Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-12-2014, 12:36 AM   #196
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Maybe because

1) The biggest difference in crop ratio is between APS-C and full frame? M43->APS-C is 1.32, APS-C to FF is 1.52, FF to MF is 1.3. APS-C to FF is almost twice the step of the other two.
2) With commonly available lenses, the most light for a given angle of view is with FF lenses, even in Pentax's own 'aps-c' camera lineup, adn
3) You spend your time in Pentax forums, where there's already class-leading APS-C and MF cameras, so there's nothing to compare to and 'want that'.

The biggest difference in crop ratio is between a big sensor (m4/3 or more) and a small sensor commonly find in P&S. Here we are easily in 3 and more. People want FF because FF is marketed as for the "pros". Nobody want to look like an amateur.

08-12-2014, 02:58 AM   #197
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
The fact is photography has always been a trade off of form and function. If we all had the same needs and budget we would all be using the same gear.


Some guys make great images on point and shoot some on 4/3 some on APSC some FF some Medium Format some on Large Format. The different formats have different advantages and these have been examined in depth. The fact is that 4/3 and APSC deliver wonderful images as does Full Frame.


Pros use Full Frame often because larger photosites deliver better images. The larger the photosite the better the image is I believe a truism.


The only view I cannot understand or agree with is the view that one format is "better" than any other. No format is better, it may be better for you and your needs that's different.


I shoot a variety of formats they offer different advantages for me. Most of my shooting is on APSC and I use shallow depth of field quite successfully to separate my subjects with old Full Frame film lenses made between 1950 and 1970. I can tell you right now APSC is fine for image making when you want to exploit shallow depth of field.


APSC offers me a choice of lenses and image making unrivalled in flexibility and cost effectiveness, but 4/3 would as well and FF would. I may move to a more expensive FF body if that proves better for rendering my images. For for now APSC fully meets my requirements.


All formats are a compromise with their own advantages. I recommend instead of choosing just one format, own however many formats you need, and just use whatever format is appropriate.


Wheres the problem.
08-12-2014, 03:06 AM   #198
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,255
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
You'll find this discussion frequently in conjunction with the K-mount, because the K-mount is an FF mount. Even in general, APS-C is typically a "crop format", i.e., the mount is designed with an FF imager, but a smaller sensor is used instead.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not claiming that APS-C is holding me back in dramatic ways. That does not stop me from wanting a sensor that is as big as the mount allows.


If I rephrase that as
"As time goes by, I get more irritated by the emphasis of the superiority of speciality lenses over photography. People who shoot great photos with a kit lens don't do in spite of their kit lens, they do it with their kit lens."
do you still agree?

You may, or you may not. I'm fine with either position.

But I respect the opinion of someone who says they want speciality lenses, despite the fact that they may be able to take 90% of their photos with a kit lens.

Likewise, the opinion of someone who wants an FF camera for the indisputable advantages should be respected and not be construed as having ill-conceived ideas about gear vs photography.
I do have the same opinion about your second statement. I do think glass is more important than the sensor and I own some pretty nice glass, but LBA has pretty much gone away for me. It is more about shooting with what I have and making the most of it. If some day Pentax gets a full frame camera, I will probably get one (assuming they keep the K mount), but till then I am just not that frustrated by not having one either.

I do think there is a tendency to argue extremes and I wouldn't say that 90 percent of photos are capable with a kit lens. I just think that you don't have to pursue really fast glass or, expensive glass to achieve good results. There are a couple of cheap DA primes, Tamron's 17-50 f2.8 is very nice quality, Sigma makes a whole raft of glass that covers APS-C and won't break the bank. I just don't know how many people have bought a 35mm f1.4 for a K3 and are then frustrated because they wish it was f1.1.

So, I am in favor of specialty lenses. I own plenty of them and shoot mainly with primes. The emphasis on gear over skill ("full frame photos just turn out better, even if you have poor technique and lousy glass") is a poor one. The photographers I have seen do well in the transition to full frame were already producing awesome work on APS-C before they switched.
08-12-2014, 04:20 AM   #199
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,369
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
My take on theses Advantages/Disadvantages.


