Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-21-2014, 07:03 AM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: SoCal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 508
I'm no pro, but I'm guessing 2,4 and 5 are FF - basing this primarily on colour / dynamic range and possibly perceived sharpness given due to dynamic range.

08-21-2014, 07:34 AM   #32
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I totally agree Jay... I'm doing this just for some fun, you probably remember my own tests on IR images where I decided you could't tell the difference between a k-5 and a D800 until about 3600-3800 pixels across, and then there is a noticeable difference and the added detail of the large sensor comes into play. You still have the issue of whether the final print looks better, if you're printing large, which I haven't seen resolved, at least not to my satisfaction. Based on previous work, I'd guess anyone with a 4000 pixel width on their monitor would be able to easily pick out APS-c and FF.

I'd also point out though that applies to optimum use. Looking at my pictures and the two guys I took out this year, where a lot of pictures were taken from the boats, the SR on my K-3 made it the better performer for some images. And as I said above, I can't understand why Brian's picture of the water fall is softer than mine. We were both set up on our tripods two feet apart. IN the first series, I don't like Brian's composition, but he really nailed it technically. My guess is printing large, his would be the better image. And that to me is real hi res advantage. It seems to be harder to nail the shot, and you're going to miss more images than using a smaller format. But if you do nail the image, you've got more to work with in terms of resolution, low light performance etc. Of course that's just a general observation.
Well, thanks for the explanation and I agree. FWIW I start to see differences in images at about 1600 pixel-width between 12 and 36MP - the re-sampling of both favors the 36MP image even down to that level most of the time. I'd bet that if there are any advantages to an image taken with more MP or a better lens or a different format, you may be surprised to see them start to become visible at 1600p-width. So, you could make the case that largish web images can gain some IQ advantage, but usually it's not going to be very visible on the web unless you're shooting some extreme ISOs, really leaning on the DR, etc.

DOF differences will be pretty visible at most sizes though, although more appreciated in large prints.

BTW my examples were 1) iphone, 2) FF
08-21-2014, 04:15 PM   #33
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
Well, thanks for the explanation and I agree. FWIW I start to see differences in images at about 1600 pixel-width between 12 and 36MP - the re-sampling of both favors the 36MP image even down to that level most of the time. I'd bet that if there are any advantages to an image taken with more MP or a better lens or a different format, you may be surprised to see them start to become visible at 1600p-width. So, you could make the case that largish web images can gain some IQ advantage, but usually it's not going to be very visible on the web unless you're shooting some extreme ISOs, really leaning on the DR, etc.

DOF differences will be pretty visible at most sizes though, although more appreciated in large prints.

BTW my examples were 1) iphone, 2) FF
12 MP ? You mean my Oprio W 90? We're up to 24 MP these days Jay, and the K-3 tested out at 2700 lw/ph on IR the D800 tested at 3400 lw/ph...my guess would be, reduce both images to 4000, 3000 and the images will be indistinguishable, with perhaps a bit more unresolved detail in the K-3 version. The K-3 has 79% of the resolution of a D800. By the time you've reduced the K-3 image by 33%, and the D800 image by 57% it's unlikely any residual IQ will remain in the D800 image. While you might be right about 12 Mp and 1600 pixels, no way that applies to a 24 Mp camera. It's a whole new APS-c world out there since 12 Mp. 14, 16, 20, and 24 Mp cameras in APSC. And even the jump from 12 Mp to 14 MP (K-x to K20D) was huge.

You have to go to low light like DxO does, to make this case...
08-21-2014, 07:14 PM   #34
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893


all pixels were not created equal.

08-23-2014, 10:45 AM   #35
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote

all pixels were not created equal.
It still doesn't answer the question, does it make a more enjoyable picture? As I said, the if you can't tell the difference between a 200 DPI image and a 300 DPI image in a print, does it make any difference which I'm looking at. Or to put it another way, does it make any difference if it's virus or bacteria on my kitchen counter when I look at it? I can't see either. The necessary definitive work on how much difference it takes to make a picture less enjoyable to look at hasn't been done. And until it has, those are just numbers on a chart.

