Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Do you think FF will be announced at Photokina?
Yes 21632.58%
No 44767.42%
Voters: 663. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-22-2014, 11:45 PM   #391
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 401
QuoteOriginally posted by akanarya Quote
is there any update on photokina 2014 and ff rumors?
Maybe this isn't a Canon at all....

Canon EOS 7D Mark II spotted at FIFA World Cup, mid-September release date

07-23-2014, 01:20 AM   #392
Senior Member
akanarya's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Çankırı, Turkey
Posts: 210
QuoteOriginally posted by Poit Quote
sure
07-23-2014, 01:23 PM   #393
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,832
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I think you missed some nuance in his post. Back in the day, a great lens was, say, a '7' and a good lens was a '4'. Now a great lens is a 9 and a good lens is an 8.
No, I think you missed the nuance in mine. Even if the difference in lens quality was greater (which is debatable), it didn't matter much in the film days because large differences in lens quality wouldn't be noticed as much. Digital has made us far more susceptible to small differences in quality. It's also dramatically increased our standards I started out shooting the M 28 f2.8 and M 50 f2 on a K1000. Much later I bought a ZX-M with the A 35-80 f4-5.6. In the 35mm film I was shooting, I could not easily tell any significant differences between those primes and the zoom. But once I started shooting those lenses on digital, the differences were much easier to detect. You simply cannot compare ILC digital to 35mm film. If you were shooting film and you really cared about IQ, you definitely would want to move up medium or large format film.

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
You didn't quite follow my point I think, and it's in two parts:
I followed it, I just don't agree with it.
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
With regard to resolution, that's actually not true in many cases - the MTF scores are telling a different story, that you improve your resolution more by going with a higher-MP sensor
Now you're the one who's not following me. I never argued that the image from the smaller sensor might be better because it has more resolution. No, that's completely missing the point. I'm challenging the whole notion that equates IQ with resolution. Most lenses are sufficiently sharp; but that doesn't mean differences in lenses are no longer important. Rather, it means that differences in resolution are no longer as important. And that's true whether you're comparing lenses or sensor size. For the most part, resolution is no longer the primary problem. We have enough of it for most of our needs. Where it takes on importance is for big cropping and/or larger print size. Even in those instances, differences between lenses and sensor size (or MP counts) are not as significant as they're made out to be. The fact that this lens/sensor combo produces 20% more resolution is hardly significant. It's two inches greater print size in a 20" by 20" print. However, other characteristics of lenses do impact how an image look, particularly microcontrast and color rendition. These can be seen even in smaller print sizes. They have a greater aesthetic impact than mere resolution.

I know a photographer who shoots with the Olympus 12-60 lens on the OM-D EM-5. He sells large gallery wraps (~24 to 30 inches) at a local gallery. The images are rich, contrasty, detailed and stunning. If those same images had been shot with an FF camera, they might have been technically sharper. But adding sharpness to those gallery wraps wouldn't have improved them, because they were already more than sharp enough. But taking away the richness of the color, the contrast, the overall rendering would have had a devastating impact on those images.

Now I have enough experience with lenses, post-processing, and printing to know that the best sort of contrast and color comes, not from PP, but from the lens. Adding a little bit of contrast, a little bit sharpening, a little bit of saturation can improve nearly any image; but adding large doses of these things is usually detrimental to the aesthetic impact of a print.

High end lenses are contrasty lenses: they all feature excellent microcontrast and produce vivid images with a lot of pop and rich, aesthetically satisfying color. That's true of Zeiss lenses, of Pentax limiteds and star glass (and the DA 10-17), of Olympus HG and SHG lenses, of Canon L glass, etc. etc. Lower end glass is less contrasty, produces less pleasing colors. Since I like contrasty, richly colored images, I prefer shooting with higher end glass. I therefore conclude that contrast, color, and overall rendering are more important (within certain parameters) than mere resolution. Generally speaking, an image shot with an Olympus SHG lens on a four-thirds will look better and have greater aesthetic impact than an image shot with a consumer grade lens on an FF sensor.

QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
For the quants among us
I'm certainly no quant, but a pragmatist. I made decisions on the basis of what images look like to human perception, not how they measure. Measurements are often used to give scientific and objective basis to the judgments that are really qualitative and aesthetic. After all, it is an aesthetic judgment to decide that a particular metric has any significance at all.

The problem with quants is, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
07-23-2014, 02:27 PM   #394
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
No, I think you missed the nuance in mine. Even if the difference in lens quality was greater (which is debatable), it didn't matter much in the film days because large differences in lens quality wouldn't be noticed as much. Digital has made us far more susceptible to small differences in quality.
I didn't miss it, I ignored it, as I was considering the use case of printing (or even electronic display) rather than pixel peeping.

---------- Post added 07-23-14 at 02:30 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
I know a photographer who shoots with the Olympus 12-60 lens on the OM-D EM-5. He sells large gallery wraps (~24 to 30 inches) at a local gallery. The images are rich, contrasty, detailed and stunning. If those same images had been shot with an FF camera, they might have been technically sharper. But adding sharpness to those gallery wraps wouldn't have improved them, because they were already more than sharp enough. But taking away the richness of the color, the contrast, the overall rendering would have had a devastating impact on those images.
In my experience, finding a lens that has great color, contrast, and rendering is much easier on FF than on APS-C.

I'd be shocked if the color/contrast/rendering was better on that Olympus lens was better than the 'cheap, consumer' Nikon 24-85. But until we get side by side images, I doubt I'm going to convince you, and I know you aren't going to convince me.

07-23-2014, 03:01 PM   #395
Site Supporter
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,203
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
I'd be shocked if the color/contrast/rendering was better on that Olympus lens was better than the 'cheap, consumer' Nikon 24-85. But until we get side by side images, I doubt I'm going to convince you, and I know you aren't going to convince me.
The placebo effect is able to cure diseases, make people run faster and do things they normally couldnt do...I have no doubt it can also cause addition of pixie dust to expensive lenses.
07-24-2014, 09:06 AM   #396
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
Hell the rendering on the 24-85 is better than the rendering on my beloved 15. I'd be surprised if any Olympus lens was better than the 15.
07-25-2014, 07:21 AM   #397
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
. I'm challenging the whole notion that equates IQ with resolution. .
No one is equating IQ with resolution alone, but after a speed increase (if there is one) many people upgrade their lenses from good to 'great' to get that extra resolution - probably most people, that's usually the reason for the upgrade, not a hope that there's subjectively better bokeh, or 'drawing'. I'd bet that the "I wanted better bokeh" folks are a distant third to "more speed" and "more resolution".

The point that was originally made was that those people may be wasting their money in some cases, because upgrading to a 'great' lens doesn't bring as large as an IQ improvement as upgrading the sensor - to more MP, or better yet, larger sensor with more MP. That's resolution - better DR and SNR also usually comes with a newer sensor, affecting IQ even more.

The pragmatist in you that hasn't been sublimated by LBA should see this. Upgrading your sensor gives more bang-buck than upgrading your 'good' lenses would in most cases - cheaper, better results = happier pragmatist/photographer.

This is coming from someone (me) who loves to try & buy lenses - much more than buying bodies.
07-26-2014, 10:43 AM   #398
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
No one is equating IQ with resolution alone, but after a speed increase (if there is one) many people upgrade their lenses from good to 'great' to get that extra resolution - probably most people, that's usually the reason for the upgrade, not a hope that there's subjectively better bokeh, or 'drawing'. I'd bet that the "I wanted better bokeh" folks are a distant third to "more speed" and "more resolution".

The point that was originally made was that those people may be wasting their money in some cases, because upgrading to a 'great' lens doesn't bring as large as an IQ improvement as upgrading the sensor - to more MP, or better yet, larger sensor with more MP. That's resolution - better DR and SNR also usually comes with a newer sensor, affecting IQ even more.

