Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-10-2016, 10:30 AM   #91
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
As 99,99% of all photographs that are actually taken is about getting enough DOF, transposing the DOF scale to thinner DOF such as happens from APS to FF, is a disadvantage. For most photography getting the same DOF at a larger aperture opening is a definitive bonus.
it's a disadvantage, because with smaller sensors, there are fewer usable aperture stops, on both ends of the scale... that's why smaller formats are limited when it comes to thin dof, there isn't an aperture stop on the lens for it.

smaller sensors have less control over dof.

it doesn't matter much for what i do, but for someone who shoots portraits or whatever, it can be irksome.

03-10-2016, 10:40 AM   #92
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,894
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote

smaller sensors have less control over dof.
Osv's usual rubbish.

Smaller sensors have greater control at *extending* DoF.

Larger sensors have greater control at *narrowing* DoF.

That's why it's so much harder for a FF photigrapher to take a group photo at f2.8 and get everyone in focus than somebody with a P&S like a Sony RX100.
03-10-2016, 11:34 AM - 1 Like   #93
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Osv's usual rubbish.

Smaller sensors have greater control at *extending* DoF.

Larger sensors have greater control at *narrowing* DoF.

That's why it's so much harder for a FF photigrapher to take a group photo at f2.8 and get everyone in focus than somebody with a P&S like a Sony RX100.
Again...why not stop down to f5.6 (or whatever) and bump up the ISO by the corresponding amount? Same DOF, same IQ.

So much harder?

Control meaning you can (almost) always stop down to get more DOF...You cannot always open up to get less DOF.
Macro is interesting with smaller sensors. But still you run into diffraction sooner.

Last edited by cali92rs; 03-10-2016 at 11:43 AM.
03-10-2016, 12:37 PM   #94
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,253
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
On your K-3, if you get an the exposure that calls for f8, 1/125, ISO 400. On you K-1, you will get the same exposure and DOF with f11, 1/125, ISO 800. Your image quality will also be the same due to the stop advantage regarding DR, noise and diffraction.
Actually, you don't: the luminous exposure is defined as the amount of light per unit of area. So f/11 and 1/125 will give you less exposure, which is why you have to raise ISO to compensate.
But this is just nitpicking on a technicality, please go on...

P.S. By the way, the image quality will not be the same, because:
a. equivalence's assumptions are not fully met
b. equivalence's assumptions are awfully incomplete

03-10-2016, 01:14 PM   #95
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
P.S. By the way, the image quality will not be the same, because:
a. equivalence's assumptions are not fully met
b. equivalence's assumptions are awfully incomplete

Ok...you have mentioned that you will get a K-1...why spend the extra money and weight if there is no benefit? Charity for Ricoh?

FYI, you can look up the Sensor Compare measurements on DxO between the D7200 and the D810 or a 5DS and 7D mk2 and see for yourself that equivalence holds up pretty well.

Last edited by cali92rs; 03-10-2016 at 01:20 PM.
03-10-2016, 01:28 PM   #96
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,253
Where exactly did I say there's no benefit? On the contrary, I'm claiming there is: because image quality will not be the same. And there are benefits unrelated to image quality, too.
In IT we figured out decades ago that synthetic benchmarks are irrelevant to real-life application performance. Maybe it's time to do the same in photography...
03-10-2016, 01:32 PM   #97
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Where exactly did I say there's no benefit? On the contrary, I'm claiming there is: because image quality will not be the same. And there are benefits unrelated to image quality, too.
In IT we figured out decades ago that synthetic benchmarks are irrelevant to real-life application performance. Maybe it's time to do the same in photography...
The benefits, whether or not you want to admit it (and you won't), are predicted by equivalence.
A stop better DR, less noise...those arent real life applications?
03-10-2016, 01:47 PM   #98
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,253
Better resolved detail due to the high resolution sensor. Larger body, thus the pinky fits on the grip. The larger viewfinder. The higher price allowing for upper-class features like a 300,000 frames shutter. Heavier body, likely less shutter shock prone.
There are many factors to consider.

By the way, you "predicted" that "image quality will also be the same"... at least be consistent!

03-10-2016, 02:13 PM   #99
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,800
Ricoh must have been reading this thread:

Expression / PENTAX K-1 Special site | RICOH IMAGING

Even when photographing the same subject, the resulting image may seem completely different if the size of the image sensor changes.

As the page illustrates, K-1 FF is about:

- depth of field;
- resolving power;
- high-sensitivity and low noise;
- rich gradation / dynamic range.
03-10-2016, 02:19 PM   #100
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Better resolved detail due to the high resolution sensor. Larger body, thus the pinky fits on the grip. The larger viewfinder. The higher price allowing for upper-class features like a 300,000 frames shutter. Heavier body, likely less shutter shock prone.
There are many factors to consider.

By the way, you "predicted" that "image quality will also be the same"... at least be consistent!
I like how you tried to classify equivalence as "synthetic benchmarks are irrelevant to real-life application performance", then conveniently ignore noise and dynamic range.

Sure, they won't be identical because of differences in resolution, way to be pedantic...however no one has ever stated that equivalence predicts every item that goes into image quality. And just because equivalence doesn't predict shutter life or resolution does not mean that other variables (noise, dynamic range, DOF) are not important.
03-10-2016, 02:39 PM   #101
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,253
I'm not ignoring anything, only equivalence does. For example, did you know that two cameras of the same format can have significantly different noise characteristics (quantitatively and qualitatively)? Despite receiving the same "total light"?
Mind you, I owned cameras of the same format with such variability... K10D, K20D, K-5... vastly different characteristics.

Getting back to the K-1, I will evaluate its noise by empirical means - because there really isn't any other way. At best I might say it's likely similar to the D800E and D810 (but not 6D, D750, D5 etc.)
Likewise, I will evaluate its DR by empirical means; and yet again it will likely be very good. Equivalence cannot determine DR anyway, since the technological differences gets into the way (and DxoMark is there to prove that, intermixing FF and APS-C cameras instead of clearly separating them)
03-10-2016, 02:45 PM - 3 Likes   #102
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,291
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
I like how you tried to classify equivalence as "synthetic benchmarks are irrelevant to real-life application performance"
If a person is driven to analyze gear equivalence, it is my opinion that it may be time to take up a second or even a third hobby, preferably something that requires the intense analytical involvement that is sort of missing in photography.


Steve

(...even Ansel Adams, renowned techie, did not dabble in or even consider issues of equivalence, despite shooting a wide range of formats from 35mm up through 8x10+...)
03-10-2016, 03:03 PM   #103
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 6,567
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
If a person is driven to analyze gear equivalence, it is my opinion that it may be time to take up a second or even a third hobby, preferably something that requires the intense analytical involvement that is sort of missing in photography.
In fact, arguably, ABP (my own acronym, "Analysis-Biased Photography" ) has almost become a hobby in its own right. Somewhat confusingly, it uses largely the same equipment we do, but eschews artistic creativity and visual aesthetic in favour of charts, measurements, pixel-peeping, performance, specification sheets and comparison tables
03-10-2016, 03:05 PM   #104
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
In my opinion, if you say things like "APS has more depth of field control than FF" then maybe you should look into some of the technicalities before shelling out thousands of dollars on a camera.
03-10-2016, 03:11 PM   #105
Pentaxian
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Poole
Posts: 1,807
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
you get more pixels per duck with the K-3.
Didn't they lead their promotional campaign on that one ? ;D
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 04:39 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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