[dtmateojr]

Unfortunately you claim you refuted my argument, i think you just misrepresented it... such is life on the internet. I'd demonstrate, but you can spend your whole life trying to convince people of the obvious. How late do I want to stay up because "someone on the internet is wrong."?

Im in Australia lol!
I did not misrepresent your argument. I just showed you that you introduced a factor that's got nothing to do with the measurement of resolution. Even the ISO standard test chart is meant to be shot at a perpendicular angle where DoF is immaterial.

[normhead]

You need to understand acceptable focus. DoF is the the distance between the nearest and furtherst points in acceptable focus. Not sharp focus, not maximum resolution... acceptable focus. As long as you treat resolution as an absolute without consideration to DoF, you will continue tot think that resolution has nothing to do with acceptable focus or DoF, and you'l continue to put forward erroneous arguemnts. I know it's really slippery, and defies technical explanation, but acceptable focus and DoF have been understood by photographers for as long as there has been ƒ-stops.

And this is exactly why test charts are often considered irrelevant to real world shooting.

[dtmateojr]

You need to understand acceptable focus. DoF is the the distance between the nearest and furtherst points in acceptable focus. Not sharp focus, not maximum resolution... acceptable focus. As long as you treat resolution as an absolute without consideration to DoF, you will continue tot think that resolution has nothing to do with acceptable focus or DoF, and you'l continue to put forward erroneous arguemnts. I know it's really slippery, and defies technical explanation, but acceptable focus and DoF have been understood by photographers for as long as there has been ƒ-stops.

And this is exactly why test charts are often considered irrelevant to real world shooting.

I understand DoF. I manually focus my landscape shots to hyperfocal distance. It's precisely because I know my hyperfocal distance that I can effectively have everything in the frame in focus without having to resort to insane apertures. I normally shoot at f8 or f11 ever since I learned how to focus manually. I also know how to use the DoF scale of my non-crippled AiS lenses. The only time I ever use f22 is when I forget to bring my ND filters. I care about DoF AND resolution. Assuming that people who shoot wide open don't know DoF is being short sighted (pun intended).

[normhead]

So you understand hyper focal distances, but you still claim that overall in a print, resolution and DoF aren't related, interesting ( <cough> aussie sh*t disturber <cough>) I've done sets images of close ups and macros showing that there are times ƒ22 is the best image... and also the images with the most resolution.... But then, I often shoot at 4 or 5 different ƒ-stops, and select the best image without regard to preconceived ideas about what a certain ƒ-stop has or lacks... and on occasion, an ƒ22 images is the best.. but then I don't limit myself to landscapes.

You might be missing out.

Assuming that people who shoot wide open don't know DoF is being short sighted (pun intended).

That's why no one I know ever said that, myself included. However, unless you payed $5k for your lens shooting at ƒ5.6 gets you better resolution than shooting wide open. So, if you're talking about maximizing your resolution, you aren't even talking about shooting wide open. Using a 30mm or wider lens you can often shoot landscapes at ƒ5.6 so you get the best of both worlds, best resolution and awesome DoF.

---

Last edited by normhead; 03-24-2014 at 05:50 AM.

[dtmateojr]

So you understand hyper focal distances, but you still claim that overall in a print, resolution and DoF aren't related, interesting ( <cough> aussie sh*t disturber <cough>) I've done sets images of close ups and macros showing that there are times ƒ22 is the best image... and also the images with the most resolution.... But then, I often shoot at 4 or 5 different ƒ-stops, and select the best image without regard to preconceived ideas about what a certain ƒ-stop has or lacks... and on occasion, an ƒ22 images is the best.. but then I don't limit myself to landscapes.

You might be missing out.



That's why no one I know ever said that, myself included. However, unless you payed $5k for your lens shooting at ƒ5.6 gets you better resolution than shooting wide open. So, if you're talking about maximizing your resolution, you aren't even talking about shooting wide open. Using a 30mm or wider lens you can often shoot landscapes at ƒ5.6 so you get the best of both worlds, best resolution and awesome DoF.

