[normhead]

Ya well, I tested your theory about FF looking better here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/270828-ok-guys.html

Personally I don't think you have case... say what you want.

[chaza01]

Ya well, I tested your theory about FF looking better here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/270828-ok-guys.html

Personally I don't think you have case... say what you want.

Wagwan,

My guess is 2,4,6 - was there processing here? As for differences - I have come to the conclusion that better glass makes the main difference and FF enables this generally - also people with FF tend to have expensive lenses. At high-iso ff will obviously provide a marked advantage.

[normhead]

Wagwan,

My guess is 2,4,6 - was there processing here? As for differences - I have come to the conclusion that better glass makes the main difference and FF enables this generally - also people with FF tend to have expensive lenses. At high-iso ff will obviously provide a marked advantage.

Ya, well I'm still stuck thinking, people who say FF is always better haven't done a blind test. By the way, you got 2/3.

[chaza01]

Ya, well I'm still stuck thinking, people who say FF is always better haven't done a blind test. By the way, you got 2/3.

2/3 not too bad - 5,6 looked similar tough call.

[normhead]

2/3 not too bad - 5,6 looked similar tough call.

We were literally two feet from each other.... the APS-c image came out sharper. I'm not sure why....

[stevebrot]

What people really want is the same FOV of a FF camera, but the pixel pitch, hence increased resolution of APS C.

Pixels are what the picture is made of. The final output device "knows" nothing of pixel pitch. For equivalent aspect ratios, resolution is the number of pixels to produce the image. There truly is nothing more. FOV, OTOH, is determined by frame size and focal length alone. Now if you are going to crop a FF image to APS-C size to get FOV equivalence from the same lens on a K-3...yes, that would require a 50+ megapickle sensor, but who in their right mind would do that?


Steve

[Lowell Goudge]

Pixels are what the picture is made of. The final output device "knows" nothing of pixel pitch. For equivalent aspect ratios, resolution is the number of pixels to produce the image. There truly is nothing more. FOV, OTOH, is determined by frame size and focal length alone. Now if you are going to crop a FF image to APS-C size to get FOV equivalence from the same lens on a K-3...yes, that would require a 50+ megapickle sensor, but who in their right mind would do that?


Steve

steve, what started this sideline discussion about resolution was pppppp42's comment "I personally like looking at medium format best. Take a picture of the whole damn town and still read peoples license plates. For some reason you can take a picture of your lunch with a medium format and the spectacular level of detail just makes it look great."

what he is referring to is comparing MF and FF film, lets assume both at 100 ISO, with the same field of view. zoom in on a 645 ot 6x7 frame and there is so much more data because the larger film has the analog equivalent of exactly what you state above, you need a 50MP plus sensor. All else being equal, i.e. pixle density, full frame has more resolution, but until you go to Medium format sensors, for us, full frame is trading iso performance for resolution. sometimes this is an equatible trade, some times not,

[mecrox]

To my experience so far with the Sony A7r, comparing to the (Pentax) Apsc family of the last three years, yes I do spend less time in the raw converter and much less in Photoshop trying to get it right. To begin with (and yes: this is with a quartet of quality Zeiss ZK lenses that I bought three years ago and used on Apsc all this time), the A7r files capture a large dynamic range. I know that per DxO the Sony A7r has the same 14.1 score on dynamic range that the Pentax K5 had, and of course the K5 could bring shadows back seemingly endlessly. Still there is a difference, the images seem to have a wider scope at default, and more often only need brightening up with the exposure tool (I use CO1), whereas the Apsc images need more fiddling around with shadow raising or highlight reconstruction and such, which tend to need all sorts corrections e.g. color wise. Although I could capture quite a large DR with the K5 at iso 80, there was always some sort of sense of compression at default, and colors not really evenly saturated, just needing a lot of work to get a pleasant and natural looking image.
I'm not saying that you can as well shoot the A7r in jpeg, but with a good raw converter it is relatively easy and definitely less time consuming to get balanced, pleasing images with all the tonal details and color nuances. Of course that adds to the satisfaction of shooting with the camera.