It's now enough to know the numbers on the chart. You have to know what they mean to a human being.
08-23-2014, 12:55 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Heck sounds like a D700 (~$900) and a $120 50mm F/1.8 lens are a great match for you. Think of how much you'd save!
08-28-2014, 03:48 PM - 2 Likes   #37
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,767
I have a friend who builds custom speakers for really high end sound systems in really high end homes. I have a rather pedestrian Bose theater system which sounds fine to me, but he acts like he's in pain to even watch (listen to) a college football game on my system. He's amazed that most people can't hear the difference in sound quality.

Norm's example is a pretty poor one. The advantage of a larger sensor in landscape photography is going to be in the larger print, and equalizing them for web display is taking away that advantage. If anyone really wants to show the difference between M4/3, APS-C, FF, & 645 they wouldn't shoot images that are of distance subjects focused at infinity and at smaller apertures. If you want to demonstrate the difference you take pictures of people at a shorter portrait distance with a busy background.

We did prints of the new Fuji 56mm F/1.2 on a XP1 and then prints from a Sigma 85mm on a Canon 5DII. They were cheap 8x10 prints from OOC JPEGs. Both make really good images, but you can tell which one was FF when you put them side by side. If I handed you the Fuji print by itself, you would have no clue what size sensor it was taken with, but if you put it next to the ones taken by the 5DII and you know what you are looking for, you can see the differences. My wife, however can't see the differences when I showed them to her side by side. Its a lot like expensive speakers. Not everyone can tell the difference because not everyone knows what to look (listen) for, and for most people the difference is not that important. For the modern world of over saturated colors and surreal HDR sensor size isn't important. Even M4/3 is good enough if you are heavy into processing.
08-28-2014, 11:43 PM   #38
Veteran Member
robjmitchell's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne Aus
Posts: 1,144
What were the lenses by the way? I picked the difference based on contrast although I couldn't tell which camera was which!

08-29-2014, 05:08 AM - 2 Likes   #39
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I have a friend who builds custom speakers for really high end sound systems in really high end homes. I have a rather pedestrian Bose theater system which sounds fine to me, but he acts like he's in pain to even watch (listen to) a college football game on my system. He's amazed that most people can't hear the difference in sound quality.

Norm's example is a pretty poor one. The advantage of a larger sensor in landscape photography is going to be in the larger print, and equalizing them for web display is taking away that advantage. If anyone really wants to show the difference between M4/3, APS-C, FF, & 645 they wouldn't shoot images that are of distance subjects focused at infinity and at smaller apertures. If you want to demonstrate the difference you take pictures of people at a shorter portrait distance with a busy background.

We did prints of the new Fuji 56mm F/1.2 on a XP1 and then prints from a Sigma 85mm on a Canon 5DII. They were cheap 8x10 prints from OOC JPEGs. Both make really good images, but you can tell which one was FF when you put them side by side. If I handed you the Fuji print by itself, you would have no clue what size sensor it was taken with, but if you put it next to the ones taken by the 5DII and you know what you are looking for, you can see the differences. My wife, however can't see the differences when I showed them to her side by side. Its a lot like expensive speakers. Not everyone can tell the difference because not everyone knows what to look (listen) for, and for most people the difference is not that important. For the modern world of over saturated colors and surreal HDR sensor size isn't important. Even M4/3 is good enough if you are heavy into processing.
QuoteQuote:
Norm's example is a pretty poor one. The advantage of a larger sensor in landscape photography is going to be in the larger print, and equalizing them for web display is taking away that advantage.
Why because it doesn't support your opinion? And you of course have a better example? I never appreciate comments from who criticize, but provide nothing. Sniping from the wings so to speak.

QuoteQuote:
The advantage of a larger sensor in landscape photography is going to be in the larger print, and equalizing them for web display is taking away that advantage.
Yet, we have evidence that says people can't tell the difference in larger prints either. Again, people seem to think it should be true, there's a lot of people out there who say, that, I've seen no empirical evidence that it's true. People are starting to sound like parrots to me on this topic. Lot's of opinions, not a shred of research to back it up.

QuoteQuote:
Its a lot like expensive speakers. Not everyone can tell the difference because not everyone knows what to look (listen) for, and for most people the difference is not that important.
Now that was probably one of the snootiest things I've heard in a long time. "Us FF guys are so freaking sophisticated the rest of you boobs just don't get how we are the judges and jury of good taste and the enjoyment of photography. If you don't appreciate what we appreciate you're just don't get it."