ROFL! DoF is an aesthetic choice of photography. Resolution is a physical limitation. We are doing an objective measurement so don't mix it with your out-of-place DoF argument. You will not find any reputable site doing resolution measurements mixing it with your DoF excuse...an excuse that is debunked by a simple re-orientation of lines LOL! Cut the crap dude.

---------- Post added 03-24-14 at 03:03 PM ----------

BTW it's easy to spot a losing argument because it's littered with name-calling.

[normhead]

ROFL! DoF is an aesthetic choice of photography. Resolution is a physical limitation. We are doing an objective measurement so don't mix it with your out-of-place DoF argument. You will not find any reputable site doing resolution measurements mixing it with your DoF excuse...an excuse that is debunked by a simple re-orientation of lines LOL! Cut the crap dude.

---------- Post added 03-24-14 at 03:03 PM ----------

BTW it's easy to spot a losing argument because it's littered with name-calling.

Did Yosuf Karsch or Richard Avedon, or Annie Leibovitz read those sites? How about Ansel Adams, who does need these sites. How do we know they aren't just a bunch of measure-bating drivel.

Resolution is a physical limitation, that is affected by a pile of factors. Lens design, Aperture, DoF. Saying it exists on it's own and unaffected by many other factors is simplistic to the point of being useless. Understanding how DoF affects resolution on the other hand is the stuff of artists.

You can always spot a losing argument by statements like "Cut the crap dude. "

This is fun.... but getting pointless. You go ahead and have the last word then we'll call it a night.

[dtmateojr]

Did Yosuf Karsch or Richard Avedon, or Annie Leibovitz read those sites? How about Ansel Adams, who does need these sites. How do we know they aren't just a bunch of measure-bating drivel.



Resolution is a physical limitation, that is affected by a pile of factors. Lens design, Aperture, DoF. Saying it exists on it's own and unaffected by many other factors is simplistic to the point of being useless. Understanding how DoF affects resolution on the other hand is the stuff of artists.



You can always spot a losing argument by statements like "Cut the crap dude. "



This is fun.... but getting pointless. You go ahead and have the last word then we'll call it a night.

In the time of Adams, there was just film. No 24Mp vs 36Mp crap. He shot at f64, which on a view camera was relatively way bigger than f22 on your measly full frame. He could have everything in focus as well because he could "move" his lens. Bottom line, your argument is again an epic failure.

Resolution is affected by pixel density, lens and sensor size but not DoF.

Anyway, keep on believing that crap because it may eventually come true. LOL!

Over and out.

[ElJamoquio]

In the time of Adams, there was just film. No 24Mp vs 36Mp crap. He shot at f64, which on a view camera was relatively way bigger than f22 on your measly full frame. He could have everything in focus as well because he could "move" his lens. Bottom line, your argument is again an epic failure.

Resolution is affected by pixel density, lens and sensor size but not DoF.

Anyway, keep on believing that crap because it may eventually come true. LOL!

Over and out.

You said norm had a full frame camera.

[Poit]

It doesn't seem like wedding photographers are where Pentax wants to go.

As a (still fledgling) wedding photographer I sincerely hope you're incorrect.

I think I've said somewhere else, wedding photography combines so many different photographic requirements / demands that any system classed as great for wedding photography will be a great in general. I think the wedding photography market would be an excellent starting point for Pentax / Ricoh in developing a professional system (and that's not only from a purely selfish perspective).

[Winder]

As a (still fledgling) wedding photographer I sincerely hope you're incorrect.

I think I've said somewhere else, wedding photography combines so many different photographic requirements / demands that any system classed as great for wedding photography will be a great in general. I think the wedding photography market would be an excellent starting point for Pentax / Ricoh in developing a professional system (and that's not only from a purely selfish perspective).

