[christiandre]

I believe that this debate is still not settled .
The only possible answer to our questions, should be provided by a real professional, an optical engineer or something like that, but not by a basic photographer as we can be for the most part on this forum...

[amoringello]

Take a large noisy picture, watch it on full screen. Crop out a portion in the middle, enlarge that portion to full screen and you will se more noise. That’s how it works.

The noise was there from the beginning but smaller, you couldn’t see it as well as you do after the crop and enlargement, the same goes for the details in the picture. Cropping doesn’t create details, but you see it better.

Although true...

STOP CHANGING THINGS!!!
This argument is totally and completely irrelevant as well as being utterly wrong.
You cannot compare two completely different things, modify them, and keep talking as if they were the same at the start.

Yes, you can also throw mud on your computer screen and it will be harder to see.

---------- Post added 03-16-16 at 08:05 AM ----------

It’s the same thing. Take a FF picture, watch it on the screen, crop out the middle (to make it APS-C) enlarge and you will see more noise then you did before the crop. It will be equal to the K5, minus some probably rather small improvements in tech.

Again, stop changing things!

Take your new K1 (when it comes out -- or if you happen to have hands on an early release).
Set it in crop mode so only the center is photographed. Take a photo.
Don't move or change any settings.
Set it in FF mode, now crop out that same sized center.

Explain (and when the K1 is released) Show me the difference.

There will be None.

---------- Post added 03-16-16 at 08:17 AM ----------

I believe that this debate is still not settled .
The only possible answer to our questions, should be provided by a real professional, an optical engineer or something like that, but not by a basic photographer as we can be for the most part on this forum...

Physics is physics. Like the old joke; its not just a suggestion, its the law.

I would like to say it is basic common sense, but it is not an issue of being stupid or uninformed.
The real problem is how people are looking at the problem and trying to discuss two completely different concepts as if they were the same.

One cannot ask about how the light from the lens is effected and receive arguments based on moving the camera, changing focal length or enlarging the resulting image and have relevant and accurate information.

If the argument for equivalence is to be made, it needs ALL of the information about how that was arrived. One cannot simply say FF changes the physics of light and is a magic carpet creating more and better light out of the Great Nothingness.

[Gimbal]

Take your new K1 (when it comes out -- or if you happen to have hands on an early release).
Set it in crop mode so only the center is photographed. Take a photo.
Don't move or change any settings.
Set it in FF mode, now crop out that same sized center.

Explain (and when the K1 is released) Show me the difference.

There will be None.

Right, does anyone think there will be a difference?

What I’m trying to say is that the picture from the cropped K1 will not be much better than the picture from a K5. (Except small improvements in tech.)

[derekkite]

Take a large noisy picture, watch it on full screen. Crop out a portion in the middle, enlarge that portion to full screen and you will se more noise. That’s how it works.

The noise was there from the beginning but smaller, you couldn’t see it as well as you do after the crop and enlargement, the same goes for the details in the picture. Cropping doesn’t create details, but you see it better.

So we are not talking about s/n. We are talking about perception of an image.

Essentially meaningless outside the context of a specific photograph. What I mean (and I know to what you are referring, a good photographer is about presentation) depending on the subject, colors, mix of colors and details, how important some details are to the value of the photograph, it all depends.

When I got the k3 replacing the k5 it turned my 300 f4 into a different lens. It was remarkably longer and I was able to get details and colors that I didn't see before. But I couldn't bring up underexposed portions like I could on the k5. I'm finding noise to be a limit on what I can capture.

So far the more authoritative the opinions the less I know.

By the way, the only answer to my query above was wrong.

[amoringello]

When I got the k3 replacing the k5 it turned my 300 f4 into a different lens. It was remarkably longer and I was able to get details and colors that I didn't see before. But I couldn't bring up underexposed portions like I could on the k5. I'm finding noise to be a limit on what I can capture.

Yup, if what you're saying is that you are cropping your K3 24MP image down to the area of the K5 16MP image, you're going to have an effective cropping effect of a longer lens. In addition, blowing that back up to fill the same area of the original 24MP, you are likely going to expose that existing noise to a greater degree, etc... Plus the sensors are not equal. The K3 is higher density so maybe a little extra noise on top... from start to finish, things are not equal.
ISO and DOF on the sensor do not change. Of course, perceived DOF is another thing altogether since the resulting image is now enlarged and detail that was perceptively out of focus may now be perceptively more in focus..
You're changing things by enlarging the otherwise same image. This is going to have multiple effects on the final photo.


But in regard to the case of the original post's question; The only resulting difference will be a potentially cleaner image mainly due to improved tech.

