
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
QuoteOriginally posted by Venturi Quote
I'm honestly curious what things you speak of, Jeff. Because what you describe appears to me is a "deficiency" of focal length and/or minimum focusing distance of your ground glass collection. If you are typically having to crop 50% of your images to get the frame/composition you desire that (to me) is not an indication of a sensor (or film) resolution problem.
Oddly enough, I tend to suffer the reverse "disorder" and frame too tight which leaves me not enough room to manipulate. We all have our crosses to bear...

To wit, and purely for example - if I were a lunar photographer I would at minimum want the DA*300/4 and a really good 2x TC so I could fill the frame with my subject: the moon. If I were an entomological fanatic I would be using macro lenses and/or tubes, or a bellows setup so I could easily blow up a Monarch to the size of a toy poodle.

But regardless of your particular needs; before the chip makers stuff more pixels into the same square inch they need to focus on lowering signal-to-noise ratios, increasing dynamic range and improving pass/fail ratios at the wafer level to lower production costs of the existing sensor technologies. Those three items will help 100% of the (digital) photographic market even though it may not help "your ilk" 100%.
Just a minor sample ,an a bit extreme but it shows you where I'm coming from.
I crop a lot in my hobby. Mostly to experiment with or without certain background elements.. Think of it as if it there you can remove it. If not well your stuck.
Not to mention that sometimes the "standard size ratios" just don't cut it.
Bottom line I'm not a field perfectionist...
also the farther away the more DOF I can squeeze out... I'm contemplating going to focus stacking though.
DOF is my sworn enemy and if I had a "magic lens" that gave this at 1mm to infinity I'd be a happy man...
Pixel stufffing is just beneficial to me, to make my life easier... Imagine having 6MP surrounding the center blue cup Would make a great 8X10
Instead of fussing in the field I could take one image and have, litterly, dozens of high quality enlargements with different compositions, instead of puttering around w/ one ect... OK I'm a lazy photographer as well...........
As to S/N ratios a simple better ADC would probably give you a stop or two

Anyways on w/ the show
A bit obvious thought:
If there were no major drawbacks who wouldn't want more pixels?????? Seems really to be the goal.. more data and the manipulation of such.
Even at best I would generally crop 20-40% of this image even if the cap filled the frame. I checked...



Last edited by jeffkrol; 03-07-2009 at 11:38 AM.
03-07-2009, 03:28 PM   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada
Posts: 2,014
QuoteOriginally posted by jeffkrol Quote

Besides I like Macro so some of my lenses have the necessary resolution for a substantial increase in pixel count before becoming "useless"
When (not if) they come out w/ the 20+ APS-c we can talk again...
The macro lenses are optimized for close focus work, but, overall, their definition is not that much better than a high quality prime designed for "normal" work. I don't think you'd see an improvement in quality with an APS-C sensor with 20 meg. The difference between a 12 and a 15 meg. sensor is negligible to start with, and you won't be able to crop more with an APS-C sensor with 20 meg, since the lenses reach their limit (currently) at about 12 to 15 meg.
03-07-2009, 04:51 PM   #55
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
QuoteOriginally posted by flyer Quote
The macro lenses are optimized for close focus work, but, overall, their definition is not that much better than a high quality prime designed for "normal" work.
Actually it was just in regards to zooms vs primes rather then macros vs the world... Generally macros have the edge over primes in flatness of field and a slight resolution advantage.
QuoteOriginally posted by flyer Quote
I don't think you'd see an improvement in quality with an APS-C sensor with 20 meg. The difference between a 12 and a 15 meg. sensor is negligible to start with, and you won't be able to crop more with an APS-C sensor with 20 meg, since the lenses reach their limit (currently) at about 12 to 15 meg.
Sorry I still see no proof of this and I've been looking. Between diffraction, pixel density, AA filter and Bayer array nobody has produced any hard numbers that I've seen proving any of these urban legends... yes there must be a cutoff, no we haven't reached it, when will we in reality reach it??? Build a giant uber-pixel density bayer AA'd sensor and show some real data.
just for fun.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28886769
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=28885581


Last edited by jeffkrol; 03-07-2009 at 07:13 PM.
03-07-2009, 10:43 PM   #56
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: midwest, United States
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,322
Okay, I will say it. I don't have enough resolution with the K20D. Its very obvious in even 11x14 that have things like grass in them. Can take the same lens on the LX loaded with Fuji Velvia and beat the K20D.
If a 20mp comes out this summer I will buy it. Don't care if the high iso goes to pot (can limit it to iso 400 if they want). This will be my hi res body. Will use one of my other 5 dslrs (3 Pentax) for low light. Bring it on. I want at least as good resolution as the 35mm film camera.
thanks
barondla

Check out POINT & SHOOT #16 WINNERS in P&S forum. Enter #17. Any brand camera. Any subject. Enter now!
03-07-2009, 11:07 PM   #57
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
Technically, 6 megapixels is enough for any camera.
03-07-2009, 11:08 PM   #58
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
Okay, I will say it. I don't have enough resolution with the K20D. Its very obvious in even 11x14 that have things like grass in them. Can take the same lens on the LX loaded with Fuji Velvia and beat the K20D.
Well that's very enlightening. Interesting to hear. A follow-up question:

Are you basing that on using JPEG out of the camera, or RAW and a good pp program to prepare your images?
03-07-2009, 11:34 PM   #59
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
QuoteOriginally posted by jct us101 Quote
Technically, 6 megapixels is enough for any camera.
I guess you're stating this perhaps because I'll hazard a guess you like many on this forum haven't tried out a full frame DSLR that has a sensor that exceeds 20 megapixels.

Once one has used a camera like the hefty EOS 1Ds Mark III, it is plain to see the benefits of having more megapixels.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/489802-post37.html

BTW how come the change in user nick?
03-08-2009, 02:24 AM   #60
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 182
35mm film resolution

While the 10 Megapixels I have on my K10d far outperforms any skills and lenses I have, I have seen examples of 35mm film cameras that shows a resolution that is far exceeding the 10 Megapixels.

Here is a link showing a BW photo (using a Leica M3 and a Summicron 90 mm lens on Kodak Technical Pan film) showing a resolution of about 100 lp/mm. To get the same on a FF would take roughly 35 Megapixels.

Staffan Johansson sharp pictures Leica Ansel Adams dark red filter Kodak Technical Pan focus adjustment

(It is actually quite an amazing shot)

Best regards,
Haakan
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!
megapixels, pentax news, pentax rumors, world
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Latest vs My Activity makes no sense to me foxglove Site Suggestions and Help 0 09-01-2010 07:51 AM
Do RML's posts make sense to you? Ash General Talk 46 11-09-2009 11:22 AM
need a back-up telephoto, common sense or old vivitar s1? tvfd911 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 08-13-2009 01:46 PM
Overinflated Sense of Worth k100d Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 10-11-2008 10:13 PM
Auto Focus - a bit of common sense garth1948 Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 03-02-2008 06:18 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 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