Wedding is exactly where Pentax needs to go. It is the single largest market for photographers and its extremely diverse when it comes to styles and equipment requirements. I know 2 professionals who are shooting the majority of their work with Fuji X-mount. Several who are shooting 645 film.

[Poit]

Wedding is exactly where Pentax needs to go. It is the single largest market for photographers and its extremely diverse when it comes to styles and equipment requirements. I know 2 professionals who are shooting the majority of their work with Fuji X-mount. Several who are shooting 645 film.

I was talking in more 'general requirement' terms, rather than the diversity of styles / approaches people take. The following are some qualities on many wedding photographers wish-lists that would translate, in more broad terms, to an excellent overall system:

- Compactness / portability for carting kit about (Pentax are good at this in SLR's - don't change);
- Weather resistance (Pentax are good at this - don't change);
- Overall speed of system use (A distinct disadvantage of medium format, and a good reason why the 645 will never be a go-to wedding tool);
- Fast lenses for low-light (Pentax not so good. Always a trade-off with the 'portability' requirement, but worth it in my mind);
- Quiet autofocus (enough of the screw-drive already!);
- Fast and accurate autofocus (Pentax have improved, but still some way to go. Extremely important for 'reportage' or candid shots / special moments etc);
- High ISO noise handling for low-light (latest APS-C SLRs are not bad, but not the best either. An area where FF still has the distinct advantage);
- Shallow depth of field for still life or portraiture (another FF advantage);
- Dual memory cards for back-up (Pentax finally got there with the K-3);
- Off camera flash capabilities (generally RF is more powerful / useful than line-of-sight. Have any OEMs integrated this into their system yet?)

Some might say that achieving all of the above is an impossible task. I don't agree. Pentax already excel in some areas above. If they could maintain the portability (perhaps with some compromises) and WR whilst introducing a FF sensor, faster / quieter lenses (again some compromise on size), and further improved autofocus speed / accuracy they would have an absolutely awesome system on their hands. Not just for weddings, but in general.

They are so close it's frustrating!!! I'd love to shake them and say "look just develop these few remaining areas and you're onto a winner"!

As someone else has said, it doesn't seem they are too interested in some of these aspects, most notably faster lenses (and even FF is still debatable, unfortunately).

[ElJamoquio]

FWIW, there's no fundamental reason why medium format is 'slow'. Sure, the shutter (if we require one) is bigger but shutter opening/closing isn't often the limiting factor in poor light...

[rawr]

This poll needs to be updated to add 12MP as an option for FF, now that Sony has decided to go back to the future with their 12MP A7s video camera mirrorless FF.

[romeck]

I don't want more than my current 16MP /K-5/

16MP on APS-C (K-5) => 36MP on FF, so, that is same...
I'v voted: 36MP

24MP on APS-c (K-3) => 55MP on FF!

But:
I printed billboard (100 inches/ 2,5 m height) from 6MP camera (*ist).......

---------- Post added 07-04-14 at 02:23 ----------

24MP.


- 12 Mp Q7
- 16 Mp K-500 APS-C
- 16 Mp K-50 APS-C
- 24 Mp K-3 APS-C
- 24 Mp K-1 FF
- 50 Mp 645D v 2.0

No, no, no.

- 16 Mp K-500
- 16 Mp K-50
- 16 Mp K-5

then
- 24 Mp K-300
- 24 Mp K-30
- 24 Mp K-3

Now looks better (for poetry, 'corse...)

[bossa]

36MP is 2x the 16MP sensor and thus it would seem to follow that the next major leap will be a 54MP sensor (2x the 24MP sensor). I doubt Ricoh will go for that considering they're about to release a 50MP MF camera but I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon released a D800ex in the not too distant future that utilizes a 54MP sensor.

I haven't used a 24MP APS-C camera (or a 24MP FF) as I still have my k-01 and K-5 (along with my D800e's) so I really can't speak to what I would prefer in a Pentax FF. I suspect a 24MP FF is on the cards though and that would be fine.