Chris

EDIT:
Here is an example with 100% crop and screenshot from the raw converter.
From the screenshot you can see that the whole histogram at default setting, other than a 0,8 ev exposure lifting, easily falls within the 0-255 scale, I can even move the black point as well as white point inwards a bit. This may seem no big deal, with the shot seemingly not containing a large DR, but I have shot many similar lighting situations with all three Pentax crop cameras, and in these circumstances the skies were always blown, or the black point could not be brought back into the 0-255 scale anymore, at least not with the normal exposure tool, needing all sorts of substantial shadow lifting. The sun is lighting up the clouds, and background skies like that are harder than the Sony A7r makes them look, especially with the Zeiss makro planar 50/2, with which this image was taken, a lens that easily blows skies. The great thing is that you can significantly underexpose, and totally bring the image back with a natural look with one slide of the exposure tool. The Sony A7r has this tendency to underexpose around 0,7ev by default, hence the +0,8 ev on this image. You can see from the 100% crop how much real detail is retained. The way in which this makes the image pleasing to me, is that shadows and light tones are all there in a natural way, a bit like my eyes would see them in the real situation.







---------- Post added 08-20-14 at 10:12 PM ----------



Nicolas, see my response to mecrox.
When I have the time, I will do a comparison. I use the Zeiss 28/2, 35/2, 50/2 and 85/1.4. These are the MF Zeiss lenses, on a voigtländer adapter.
These may seem exotic (price wise), but that's not really so: e.g. the 35/2 cost me 799,- euros new at a respectable camera store, the HD DA35/2.8 ltd goes for 729,- euros

Chris

Many thanks for that. It's very much the kind of stonework and colours which are all over the place where I live. Yes, this is the kind of thing I spend a lot of time going for in PP. It's partly a matter of "bite" with well defined details as in the stonework on those buildings as well as pleasing tones overall without anything being blown out on either side of the histogram. And a) colours that have some vibrance but which are still natural, without being overly vivid; and b) detail that hasn't started to crack up into pronounced edges from overprocessing in PP. I do use good lenses, either a DA Ltd or the DA* 16-50mm. In fact this is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for in my next camera/lens combination after the K5 turns up its toes. I've just looked at today's Flickr feed and one image popped straight out - the Exif says D700 and the wide angle suggests a high-end Nikon lens. I wasn't surprised. Contrary to the drift of this thread, I can often tell though the likely reason is that a very good photographer will usually have appropriate gear. Of course it is a very good shot with a lot of craftsmanship behind it but the detail and quality of the light in it don't emerge from less than excellent equipment, imho.

Not sure what I can link to, but I'll try one below. This was taken with a 100mm macro lens, the D-FA 100mm f2.8, probably not the ideal lens for the job. But to get this to this point, I need to employ PhotoShop and several of the Topaz Plugs - Clarity to bring out the details on the stonework, In Detail to bring out the evening sunset effect which was there on the original but kind of faded to pale shades without much contrast, and InFocus for standard sharpening. I simply feel that the combo I am presently using is always one or two notches off getting it right without a lot of PP. Since I am resistant to the current mania for overprocessed images, I'm keen to find equipment which doesn't require too much PP. I think the mania derives from the way things are presented on the internet and through advertising. We are bombarded with heightened, retouched versions of reality in order to manipulate us and this is beginning to affect how we see generally - or, rather, what we expect to see. Shouty overall, but shouty is out round here.


oxford-3-120714

--

[Nicolas06]

Not sure what I can link to, but I'll try one below. This was taken with a 100mm macro lens, the D-FA 100mm f2.8, probably not the ideal lens for the job.

No, no, tele are indeed very good for buildings. The building shoot I prefer are from my DA50-135.

A few examples from my trip in Florence:


IMGP1073 by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr


IMGP1072 by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr


IMGP1187 by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr


IMGP1398 by Nicolas Bousquet, on Flickr


This is interresting because it change of the distorted wide angle we see everywhere, instead it is usually taken from a window or a terrasse, a tower... It give very interresting shoots.

