Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-18-2012, 08:55 PM   #196
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 820
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
I corrected my earlier mistake. The 1.5x factor is on the DIAGONAL, not the height|width. So an APS-C 16mpx sensor with the same pixel density scaled-up to FF would be 32mpx. APS-C is very close to 135/HF (half-frame) or 24x18mm, half the area of 135/FF at 36x24mm.
Um, all linear dimensions are scaled the same. If the aspect ratio is the same, then 1.5x the diagonal means 1.5x both the height and width.

Proof:
Pythagorean theorem: A^2 + B^2 = C^2 (where A/B are height/width and C is diagonal)

C = sqrt(A^2 + B^2)

(1.5C)^2 = (1.5^2)C^2 = (1.5^2)(A^2 + B^2) = (1.5^2)A^2 + (1.5^2)B^2

therefore:

(1.5C)^2 = (1.5A)^2 + (1.5B)^2


Just for reference the K-5's APS-C sensor is 23.7 x 15.7mm (roughly 24x16, a scaling of 1.5 in every dimension). 24x18 isn't even 3:2.


Last edited by Cannikin; 06-18-2012 at 10:04 PM.
06-18-2012, 09:23 PM   #197
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 58
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
You lose nothing of the sort. Focal length is independent of sensor size.
You GAIN angle of view, but the central crop is exactly the same image you would have had with APS-C.
Yeah, but who has time to crop every photo - with the smaller sensor it feels like a bigger lens, and with resolution now its better than ever. If bigger is better, why isn't everyone shooting with the Pentax 645? and even this seems odd to me, but most of the new mirrorless systems are all based on an even smaller sensor.
06-18-2012, 09:35 PM   #198
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 119
Therefore:

Digital APS-C (k-5) = 23.70mm x 15.70mm = 372.09 mm2 = 3.72cm2
Digital 135 (say, theoretical k-3) = 35.55mm x 23.55mm = 837.20 mm2 = 8.37cm2, scaled exactly 1.5x for each linear dimension of k-5 sensor

Equivalent k-3 sensor at the same pixel density of a k-5's 16.28 MP sensor = 16.28/3.72 * 8.37 = 36.63 MP

Uncropped k-5 @ 16.28MP (16.08 MP effective) = 4928 x 3264 pixels at max. image size
Uncropped k-3 @ 36.63 (36.19 MP effective) = 7392 x 4896 pixels at max image size

Last edited by Mohawk; 06-18-2012 at 10:21 PM.
06-18-2012, 09:53 PM   #199
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 58
QuoteOriginally posted by Mohawk Quote
Uncropped k-3 @ 36.63 (36.19 MP effective) = 7392 x 4896 pixels at max image size
OK just to be devils advocate - who needs a 36 MP image size? Maybe only a handful of professionals making huge prints at full resolution, but certainly no one shooting for magazines or newpapers. I mean you can get poster size prints and even larger that are very sharp from a 16 MP sensor. I can see where 18-24 MP sensors are uselful, but 36, and when is it going to stop? 5 years ago I read an artical where they compared a 16 MP image to the resolution of a medium format negative and it was almost (not quite) but almost on par. I don't blame people for wanting to use their full frame glass though, that is the best argument i can think of.

06-18-2012, 09:56 PM   #200
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
I like 36 MP because it has almost zero disadvantages compared to APS-C - I can still crop to a k-5 image.

I also like 24 MP because the files are slightly smaller. Both are ok with me.
06-18-2012, 09:58 PM   #201
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,675
QuoteOriginally posted by gtl Quote
To me FF means using my FA Limiteds the way they were meant to be used... and thats reason enough for me to go FF
Exactly. They were meant to be used with a camera having a large, bright optical viewfinder. Oh wait, were you talking about FOV?
06-18-2012, 10:03 PM   #202
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,675
I think 36mp would be ridiculous. It could also hurt sales of the 645D. I don't have a need for any more than 24mp, especially since my 10mp K10D has produced beautiful photos for bulletin/billboard ads.
06-18-2012, 10:14 PM   #203
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sanski Most
Posts: 148
Less MPs will do that most of the lenses are still usable. It is bigger pixel on sensor if is FF and less MPs so lenses with lover resolving resolution are perfectly fine on sensor like that . Most of ppl intend to use older lenses so 24 MP would be much better than 36.

