Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-03-2014, 06:29 AM   #61
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteQuote:
....It's mostly used for ridiculous arguments that have no meaning in the real world, and are better ignored than followed.
Kinda like the idea of using aperture to control DOF is ridiculous, and noise does not exist! Or, if it does exist, it should not be understood or controlled! Take what you get, hope what you buy is good enough for you and if it isn't, suck it up! Anyway these things only distract from f/8 and be there.

Equivalence is for suckers.



08-03-2014, 07:12 AM   #62
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you have the same lens design, the same sized pixels etc. etc, etc.. The variables that go into camera design, and lens design will always mean that equivalence is a rough guideline and hardly a law. But, its a convenient on the fly conversion for rough comparisons. It's mostly used for ridiculous arguments that have no meaning in the real world, and are better ignored than followed.
I agree with you that this "law" is more used a lot to say useless things and not as a tool to learn.

Good use for me of this law:

- I like this photo he took... He got it at 120mm f/.4 on an FF... So I could have got the same on my APSC roughly with a 80mm f/2.5... Let try what kind of shoot I can get with my 85mm at f/2.4 on same subject... And what if I tryed another apperture or focal lens?
- I'am really used to my good old 28mm f/2.8 on my old film camera... What kind of prime do I need to get the same field of view ?
- I just go this 8x10 old camera on ebay. What lens would I need to use for portraiture?

Bad use of the law:
- My camera is better than yours because it has a (slightly) better sensor and so if I take a 85 f/1.4 lens you gotta need at least a 50mm f/1 (more like f/0.9) and that is very expensive and difficult to find... I own you. I'am better photographer AHAHAH.
08-03-2014, 07:28 AM   #63
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,285
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Yeah that wonderfull! I mean, you can pay 2000$ more for a D800 to get the same result an outdated APSC provide.
For sure, I don't think the k-5 era sensors even shot in colour. I don't know how our ancestors managed.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
That's perfectly ok, I mean you can have on FF body for some other reason, don't have the money for a 600mm prime and don't feel the need for an APSC as you can crop exactly how you want this way on a 400mm.

And for this shoot you just use the center of your sensor... if it is APSC size you keep... Then you also get the iso capabilities of APSC, the rendering of APSC and the deph of field of APSC (that last one might not be problematic).
That's just it, outside of the year-to-year sensor improvements the aps-c may have if you stay up to date with the latest, IQ-wise you lose nothing cropping a full frame down to aps-c size compared to using an aps-c in the first place. APS-C generally has shorter product cycles for the most recent tech to keep you on the upgrade treadmill, but honestly these year-to-year jumps can be pretty small, especially the past few years. (k5 vs k3? not a huge sensor upgrade imo, but your opinion/use may vary).

If all you're ever doing with the 400mm on the FF is cropping to aps-c, then of course the FF makes little sense unless you had other use for the FF. But for the times that 400mm on FF is enough reach, I'd take 400mm on FF and all that entails over 400mm on APS-c and having to run backwards. Depends on what you're doing with it of course, and your opinion/use may vary.

Choose your compromise, preferably wisely.
08-03-2014, 07:35 AM   #64
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you have the same lens design, the same sized pixels etc. etc, etc.. The variables that go into camera design, and lens design will always mean that equivalence is a rough guideline and hardly a law. But, its a convenient on the fly conversion for rough comparisons. It's mostly used for ridiculous arguments that have no meaning in the real world, and are better ignored than followed.
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If the Sensor in the 645z is capable of 51 MP and exceptional high ISO performance, why isn't there a 24 Mp APS-c version of the sensor?
It would seem that such a sensor would knock the sox of the D4s or A7s with equivalent low light performance, while having 50% more resolution, and give us birders the best of both worlds. APS-c reach and FF low light performance.

Come on Sony, cut those wafers into smaller sizes....

Does not compute.

08-03-2014, 08:01 AM   #65
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteQuote:
That's just it, outside of the year-to-year sensor improvements the aps-c may have if you stay up to date with the latest, IQ-wise you lose nothing cropping a full frame down to aps-c size compared to using an aps-c in the first place.
A cropped D800 images is 15 Mp, what you lose is 9 Mp, and 400 to 500 lw/ph in your resolution. I fail to see how that qualifies as "nothing." People pay thousands of dollars for great lenses for less of an improvement.
08-03-2014, 08:29 AM   #66
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,285
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
A cropped D800 images is 15 Mp, what you lose is 9 Mp, and 400 to 500 lw/ph in your resolution. I fail to see how that qualifies as "nothing." People pay thousands of dollars for great lenses for less of an improvement.
Jeeze Norm, you even quoted it. Let me bold it for you:

QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR:
"That's just it, outside of the year-to-year sensor improvements the aps-c may have if you stay up to date with the latest, IQ-wise you lose nothing cropping a full frame down to aps-c size compared to using an aps-c in the first place."
As in, "if for the moment we ignore these year-to-year improvements, then...blah blah blah". I had thought I made every attempt to acknowledge that aps-c in general will have newer sensor tech compared to FF. FF models will 'catch-up' with the latest releases and it will go round and round in cycles with aps-c generally being newer. I was in no way calling these incremental improvements 'nothing', but I do say they are often not deal breakers for me, especially lately. I also have no idea what's coming in sensor tech, so I'd never rule out some giant leap in the future.

For what it's worth I'm unimpressed with the k3 sensors improvements over the k5 series. The release of the k3 furthered my resolve that a discontinued k5iis was by far the better choice for me. Having shot with a k100d for over 7 years, I'm decidedly not someone who is lured by the latest and ever-so slightly greatest (speaking from just an IQ standpoint here, I guess I need to explicitly state that the k-3 has many other definite improvements but they weren't enough to lure me). ymmv and all that jazz.
08-03-2014, 08:35 AM   #67
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Jeeze Norm, you even quoted it. Let me bold it for you:



As in, "if for the moment we ignore these year-to-year improvements, then...blah blah blah". I had thought I made every attempt to acknowledge that aps-c in general will have newer sensor tech compared to FF. FF models will 'catch-up' with the latest releases and it will go round and round in cycles with aps-c generally being newer. I was in no way calling these incremental improvements 'nothing', but I do say they are often not deal breakers for me, especially lately. I also have no idea what's coming in sensor tech, so I'd never rule out some giant leap in the future.

For what it's worth I'm unimpressed with the k3 sensors improvements over the k5 series. The release of the k3 furthered my resolve that a discontinued k5iis was by far the better choice for me. Having shot with a k100d for over 7 years, I'm decidedly not someone who is lured by the latest and ever-so slightly greatest (speaking from just an IQ standpoint here, I guess I need to explicitly state that the k-3 has many other definite improvements but they weren't enough to lure me). ymmv and all that jazz.
I'm with you on the K-3 to K-5 thing for general purpose and landscape shooters. For Birder, wildlife,macro and sports shooters, the K-3 improvements are pretty much "must have". And if you go over to the 300 plus club...you'll see a very high K-3 adoption rate... but the K-5s are still great cameras, they've held their own through time.

I'd also point out, right now apparently the 645z and it's sensor mates have the highest sensor tech, as well as some of the 4/3 offerings. In terms of leading edge tech... I'd say APS-c is somewhat neglected at the moment. MF and FF are advancing high ISO technology, 4/3 is pushing to 16Mp, what is APS-c doing. 24 Mp APS-c sensors were out 2 years ago, and not much has happened since.

I'd argue that while pushing the resolution up in the K-3 improved IQ in that way, resolution is just one axis on the IQ grid), the way the camera renders an image has not really improved in a big way since the K-5. Somehow saying the noise is "about the same" is not awe inspiring.

Last edited by normhead; 08-03-2014 at 08:47 AM.
08-03-2014, 09:02 AM   #68
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,285
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
For Birder, wildlife,macro and sports shooters, the K-3 improvements are pretty much "must have".
Macro specifically being my interest, I'd be interested to know what features of the k-3 you feel are must haves? I liked the idea of wireless tethering but I'm content to wait for it to mature to the point of being in-body.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'd also point out, right now apparently the 645z and it's sensor mates have the highest sensor tech, as well as some of the 4/3 offerings. In terms of leading edge tech... I'd say APS-c is somewhat neglected at the moment. MF and FF are advancing high ISO technology, 4/3 is pushing to 16Mp, what is APS-c doing. 24 Mp APS-c sensors were out 2 years ago, and not much has happened since.
The 645z is one of the most recent. Really, between any of the sensors in the last 2, 3 or even 4 years, the differences are not always noticeable. Depends what you're doing as always and everyone can decide for themselves how much of a difference is big enough for them (same as the sensor size question).

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'd argue that while pushing the resolution up in the K-3 improved IQ in that way, resolution is just one axis on the IQ grid), the way the camera renders an image has not really improved in a big way since the K-5. Somehow saying the noise is "about the same" is not awe inspiring.
No doubt. Same noise but more MP is rarely wrong, but yea, not a pants-dropping shock.

08-03-2014, 09:02 AM   #69
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
When I bought my K-5 in 2010, four years prior was the K10D. There was really absolutely no comparison.