I have another theory... some people can become so focussed on the technical aspects of photography they forget it's art, not a technical competition. They want to define photography in terms of MP, DR and a bunch of other things. But art is about "I like that, it does something for me." No one has ever proven FF are better for producing that type of image.

So, with my high end speakers, I can actually hear a wider tonal (DR) range than with cheaper speakers, or at least I could when I was younger. Comparing the artistic values and compromises of an FF system to high end speakers is a false comparison. Speakers are an output device, the output device for your digital image is you computer screen or printed image. The same dynamic range, contrast etc. is available to to images from each device. So, there is no actual valid comparison to be drawn from high end speakers. You obvious never did the communication tech charts with input>process>output flow charts. That's a pretty fundamental flaw in your musings.

The worst thing about people just making up stuff, and coming up with these wild analogies, it they have no basis in reality. And unless carefully constructed, there is no internal logic to them that tells you if they're wrong or right.

Before you have an analogy, you have to prove what you're saying is true, and the analogy is used to explain to folks who don't understand the technical language o the subject being discussed. An analogy describing something that's not true, is an impediment to understanding.

Right now there are a lot of people who believe that at some point an FF print is better than an APS-c print. They just have no idea where the line is, and refuse to do any research to back up their case. IN fact as in the case of Winder ignoring his wife's opinion. Maybe Winder's wife is ignorant of the difference between different images, but maybe Winder is ignorant of what good art is. From this description, Winder gives us reason to believe we should believe him, because he can see the technical differences. We could also make a case that we should believe his wife, because she isn't looking at the technique, she's looking at the overall artistic value. Never discount someone else's opinion in matters of art.

I'm not saying there isn't a difference.

In your friend's case, I've been both those people. I'm the guy who couldn't understand why others didn't hear what I hear, and now 30 years later, I can't here the things I used to hear. I know it's still there, I just can't hear it. But in my high school band, I could hear almost a full 6 tones higher than anyone else tested. So my experience was based on a superior ability. I didn't ask for that, or necessarily appreciate that. In a way it was a pain, I had to have more expensive speakers.

There is not a shred of evidence that using a full frame camera means you have any special abilities that are in some way different than everyone else's. It probably just means you've educated yourself to look for differences that are cosmetic and un-important to most people. And there's no reason for supposing one of those viewpoints is more "sophisticated than the other. A lot a lot of photographers care, but I'm not sure if that's hype or like a confidence builder or what that is. It would seem to exist more between the ears of the photographers than anywhere else, at least when talking FF and APS-c.

Last edited by normhead; 08-29-2014 at 05:32 AM.
08-29-2014, 09:15 AM - 2 Likes   #40
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,767
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Why because it doesn't support your opinion? And you of course have a better example? I never appreciate comments from who criticize, but provide nothing. Sniping from the wings so to speak.
Its a poor example for the reasons I gave. Its next to impossible to tell the difference between between FF and APS-C images in landscape images that have been optimized for web use. The advantages of larger sensors for landscape work is that they allow for larger prints. Your're not trying to isolate a subject in landscape photography, so you have negated the advantages of the larger sensor.

The farther the subject is away from the camera, the harder it will be to tell the difference.
The smaller the aperture used, the harder it will be to tell the difference.
The smaller the printed or displayed image is, the harder it will be to tell the difference.

For the pictures you are providing and the size they are being displayed at a m4/3 sensor would have been just as good.

The rest of your rant doesn't change that these are poor examples. If you don't understand why these are poor examples then you probably don't need a FF camera. Do you think all of the professional photographers who use FF or larger formats are idiots who just have extra money laying around? Are the just gear snobs? You don't seem to know the applications where larger sensors can provide an advantage and the applications where they can not. Larger sensors don't provide advantages for all applications. There are applications where small sensors have an advantage. There are applications where sensor size is relatively unimportant.
08-29-2014, 09:26 AM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
Perhaps the analogy is not the speakers, but the microphone(s) and other recording equipment.