I still have my 5D which I paid $2300 brand new but is now worth about $500. At 13.2 it stills takes better pictures than my 7D with 18.6MG. It is something you can't explain, you can pixel peep all day but it would be like comparing a 35mm to medium frame format. I sold my 7D and got the Pentax K-5 II. I am extremely happy with that combination.

08-12-2014, 06:12 AM   #200
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,869
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Your calculations are wrong.

When cropping an FF image down to APS-C size, the area is reduced to a bit less than half the original size which means that the linear dimensions (which are relevant for lw/ph resolution figures) are only divided by 1.5 (the crop factor).

So a 6D still retains 2267 lw/ph extinction resolution, even when cropped to APS-C size.

I would by very cautious to compare that to the quoted 3,000 lw/ph of the K-3 because resolution measurements heavily depend on image sharpening and ACR may apply different levels of default sharpening (even when settings are at "0") for the two cameras.

BTW, making resolution measurements based on out-of-camera JPGs is only interesting with respect to how the respective JPG engine performs. It is completely unfit to compare different cameras with each other.
Using the RAW files lw/ph on a 6D was still only about 2500 lw/ph still less than the 2700 on the K-3. But the K-3 in raw extended it's pattern extinction to 3800 lw/ph. in raw. I'm not sure why I have to point out over and over again that there are raw measurements on this site, but I suspect, that you guys only pay attention to sites that favour your opinion, you obviously block the ones you don't like out of your minds, well guys, it's all data.

The second thing you keep ignoring, because it's inconvenient, is that no, you don't lose anything when you blow an APS-c image up to the same size as an FF to enlargement in these measurements.

lw/ph, is dependent on the number of distinct lines in the height of the picture, it is not sensor size dependant. So if you have a chart 2700 lines high with alternating black and white lines, a K-3 should theoretically be able to capture all of them. The best a 6d could do would be 2500, the K-3 picture would be an accurate representation of the chart, the 6D image would not be. That is a specific example where a K-3 would be better than a 6D, and probably any FF sensor under say 18 Mp.

The K-3 image will enlarge better, than the 6D, it will look better at 50 inches wide and at 150 inches wide. There is absolutely nothing you can do to that 6D image that will make it equivalent to the K-3 image, in terms of distinct lines.

And the K-3 will produce that resolution in a smaller area.

Using the numbers above 2500 / 1.5 = 1667 distinct lines in the crop area of the FF sensor. Get your calculator.
IN the same area the K-3 will have 2700 distinct lines.
So not only is the K-3 capable of producing more distinct lines than than 6d, it is capable of producing in a much smaller area. IN a situation where the same lens is cropped K-3 size on a 6D, the K-3 will have 1.6 times more magnification, using the same lens. And 8% more distinct lines, using an equivalent lens. There is absolutely nothing you can do to bring the 6d up to the distinct line reproduction of a K-3. nada, zilch, nothing

It's funny how people who find these things so obvious when comparing a D800 to K-5 etc. can't seem to comprehend when the numbers don't favour the format of their choice... it's the same measurements guys. If you're thrilled with what a D800 does for resolution, you should be thrilled by what a K-3 does for resolution. You can't look at one and say "well this is great, and then look at the other and say... this isn't good enough." If you can say look how much D810 out resolves a K-3, you can look at the numbers and say "look how much a K-3 out resolves a 6D".. right?

Well IR measured a D810 at 3300 lw/ph 3300/1.5 =2200. IN the crop area of the sensor the K-3 out resolves a D810. Denser pixels that are able to maintain IQ, at the expense of low light performance for sure, but still, straight up in good light, a better choice for some applications. IN the crop area, a 22% improvement, K-3 over D810.

That is just an undeniable fact. You're flogging a dead horse here.

Last edited by normhead; 08-12-2014 at 06:40 AM.
08-12-2014, 06:44 AM   #201
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
....I suspect, that you guys only pay attention to sites that favour your opinion, you obviously block the ones you don't like out of your minds, well guys, it's all data.
I did not expect to not be on your ignore list anymore.

I only responded to your earlier post for the benefit of others (assuming that you couldn't read it anyhow).

