Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-14-2015, 10:32 AM   #61
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
Contrary to myth, high-MP FF makes your existing lenses *better*

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
How big do you have to print, Jay, before you see this 1.5x sharpness difference, particularly if you have pretty sharp lenses on your APS-C camera?

To me, if you are shooting DA limiteds or DA * lenses in their sweet spots, you are probably not likely to see this in practice.
I very easily see differences in lens sharpness at 11x16, and cropping anything and displaying at the same sizes really highlights differences.

Even without printing, we will be viewing a lot of these images at 4K, 5K and higher in the years to come - it's not all 19'' 1280x800 monitors any more.

By the way - using your logic, there's no resolution-related reason to shoot with anything but the most basic kit lenses on 12MP micro-four-thirds sensors for the rest of our lives.

For my part I get a good deal of enjoyment and satisfaction with the higher-resolving lenses and sensors... I know other folks do too, many if not most aps-c-only shooters included, and I'm not sure why that becomes controversial only once FF is brought up.

.


Last edited by jsherman999; 01-14-2015 at 10:37 AM.
01-14-2015, 11:13 AM   #62
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,963
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
I very easily see differences in lens sharpness at 11x16, and cropping anything and displaying at the same sizes really highlights differences.

Even without printing, we will be viewing a lot of these images at 4K, 5K and higher in the years to come - it's not all 19'' 1280x800 monitors any more.

By the way - using your logic, there's no resolution-related reason to shoot with anything but the most basic kit lenses on 12MP micro-four-thirds sensors for the rest of our lives.

For my part I get a good deal of enjoyment and satisfaction with the higher-resolving lenses and sensors... I know other folks do too, many if not most aps-c-only shooters included, and I'm not sure why that becomes controversial only once FF is brought up.

.
That's fine. I probably would be fine with shooting four thirds with nice voigtlander or olympus lenses. I don't print really big.

There are all sorts of reasons why you might not see good results with full frame and would with a smaller format. The biggest thing is because you need to be stopped down more with full frame than with APS-C to get the same depth of field. And if you don't have adequate depth of field, a lot of you landscape will not be sharp.

01-14-2015, 01:05 PM   #63
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,765
I am sure I could tell the difference in MF. If money were no object, I'd love to have a 645Z and resurrect my 645 lenses, too. If Pentax made a full frame for a reasonable price, I'd buy it, too. Still, with the performance of the K3, it is not something that I feel I truly need as much as Pentax may need it for credibility.
01-14-2015, 01:24 PM   #64
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
I am sure I could tell the difference in MF.
Ya, everyone is.

Then new Apples are already 4k, but the price is 3k. But I'll be really interested to do some comparison of different MP images once the price gets more reasonable and we own one. I never prejudge my results, it biases your evaluations.


Last edited by normhead; 01-14-2015 at 03:06 PM.
01-14-2015, 03:01 PM   #65
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The biggest thing is because you need to be stopped down more with full frame than with APS-C to get the same depth of field. And if you don't have adequate depth of field, a lot of you landscape will not be sharp.
you hit diffraction sooner with crop sensors.

diffraction softening is equal, when the dof is the same for both.
01-14-2015, 03:07 PM   #66
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
you hit diffraction sooner with crop sensors.

diffraction softening is equal, when the dof is the same for both.
...pffft prove it.....
01-14-2015, 03:11 PM   #67
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,963
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
you hit diffraction sooner with crop sensors.

diffraction softening is equal, when the dof is the same for both.
You do not hit diffraction sooner, assuming similar pixel density.
01-14-2015, 03:19 PM   #68
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
...pffft prove it.....
>sigh<

"Typically, the effects of diffraction softening do not even begin to become apparent until f/11 on FF (f/7.1 on APS-C and f/5.6 on mFT -- 4/3)"

Equivalence

---------- Post added 01-14-2015 at 02:38 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
You do not hit diffraction sooner, assuming similar pixel density.
my understanding is that there is no relationship between diffraction and pixel density.

however, higher pixel density will retain more data in a photo, at an aperture that's suffering from diffraction artifacting:

What Does 'Diffraction-Limited' Mean?

