Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-13-2013, 12:41 PM   #61
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,929
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
so according to this 35mm (FF) can use up to F22 ... explains why my film shots at F16 or 22 were better than digital at the same..
You answered your own question. Your film camera is full frame, right?

11-13-2013, 12:52 PM   #62
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
so according to this 35mm (FF) can use up to F22 & APS 1.5 up to F11 before diffraction sets in...explains why my film shots at F16 or 22 were better than digital at the same..
Yep. If you go to part two Digital Camera Diffraction – Resolution, Color & Micro-Contrast or use the 'advanced' mode on part 1, you can also see the effects of MP vs sensor size in this respect.
11-13-2013, 01:10 PM   #63
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,716
Quite simply stated, to get what you want, start by looking at a 645D. I keep reading this line about ANsel Adams shooting larger format... possibly, but he also shot tilt shift.. he also shot ƒ64. Claiming an FF camera is like what Ansel Adams shot because it's 1.5 inches across instead of 10 inches across... wow. How delusional is that? If you want to shoot like Ansel Adams, you need a scanning back on a 4x5 tilt shift, that's the closest you can come. FF is not going to do it for you.

Sigma Foveon Sensors give amazing detail for only a 14 MP file... a D800 isn't your only option.Personally, I haven't shot a lot of landscapes where I had to go beyond ƒ5.6 or ƒ8 on APS-c. And I also find ƒ22 quite useable on APS-c as well despite the diffraction. Looking at the numbers will convince you there's a big difference when actual practical shots show, there's a very small difference. it's easy to start looking at numbers and get conned.

If you're looking for maximum detail, it's not APS-c, but it's not FF either.
11-13-2013, 01:17 PM   #64
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
So what does diffraction look like? - a set on Flickr

I did this very informally when I got the D600; some time I'll repeat it with the K-30

11-13-2013, 02:26 PM   #65
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 587
For most "photographers" a bigger sensor with higher megapixels only mean bigger crappy photos.
11-13-2013, 03:19 PM   #66
Veteran Member
Shanti's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 895
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Yep. If you go to part two Digital Camera Diffraction Resolution, Color & Micro-Contrast or use the 'advanced' mode on part 1, you can also see the effects of MP vs sensor size in this respect.
so FF with 16MP give F11-16 as the sweet spot, and FF 36MP is around F8 ?? which is the same as the K5II.at 16 MP...so more MP will not help it seems? confused now
11-13-2013, 03:28 PM   #67
Veteran Member
Shanti's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 895
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Quite simply stated, to get what you want, start by looking at a 645D. I keep reading this line about ANsel Adams shooting larger format... possibly, but he also shot tilt shift.. he also shot 64. Claiming an FF camera is like what Ansel Adams shot because it's 1.5 inches across instead of 10 inches across... wow. How delusional is that? If you want to shoot like Ansel Adams, you need a scanning back on a 4x5 tilt shift, that's the closest you can come. FF is not going to do it for you.

Sigma Foveon Sensors give amazing detail for only a 14 MP file... a D800 isn't your only option.Personally, I haven't shot a lot of landscapes where I had to go beyond 5.6 or 8 on APS-c. And I also find 22 quite useable on APS-c as well despite the diffraction. Looking at the numbers will convince you there's a big difference when actual practical shots show, there's a very small difference. it's easy to start looking at numbers and get conned.

If you're looking for maximum detail, it's not APS-c, but it's not FF either.


?? I never claimed a FF was like AA quality..maybe you missed the joke there....

yes the science part is confusing to say the least..but what lenses are they using to make the measurements? all glass is not equal
11-13-2013, 03:59 PM   #68
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
Yep. If you go to part two Digital Camera Diffraction Resolution, Color & Micro-Contrast or use the 'advanced' mode on part 1, you can also see the effects of MP vs sensor size in this respect.
So here's my claim that aps-h beats aps-c with the same pixelcount



11-13-2013, 04:03 PM   #69
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,716
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
?? I never claimed a FF was like AA quality..maybe you missed the joke there....

yes the science part is confusing to say the least..but what lenses are they using to make the measurements? all glass is not equal
Just as a general observation.. when discussing resolution, you can never get enough resolution out of even a great lens, to avoid moving up a sensor size. If you're talking a K-3 against a D610, a better lens on a K-3 will push you past a not as good lens on a D610. But not a D800 or A7r, even with a bad lens on them, MPs count for a lot.

