Originally posted by normhead Nice you brought that up. Back when in the day you used to say the pixel density on a K5 meant you couldn't get as good noise control. Now that a D800 has the same pixel density, you've changed your tune. .
I don't recall what you're referring to, but the noise control is going to be related to the sensor size (primarily.)
Because the K-5 has the same pixel density as the D800, that doesn't mean they perform equally well with
regard to noise.
Quote: So which is it? The D800 sucks at noise control, or the K-5 could be as good as many FFs
The K-5 approaches the 2008 Canon 5D II (DxO scores for low-light ISO: 1162 vs. 1815. Still lags a bit behind
the D700 (score: 2303) and now the D800 (2853)) That performance is related to sensor size and sensor QE.
Pentax has proven with the K-5 that they can take what Sony gives them and wrench every last bit of light, DR,
and color out of it. I'd love to see what they could do with a new 24 or 36MP FF sensor.
Quote: I'm summarizing the FF user as someone who for some quirk of artistic vision, needs something most people don't. Not something that is very likely to actually improve their photography.
I can tell you that the low-light capability combined with the AF improves my photography; simply makes getting
good shots easier. 'Artistic vision' can be satisfied with an iphone, that shouldn't be part of your criteria, unless
you consider increased subject isolation capability something esoteric and always unnecessary.
Quote: But you tell me. Are most of the 30,000 FF users, all intelligent educated in photography type users that have
determined that for their photographic needs an FF is better. Hell there are a
pile more educated photographers than I ever suspected. Next you'll tell me everyone who buys a Hummer needs it.
Wants. You keep getting confused about this
want vs.
need thing, and are effectively telling folks
their
wants are not legitimate.
Norm, why are you shooting aps-c and not micro 4/3? Do you really honestly
need aps-c? Three weeks ago
on T.O.P. ctein sold hundreds of copies of a limited-edition bridge shot taken with a m4/3 camera. He said he
found the detail incredible, and the print he sold was said to be of stunning quality. Who
needs aps-c? I think
these aps-c fanatics are just in denial about the benefits of m4/3!
Quote: And I would argue that you aren't going to noticeably improve on the IQ of a K-5 for the vast majority of the pictures you post, and the pictures you print. When you take a K-5 image and reduce it to 2400 pixels wide and take a D800 image and reduce it to 2400 pixels wide, you're going to have essentially the same image.
Wrong. Especially at higher ISOs.
Both of the crops below are from full-frame cameras, ISO 6400, one a crop of a native 12MP image, the other a crop
of a 36Mp image downsampled to 12MP. Which one do you lke better, and which would look better in print, based on
these crops?
The scene:
Crop #1:
Crop #2:
Note the text, but also the details in the $10 president's kerchief, the definition of the page crease in the shadow,
the text in the shadow above the $10, etc.
The K-5 would have about a stop more noise than that 12MP FF shot, and the very slight difference between 12Mp
and 16MP in resolution would be negated by that. A 24 or 36MP FF image from a K-3 would give you incredible
downsampling potential on top of it's native-resolution capability for large prints.
Regarding your 'challenge'... Here's a shot taken at 28mm f/2.8 on FF. It would require around an 18mm f/1.8 lens
shot wide-open to recreate this exact shot on aps-c, so please do not say 'that shot could be taken with an aps-c
camera', because it couldn't, unless there's an 18mm f/1.8 lens I'm not aware of.
You could get close to that by shooting a zoom at 18mm f/2.8, but that extra 1.2 stops is going to define the background
just a bit more, leaving the subject (the girls) with a bit less 'pop'. trust me, I've put thousands of shots through my
Tamron 17-50 2.8 on the D90 and 16-50 f/2.8 on the K20D, and I can't quite get that
look at f/2.8 with those
lenses from a distance like that.
Now, because there's no contextual aps-c shot of the same scene from the same position to use for reference, I know
you'll probably try to say you can get that same exact shot, yadda yadda yadda... but you can't. Not from that position,
with that FOV, with the apertures available on the lenses available. And it was a simple, quick snap with a $280 Tamron
28-75. And I love the
look.
Here's what I always use for a 'reference' comparison, because I happened to have a K20D + D700 with equivalent FL's
handy at that moment:
(both f/2.8 from same position, one 50mm on FF, the other 35mm on aps-c)
You can decide which one you like better, but as a photographer, that extra DOF control
should be something you covet.
It's another tool in the toolkit, something you can use if you want to.
.