Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-11-2014, 09:18 AM   #76
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
I've gone through all these megapixel increases from K10 on. And each time i've had misgivings about the increased mp, and each time I've been delighted with the increased resolution, even with some of the more prosaic lenses. So it has been with the 24mp K3. I had to do a 20 person group shot yesterday and it came out great, even with the DA17-70 lens. Not sure if the clarity was due to the lack of an AA filter and/or increased mp, but i've been delighted with the camera. And in the 2 months i 've had it, haven't seen any sign of moire.

The K3 is going to do me fine for a few years until the current FF cameras get down there in weight and price. I think Canon and Nikon are going to have to compete with the A7 series in weight and volume. I don't see any reason why they need to weigh more than the APS cameras out there. I know a professional photographer in town who's selling his D800 and lenses due to its effects on a previously injured leg.

I don't see FF cameras going away, but i don't see them taking over the market place either. Will i ever get one - its not an question that i spend much time worrying about. I'm more interested in WR, quiet shutters, portability, low light focus ability - all of which the K3 does well. Would i get a FF camera if Pentax produced one - probably not anymore than i would buy one from any brand.

04-11-2014, 09:18 AM   #77
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Funny.

I understand the point/need of full frame. I understand equivalence. I just don't always see all the benefits that others seem to say that they see.
That is a beautiful shot, and well-processed - but what does it prove regarding equivalence?

.
04-11-2014, 10:00 AM   #78
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,875
QuoteOriginally posted by HavelockV Quote
I just don't think it's really that much to fuzz about. I would consider it to be about +20% in reality with the best lenses. And that is not really that much when I look at actual pictures with non-test-chart stuff on it.
That's pretty much what I have discovered, and I have seen plenty of large to medium size prints taken with both FF and APS-C. In fact, the most important factor in terms of quality difference is still lens quality. Two-thirds to three-quarters of the advantage of FF over APS-C is not so much due to sensor size as it is to the better quality of high-end FF glass. Most of the people I run across shooting FF are shooting with Canon L glass or Nikon constant aperture zooms (usually the f2.8 zooms). When such people claim that they can see the advantage in FF landscape shots at screen resolution sizes, they can't possibly be talking about the sharpness advantages of FF, since you're can't perceive 20%+ difference without doing some serious pixel peeping. What they're seeing is the greater microcontrast of the high-end FF glass. The number one reason for a landscape shooter to go with FF is to access that high-end FF glass and to be able to use it at FOVs that are in the sweetspot for landscape photography. The 20%+ resolution advantage is merely an additional, but somewhat minor, bonus.

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
but all the lenses in FF were better than all the lenses in APS-C.
I'm a little confused about what is trying to be said here. FF lenses "were" better? Does that mean they are no longer better?

In terms of zoom glass, it's hard to beat those Olympus SHG lenses, which were intentionally designed to make up for the disadvantages of the smaller 4/3rds sensor. Canon and Nikon APS-C lenses are not as good as the top of line FF glass because (1) APS-C is seen (correctly) as a budget format and (2) Canon and Nikon want to encourage photographers to move on to their FF products, which have higher margins. Only Pentax and Fuji produce APS-C lenses that can come close to the high-end Canon and Nikon stuff. Indeed, I would give some of the Pentax offerings a slight edge in terms of color rendition to the Canikon offerings.
04-11-2014, 10:24 AM   #79
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,036
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
People who get mad at equivalence baffle me, it's like getting mad at F=MA.
But getting mad at "F = m a" is right on!

This stuff this Newton imbecile came up with brought us nothing but trouble. Apples falling on our heads!

Once we throw "F = m a" and "equivalence" back to hell, where they belong, we'll all be better off!


