[RobA_Oz]

@LaurenOE: I recall reading some time ago about increasing resolution using fractal algorithms. A quick search helped me recall the Genuine Fractal product. Have you tried it? There's a free trial download off their website. It isn't cheap at $200, but probably cheaper than changing your system, if it works for you.

[LaurenOE]

@LaurenOE: I recall reading some time ago about increasing resolution using fractal algorithms. A quick search helped me recall the Genuine Fractal product. Have you tried it? There's a free trial download off their website. It isn't cheap at $200, but probably cheaper than changing your system, if it works for you.

Cool link. Thanks.

[Tesla]

Imagener Unlimited is suppose to be good. It is vector based enlargements.

Photo Enlargement

Edit: They also make Yottayprint

http://www.yottaprint.com/

Edit2: While Imagener is cool.. I think Perfect Resize does give you sharper images and nice that it is also a plugin for photoshop.

[robgo2]

Yep. Exactly. I want to go bigger and the D800E seems to be the sweet spot.
Sure, I have 645 lenses, but I just can't justify the 645D just to stay with Pentax.

The hole between the K5IIs and 645D should have something in it already, and is the basis for much of my frustration.

Actually, the sweet spot for FF may be 24MP. I'm thinking of the Sony 24MP sensor in the RX1 and the D600. IQ is exceptionally good, and high ISO performance is better than with the 36MP sensor. You can make mighty large prints from 24MP.

Rob

[Pål Jensen]

Actually, the sweet spot for FF may be 24MP. I'm thinking of the Sony 24MP sensor in the RX1 and the D600. IQ is exceptionally good, and high ISO performance is better than with the 36MP sensor. You can make mighty large prints from 24MP.

Rob

Only marginally larger than with a 16mp camera. In fact, you probably won't see any difference if not side by side comparisons of the same image from 5cm viewing distance.

I have friend who runs a fine art gallery and no one can spot whats shot with FF and whats shot with APS including me. I was commenting on the amazing quality of the FF camera from a print over 1m wide when he told me it was shot with a Canon 20D. He sold a 3m wide print made from the Canon 7D for $5000.
If you want FF buy a D800. It makes a difference.

[robgo2]

Only marginally larger than with a 16mp camera. In fact, you probably won't see any difference if not side by side comparisons of the same image from 5cm viewing distance.

I have friend who runs a fine art gallery and no one can spot whats shot with FF and whats shot with APS including me. I was commenting on the amazing quality of the FF camera from a print over 1m wide when he told me it was shot with a Canon 20D. He sold a 3m wide print made from the Canon 7D for $5000.
If you want FF buy a D800. It makes a difference.

Absolutely wrong. I have a Sony RX1 with 24MP FF sensor that blows my K-5 with FA Limiteds completely out of the water. It isn't even close, and the difference is evident on my monitor as well as in moderate size prints (12x18 inches). I think that if you could see output from the Sony 24MP FF sensor, you would change your opinion. Besides, how many wannabe FF camera shooters in this forum will be printing at 30x40 inches for galleries? The advantages of a FF sensor go beyond resolution.

Rob

[RobA_Oz]

Absolutely wrong. I have a Sony RX1 with 24MP FF sensor that blows my K-5 with FA Limiteds completely out of the water. It isn't even close, and the difference is evident on my monitor as well as in moderate size prints (12x18 inches). I think that if you could see output from the Sony 24MP FF sensor, you would change your opinion. Besides, how many wannabe FF camera shooters in this forum will be printing at 30x40 inches for galleries? The advantages of a FF sensor go beyond resolution.

Rob

That's a big claim to make, and one for which you should really provide some comparative shots to back up. Most of all, what do you mean by it? If sensor resolution is only part of the story (and, given that the pitch of both sensors is pretty much equal, we're really talking about print size for equivalent lenses), what's the rest? Out-of-focus areas? They've been mulled over to death in other threads here, and the Sony 35/2 can't be compared with anything equivalent in the APS-C line at full aperture (a 24/1.4?). It's worth pointing out that a dedicated, fixed, single focal length lens that isn't compromised by a reflex mirror is almost guaranteed to produce an image superior to an interchangeable equivalent in an SLR, particularly when that lens comes from Zeiss. So, are you seeing the advantage of the sensor format, sensor resolution, dedicated fixed lens, lens quality, or a mixture of all those? I suspect it's a mixture, and not just the result of sensor resolution, which I think is what Pål was talking about. Absolutely wrong? I don't think so. Partially wrong? Probably.

