Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-05-2016, 07:40 AM   #46
Veteran Member
i5_david's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 331
QuoteOriginally posted by acoufap Quote
Your saying what I’m thinking. For me not only the quality of the resulting images is important. It’s also the experience in using a camera - something like „The journey is the destination“. This camera just promises to give me some ad-on compared to my K5 without loosing anything. I don’t really need this camera, I just want it.
Love this post! Spoke from my heart. This is the privilege when you have a hobby and you pull enjoyment out of it and you don't need this quality and camera to fill your fridge.
I remember once I watched a photouniverse video and Ed told from the fun and joy he has ever time when he picked up his K5II and I thought! Yes! We'll said bro! That's it

03-05-2016, 03:02 PM   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 585
The single biggest difference between formats for me is as follows:

For the same field of view as a 35mm lens you need:

A 17mm lens on 4/3 sensor
A 24mm lens on APSC
A 35mm lens on FF
A 45mm lens on a 645Z

There in lies the difference in the image, the 24mm lens will produce smaller details for the same field of view, because it is having to use a wider lens to get there. The 645z will produce larger details for the same view because it is using a longer local length for the same view. Not to mention that the medium format has larger pixels and more pixels, this all adds up to a more pleasing image.

To see what I am talking about, get a 24-70 lens, zoom to 24,35 and 45mm and see how much smaller the details get in relation to perspective relative to the foreground once you go wider.

So by changing from 4/3 to Apsc to FF, not only are you getting more resolution but you are getting more details because of the longer focal length.
03-05-2016, 04:47 PM   #48
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,775
QuoteQuote:
this all adds up to a more pleasing image.
Whoops, ya lost me there.

Some of us are of the opinion that a pixel is a pixel.You're going to have to post some examples before I buy into this. At screen size, way 1000x633 a K-3 images is reduced by a width factor factor of 6 to one. A D810 by 7:1, and a 64z by 8:1. The reductions are such that at 1000x663 I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference. At what size would you be able to see the difference has never really been established. Is it a real world thing or a thing people think is true, because they didn't think about ti very long? Or never actually tried it out?

Given that a 24 MP image is 6000 pixels wide and a 51 Mp image is 8000 pixels wide, I'd argue we are way up into the area of diminishing returns.

Last edited by normhead; 03-05-2016 at 06:32 PM.
03-05-2016, 05:01 PM   #49
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,289
FF is better. That is simply self-evident.

Oh, you want proof? Wait I'll get back to you on that..................

03-05-2016, 05:14 PM   #50
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 5,569
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
FF is better. That is simply self-evident.

Oh, you want proof? Wait I'll get back to you on that..................
He he
03-05-2016, 06:04 PM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 585
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Whoops, ya lost me there.

Some of us are of the opinion that a pixel is a pixel.You're going to have topmost some examples before I buy into this. At screen size, way 1000x633 a K-3 images is reduced by a width factor factor of 6 to one. A D810 by 7:1, and a 64z by 8:1. The reductions are such that at 1000x663 I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference. At what size would you be able to see the difference has never really been established. Is it a real world thing or a thing people think is true, because they didn't think about ti very long? Or never actually tried it out?

Given that a 24 MP image is 6000 pixels wide and a 51 Mp image is 8000 pixels wide, I'd argue we are way up into the area of diminishing returns.
You are missing the point. It's not about the actual linear resolution at all.

It's about the fact that for a given scene, the larger sensor uses a longer lens and thus renders actual fine details within the scene in a different perspective and with more pleasant fine detail than the smaller sensor can. Like being able to see fine tree branch structures at far distances on a 20x30" print with a 645z shot that a K3 just wouldn't be able to achieve.

I've tested it and it's real.
03-05-2016, 06:11 PM   #52
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,723
QuoteOriginally posted by 2351HD Quote
.

It's about the fact that for a given scene, the larger sensor uses a longer lens
For a given scene, the amount of pixels remains the same.

You could argue that if anything there is more bokeh in the background and *less* fine detail.
03-05-2016, 06:18 PM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 585
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
For a given scene, the amount of pixels remains the same.

You could argue that if anything there is more bokeh in the background and *less* fine detail.
Once again, it's nothing to do with pixels. Damn.