I regret to inform you that I'm not interested to enter a discussion with you, trying to correct the numerous errors you are making. From past interactions, I gained the impression that you are not open to arguments, no matter how carefully they are presented and I also don't appreciate the insinuations and latent insults on your behalf, so let's just agree to disagree. Thanks.
08-12-2014, 06:50 AM   #202
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,869
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I did not expect to not be on your ignore list anymore.

I only responded to your earlier post for the benefit of others (assuming that you couldn't read it anyhow).

I regret to inform you that I'm not interested to enter a discussion with you, trying to correct the numerous errors you are making. From past interactions, I gained the impression that you are not open to arguments, no matter how carefully they are presented and I also don't appreciate the insinuations and latent insults on your behalf, so let's just agree to disagree. Thanks.
In other words, you've got nothing...

Fun talking about me when you think I'm not listening (as in behind my back) eh? Well, you got caught.

If you want to have a truce, it's going to work like this. You put me on your ignore list, you don't respond to my posts, you don't comment on my posts, the same as i usually do to yours. You don't make comments about me, based on your impressions. That's a truce. A truce is not one person sniping at the other one all the time , most of the time without his knowledge.

I guess the fact that you've been fighting with someone who isn't fighting back doesn't bother you at all. Kinda like kicking someone when they're down. If your posts are sound they'd stand on their own without the constant sniping at someone else. Me being wrong about a point or two , does not make you right, ever. The two things are un-related. In fact a lot of the errors I make, don't even affect the point I'm making. Harping on them just keeps you from understanding the gist of what I've said. People read what they want and make their own decisions... you don't need to tell people who's right and who's wrong, or what they should or shouldn't think of me. Most people here are capable of making up their own minds without your input.

It's really sad you got pointed down this really negative road. For most of us here, understanding photography is a process. We all may struggle with some concepts from time to time. It doesn't have to get personal, but you choose to make it that way.

Your notion that your posts are of benefit to others... that's quite an assumption. You must get loads of fan mail or something. Did Stephen Hawking thank you for your incredible contribution or something?

Does anyone believe that but you? Just wondering...

SO what do you think, truce?

Last edited by normhead; 08-12-2014 at 07:42 AM.
08-12-2014, 08:24 AM - 1 Like   #203
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
It's rarely 'make or break'

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I just don't think the small difference of roughly one stop is going to truly make or break most photos.
Class A already touched on this, but I'll take a stab as well:

Try to get away from the "Make or Break" philosophical requirement, because it's a red herring** - two photos can both be very good, yet you may prefer one over the other.

Larger formats (or newer sensors within the same format) are just more likely to give you photos you prefer, just like a nicer lens is more likely to get you images you prefer compared to what you get from your kit lens, or an f/2.8 zoom is more likely to get you images you prefer over a variable aperture zoom.

Would the difference in the amount of noise and DOF difference you see at ISO 6400 on an aps-c shot vs a FF shot 'make or break' the shot? Not likely, but you would prefer one over the other.

You have to decide if the difference is great enough for you to make it worthwhile, but that's a completely subjective, personal decision, and you should not make the mistake of applying your standards and aesthetic threshold to others. Sometimes that happens directly in forums, sometimes rather obliquely. Don't do it in either case.

** The time where 'make or break' really does apply is when/if you are in direct competition with others, submitting commercial product work samples for example - on the 'pro' forum on dpreview they talk about losing jobs based on technical comparisons which include noise/DR/sharpness when side-side comparisons were made by a committee or editor. Not likely to apply to many here, but there you go.


.


Last edited by jsherman999; 08-12-2014 at 08:31 AM.
08-12-2014, 11:22 AM   #204
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,705
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Larger formats (or newer sensors within the same format) are just more likely to give you photos you prefer, just like a nicer lens is more likely to get you images you prefer compared to what you get from your kit lens, or an f/2.8 zoom is more likely to get you images you prefer over a variable aperture zoom.
True of course... But the difference between the kit lens and high end prime is arround 2-4 stop max apperture and 3 stops for sharpness (most good lens will as sharp or more at f/2.8 than the kit lens at f/8).

Flare, constrast and color rendering are also very problematics and can make or break the shoot entirely.