Last edited by Class A; 04-11-2014 at 12:04 PM.
04-11-2014, 10:47 AM   #80
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
I know a professional photographer in town who's selling his D800 and lenses due to its effects on a previously injured leg.
LOL, Did I mention I got camera elbow / bursitis from carrying a Speed Graphic

There's another article that puts things in perspective, LumoLabs -- True reasons for Full Frame -- Whitepaper

Basically: where equivalences exist, the two formats are equivalent. The trick is APS-C doesn't always have the aperture speeds to be equivalent to the full frame brother. Whether or not that is a critical, crucial difference is up to each one of us. Same way that it is up to each of us whether a fish eye or an ultra long lens makes sense for what we do.

To a good extent, digital doesn't suffer from miniaturization as much as film -- though theoretically this may not be so, but in practice 35mm gives much better results than 1/2 frame, and 120 6x7 or 6x9 better still, and so on. In part this has to do with sensor vs film technology. And a good portion has to do with simple physical laws: the smaller you cram your 100 lpm or whatever your goal is, the more every piece has to resolve and avoid aberration. Hence it is easier to get certain quality from a large scale camera than a small scale one.

But of course not everything is equal, and there are other considerations - portability, flexibility, health of one's joints, cost, speed, fun, and so on. There are very few photographs that rely solely on maximum image quality for effectiveness - usually it's a matter of 'good enough' quality for the purpose, or interest 'despite' or 'because of' imperfection.

ps. I bought a D600 for the larger view finder (evf's not being quite there yet, and optical ones are subject to size) mainly, and to mount lower cost legacy glass at its designed FOV. I don't think of the camera as otherwise superior to a low end Pentax APS-C.
04-11-2014, 06:01 PM   #81
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,660
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
That's pretty much what I have discovered, and I have seen plenty of large to medium size prints taken with both FF and APS-C. In fact, the most important factor in terms of quality difference is still lens quality.
Why I generally agree, lens quality (and all the important differences between lenses - like sharpness and micro-contrast) comes second to camera technique.

In real life usage, the tiniest amount of camera or subject motion blur, or a mischosen wide-open aperture setting, or shooting with an inferior filter, can mean the resolution, micro-contrast etc advantages of a superior lens or format go immediately out the window. This is not news to anyone, but is worth noting here just for the record .

Last edited by rawr; 04-12-2014 at 05:11 AM. Reason: typo
04-12-2014, 01:43 AM   #82
Forum Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 71
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
The trick is APS-C doesn't always have the aperture speeds to be equivalent to the full frame brother.
Well that is a misconception. Most beginners look at equivalency from the sensor size perspective (just look at all the narrow focussed blog entries about it). It is actually all about light. And light comes through an optical system. So the really defining factor is the image circle of the lens, the total light gathering. The sensor mostly is a secondary part of the game with regards to the aspects mostly discussed in forums (that is blurring and noise).

If you look at the majority of FF in reality you are looking at Canon due to it large lead in marketshare. There is nothing in the key aspects of a majority FF picture you can not achieve with a cheap APSC camera.
The FoV, the DoF, noise, dynamic range all are achievable on APSC size sensors.

The thing about the sensor size is mostly that today it's more comfortable and easier to achieve these results with a larger sensor.
And the single one remaining advantage is DR at base ISO (only there), which obviously only is happening in reality for the minority manufacturers with up-to-date sensors (for which the market obviously doesn't care at large or they would flock to the market leaders products).

For the comfort the people are paying more money and that is quite understandable.
04-12-2014, 03:17 AM   #83
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 587
Equivalency: an overused word in photography that does not mean anything in real world photography.

04-12-2014, 03:29 AM   #84
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,331
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
That is a beautiful shot, and well-processed - but what does it prove regarding equivalence?

.
I guess that the DA 15 limited is a nice lens? It is just the sort of place where equivalence doesn't mean a whole lot. A shot from a tripod, stopped down. I doubt you are going to be able to see a true difference in any sized print between the K3 and D600 when shot with these circumstances.
04-12-2014, 05:53 AM   #85
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
Equivalency: an overused word in photography that does not mean anything in real world photography.
Its far easier to memorize 1.53 than to memorize two different sets of DOF/FOV/SNR tradeoffs. I use equivalence every time I put down one camera and pick up the other.