06-18-2012, 10:40 PM   #204
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by Williunck Quote
If bigger is better, why isn't everyone shooting with the Pentax 645?
Maybe because it's $10,000 brand new... and around $7,000 lowest, prolly, second-hand. Well, the 645D, at least.
06-18-2012, 10:42 PM   #205
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,247
QuoteOriginally posted by Mohawk Quote
Therefore:

Digital APS-C (k-5) = 23.70mm x 15.70mm = 372.09 mm2 = 3.72cm2
Digital 135 (say, theoretical k-3) = 35.55mm x 23.55mm = 837.20 mm2 = 8.37cm2, scaled exactly 1.5x for each linear dimension of k-5 sensor

Equivalent k-3 sensor at the same pixel density of a k-5's 16.28 MP sensor = 16.28/3.72 * 8.37 = 36.63 MP

Uncropped k-5 @ 16.28MP (16.08 MP effective) = 4928 x 3264 pixels at max. image size
Uncropped k-3 @ 36.63 (36.19 MP effective) = 7392 x 4896 pixels at max image size
It seems to me 24 MP is sweet spot. I see at K-5 that the best apertures moved a bit close to wide-opened.
I really see that my FA*24 has the best apertures at f4-6.3 at K-5 and f5.6-8 at K200D.
24 MP is very good for FF. New sensor with not much MP could be the best mix of resolution/noise/DR. Remove AA filter and it will shine.
06-19-2012, 12:53 AM   #206
gtl
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 349
Lol. I could do with both.

QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
Exactly. They were meant to be used with a camera having a large, bright optical viewfinder. Oh wait, were you talking about FOV?
06-19-2012, 02:56 AM   #207
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 86
QuoteOriginally posted by Williunck Quote
OK just to be devils advocate - who needs a 36 MP image size?
Manufacturers of RAM and hard discs
06-19-2012, 03:21 AM   #208
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,226
QuoteOriginally posted by Williunck Quote
OK just to be devils advocate - who needs a 36 MP image size? Maybe only a handful of professionals making huge prints at full resolution, but certainly no one shooting for magazines or newpapers. I mean you can get poster size prints and even larger that are very sharp from a 16 MP sensor. I can see where 18-24 MP sensors are uselful, but 36, and when is it going to stop? 5 years ago I read an artical where they compared a 16 MP image to the resolution of a medium format negative and it was almost (not quite) but almost on par. I don't blame people for wanting to use their full frame glass though, that is the best argument i can think of.
Well, I think the issue is that at 36 megapixels, full frame takes away nearly any benefit of APS-C. Any "extra length" APS-C gives to your lenses is based on increased pixel density, not on the cropped format. The only downside is that it slows down frame rate and fills buffers faster -- really, the D800 has an amazing sensor.

Really, megapixels isn't as big a deal right now as things like iso and dynamic range, but down sampling a high megapixel image often gives better results than an image shot at lower resolution in the first place.
06-19-2012, 04:32 AM   #209
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
Maybe because it's $10,000 brand new... and around $7,000 lowest, prolly, second-hand. Well, the 645D, at least.
Went to $6k after the D800 came out.
06-19-2012, 04:33 AM   #210
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,324
QuoteOriginally posted by TomTextura Quote
Well, for a while Samsung was rebadging Pentax cameras. Not sure whether that refutes or reinforces the not a "real camera" company claim.
Please, don't forgot about the smilie; I wasn't seriously claiming that.
Unlike when they were rebadging Pentax DSLRs (real cameras, just not Samsung's ), they seems to put some effort in their NX system. Strangely, though, they have almost as many gadget MILC things cameras as lenses. Electronic giant corporation line of thinking?

Last edited by Kunzite; 06-19-2012 at 04:45 AM.
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!
cameras, dslr, frame, full-frame, pentax, pentax full frame, rumor, rumors, sensor, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The full frame Pentax? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 02-13-2012 10:09 AM
The full frame Pentax that never was dj_saunter Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame oppositz Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 03-18-2011 09:39 AM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:05 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