[philbaum]

Thank you.

How does that work? I thought print size was only influenced by number of pixels. Will a 24mp FF allow larger prints than a 24mp APS-C? Or do you mean that a FF usually has more MP?

I think in theory that the 24mp FF will allow larger prints based on the FF being more than twice the total area of the aps sensor.

But in practice, i've printed 24" x36" from a 12mp K20 image, it was plenty sharp and sold at the Edmonds show. The resizing algorithms are very good these days and will allow any image to be resized within reason. But if you're going to do room size panels, larger than 24x36", time to consider FF I would say. The biggest advantage i see in FF is the low light iso. Most FF from what i've read will go to 6400 iso with reasonable noise.

---

Last edited by philbaum; 07-21-2015 at 03:03 PM.

[jatrax]

The second thing is that the more pixel dense a sensor is the harder it is to get pixels sharp in your image.

Hopefully, the amount of noise would be less with the larger pixels and lower pixel density of a FF (with same MPx), and would allow a larger print.

Thanks for the info. I was assuming only number of pixels affecting the potential image size. Forgot about noise and pixel density.

What megapixel FF sensor would correspond to the same pixel density as the k-3? 36mp or even bigger?

[shakumar]

So you are looking for narrow DOF control then. Interesting. I rarely shoot at less than f/8 and usually @ f/11 so not sure if this helps my style.

That's right.
If you are happy with APS-C and it fits your photography style, then don't even bother with FF.
I looked at your gallery, there are some shots that looks wide-open, but I get what you said.

Part of why I shoot film is because I can get large "sensor" without the exorbitant price.

[philbaum]

Thanks for the info. I was assuming only number of pixels affecting the potential image size. Forgot about noise and pixel density.

What megapixel FF sensor would correspond to the same pixel density as the k-3? 36mp or even bigger?

A K3 with 24mp X 2.25 = 54mp on a FF sensor. A K5 with 16mp X 2.25 = 36mp on a FF sensor.

I'm not sure why higher pixel density would necessarily lead to more difficulty in getting sharpness, but its been said enough times -that it must be true :-)

I'm wondering if the shutter shock issue caused the blurriness with some 36mp cameras rather than too many pixels. As i've shown above, the K3 has a higher density of pixels than the K7R or the D810, and i haven't noticed any problems with blurriness of images. The K5/K3 series of DSLRs are known for their relatively quiet, well damped shutters.

[BrianR]

I'm not sure why higher pixel density would necessarily lead to more difficulty in getting sharpness, but its been said enough times -that it must be true :-)

I blame pixel peeping as one of the culprits. Denser pixels are more demanding on technique if you want to view at 100%.

[Mikesul]

A K3 with 24mp X 2.25 = 54mp on a FF sensor. A K5 with 16mp X 2.25 = 36mp on a FF sensor.

I'm not sure why higher pixel density would necessarily lead to more difficulty in getting sharpness, but its been said enough times -that it must be true :-)

Well, didn't many of us have some trouble at first getting the best from our K-3s? I think most of us figured it out and ceased having problems but, if I recall correctly, we did have to adjust our shooting style a bit to get the extra steadiness. The thought was that the 16mp sensor was just more forgiving of poor camera techique.

[philbaum]

I blame pixel peeping as one of the culprits. Denser pixels are more demanding on technique if you want to view at 100%.

Well maybe so. When one looks at denser pixels at 100%, they will typically look worse, but its an unfair comparison with lower densities.

Well, didn't many of us have some trouble at first getting the best from our K-3s? I think most of us figured it out and ceased having problems but, if I recall correctly, we did have to adjust our shooting style a bit to get the extra steadiness. The thought was that the 16mp sensor was just more forgiving of poor camera techique.

Time flies when one is having fun :-) I was so delighted in having better focusing at low light with the K3, i think i just overlooked any adjustment problems.

[Mikesul]

Well maybe so. When one looks at denser pixels at 100%, they will typically look worse, but its an unfair comparison with lower densities.



Time flies when one is having fun :-) I was so delighted in having better focusing at low light with the K3, i think i just overlooked any adjustment problems.

Yes, indeed, the K3 is a very satisfying, fun camera to use.

[Fenwoodian]

A full frame will not improve my photography. But it will improve my printing.

I routinely print LARGE on my Epson 7600. I am starting to sell LARGE prints at art shows.

From surveying numerous art shows, the LARGE prints that seem to sell the best are the ones with the mind-blowing sharpness and clarity. Full frame with more pixels will result in much better LARGE prints which will translate into more print sales!

[rawr]

Full frame with more pixels will result in much better LARGE prints which will translate into more print sales!

Of course, to solve the 'more pixels' problem, a cheaper option is programs that do various useful resolution tricks, such as panorama/stitching programs like PTGUI or MS ICE ...

[Fenwoodian]

Of course, to solve the 'more pixels' problem, a cheaper option is programs that do various useful resolution tricks, such as panorama/stitching programs like PTGUI or MS ICE ...

I know all about stitched pano images. I've made dozens of large stitched panos.

The art shows I have visited, and at those that I have had a booth at I have found that giant pano images do not sell nearly as well as large photos with more traditional dimensions.

Stitched panos are not a viable option for me.

[rawr]

giant pano images

Of course traditional wide-panos aren't useful all the time. But the same tools also easily allow effectively stacking a few more images into a 4:3 frame, for example. Poor man's pixel-shift, as it were. That's all I was thinking. Sorry that wasn't clear.

[Fenwoodian]

Of course traditional wide-panos aren't useful all the time. But the same tools also easily allow effectively stacking a few more images into a 4:3 frame, for example. Poor man's pixel-shift, as it were. That's all I was thinking. Sorry that wasn't clear.

Sure, one can also "focus stack" full frame image files too, and these full frame stacks will be even better/larger then a similar stack of crop frame DX images.

I don't need a poor man's pixel shift as I can afford the new full frame Pentax (I already own the K3II).

I do love the K3II's pixel shift feature. I hope that the full frame Pentax comes with it too.

Pixel shift takes place in a split second (at least for normal daylight photos). Doing the poor man's stacking with multiple images is certainly not as ergonomic to do or as quick as using a built-in pixel shifting feature.

I still intend to be one of the first to buy the new Pentax full frame digital camera. As I said before, I have no doubt that the new full frame will improve the quality of my large prints. With a crop frame image file I typically print my large prints at 180dpi. With a full frame higher-res camera I expect that I will likely be able to print at 300 or maybe even 360dpi. Most can see a difference in prints from 180 vs 360 dpi.

[jatrax]

I have no doubt that the new full frame will improve the quality of my large prints.

This would only be true if the FF has a higher megapixel count, which of course we expect it to but is not certain. Many here are clamoring for a 24mp FF.

one can also "focus stack" full frame image files too,

I don't think he was talking about focus stacking, but rather stitching. There is a photographer at a local market here that stitches 24 images to make a single 4x6 ratio print. And none of his are any larger than 16x24. He just likes the extra detail, as he will tell you endlessly if you ask.

I am starting to sell LARGE prints at art shows.

Ok, I guess you print LARGE. What does mean? Curious what size you are printing/selling and what size you feel you would like to print.

[slip]

A full frame will not improve my photography. But it will improve my printing.

I routinely print LARGE on my Epson 7600. I am starting to sell LARGE prints at art shows.

From surveying numerous art shows, the LARGE prints that seem to sell the best are the ones with the mind-blowing sharpness and clarity. Full frame with more pixels will result in much better LARGE prints which will translate into more print sales!

Sounds like to need to belly up to a 645Z

Cheers

Ra