Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-14-2015, 12:45 PM - 1 Like   #406
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
If you read the article, you'd realise that your point doesn't stand.

But it's OK, I don't want to start a debate.

Regarding 645, many people don't need that kind of performance, but would appreciate to use the FF lenses they have to their full potential. So it is definitely not a case of "either go all the way or don't at all".
Even if the points were valid, the current rumor is that the Pentax is going to have a 42 MP BSI sensor. It's going to be quite a bit better than any APS-C sensor.

---------- Post added 07-14-15 at 12:55 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
no other size sensor can get as shallow as full frame (unless you go up to film medium/large format).
Picking nits here, but in general medium format is actually slower than full frame. Full frame it's easy to find F/1.4, F/1.2, and even faster in some limited cases... a F/0.95 full-frame lens might be less expensive (and more than a stop faster) than an F/2 MF lens.



QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think the countervailing argument is that if you actually need more depth of field, then full frame does you little good, as once you stop down to APS-C equivalence, you lose your benefit of full frame. That is to say, if you shoot at f2.8 on APS-C and iso 1600 and f4 and iso 3200 on full frame, you will have similar dynamic range, noise and of course depth of field. The only way you get a real benefit is if you are willing to tolerate less depth of field.
A cost, weight and size benefit (full frame is generally cheaper, lighter and smaller at equivalent DOF) are also real benefits in my view.

In terms of picture taken, you're right about DR, noise, and DOF, but in terms of sharpness, CA, etc, the full frame picture is in practice always superior for reasonably comparable lenses.

07-14-2015, 01:09 PM   #407
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Even if the points were valid, the current rumor is that the Pentax is going to have a 42 MP BSI sensor. It's going to be quite a bit better than any APS-C sensor.

---------- Post added 07-14-15 at 12:55 PM ----------



Picking nits here, but in general medium format is actually slower than full frame. Full frame it's easy to find F/1.4, F/1.2, and even faster in some limited cases... a F/0.95 full-frame lens might be less expensive (and more than a stop faster) than an F/2 MF lens.





A cost, weight and size benefit (full frame is generally cheaper, lighter and smaller at equivalent DOF) are also real benefits in my view.

In terms of picture taken, you're right about DR, noise, and DOF, but in terms of sharpness, CA, etc, the full frame picture is in practice always superior for reasonably comparable lenses.
I certainly wouldn't say that an f0.95 lens is cheap, common or likely to be sharp wide open. Clearly you can get shallow depth of field with both full frame 35mm and medium format film -- probably more shallow than what most folks need.
07-14-2015, 01:47 PM   #408
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,343
@Winder:
And my point was that a higher MP count might be required in order to avoid the "cheap" route (since going straight for the speed monsters is not an option). thus spending more money on those other areas.

12 and 16MP, that's just too few, even if we don't need more the Pentax must be seen as being "competitive". They need a sensor which will beat the K-3 in (almost) any situation. They need a sensor which will work well in crop mode. One that won't make people say "but I can get this 24MP FF camera cheaper".
Besides, we know it will have more than 24, don't we?
07-14-2015, 02:05 PM   #409
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
certainly wouldn't say that an f0.95 lens is cheap, common or likely to be sharp wide open.
We changed the subject in the middle of the conversation, I was keeping up with your topic (comparing FF to MF first, and comparing FF to APS-C second).

Nevertheless, compared on a equal SNR/DOF basis, a F/0.95 lens is cheap, common, and sharp wide open compared to alternatives on MF and APS-C.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Clearly you can get shallow depth of field with both full frame 35mm and medium format film -- probably more shallow than what most folks need.
MF Film is a different comparison, with very many other benefits and drawbacks. You can get as shallow as you want, sure, but that's only one parameter.

07-14-2015, 02:31 PM   #410
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
We changed the subject in the middle of the conversation, I was keeping up with your topic (comparing FF to MF first, and comparing FF to APS-C second).

Nevertheless, compared on a equal SNR/DOF basis, a F/0.95 lens is cheap, common, and sharp wide open compared to alternatives on MF and APS-C.