Now the best is the K-3. Better than the K-5 for sure. But it's also obvious that we're in a bit of lull right now, comparatively speaking.

Photokina's coming up, though - so it'll be interesting to see if some groundbreaking achievements come to light.
08-03-2014, 09:12 AM   #70
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Macro specifically being my interest, I'd be interested to know what features of the k-3 you feel are must haves? I liked the idea of wireless tethering but I'm content to wait for it to mature to the point of being in-body.
The added resolution is like a 20% improvement in magnification, and if you can shoot at 100-400 ISO so noise isn't an issue, it's pretty much added resolution without penalty. I personally top my ISO at 640 for images I might print as art images on my K-3, and that was 800 ISO on my K-5. But as I said, for some reason my camera seems to be a little noisier than most. It might be my PP, it might be the camera. I don't use any dedicated noise reduction software, so I have no doubt I could do better if there was a critical situation, where I was getting paid.

QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
When I bought my K-5 in 2010, four years prior was the K10D. There was really absolutely no comparison.

Now the best is the K-3. Better than the K-5 for sure. But it's also obvious that we're in a bit of lull right now, comparatively speaking.

Photokina's coming up, though - so it'll be interesting to see if some groundbreaking achievements come to light.
Ya, my feeling exactly, after going from a K20D to a K-5, i was expecting the same kind of feeling K-5 to K-3. While worthwhile for me, it wasn't the "wow" my K-5 was.
08-03-2014, 09:27 AM   #71
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
That's just it, outside of the year-to-year sensor improvements the aps-c may have if you stay up to date with the latest, IQ-wise you lose nothing cropping a full frame down to aps-c size compared to using an aps-c in the first place. APS-C generally has shorter product cycles for the most recent tech to keep you on the upgrade treadmill, but honestly these year-to-year jumps can be pretty small, especially the past few years. (k5 vs k3? not a huge sensor upgrade imo, but your opinion/use may vary).
Would say there is the same difference is sharpness performance between K5 & K3 than there is between D600 and D800E... Resolution wise it is exactly that. One with low pass filter, one without. One has 50% more pixel. Well except that going from 16 to 24 is more usefull than 24 to 36 as the more you already have, the less visible the added things. Couting that thoses 36MP, you start to need very expensive lenses too.

Except also we already noticed that to not be too much behind with an APSC in term of tele sharpness you spoke of 15MP crop... Meaning the FF owner must have this 36MP FF... He needed to spend more... and to think that he was important to get the 36MP instead of the 24MP after all...

Really difficult to say then that 16-24 is not as good an updgrade!

AF wise there the same kind of difference. D600 has more basic AF than D800... And that K3 as much much much better AF than K5. Accurate in low light, many more, precise small AF sensor... And much more precise in general too. It really changed the behavior of my FA50 or DA50-135...

Anyway the whole reasoning can be reversed. if this is just a mater of lifecycle and that latest APSC catch up previous version FF, why pay now for the latest greatest while waiting a little give you the same for far less money?



But at the end of the day all of this is logical. A photograph need knowledge and experience. He need time to do its job like everyone else and finally he need good gear to get most of his time knowledge and experience. Not getting the best gear that you can afford is kind of stupid as other will do and your work will not be as good all else being equals.

Only problem is that at the end, everybody shoot the same thing at the same time with the same gear (be it FF). Any motivated non pro will have an FF anyway if that important for him and the good lenses too. He will spend is time too. The only thing remaining being knowledge and experience. Still pro photographers are not on an easy market and that might not be enough.

One might get more out of all of this by being more creative, by maybe using a lens baby, an old film medium format... By doing something different even if it is to say he manage to get spendid shoot from its iphone. All of this might be much more visible than a small difference in sensor size.

I think there more value in things that differentiate your work, make it kind of unique. Many shoot large format film for that again. Other will use lens bady... Honestly this is more creative than a 2000$ perfect f/1.2 lense. At the end of day, just doing like other will allow an amateur to get more and more shoots at pro level quality, but it will not ensure a pro to get the uniques unforgivable result almost equal to what can achieve with lower end gear.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-03-2014 at 09:35 AM.
08-03-2014, 10:12 AM   #72
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,285
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The added resolution is like a 20% improvement in magnification, and if you can shoot at 100-400 ISO so noise isn't an issue, it's pretty much added resolution without penalty.
To be honest I was plenty happy with 6mp, with regular printing at 8x12 and the odd 12x18 (and a handful larger). It's going to take me a few years to figure out what to do with 16mp. The fact that I have some cropping room is a mental barrier that's tough to break, though I think I learned good habits by striving to use the entire sensor to get all my 6mp into play.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I personally top my ISO at 640 for images I might print as art images on my K-3, and that was 800 ISO on my K-5. But as I said, for some reason my camera seems to be a little noisier than most. It might be my PP, it might be the camera. I don't use any dedicated noise reduction software, so I have no doubt I could do better if there was a critical situation, where I was getting paid..
Have you adjusted your PP at all? (That sounds a little personal...). A new camera can be a learning experience. I know my upgrade was a big change, and it's going to be some time before I feel I'm getting the most out of my k5iis, both in how I shoot and process. Maybe there's something to be said for smaller, incremental changes.

