[ElJamoquio]

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 ----------

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.

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.

[Rondec]

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.

[Kunzite]

@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?

[ElJamoquio]

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.

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.

[Rondec]

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.

[ElJamoquio]

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.

[Class A]

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.

[Winder]

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.

[Rondec]

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.

[Class A]

...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.

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.

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.

[Winder]

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.

[ElJamoquio]

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.

[plooksta]

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

[ElJamoquio]

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.

[Winder]

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.