Neither will the best lens on a D800 make it as good as a 645D in some regards. For max resolution, MP counts for a lot. But in terms of small detail, if you're going for the max, a 645D is going to be better. That little bit of added sensor size MPs being close to equal, gives you a little bit of an edge.
11-13-2013, 04:22 PM   #70
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,530
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
I would like much more detail in the leaves on the foreground tree and the textures on the grass/field can be clearer--will 36MP FF give me that or is that the realm of 80MP MF ?
Really? You're judging detail based on a reduced web image?

QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
So what does diffraction look like?
This is what diffraction looks like:


Pentax K5IIs - Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 Un-sharpened 100% crops.

For landscape work Larger formats hid diffraction better - because the negative was bigger and needed less enlargements when it was printed. The same fundamental principle applies for digital.This is the reason many large format photographers could get away with using F/64 without the diffraction showing. But these days with digital people obsess over details at 100% and completely fail to realize that the details they are getting so neurotic over won't even be visible in a 36"X24" print at the standard viewing distance*.



*standing at a distance equal to or greater, than the diagonal of the print.

Last edited by Digitalis; 11-13-2013 at 05:01 PM.
11-13-2013, 04:59 PM   #71
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: North
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,772
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
Agree with most of what's been said, but my question can maybe be answered in the photo you just posted...I would like much more detail in the leaves on the foreground tree and the textures on the grass/field can be clearer--will 36MP FF give me that or is that the realm of 80MP MF ?
There are lots of factors if you are looking for that.

But honestly, what point are you trying to reach?
I mean, so many factors can work against getting sharp leaves in the distance (eg. atmosphere; lighting; wind).
And how much does distant sharp leaves contribute to a good image?

I'd suggest you also look at the Foveon cameras using the latest X3 sensor.
For me, it messes with my thinking over my own "need FF/645D for IQ" decision, especially considering the size, weight and cost.
There are other factors for all other formats of course.
However, its a quirky camera....


Full sized sample here:
All sizes | DP1M0038 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
11-13-2013, 05:08 PM   #72
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,530
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
But honestly, what point are you trying to reach?
Good question...better yet, post an example of what you are trying to achieve.
11-13-2013, 05:15 PM   #73
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,716
QuoteOriginally posted by Mr Bassie Quote
Foveon FTW. I highly recommend them to anyone who wants the max quality at the cost of a camera that is a real pain to use. Definitely worth a try.
Hauling an 8x10 view camera around Toronto with a really heavy tripod in a big black suit case , and then focusing under a black cloth was a pain, my DP2M is merely annoying.
11-13-2013, 05:59 PM   #74
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,415
QuoteOriginally posted by Shanti Quote
Ok here is an example--24mm FL f6.3 iso 400 K5II..not a good photo but shows what I am looking for...want more detail in the hedges here & the distant trees by the road...lens is kit 18-55 , Will the DA12-24 or Sigma 10-20 3.5 do it for me ?

If you want detail, shoot on a tripod, use self-timer, a hood, and shoot at lowest iso. In post production, increase microcontrast and sharpening, but not enough to introduce artifacts. If you do not, you will not get max detail. Do all that before buying a new lens or camera.
11-13-2013, 09:15 PM   #75
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 818
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
Needing an FF also means needing good FF lenses. Assuming you would have those, I am sure that FF is going to produce a higher level of image quality. Not so much higher detail in itself, the K3 produces higher detail, but I don't regard that fact alone as higher IQ. I assume you don't just want higher detail, but also better tonality, color, handling of light. I have four Zeiss ZK lenses that are absolutely fine on Apsc, but when I see the images posted on the FM forum, using the same lenses on the Canon 5mkIII, or the Nikon FF cameras, there's more of a difference than just the wider angle of view. Detail is not the whole story. Thing is though, that us Pentax users generally don't have the in-depth experience with FF cameras to be able to really know the differences. That is why it is high time Pentax came out with their first ever digital FF camera.... Than we can finally see for ourselves.
Chris
Spot on.... The same reason why medium format is still better and so is large format.. Many don't seem to understand these points you have raised..
Let's save our breath my friend..
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!
detail, full-frame, k5ii, lens, pentax, wa
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax ff and why do I need that. soled Welcomes and Introductions 6 02-20-2015 03:50 AM
Do i really need a FF DSLR simple mick Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 12-26-2012 07:02 PM
Do I need DA*55? lightbulb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 25 12-09-2012 10:19 PM
Landscape i need to know if you like and what i can do better dragcarlady Post Your Photos! 8 03-20-2012 08:13 PM
Do I need P-TTL? brandonbpm Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 9 02-04-2012 07:36 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:38 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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