MF Film is a different comparison, with very many other benefits and drawbacks. You can get as shallow as you want, sure, but that's only one parameter.
My original comment was with regard to film cameras not digital medium format which are also crop sensors.
07-14-2015, 02:40 PM   #411
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
My original comment was with regard to film cameras not digital medium format which are also crop sensors.
Fair enough, but I am yet to see a MF lens that is faster than F/1.9 or so, they probably exist but I have never seen them. On 645 that works out to about a F/1.2 on FF.... I haven't checked the specs but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's faster, lighter, cheaper, more available (you can buy new for less than $1k), etc.

MF has advantages in theory, but in practice the advantages are much more limited, likely due to market size.
07-14-2015, 03:17 PM   #412
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
The K-3 just doesn't handle handle the skin tones as well.
What RAW converter are you using?

I'm not happy with the colours of my K-5 II either. I always liked the colours of the K100D but the K-5 II often gives me a headache with unnatural looking colour shifts. I suspect the ACR (Lightroom) camera profile I'm using is to blame. I've tried to tweak it with the DNG profiler tool, but with limited success. Perhaps ACR is tuned to Canon CFA characteristics and it is hard to make it work with the Pentax CFAs?

I always wanted to try Capture One to see whether it would solve my colour woes, but support by Phase One is pretty poor, both in terms of what they supply with the product (the original K-3 profile they shipped was an extremely poorly doctored version of a K-5 profile) and also in terms of how they welcome new customers.
07-14-2015, 04:07 PM   #413
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,801
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
What RAW converter are you using?

I'm not happy with the colours of my K-5 II either. I always liked the colours of the K100D but the K-5 II often gives me a headache with unnatural looking colour shifts. I suspect the ACR (Lightroom) camera profile I'm using is to blame. I've tried to tweak it with the DNG profiler tool, but with limited success. Perhaps ACR is tuned to Canon CFA characteristics and it is hard to make it work with the Pentax CFAs?

I always wanted to try Capture One to see whether it would solve my colour woes, but support by Phase One is pretty poor, both in terms of what they supply with the product (the original K-3 profile they shipped was an extremely poorly doctored version of a K-5 profile) and also in terms of how they welcome new customers.
DxO gives me the best results, but I mostly use LR5 I bought some Huelight color profiles Huelight Camera Profiles and I use my X-rite to create lens specific profiles. Nothing really makes me happy with the K-3 skin tones on Caucasian models. Some of it is dialing in the perfect WB and the right lighting, but often getting the WB prefect doesn't help and the lips still have a magenta cast. I'm getting really good skin tones with the Sony A7II with minimal effort and no special profiles.

07-14-2015, 06:29 PM   #414
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Fair enough, but I am yet to see a MF lens that is faster than F/1.9 or so, they probably exist but I have never seen them. On 645 that works out to about a F/1.2 on FF.... I haven't checked the specs but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's faster, lighter, cheaper, more available (you can buy new for less than $1k), etc.

MF has advantages in theory, but in practice the advantages are much more limited, likely due to market size.
I have just been very impressed by the 67 shots I have seen in the medium format section of the forum. There is something pretty special about that rendering. And film cameras and manual focus medium format lenses are decently priced on the used market.
07-14-2015, 06:33 PM   #415
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
...I use my X-rite to create lens specific profiles.
I've tried that as well, with little success.

As I said, I have a feeling that the heuristics of the respective software are optimised for different colour filter characteristics. If you manually tweak the X-rite color passport patches with the DNG profile editor, you'll notice that the respective adjustment points often do not exactly target the patches they are supposed to. Tweaking the source colour will make the changes to the mapping much more specific to the patches. This leads me to believe that this whole colour management chain is poorly suited to deal with Pentax RAW files.

QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Nothing really makes me happy with the K-3 skin tones on Caucasian models.


I was wondering if I had been missing out on special profiles like the Huelight profiles, but your experience is not encouraging.

QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I'm getting really good skin tones with the Sony A7II with minimal effort and no special profiles.
I always liked the colours of earlier Sony DSLRs and heard from two professionals that Sony RAW files need much less mucking about than Canon, for instance.
07-14-2015, 07:42 PM   #416
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,801
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I've tried that as well, with little success.