As for the color, their is nothing like the right lighting, the right hour in the day. You can spend day in PP, with an FF or even MF. The pro that take this kind of shoot will prepare, estimate what is the best hour, check the weather forecast and so on.

Of course once you did all that, you'd better use that 645Z or PhaseOne medium frame anyway. Or for the mere mortal a FF.

[Rondec]

I think it is hard to make recommendations for camera gear to others. Full frame may offer the best "bang for your buck" and "best image quality," but it is not really in the sights of most people.

I had a woman ask me recently what I would recommend for her to get for a camera. She said she wanted something "with a nice zoom, able to take video, easy to use, and able to take close up photos (she meant macro)." Oh, and it had to be for 200 dollars or less. I ended up recommending a bridge camera like one of the Fuji Fine Pix models. Getting a used kx and a not so good super zoom (one of the 18-200 Tamrons) would have put her over budget and I don't honestly know if she could have told the difference or, gotten much of the benefits that are available with an SLR.

I am glad there are a lot of different models of camera out there, because not everybody is like me.

[formercanuck]

We were literally two feet from each other.... the APS-c image came out sharper. I'm not sure why....

I was pretty much correct then

Not that I typically have FF to APS-C comparison, but the main difference that I picked up on - was
1 - 2, 4, and 5 appeared to have the colour levels with more saturation (eg. check the log / brush difference in 5 and 6).
3 / 4 is a different image, so its more difficult to determine, but again, the greens in the trees/brush have much more detail (depth) and less shadow. The image appears less exposed on #3
1 / 2 is a similar image, but different lighting, but again the surrounding trees have less detail due to what appears to be lower light (less exposure, dynamic range).

That's just my opinion though. I'm by no means a pro.

[northcoastgreg]

Still there is a difference, the images seem to have a wider scope at default, and more often only need brightening up with the exposure tool (I use CO1), whereas the Apsc images need more fiddling around with shadow raising or highlight reconstruction and such, which tend to need all sorts corrections e.g. color wise. Although I could capture quite a large DR with the K5 at iso 80, there was always some sort of sense of compression at default, and colors not really evenly saturated, just needing a lot of work to get a pleasant and natural looking image.

Is that really an APS-C vs FF issue? Or is it merely a camera issue, the raw defaults in each camera?

The best color output I've gotten from any digital camera with raw files came from the Olympus EPL-1, easily the worst digital camera I've ever used. Even well exposed images at base ISO from that camera were noisy. But the colors were often quite impressive, even with kit glass. The Olympus EM-5 produces much cleaner files, but something is lost in the color in its raw files; and, oddly enough, that something can be difficult to replicate in post.

Something of the same sort could be said when comparing the raw files from the K200D to those from the K-5 series of camera, although the differences here are much more subtle. The K200D produced default raw files with colors slightly more vibrant than what I could get out of the K-5, although the K-5 produced slightly cleaner files (and more than slightly at higher ISOs).

Now from these experiences, I would be inclined to suspect that the better colors from the Sony A7r have more to do with the camera than with sensor size. Keep in mind, the raw defaults in Pentax cameras will be optimized for the color rendition of Pentax, rather than Zeiss, glass; whereas the Sony A7r's raw defaults would be optimized for Zeiss color rendering. So it should not come as any surprise that Zeiss glass would seem to produce better colors on a Sony high-end camera than on Pentax one.

[jsherman999]

Is that really an APS-C vs FF issue? Or is it merely a camera issue, the raw defaults in each camera?

The best color output I've gotten from any digital camera with raw files came from the Olympus EPL-1, easily the worst digital camera I've ever used. Even well exposed images at base ISO from that camera were noisy. But the colors were often quite impressive, even with kit glass. The Olympus EM-5 produces much cleaner files, but something is lost in the color in its raw files; and, oddly enough, that something can be difficult to replicate in post.