I would say that just getting some cheap f/2.8 zooms and maybe one good cheap prime would get you most of what a lens can provide. That's €300 for a transtandard and €600 for a 70-200 tele... On FF or APSC, prices are the same.

If you buy new in term of picture quality there is not so much difference between a €400 camera and a €1200 camera. Mostly the AF will be better on the 1200€ camera and the handling too. The picture quality itself will not be that visible if at all.

You have to buy a €1500-2000 camera to get the shallower deph of field and a €2400+ camera to get more sharpness. For shallower deph of field only, that may be only €500 for an old model not that sharp, or not that good on high isos.

On the opposite, the 1 or 2 primes to get for shallow deph of field can be get for <€400 each. Some AF model can be get for €100-200 and some manual focussing lenses for something like €50 used.
08-12-2014, 05:55 PM   #205
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
SO what do you think, truce?
A truce implies that there has been fighting before. I did not fight you. I did not "snipe" either.

I only factually commented on incorrect parts in your posts. There is nothing unfair about this whether I'm on your ignore list or not. Just because you put me on your ignore list, does not make me "talk behind your back" when I comment on your posts.

I only said that I did not expect you to read my post in order to explain why I'm not interested in having a conversation with you despite of having replied to your post. I've tried having discussions with you before and in my experience you are not open to the kinds of scientific arguments I'm making. You also tend to become insulting on a personal level as in referring to me as "spouting garbage".

Let's agree to disagree. Thanks.

Last edited by Class A; 08-12-2014 at 06:13 PM.
08-12-2014, 06:06 PM   #206
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
You have to decide if the difference is great enough for you to make it worthwhile, but that's a completely subjective, personal decision, and you should not make the mistake of applying your standards and aesthetic threshold to others.
+1

It would also be great if anyone who is interested in better gear -- be it a high-end lens or a full-frame camera -- would not be reduced to a gear head who does not understand that the most important factor in photography are the "twelve inches behind the camera".

Of course creativity, vision, dedication, etc. are all more important than gear. Being aware of gear differences and wanting better gear does not imply that one is not a "real photographer". Even Ansel Adams, apparently the originator of the "twelve inches behind the camera" quote, dragged big gear to his not so easy to reach locations. He also post-processed the heck out of images, but that's another "real photographer" discussion.
08-12-2014, 06:06 PM - 1 Like   #207
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
In other words, you've got nothing...

It's really sad you got pointed down this really negative road. For most of us here, understanding photography is a process. We all may struggle with some concepts from time to time. It doesn't have to get personal, but you choose to make it that way.

Your notion that your posts are of benefit to others... that's quite an assumption. You must get loads of fan mail or something. Did Stephen Hawking thank you for your incredible contribution or something?

Does anyone believe that but you?
Do you ever go back and read your posts?
08-13-2014, 02:46 AM   #208
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,255
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Class A already touched on this, but I'll take a stab as well:

Try to get away from the "Make or Break" philosophical requirement, because it's a red herring** - two photos can both be very good, yet you may prefer one over the other.

Larger formats (or newer sensors within the same format) are just more likely to give you photos you prefer, just like a nicer lens is more likely to get you images you prefer compared to what you get from your kit lens, or an f/2.8 zoom is more likely to get you images you prefer over a variable aperture zoom.

Would the difference in the amount of noise and DOF difference you see at ISO 6400 on an aps-c shot vs a FF shot 'make or break' the shot? Not likely, but you would prefer one over the other.

You have to decide if the difference is great enough for you to make it worthwhile, but that's a completely subjective, personal decision, and you should not make the mistake of applying your standards and aesthetic threshold to others. Sometimes that happens directly in forums, sometimes rather obliquely. Don't do it in either case.

** The time where 'make or break' really does apply is when/if you are in direct competition with others, submitting commercial product work samples for example - on the 'pro' forum on dpreview they talk about losing jobs based on technical comparisons which include noise/DR/sharpness when side-side comparisons were made by a committee or editor. Not likely to apply to many here, but there you go.


.
We have different taste in photos, Jay, and that's OK. If I shoot a shot at f2 and another at f2.8, I am more likely to like the one at f2.8.