If you ever meet another k-3 in person (ideally several), a side by side shoot might be very interesting to see if there's any 'camera variation'.
08-03-2014, 12:17 PM   #73
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
To be honest I was plenty happy with 6mp, with regular printing at 8x12 and the odd 12x18 (and a handful larger). It's going to take me a few years to figure out what to do with 16mp. The fact that I have some cropping room is a mental barrier that's tough to break, though I think I learned good habits by striving to use the entire sensor to get all my 6mp into play.



Have you adjusted your PP at all? (That sounds a little personal...). A new camera can be a learning experience. I know my upgrade was a big change, and it's going to be some time before I feel I'm getting the most out of my k5iis, both in how I shoot and process. Maybe there's something to be said for smaller, incremental changes.

If you ever meet another k-3 in person (ideally several), a side by side shoot might be very interesting to see if there's any 'camera variation'.
Trust me, if I ever meet another K-3 person, I'll be all over it.
08-03-2014, 12:54 PM   #74
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,549
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The added resolution is like a 20% improvement in magnification, and if you can shoot at 100-400 ISO so noise isn't an issue, it's pretty much added resolution without penalty. I personally top my ISO at 640 for images I might print as art images on my K-3, and that was 800 ISO on my K-5. But as I said, for some reason my camera seems to be a little noisier than most. It might be my PP, it might be the camera. I don't use any dedicated noise reduction software, so I have no doubt I could do better if there was a critical situation, where I was getting paid.



Ya, my feeling exactly, after going from a K20D to a K-5, i was expecting the same kind of feeling K-5 to K-3. While worthwhile for me, it wasn't the "wow" my K-5 was.
20% is without counting the low pass filter. I have tested and at isos 100, my K3 is much sharper reduced to 16MP than the K5 is at 16MP. The difference is much more visible than between low end lens sharpness and high end sharpness. Even comparing everything at 16MP.

With DxO standard noise reduction algorithms, K3 seems to have very similar noise but to retains more sharpness. This is working on raws for both. Working on JPEG, it seems that K3 start to be less effective starting 1600isos. But if you are after ultimate quality... well raw processing will get you better results and with DxO that's automatics from the isos settings and camera model.

But anyway, if you want good image quality, there is no discussion for me that you should not go higher than iso 800! Totally agree with you. And even I managed to see noise on K5 at thoses settings. Depend a lot of the shooting conditions. For action in daylight you could go up to 1200-1600 and not really see any degradation. On bad light and slow slutter speed, even 800iso is not going to be perfectly clean.
08-03-2014, 03:44 PM   #75
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,769
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
20% is without counting the low pass filter. I have tested and at isos 100, my K3 is much sharper reduced to 16MP than the K5 is at 16MP. The difference is much more visible than between low end lens sharpness and high end sharpness. Even comparing everything at 16MP.

With DxO standard noise reduction algorithms, K3 seems to have very similar noise but to retains more sharpness. This is working on raws for both. Working on JPEG, it seems that K3 start to be less effective starting 1600isos. But if you are after ultimate quality... well raw processing will get you better results and with DxO that's automatics from the isos settings and camera model.

But anyway, if you want good image quality, there is no discussion for me that you should not go higher than iso 800! Totally agree with you. And even I managed to see noise on K5 at thoses settings. Depend a lot of the shooting conditions. For action in daylight you could go up to 1200-1600 and not really see any degradation. On bad light and slow slutter speed, even 800iso is not going to be perfectly clean.
That sounds like about what I've experienced....
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, camera, dslr, ff, frame, full-frame, gr, pentax, pentax ff plans, release, ricoh, worlds
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Stolen Pentax K-01 - SN: 4313429 Jan-61 General Talk 4 07-11-2014 04:40 AM
Pentax kit stolen, be on the lookout jeffshaddix General Talk 26 09-28-2013 01:02 AM
Pentax Confirms Full-Frame Plans at CP+ Inteview Adam Pentax Full Frame 810 04-14-2013 05:46 PM
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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:53 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