01-14-2015, 03:59 PM   #69
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
>sigh<

"Typically, the effects of diffraction softening do not even begin to become apparent until f/11 on FF (f/7.1 on APS-C and f/5.6 on mFT -- 4/3)"

Equivalence

---------- Post added 01-14-2015 at 02:38 PM ----------



my understanding is that there is no relationship between diffraction and pixel density.

however, higher pixel density will retain more data in a photo, at an aperture that's suffering from diffraction artifacting:

What Does 'Diffraction-Limited' Mean?
Am I reading it wrong? Diffraction is a property of the lens... not FF/APS-C or mFT.....
01-14-2015, 04:38 PM - 1 Like   #70
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
Diffraction doesn't change, but diffraction is pixel related. Diffraction on a smaller sensor with smaller pixels will have a greater effect. The difference between APS-c and FF is pretty small. The sizes in pixels size just aren't that dramatic. Other differences, like how a D3s can approach the lw/ph of a D800 is way more important. Compared to other discrepancies, really, don't even think about diffraction at current MP levels.
01-14-2015, 04:45 PM   #71
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Diffraction doesn't change, but diffraction is pixel related. Diffraction on a smaller sensor with smaller pixels will have a greater effect. The difference between APS-c and FF is pretty small. The sizes in pixels size just aren't that dramatic. Other differences, like how a D3s can approach the lw/ph of a D800 is way more important. Compared to other discrepancies, really, don't even think about diffraction at current MP levels.
Thanks for the clarification, by that, it makes more sense (as illustrated in Rondec's example of beautiful landscape shot), I don't need to stop down as much in APS-C vs FF which could be bordering on the diffraction limit of a particular lens.
01-14-2015, 05:23 PM   #72
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by aleonx3 Quote
Am I reading it wrong? Diffraction is a property of the lens... not FF/APS-C or mFT.....
the two links are a bit confusing, so i'll repeat:

"Typically, the effects of diffraction softening do not even begin to become apparent until f/11 on FF (f/7.1 on APS-C and f/5.6 on mFT -- 4/3)"

i've seen that exact f/11 limit repeatedly, with over a dozen wide lenses on the a7r, because i've tested the lenses for it... it doesn't vary with the lens that's used.

you don't need to stop down so much with aps-c because aps-c dof is greater than ff dof, at the same lens aperture number.

however, since ff is not as diffraction-limited as aps-c is, you can close the aperture more with ff than you can on aps-c.

in other words, there is *no* dof advantage with aps-c... and diffraction is not a function of pixel density.

at least, that's how i read the text
01-14-2015, 05:27 PM   #73
Veteran Member
neostyles's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 445
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
You are totally right, which is why Pentax is eventually going to release a FF camera FF sensors used to be exponentially more expensive than their APS-C counterparts, but that's no longer the case, which allows for more competitive pricing while still securing nice margins.
Yep in fact the sony a7 is just now a little over 1,000.
01-14-2015, 05:36 PM   #74
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,765
QuoteOriginally posted by neostyles Quote
Yep in fact the sony a7 is just now a little over 1,000.
Well, that is true, but it is now an outdated model which has been replaced by the A7II, at $1,700. Still not a bad price for FF these days.
01-14-2015, 06:27 PM   #75
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
the two links are a bit confusing, so i'll repeat:

"Typically, the effects of diffraction softening do not even begin to become apparent until f/11 on FF (f/7.1 on APS-C and f/5.6 on mFT -- 4/3)"

i've seen that exact f/11 limit repeatedly, with over a dozen wide lenses on the a7r, because i've tested the lenses for it... it doesn't vary with the lens that's used.

you don't need to stop down so much with aps-c because aps-c dof is greater than ff dof, at the same lens aperture number.

however, since ff is not as diffraction-limited as aps-c is, you can close the aperture more with ff than you can on aps-c.

in other words, there is *no* dof advantage with aps-c... and diffraction is not a function of pixel density.

at least, that's how i read the text
No, I am afraid I don't agree with that statement you just made..."since ff is not as diffraction-limited as aps-c is".
Isn't this contradict with the statement in that article - that diffraction has nothing to do with FF/APS-C/mFT, it is the lens property?
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, body, camera, density, diffraction, finder, frame, full-frame, luddite, market, pentax, pixel, product, production, sensor, sony, sony nex, truth
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FF could be as (or more) silent as (than) K-3 RuiC Pentax Full Frame 7 12-02-2014 02:16 PM
Why are FF images so much more pleasing than APS-C? chaza01 Pentax Full Frame 217 09-04-2014 07:50 PM
FF - more than photos, Ricoh take notice! Ben78 Pentax Full Frame 7 01-08-2014 06:52 PM
Do I need FF??? Shanti Pentax Full Frame 94 11-15-2013 06:32 PM
More Pentax gear than I can recall Marktax Welcomes and Introductions 3 06-18-2013 12:33 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:52 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