Something of the same sort could be said when comparing the raw files from the K200D to those from the K-5 series of camera, although the differences here are much more subtle. The K200D produced default raw files with colors slightly more vibrant than what I could get out of the K-5, although the K-5 produced slightly cleaner files (and more than slightly at higher ISOs).

Now from these experiences, I would be inclined to suspect that the better colors from the Sony A7r have more to do with the camera than with sensor size. Keep in mind, the raw defaults in Pentax cameras will be optimized for the color rendition of Pentax, rather than Zeiss, glass; whereas the Sony A7r's raw defaults would be optimized for Zeiss color rendering. So it should not come as any surprise that Zeiss glass would seem to produce better colors on a Sony high-end camera than on Pentax one.

Interesting experience there. As far as I've seen lenses affect color transmission as much as anything else, and I haven't seen any major difference in color or tonality transitions between cameras of the same gen that I've owned, with the exception of the 'too-vibrant' green I sometimes got from my D90.

The differences are probably there, but possibly overshadowed by the lens differences and especially by an application of a camera profile during the raw conversion.

It would be interesting to see these differences shown in a controlled experiment, though, maybe something that shows the difference in color sensitivity that DxOmark measures here.

[Chris Mak]

Many thanks for that. It's very much the kind of stonework and colours which are all over the place where I live. Yes, this is the kind of thing I spend a lot of time going for in PP. It's partly a matter of "bite" with well defined details as in the stonework on those buildings as well as pleasing tones overall without anything being blown out on either side of the histogram. And a) colours that have some vibrance but which are still natural, without being overly vivid; and b) detail that hasn't started to crack up into pronounced edges from overprocessing in PP. I do use good lenses, either a DA Ltd or the DA* 16-50mm. In fact this is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for in my next camera/lens combination after the K5 turns up its toes. I've just looked at today's Flickr feed and one image popped straight out - the Exif says D700 and the wide angle suggests a high-end Nikon lens. I wasn't surprised. Contrary to the drift of this thread, I can often tell though the likely reason is that a very good photographer will usually have appropriate gear. Of course it is a very good shot with a lot of craftsmanship behind it but the detail and quality of the light in it don't emerge from less than excellent equipment, imho.

Not sure what I can link to, but I'll try one below. This was taken with a 100mm macro lens, the D-FA 100mm f2.8, probably not the ideal lens for the job. But to get this to this point, I need to employ PhotoShop and several of the Topaz Plugs - Clarity to bring out the details on the stonework, In Detail to bring out the evening sunset effect which was there on the original but kind of faded to pale shades without much contrast, and InFocus for standard sharpening. I simply feel that the combo I am presently using is always one or two notches off getting it right without a lot of PP. Since I am resistant to the current mania for overprocessed images, I'm keen to find equipment which doesn't require too much PP. I think the mania derives from the way things are presented on the internet and through advertising. We are bombarded with heightened, retouched versions of reality in order to manipulate us and this is beginning to affect how we see generally - or, rather, what we expect to see. Shouty overall, but shouty is out round here.--

Well, you live in a very nice place then! I love these old buildings, provided they have not fallen to a ruin state.
I can go along with your observations about over-processed digital imaging and have the same disliking to it. If the colors, details and light are really there, images shouldn't need a lot of enhancements to get the right mood and look. The more you get to start off with (preserved shadow and highlight detail, color detail) the less work to get it right.
When discussing FF versus Apsc, often people start off in a routine like: " FF takes a good photographer to get any benefit from", or: "a good photographer doesn't need FF to take great images." All true maybe, but this to me is reasoning the wrong way round: a good FF camera helps to take away all kinds of (possible) stumble blocks like extensive PP'ing, and helps create more of the right concentration on learning about your lenses, about light, composition etc. Remember: in the film era, a FF camera was much more common and accessible next to compacts with fixed lenses. And film had a great latitude to capture colors and DR.
Just for fun another shot, with only very minimal PP'ing.
Chris

[jpzk]

I'm pretty sure if I use Rory Mcilroy's golf clubs, I can get my handicap under 30 ....

You've got the idea.


JP