As I have mentioned before, my wife does shoot professionally -- weddings and portraiture -- and she has never had a client dissatisfied with what she offers with an APS-C camera and lenses. But she isn't shooting for national geographic or SI, which I suppose are the venues you are speaking of.
08-13-2014, 04:43 AM   #209
Senior Member
Aksel's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 212
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
... But she isn't shooting for national geographic or SI, which I suppose are the venues you are speaking of.
Btw, Rick Sammon shoots also with Canon's AP-C for NG!
08-13-2014, 06:32 AM   #210
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,869
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Your calculations are wrong.

When cropping an FF image down to APS-C size, the area is reduced to a bit less than half the original size which means that the linear dimensions (which are relevant for lw/ph resolution figures) are only divided by 1.5 (the crop factor).

So a 6D still retains 2267 lw/ph extinction resolution, even when cropped to APS-C size.

I would by very cautious to compare that to the quoted 3,000 lw/ph of the K-3 because resolution measurements heavily depend on image sharpening and ACR may apply different levels of default sharpening (even when settings are at "0") for the two cameras.

BTW, making resolution measurements based on out-of-camera JPGs is only interesting with respect to how the respective JPG engine performs. It is completely unfit to compare different cameras with each other.
No your calculations are wrong, you didn't use the 2500 lw/ph as observed by IR as your start point for the 6D. I gave you the link so you or anyone else could use the same numbers. The first error you made was you pulled the number 3000 out of a hat, and didn't explain where you got it. SO to start with you basic premise is unsupported by any facts. I linked to the numbers I used. You can't correct someone's math if you don't use the same numbers. Then you use a formula to your bogus number, and come up with 2267 lw/ph for a cropped 6d. When the whole sensor is only capable of 2500 when you use the whole sensor. AN obvious error when compared to the data I presented.
Then you accuse me of using the jpeg data when I specifically used the raw data, yes I read the whole commentary , not just the first three lines.

My comparison, was based on two sets of stats the same site because you can use their testing methods as a baseline. They make an effort to make sure their results are consistent and fair. They are actually people who have some understanding of photography. They don't need lectures from you about how to try and create fair findings. They are doing it, you are imagining it.

So in essence, we have your either inventing or at least not crediting the source of your data, you seem to have pulled the out of a hat. Ignoring the data from the original post, even though I gave my source, and the images they were derived from are published on line. You then present an analysis based on your fudged numbers. Then you make an argument to try and minimize the test results based on your personal doubts.

Eveytime you say that norm head has proved in the past, you look like a fool. Every human being on this earth has made mistakes. If every time anyone said anything, some one said ignore them, they made this or that mistake, no one would listen to anyone, including themselves. If normhead has learned anything from the past, it's if you make a mistake, learn from it. Who is this mythical person you worship who never makes a mistake. You made two mistakes in the quoted post. Should no one ever listen to you again? Your incessant parroting of how bad I am while making mistakes that make your whole post garbage in the same post is really annoying. Look at yourself dude. You aren't Nobel laureate. But you can learn to be a decent human being.

While you're saving the forum from me.... who's saving the forum from you? Save the forum from yourself. And I'll do my best to save the forum from myself.

Last edited by normhead; 08-13-2014 at 07:25 AM.
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, aps-c, aps-c & ff, camera, cameras, canon, depth of field, ff, full frame, full-frame, gigs, girl, hobby, image quality, image quality comparisons, images, lenses, nikon, pentax, people, photos, post, print, reality, reason, sense, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Magnification with a FF lens on Pentax DSLR Pentax Bob Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 23 11-02-2012 10:42 AM
A Pentax FF idea, a unique take on the FF market... theperception2008 Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 10-03-2012 01:07 PM
Re-cycling another Pentax FF rumour/FF rumor from A German photography magazine rawr Pentax Full Frame 73 09-19-2012 01:12 PM
noob with a KX hadi Welcomes and Introductions 3 06-01-2011 11:52 AM
If pentax release a FF, wouldn't they have to release a FF wideangle. pcarfan Photographic Technique 10 12-26-2009 04:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:49 AM. | 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