Cool, you all seem to know all the answers so I am going to leave this particular thread I think.

03-05-2016, 06:26 PM   #54
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,723
QuoteOriginally posted by 2351HD Quote
but you are getting more details because of the longer focal length.
Leave if you like, but your statement is bollocks.

The best resolution lenses tend to be 35-50mm, not 350-500mm like your 'theory' predicts.
03-05-2016, 06:36 PM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 585
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Leave if you like, but your statement is bollocks.

The best resolution lenses tend to be 35-50mm, not 350-500mm like your 'theory' predicts.
WTF, where do you get your drugs from man, because they must be good.

When did I ever say 350-500mm lenses. WTF, are you kidding me.

So completely unreasonable. Sure, whatever, if you think that I said that a 350mm lens is better than a 35mm lens then surely you are delusional and you never actually read my initial statement. Fark me you are unbelievable.
03-05-2016, 06:39 PM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,723
QuoteOriginally posted by 2351HD Quote
.

When did I ever say 350-500mm lenses. WTF, are you kidding me.
Oh, thought you were leaving!

Here we go:

"you are getting more details because of the longer focal length."

Do you remember writing that? ☺
03-05-2016, 06:52 PM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 585
Yeah I do, but you are taking it out of context completely and you know it. Not sure why, perhaps you love to stir.

I said that compared to Apsc you are using a longer focal length with 645 to get the same view. The longer lens renders detail more closely thus making the whole image more engaging.

It's nothing to do with pixels, only lens length. It also has nothing to do with a 350mm lens compared to a 35mm lens.

It has to do with using a 50mm lens rather than a 35mm lens, in the case of FF vs Apsc.
03-05-2016, 06:53 PM   #58
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,723
QuoteOriginally posted by 2351HD Quote
. The longer lens renders detail more closely thus making the whole image more engaging.
It does no such thing.

Proof please.
03-05-2016, 06:59 PM   #59
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,231
QuoteOriginally posted by 2351HD Quote
Once again, it's nothing to do with pixels. Damn.

Cool, you all seem to know all the answers so I am going to leave this particular thread I think.
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Leave if you like, but your statement is bollocks.
What he said. Sorry to be blunt, I also have "tested it" and your assertions are somewhat short of "real", though they do make for interesting reading on a rainy Saturday night.


Steve
03-05-2016, 07:17 PM   #60
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,775
QuoteOriginally posted by 2351HD Quote
Like being able to see fine tree branch structures at far distances on a 20x30" print with a 645z shot that a K3 just wouldn't be able to achieve.

I've tested it and it's real.
Good, we can hardly wait to see the test.

Here's one of mine taken in 2010 with an Optio 80W point and shoot with a resolution of 2594 x1710, approx. 5MP, printed to 20x30 inches. You can see the end of every tree branch and the texture of the Tamarac needles. It's on the wall on the hallway right behind where I'm sitting. It looks completely awesome, we put it up on the wall when it came back from the printers and despite having a closet full of prints we really like, it's never been taken down.

The print is razor sharp from 8 inches away, Even moving in your face way in beyond a normal viewing difference, there is never a point at which it looks soft, or un-natural. Send me $300 and I send you a copy.

I think you seriously underestimate what 24 MP can do.

Last edited by normhead; 03-05-2016 at 07:23 PM.
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, 300mm, advantages, app, aps-c, body, camera, cost, crop, dslr, f/2.8, ff, field, focus, frame, full-frame, k-1, k-3, k3, lens, ovf, pentax, pentax k-3, quality, sensor, sigma, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Crop Sensors vs Full Frame :: Crop Or Crap? i83N Photographic Industry and Professionals 44 07-30-2014 06:00 AM
No Pentax Full Frame DSLR, What to Do Now Then? RiceHigh Pentax DSLR Discussion 95 07-19-2014 10:57 AM
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
So.... Pentax Full Frame is a sure thing? LFLee Photographic Industry and Professionals 25 11-02-2012 12:55 PM
So It's True....a Full-Frame 'Professional' Samsung Dslr Coming !!!! Confused Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 05-02-2008 04:12 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 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