Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-12-2015, 11:16 PM - 2 Likes   #61
Forum Member
Finntax's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lappeenranta, Finland
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
You can add :

So far, the APS-C equivalent to most FF lens are around the same size.
If by equivalent you mean APS-C designed lens on APS-C body delivering the same reach as FF designed lens on FF body at least I'm noticing a "small" difference in size:



02-12-2015, 11:30 PM - 1 Like   #62
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,245
I distinctly recall people on these forums complaining that the DA*50-135 was a big lens

If I get the 70-200 it will spend more time on my K-3 than the FF, but I'll be keeping its little brother as well.
02-12-2015, 11:40 PM   #63
Forum Member
Finntax's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lappeenranta, Finland
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
I distinctly recall people on these forums complaining that the DA*50-135 was a big lens

If I get the 70-200 it will spend more time on my K-3 than the FF, but I'll be keeping its little brother as well.
My toughts exactly
02-13-2015, 12:50 AM   #64
Veteran Member
DavidSKAF3's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Tompkins County, NY
Photos: Albums
Posts: 542
Original Poster
So, until we know the new model's pixel count and density, determining accurate pros and cons is guesswork at best?

02-13-2015, 12:52 AM   #65
Veteran Member
blende8's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bremen, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,484
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
no, 36mp has higher resolution than 24mp, period.
you can see that easily on any dxomark comparison.
What are you talking about?

You can calculate this on your own:
K3 , 24 MP: 65.049 P/mm^2
A7r, 46 MP: 41.667 P/mm^2
02-13-2015, 02:59 AM   #66
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,906
QuoteOriginally posted by Finntax Quote
If by equivalent you mean APS-C designed lens on APS-C body delivering the same reach as FF designed lens on FF body at least I'm noticing a "small" difference in size:
You got me on the zoom lens

I was more thinking about lens like the Sigma 30/1,4 and 35/1,4.
Both are just big and the difference is nor really huge.

But if you look about zoom, i admit they are bigger than what you need on APS-C, because APS-C allow more reach.
02-13-2015, 03:01 AM   #67
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by blende8 Quote
What are you talking about?

You can calculate this on your own:
K3 , 24 MP: 65.049 P/mm^2
A7r, 46 MP: 41.667 P/mm^2
Pixel density is not what determines resolution. Pixel number does.
If the former were the case the Pentax Q would ROCK.
02-13-2015, 03:36 AM   #68
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,937
QuoteOriginally posted by Volker76 Quote
if both sensors have the same pixel density than their is NO advantage of the 35mm sensor.
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
If the FF is 36 Mp as rumoured, it will have a lower pixel density than the K-3, so should offer better high-ISO performance, while delivering higher resolution.

Am I missing something?
If you shoot equivalent photos, they will have similar performance. The only way you get added performance on full frame is if you shoot a faster (equivalent) lens on full frame compared to APS-C. So, for instance, if you shoot a 50-135 f2.8 on APS-C and a 70-200 f4 on a full frame camera, the end result should be pretty similar or, a 55 f1.4 and an 85mm f2. On the other hand, if you use a 70-200 f2.8 on your full frame, you will have the ability to get a little better high iso performance, the same with an 85mm f1.4 . The high iso performance is directly linked to having more narrow depth of field and if you can't deal with that for some reason and have to stop down, then you have to push your iso up and it goes away. The basic reason for the better performance of full frame cameras has to do with the fact that there are faster lenses available for them than for APS-C, particularly in the wide angle range.

I really hate the equivalence discussions, because they don't really relate to how I shoot -- not on any format of camera. For the most part I will be stopping down a lot and trying to maximize depth of field, which is an anathema to most of the posters on this forum

02-13-2015, 04:13 AM   #69
Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,245
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I really hate the equivalence discussions
Me too. That's why I was commenting on something else
02-13-2015, 04:23 AM   #70
Forum Member
Finntax's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lappeenranta, Finland
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
I was more thinking about lens like the Sigma 30/1,4 and 35/1,4.
Both are just big and the difference is nor really huge.
Yeah, on primes the difference is somewhat insignificant.
02-13-2015, 06:30 AM   #71
Veteran Member
blende8's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bremen, Germany
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,484
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Pixel density is not what determines resolution. Pixel number does.
Not in my understanding.
02-13-2015, 07:04 AM   #72
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,240
On all the various threads about full frame has anybody actually said they are not happy with the quality of their photos from APSC?
02-13-2015, 08:39 AM   #73
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Volker76 Quote
if both sensors have the same pixel density than their is NO advantage of the 35mm sensor.
There most certainly is. Sensor area along with lens' physical aperture determines the total light that goes into the image. Put more light into the image, you get less shot noise which results in better SNR and DR. Pixel density doesn't matter there (as long as neither sensor is packed with so many pixels that read noise becomes a problem.)

We have a great comparison that shows that ^ - D800 vs D7000/K5. Exact same pixel density, same sensor gen, the D800 has over a stop better noise perf at the same FOV and exposure over most of the ISO range (and better DR as you move up from base ISO.)

There are so many places to start with this that I'm at a loss as to what would help most... this might be a good starting point: dpreview takes an official shot at explaining it.

---------- Post added 02-13-15 at 09:41 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by mohb Quote
On all the various threads about full frame has anybody actually said they are not happy with the quality of their photos from APSC?
When I picked up FF in 2010 it wasn't because I wasn't happy with my K20D output, it was because I was happier with D700 output. (and AF.)

(I just really wished I could have D700-level output with Pentax lenses)

Last edited by jsherman999; 02-13-2015 at 08:47 AM.
02-13-2015, 08:57 AM   #74
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,275
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
Pixel density is not what determines resolution. Pixel number does.
QuoteOriginally posted by blende8 Quote
Not in my understanding.
How much simpler the forum would be if everyone used ***INSERT PHOTOGRAPHY TERM HERE*** to mean the same thing.
02-13-2015, 09:08 AM   #75
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
I distinctly recall people on these forums complaining that the DA*50-135 was a big lens

If I get the 70-200 it will spend more time on my K-3 than the FF, but I'll be keeping its little brother as well.
I think there are going to be a lot of Pentaxians surprised how good that 50-135 2.8 performs on 36MP FF in auto-crop mode.

---------- Post added 02-13-15 at 10:10 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
How much simpler the forum would be if everyone used ***INSERT PHOTOGRAPHY TERM HERE*** to mean the same thing.
People talk about 'resolution' in two ways. Basically, lp/mm and lp/ph.

lp/ph -> 36MP is more
lp/mm -> 24mp on aps-c is more

In my experience more more lp/ph is what most photogaphers covet and find they can use.

.
Closed Thread

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, 35mm, 50mm, advantage, angle, aps-c, camera, crop, d800, dof, f/2.8, f4, ff, frame, full-frame, image, mode, pentax, people, pixel, pixels, pros, resolution, sensor, size, telephoto, view finder
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pros and cons of EVF and OVF Ash Photographic Industry and Professionals 187 01-24-2013 06:21 PM
K-5 IIs -- The Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-Filter Class A Pentax DSLR Discussion 114 12-18-2012 10:22 PM
From K20D to 645D, Pros and Cons. Reportage Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 11-10-2010 03:13 PM
Limited edition prints - pros and cons? Wombat Photographic Industry and Professionals 5 07-30-2009 04:09 PM
Pros and cons of the Pentax KM/2000 lesmore49 Pentax DSLR Discussion 109 05-01-2009 11:51 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:10 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