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 04-12-2014 at 06:01 AM.
04-12-2014, 05:56 AM   #86
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
If you fail at understanding why equivalence matters, this is you.

QuoteQuote:
Equivalency: an overused word in photography that does not mean anything in real world photography.

Agreed. By the way, check out this find below! It's 5.2mm at the wide end, blows the Sigma 8-16 out of the water!! And check out that max aperture: f/2 !!!!!!!

We have our wide-angle, low-light king, people. All the larger formats like m43 and aps-c and FF are unnecessary now. Anyone who says otherwise obviously doesn't understand real world photography.





---------- Post added 04-12-14 at 06:58 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess that the DA 15 limited is a nice lens? It is just the sort of place where equivalence doesn't mean a whole lot. A shot from a tripod, stopped down. I doubt you are going to be able to see a true difference in any sized print between the K3 and D600 when shot with these circumstances.
And you would probably be correct under those shooting conditions, although the DA 15ltd will probably handle flare better than most 20-24mm Nikon lenses you'd have available.

Last edited by jsherman999; 04-12-2014 at 06:06 AM.
04-12-2014, 07:35 AM   #87
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 587
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Its far easier to memorize 1.53 than to memorize two different sets of DOF/FOV/SNR tradeoffs. I use equivalence every time I put down one camera and pick up the other.

It's easier to aim for the output instead of the numbers. You do not see 1.53 when you peep through the viewfinder. And when you print and hang your shot on the wall you do not see 1.53 either. Equivalency is for armchair photographers.
04-12-2014, 03:58 PM   #88
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
It's easier to aim for the output instead of the numbers. You do not see 1.53 when you peep through the viewfinder. And when you print and hang your shot on the wall you do not see 1.53 either. Equivalency is for armchair photographers.
Not using equivalency is for armchair photographers. I look at a scene and I know what FOV and what DOF I want. I have different lenses on the other camera and I instantly know what's going to go on with that camera... because of equivalency.

I guess if you only have an APS-C camera you never have to worry about it, or the FF'rs posting here.
04-13-2014, 01:37 AM   #89
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 587
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Not using equivalency is for armchair photographers. I look at a scene and I know what FOV and what DOF I want. I have different lenses on the other camera and I instantly know what's going to go on with that camera... because of equivalency.

I guess if you only have an APS-C camera you never have to worry about it, or the FF'rs posting here.

I own a m43, aps-c, ff and mf. Who gives a crap about minute differences in DoF at f2.8 between sensors? At f8 or f11, you can have everything in focus for any sensor so it does not matter. You don't just attach a lens to a camera without even looking through the viewfinder or testing it. Why force something in one format into another format? Shoot in your chosen format and forget equivalency. What matters is whether you made the shot or not.

Guess what format I used to capture this :-p

04-13-2014, 01:40 AM   #90
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,660
QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
Guess what format I used to capture this :-p
iPhone?
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, aperture, aps-c, camera, check, da, dof, equivalence, f/8, ff, ff resolution, full-frame, lenses, mf, pentax, photo, photography, post, practice, reasons, resolution, sensor, shot, shutter, theory, time, wrong
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to shoot a wedding with APS-C and FF nick52 Photographic Technique 8 08-05-2013 05:14 PM
K-5IIs reviews at Amazon - Better than FF Canon? Docrwm Pentax K-5 4 02-19-2013 12:12 PM
Quick question regarding field of view - FF vs APS-C glass? Julie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-23-2012 05:33 PM
APS-C does not increase focal length over FF, it decreases field of view. TomTextura Photographic Technique 135 06-09-2012 04:58 PM
What is your best example for FF over APS-C? leeak Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 12-11-2008 12:25 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:02 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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