As I said, I have a feeling that the heuristics of the respective software are optimised for different colour filter characteristics. If you manually tweak the X-rite color passport patches with the DNG profile editor, you'll notice that the respective adjustment points often do not exactly target the patches they are supposed to. Tweaking the source colour will make the changes to the mapping much more specific to the patches. This leads me to believe that this whole colour management chain is poorly suited to deal with Pentax RAW files.




I was wondering if I had been missing out on special profiles like the Huelight profiles, but your experience is not encouraging.


I always liked the colours of earlier Sony DSLRs and heard from two professionals that Sony RAW files need much less mucking about than Canon, for instance.
I was pretty concerned about Sony's "compressed" RAW files and people make a big deal out of it, but I have never had an issue. The files might not be as mailable and the D750, but when exposure is good (with in 2 stops) the files are excellent. If you miss by 3 or more stops, then the Nikon files hold up better. I really like Sony colors, but some of that might be due to the Sony/Zeiss 55mm F/1.8 and the T* coatings. Its a really, really good lens.

I'm to the point that I wonder if my K-3 is defective. Not everyone seems to have this problem with Pentax colors. I bought the Huelight profiles and really didn't see an improvement. I don't even have them installed currently.

The VSCO presets work really well with the Sony files. The VSCO colors are not very good with the K-3. I sent a message to VSCO to see if they had any plans to support Pentax color profiles, and they basically said "no". The VSCO standard color profiles don't play well with Pentax in my experience.

Yes, the Sony files have great color. It is also true that they require very little processing to get great results.

Last edited by Winder; 07-14-2015 at 07:49 PM.
07-14-2015, 07:46 PM   #417
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I have just been very impressed by the 67 shots I have seen in the medium format section of the forum. There is something pretty special about that rendering. And film cameras and manual focus medium format lenses are decently priced on the used market.
You can get a 105mm f/2.4 for ~$300. You can get a 50mm F/1.2 for ~$300.

Of course for me the film setup is going to be heavier, more work, more expensive, bigger, etc., but that's just me. A 67ii goes for more than an A7, too, and that's before I buy and process the film.

Believe me I want a format larger than 36x24, it just never seems to be anywhere-near-responsible financially.
07-15-2015, 02:37 AM   #418
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 155
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
A friend of mine shoots all of his wedding work with a Fuji X-T1 set to Classic Chrome JPEG. Some people are really surprised by that, but all of his work has a consistent look to it and that gives him advantage over a lot of people.
Fuji: the one company you can trust for skin tones and jpgs
07-15-2015, 05:10 AM   #419
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by plooksta Quote
Fuji: the one company you can trust for skin tones and jpgs
Fuji - the one company that's lied so much about ISO values that I will never trust them for anything, anytime, anywhere.
07-15-2015, 07:07 AM   #420
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,801
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Fuji - the one company that's lied so much about ISO values that I will never trust them for anything, anytime, anywhere.
Fuji isn't lying about anything. Don't be a drama queen. There is nothing wrong with their image quality.

ISO 12232:2006 Standard for Digital Camera:

The Recommended Exposure Index (REI) technique, new in the 2006 version of the standard, allows the manufacturer to specify a camera model’s EI choices arbitrarily . The choices are based solely on the manufacturer’s opinion of what EI values produce well-exposed sRGB images at the various sensor sensitivity settings. This is the only technique available under the standard for output formats that are not in the sRGB color space. This is also the only technique available under the standard when multi-zone metering (also called pattern metering) is used.
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!
24x36mm, aps-c, benefit, depth, ff, field, filter, frame, frame pentax, fuji, full-frame, goldilocks, iq, iso, noise, pentax, picture, resolution, sensor, terms
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So.... Pentax Full Frame is a sure thing? LFLee Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 11-02-2012 12:55 PM
Why is the K7 so terrible? or rather why am i having such a problem with it? runslikeapenguin Pentax DSLR Discussion 60 05-01-2012 01:16 PM
Why do people want a Full Frame sensor? RobG Pentax DSLR Discussion 98 02-15-2012 09:12 AM
Is there such a thing as a decent superzoom (for Pentax)? DanielT74 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 06-21-2011 05:57 AM
Full-Frame Image Sensor Holy Grail - Why? stewart_photo Pentax DSLR Discussion 82 10-10-2007 03:00 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:52 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