[jsherman999]

Actually, the sweet spot for FF may be 24MP. I'm thinking of the Sony 24MP sensor in the RX1 and the D600. IQ is exceptionally good, and high ISO performance is better than with the 36MP sensor.

DxOmark has the normalized "high-ISO score" ranking them (D600 v D800) basically equal - or close enough (about 1/12 of a stop) that a human's not going to be able to tell the difference with regard to noise. There's no IQ-related reason to choose the D600 over the D800, just a size/cost reason. (which is a perfectly legit reason, IMO.)

I don't think the 'sweet spot' for FF is 24MP; I think it's going to be 54MP. Last year I was thinking Pentax's FF debut in 2013 or 2014 will be 24MP - now I think it will have to be 36MP or higher. (and probably pushed out to 2015, if not later.)

.

[jsherman999]

I have friend who runs a fine art gallery and no one can spot whats shot with FF and whats shot with APS including me. I was commenting on the amazing quality of the FF camera from a print over 1m wide when he told me it was shot with a Canon 20D. He sold a 3m wide print made from the Canon 7D for $5000.
.

Ah, the "I have a friend who..." post. Funny how these friends always come through with absolutely perfect and timely internet-fora agenda material!

[672]

Absolutely wrong. I have a Sony RX1 with 24MP FF sensor that blows my K-5 with FA Limiteds completely out of the water. It isn't even close, and the difference is evident on my monitor as well as in moderate size prints (12x18 inches). I think that if you could see output from the Sony 24MP FF sensor, you would change your opinion. Besides, how many wannabe FF camera shooters in this forum will be printing at 30x40 inches for galleries? The advantages of a FF sensor go beyond resolution.

Rob

I sold my RX1 at a loss immediately and was so glad to see it go as far away from me as possible. I only had one copy to check, and yes the IQ is A M A Z I N G , but the lens SUCKED. The top and bottom and corners were so warped and barreled and . I had read that owners were using software to correct "lens abberations" . I tried it and about 6 percent of my frame was cropped off to make the "corrections", what a pile of junk !!!

[rawr]

I had read that owners were using software to correct "lens abberations" . I tried it and about 6 percent of my frame was cropped off to make the "corrections", what a pile of junk !!!

Interesting. You have to be forgiving of those RX series Sonys.

My RX100 has the same issues - despite being Zeiss glass the lens is a distortion and vignetting monster that relies on in-camera software corrections to deliver a usable result, and which also means about 5-10% of your image is often thrown away, as one can see easily in the uncorrected RAWs. However when everything is working the lens and camera can deliver outstanding results, all things considered. Probably the RX1 is the same due to the design compromises Sony had to make in such compact form factors.

[rawr]

Last year I was thinking Pentax's FF debut in 2013 or 2014 will be 24MP - now I think it will have to be 36MP or higher. (and probably pushed out to 2015, if not later.)

Hey, let's not limit them. A 24MP 'economy' FF and a 36MP 'pro' FF would be an eminently sensible Pentax FF lineup, also quite doable nowadays given sensor availability in those sizes and probable declining sensor unit costs.

[deus ursus]

A 24 MP sensor would be sufficient for me. It's not the pixel count that counts (sic), but the ability to use manual glass with comfort.

[Aristophanes]

Interesting. You have to be forgiving of those RX series Sonys.

My RX100 has the same issues - despite being Zeiss glass the lens is a distortion and vignetting monster that relies on in-camera software corrections to deliver a usable result, and which also means about 5-10% of your image is often thrown away, as one can see easily in the uncorrected RAWs. However when everything is working the lens and camera can deliver outstanding results, all things considered. Probably the RX1 is the same due to the design compromises Sony had to make in such compact form factors.

Get used to it. That's the new norm for all lens development, including FF.

[Pål Jensen]

Absolutely wrong. I have a Sony RX1 with 24MP FF sensor that blows my K-5 with FA Limiteds completely out of the water. It isn't even close, and the difference is evident on my monitor as well as in moderate size prints (12x18 inches). I think that if you could see output from the Sony 24MP FF sensor, you would change your opinion. Besides, how many wannabe FF camera shooters in this forum will be printing at 30x40 inches for galleries? The advantages of a FF sensor go beyond resolution.

Rob

I was talking about sensor resolution in the context of being able to print larger. There isn't much difference. You cannot go into a fine art gallery and pick the FF images from the APS ones unless we talk about the D800 and the lower mp APS. You need side by side comparisons of the same image. If you want to blow something out of the water printsizewise you need the D800 or the 645D. I'm not talking about pixelpeeping and I'm fully aware that FF has other qualities.