But, the analogy fails because most people have no experience in recording music - and the purpose of an analogy is to relate an unknown thing to a known thing.
08-29-2014, 09:53 AM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,767
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Right now there are a lot of people who believe that at some point an FF print is better than an APS-c print. They just have no idea where the line is, and refuse to do any research to back up their case.
Give me a break. That's crap. Anyone who took 1 minute to read the print reviews at Image Resource would know that what you are saying is false. Apparently you are the one who hasn't actually done any research. for 30" x 40" prints the 24MP sensor of the D610 beats the K-3 after ISO 200 and the difference in print quality gets bigger as the ISO goes up.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Comparing the artistic values and compromises of an FF system to high end speakers is a false comparison. Speakers are an output device, the output device for your digital image is you computer screen or printed image.
Again. You just don't get it. The analogy is perfectly fine. In both cases we are talking about the perceived differences in the quality of output. The title of the frigg'n thread is "What could be 'different' about Pentax FF?" You are asking people about the perceived differences in OUTPUT. You don't even understand your own thread.
08-29-2014, 10:31 AM - 1 Like   #43
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,558
Original Poster
Of course I disagree completely....
As I said... FF or APS-c, 24MP or 35 Mp s input quality.
The images displayed on the screen or print is output quality..

QuoteQuote:
The farther the subject is away from the camera, the harder it will be to tell the difference.
The smaller the aperture used, the harder it will be to tell the difference.
The smaller the printed or displayed image is, the harder it will be to tell the difference.
All made totally moot because you can't define whether too far to tell the difference is 6 inches, or infinity.
I actually do quite understand my own thread.

The point I've made over and over , is, which pictures is perceived to be better depends on who's looking at the picture and what the circumstances of the picture being taken were. The circumstances of individual cases are more important than sensor size.

The fact that to make these arguments, that people can tell the difference you continually discount real world blind tests and go with your own biases, which undoubtedly cloud your judgement when making these kinds of judgements. As a largely un-interested observer, I shoot APS-c but I'm not married to it. I also shoot cell phone and water proof point and shoot, and the continuous observation from years of doing this would be that FF users continually over-estimate the value of their cameras, despite blind test after blind test saying otherwise.

I've read the recommended print sizes on IR. I just have no idea what hat they pulled them out of. If you want to say "low light" fine, no problem... but I'm interested in knowing how too shots printed at 40x30 both 24 MP shot at 100 ISO, with practically the same resolution, one ends up being better than the other. How does the output device know what size sensor the pixels come from? I've often scratched my head at IR's statements about print sizes.

I'm happy to admit at high ISO FF is better than APS-c.
But no one on the FF side of things seems to want to admit that at 100 ISO the images are going to be pretty much indistinguishable. I'm not sure why. What I noticed was that a 24 MP K-3 on IR has more resolution than a 6D.

On the 6D
QuoteQuote:
Our laboratory resolution chart shows strong detail with distinct line patterns down to about 2,400 lines per picture height horizontally and to about the same resolution vertically from in-camera JPEGs. Extinction of the pattern occurred just past 3,400 lines horizontally and vertically. Adobe Camera Raw converted .CR2 files show slightly higher resolution than the in-camera JPEGs, perhaps 100 lines more in both directions, but complete extinction of the pattern was extended to the limits of the chart in the horizontal direction, and to about 3,800 lines in the vertical direction. While ACR was able to extract a bit more detail, it also produced more color moiré than JPEGs from the camera, though that's not unusual.

Print Quality
The Canon 6D prints superb images. Stunning 30 x 40s at ISO 50/100/200; an excellent 16 x 20 at ISO 1600; and a good 5 x 7 all the way to ISO 25,600.
On the K-3
QuoteQuote:
Our laboratory resolution chart reveals sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,700 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and to about the same 2,700 lph in the vertical direction in best quality JPEGs. Complete extinction of the pattern didn't occur until just past 3,000 lines in both directions. We weren't able to resolve more with an Adobe Camera Raw conversion, though complete extinction of the pattern was extended to about 3,800 lines. The ACR processed RAW images do however show a lot more color moiré, as they often do.

Excellent 30 x 40 inch prints at ISOs 100 and 200; a nice 11 x 14 at ISO 1600; a good 4 x 6 at ISO 12,800.

ISO 100/200 prints are terrific at 30 x 40 inches, with rich colors and super sharp detail. Wall display prints are possible at 36 x 48 inches.