The pragmatist in you that hasn't been sublimated by LBA should see this. Upgrading your sensor gives more bang-buck than upgrading your 'good' lenses would in most cases - cheaper, better results = happier pragmatist/photographer.

This is coming from someone (me) who loves to try & buy lenses - much more than buying bodies.
I'm a novice compared to many of you, but even i could see the benefits of newer sensors as they came off the Samsung line for the K20, and then the Sony factory for the K5 and on up.

I'm not sure what you mean by "speed", are you talking about the improvements in ISO range allowing one to shoot at higher shutter speeds? Because that has helped a lot in image quality. Its hard to get much quality out of an image if you've had to smear the image with a lot of NR processing :-( So i definitely think the higher iso ranges today have helped quality.

The manufacturing "quality" experts teach that "if you can't measure it, you can't improve it". So even in subjective areas, they do a lot of polling/surveying to get a number on what people think of your product. As to camera and lenses, i think photogs pay more attention to resolution, mp, and iso because it can be measured. Its hard to measure image quality, rendering, microcontrast. Also, many cameras, esp for jpg are doing a lot of processing in camera.

Its not that rendering is unimportant, but i would think it would be very difficult in anything but lab conditions to compare rendering between different lenses. PP can make a lot of difference to any image and how can one tell whether a poster hasn't done some better pp on photos from one lens than another, or whether one image was better focused than a test on a different image? Because better focusing doesn't just improve resolution, but it also improves rendering, IMO.

I think one could argue that mp increases also have improved IQ. Not just from resolution, but from more MP making the noise smaller in size and less objectionable. MP increases may have also improved composition. With the ability to crop more, folks are often coming up with a more artful cropping of the image in PP. At least thats my personal experience :-) What a great topic to debate because its so complex.


Last edited by philbaum; 07-26-2014 at 10:50 AM.
07-27-2014, 07:56 PM   #399
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,258
I'm surprised no one with a foil hat has linked Adam selling his FF Nikon in the marketplace ( https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/24-photographic-equipment-sale/268847-sal...d800-body.html ) with some notion that a Pentax FF is coming soon.

oh wait.. where did I put the foil..
07-27-2014, 09:04 PM   #400
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,048
I'm sure Adam's going for the 810. That ship has sailed... he's got his FF system and it ain't Pentax.
07-28-2014, 04:11 PM   #401
mee
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5,258
aww. *takes off the foil hat*
07-29-2014, 04:52 AM   #402
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
Crop or Crap: Zack Arias Takes a Real-World Look at the Crop vs Full-Frame Debate
07-29-2014, 02:46 PM   #403
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
Thanks Ron, funny video and a good talk about the variety of formats over the years.

The message is: If you're not going to an 8" X 10" sensor, there's negligible difference
07-30-2014, 04:14 AM   #404
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
Thanks Ron, funny video and a good talk about the variety of formats over the years.

The message is: If you're not going to an 8" X 10" sensor, there's negligible difference
we never get a FF
07-30-2014, 04:20 AM   #405
Senior Member
Oldhand's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mid North Coast NSW Australia
Posts: 176
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
we never get a FF
Sure we do - 50.1 megapixels of glorious Pentax 645 ................
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, 35mm, a7, angle, banners, body, camera, canon, da, da lenses, dslr, fa, ff, full-frame, jump, lens, lenses, market, nikon, option, pentax, ricoh, roadmap, rumors, signature, time, tokina
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weekly Challenge POTW 2February 2014 to 16 February 2014 bucfan1234 Weekly Photo Challenges 23 02-18-2014 05:28 PM
Weekly Challenge POTW 26th January 2014 to 9th February 2014 bucfan1234 Weekly Photo Challenges 19 02-09-2014 06:01 PM
CES 2014 and CP+ 2014 Uluru Pentax News and Rumors 134 01-25-2014 09:11 AM
Photokina 2010 is history, and there was no FF announcement. What now? ilya80 General Talk 25 10-09-2010 08:34 AM
I think the Pentax FF will be announced at Photokina 2010 whatever7 Pentax News and Rumors 106 02-04-2010 12:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:39 PM. | 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