Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-21-2015, 10:00 AM - 1 Like   #136
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
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.
07-21-2015, 10:22 AM   #137
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,288
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
The second thing is that the more pixel dense a sensor is the harder it is to get pixels sharp in your image.
QuoteOriginally posted by enoeske Quote
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?
07-21-2015, 08:28 PM   #138
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
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.
07-22-2015, 12:49 AM   #139
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
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.

07-22-2015, 05:08 AM   #140
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,285
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
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%.
07-22-2015, 07:29 AM   #141
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,477
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
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.
07-22-2015, 08:47 AM   #142
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by Mikesul Quote
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.
07-22-2015, 09:14 AM   #143
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,477
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
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.

07-23-2015, 10:18 PM   #144
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 922
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!
07-23-2015, 11:14 PM   #145
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,583
QuoteOriginally posted by Fenwoodian Quote
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 ...
07-24-2015, 07:42 AM   #146
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 922
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
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.
07-24-2015, 09:13 AM   #147
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,583
QuoteOriginally posted by Fenwoodian Quote
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.
07-24-2015, 12:22 PM   #148
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 922
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
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.
07-24-2015, 01:14 PM   #149
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,288
QuoteOriginally posted by Fenwoodian Quote
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.
QuoteOriginally posted by Fenwoodian Quote
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.
QuoteOriginally posted by Fenwoodian Quote
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.
07-24-2015, 02:49 PM   #150
Site Supporter
slip's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,515
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Fenwoodian Quote
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
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, cameras, control, count, diffraction, dof, f/2, ff, film, frame, frame sensors, full-frame, images, increase, lens, manufacturers, megapixel, observation, pentax, rock, sensor, sensors, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to improve your photographic creations pursang Photographic Technique 15 03-21-2015 10:39 PM
Night Trying to Learn Night Photography v3; How can I improve? Hexism Photo Critique 14 01-14-2015 08:19 PM
Ten household items that can improve your food photography interested_observer Photographic Technique 2 11-17-2013 06:07 PM
Thematic try it backward to improve your photography slip Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories 2 08-26-2012 07:40 AM
Food How to improve my food photography? ddekadt Photo Critique 12 06-22-2012 08:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:51 PM. | 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