About the D600

QuoteQuote:
Our laboratory resolution chart reveals sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,700 lines per picture height in the horizontal dirction, and about 2,700 lines in the vertical directions in JPEGs. Complete extinction of the pattern occurs between 3,600 and 3,800 lines. With ViewNX 2, horizontal resolution improves to almost 2,800 lines, but vertical resolution remains about the same at 2,700 lines. Adobe Camera Raw 7.2 produced very similar resolution limits, although with more noticeable color moiré.

Print Quality
Excellent 30 x 40 inch prints from ISO 50 to 400; ISO 6,400 images look good at 11 x 14; and ISO 25,600 images make a good 5 x 7.
You must be reading some other IR resource than I'm reading because their results don't say what you say they do. In fact according to the IR text K-3 images will look good at 36x48 inches, which for some reason they don't say for the D600.

I get really tired when people say stuff based on shoddy research, and I have to check up on them and find out they're wrong. Either quote your source for these things or quit depending on me to correct your memory for you. That kind of BS is in-excusable. IR is a bg site, maybe you got your information somewhere else in the site, in any case, it didn't sound right... and it wasn't.

The links are there, argue with them, or at least stop quoting them like they are helping with your case.
08-29-2014, 11:19 AM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
But no one on the FF side of things seems to want to admit that at 100 ISO the images are going to be pretty much indistinguishable. I'm not sure why
Did you mean the opposite of that?


How many dozens of times has a 'person on the FF side of things'* explained equivalence on this forum?
How many times has a 'person on the FF side of things'* explained equivalence to you, personally?





*which I take to mean people who own both APS-C and FF cameras, we own and use both...

---------- Post added 08-29-14 at 11:22 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You must be reading some other IR resource than I'm reading because their results don't say what you say they do.
Their results have one answer, their summary of the results has a different answer. Instead of analyzing their experiment, IR chooses to eyeball the numbers. That chart allows eyeballing, but I don't take it as a real result, no matter how many times you quote it.

Run IMATEST on the results. They're optimisitic on the K-3 resolution.

And that's before we start talking about the fact that we're judging resolution based on JPG images!!!



QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I get really tired when people say stuff based on shoddy research
You correctly quote one source on the internet. One source that takes a picture of an ISO chart and says, ah, that looks like about 2700. What do you think, Bob? Ah, it's all run through a JPG engine anyway, so nobody'll care...

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 08-29-2014 at 11:38 AM.
09-01-2014, 07:00 PM   #45
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by winder Quote
i have a friend who builds custom speakers for really high end sound systems in really high end homes. I have a rather pedestrian bose theater system which sounds fine to me, but he acts like he's in pain to even watch (listen to) a college football game on my system. He's amazed that most people can't hear the difference in sound quality.

Norm's example is a pretty poor one. The advantage of a larger sensor in landscape photography is going to be in the larger print, and equalizing them for web display is taking away that advantage. If anyone really wants to show the difference between m4/3, aps-c, ff, & 645 they wouldn't shoot images that are of distance subjects focused at infinity and at smaller apertures. If you want to demonstrate the difference you take pictures of people at a shorter portrait distance with a busy background.

We did prints of the new fuji 56mm f/1.2 on a xp1 and then prints from a sigma 85mm on a canon 5dii. They were cheap 8x10 prints from ooc jpegs. Both make really good images, but you can tell which one was ff when you put them side by side. If i handed you the fuji print by itself, you would have no clue what size sensor it was taken with, but if you put it next to the ones taken by the 5dii and you know what you are looking for, you can see the differences. My wife, however can't see the differences when i showed them to her side by side. Its a lot like expensive speakers. Not everyone can tell the difference because not everyone knows what to look (listen) for, and for most people the difference is not that important. For the modern world of over saturated colors and surreal hdr sensor size isn't important. Even m4/3 is good enough if you are heavy into processing.
+1



.
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, arrows, body, camera, comparisons, contest, crop, d700, edge, equivalence, ff, full-frame, fun, images, ir, iso, k5, pentax, people, photobucket, post, results, sensor, source, standards, times
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony cameras ... which is which for what? jpzk Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 8 03-17-2014 05:46 AM
Which photo is which lens at 135mm? striker_ Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 10-30-2013 05:07 AM
Which is which macro? old vs new rp_dxn Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 09-27-2013 05:48 AM
Which is which? DA16-50 vs f/2.8 Primes carrrlangas Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 7 06-22-2013 10:52 AM
OK, Which is Sharper ? wll Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 09-06-2009 06:27 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:35 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