[derekkite]

Yup, if what you're saying is that you are cropping your K3 24MP image down to the area of the K5 16MP image, you're going to have an effective cropping effect of a longer lens. In addition, blowing that back up to fill the same area of the original 24MP, you are likely going to expose that existing noise to a greater degree, etc... Plus the sensors are not equal. The K3 is higher density so maybe a little extra noise on top... from start to finish, things are not equal.

But in regard to the case of the original post's question; The only resulting difference will be a potentially cleaner image mainly due to improved tech.

So my challenge is to turn the specs into real world experience. The engineers who are designing this stuff have to be aware how a change such as the photon well depth of a single sensor from changes the shooting experience in a broad range of situations all else being equal. It isn't straightforward because all else isn't equal.

For some strange reason, my photography happens to be right on the edge of the possible. I frankly don't know how this particular full frame offering would affect what I do, what I would lose and gain. Truthfully I'm finding much of what is out there misleading or immaterial.

The AA filter likely made quite a difference. By the way, I ran into moire once with the k3, one shot in a series of a particular bird. The wavelength of the pixels happened to coincide with the wavelength of the feather pattern at that specific distance. With the longer wavelength of the k1 sensor will it become more common?

[amoringello]

So my challenge is to turn the specs into real world experience. The engineers who are designing this stuff have to be aware how a change such as the photon well depth of a single sensor from changes the shooting experience in a broad range of situations all else being equal. It isn't straightforward because all else isn't equal.

For some strange reason, my photography happens to be right on the edge of the possible. I frankly don't know how this particular full frame offering would affect what I do, what I would lose and gain. Truthfully I'm finding much of what is out there misleading or immaterial.

The AA filter likely made quite a difference. By the way, I ran into moire once with the k3, one shot in a series of a particular bird. The wavelength of the pixels happened to coincide with the wavelength of the feather pattern at that specific distance. With the longer wavelength of the k1 sensor will it become more common?

Physical laws can easily predict and explain specific results based on given input.
But specs often seem to be based on marketing propaganda. Only real world use will tell if the specs meet expectations.
I just hope the engineers had more input than the sales people.

[Fogel70]

The AA filter likely made quite a difference. By the way, I ran into moire once with the k3, one shot in a series of a particular bird. The wavelength of the pixels happened to coincide with the wavelength of the feather pattern at that specific distance. With the longer wavelength of the k1 sensor will it become more common?

K1 have more pixels than K3 so it should be lower risk for moire using K1, unless you crop K1 pictures to use fewer pixels than on K3.
For wildlife you might want to use the same lens on both, and need to crop more on K1 ending up with higher risk of moire.

[beholder3]

Take a large noisy picture, watch it on full screen. Crop out a portion in the middle, enlarge that portion to full screen and you will se more noise. That’s how it works.

+1

And you might add:
you will see less dynamic range.
you will see less DoF
you will easier see AF deviations
you will likely see more CA

It's so very simple to understand once you understand it all is just about enlargement factors.

If you hang a APSC crop picture and a FF picture on the wall of your living room and the APSC print has a x1,5 smaller diagonal and watch both of them from the same chair at the dining table you'll perceive no differences at all other than sensor technology differences, which usually are small.
No difference in noise, dynamic range, DoF, sharpness etc.

Other way around:
If you start printing x1,5 times larger and/or buy a x1,5 larger monitor to watch your photos upon investing in a FF you gain: nothing*

*: assuming you are before and after watching from the same absolute distances. And ignoring sensor tech differences.

[amoringello]

It's so very simple to understand once you understand it all is just about enlargement factors.

Sadly, many seem to forget that aspect...
... and that is why it has absolutely no relevance to the original question.


And really no relevance to the Crop v.s. FF issue to begin with. Light is Light, is obeys physical laws regardless of the size of the plane on which it is captured. It is only with modification either on the input or the output that other factors exhibit change.
Tech has it's own influence, but again it is just another change that has to be taken into account.

[enoeske]

... and that is why it has absolutely no relevance to the original question.
.

Yes it does. Its directly answering it. Using the crop mode on the K-1 will not see (much) better performance than shooting with the K-5iis. The difference will be very slight. Why? Because, although you have a 1.5-2 stop better noise on the K-1, when you enlarge a cropped portion of the image, you enlarge the noise as well.

[amoringello]

Yes it does. Its directly answering it. Using the crop mode on the K-1 will not see (much) better performance than shooting with the K-5iis. The difference will be very slight. Why? Because, although you have a 1.5-2 stop better noise on the K-1, when you enlarge a cropped portion of the image, you enlarge the noise as well.

That makes little sense what so ever, with regards to the original post.
You have to stop making claims about quality performance when you are changing parameters.

The cropped section on the K-1 is about the same size, similar number of pixels and probably similar pixel density as the K5.
If the tech of the K1 has better image quality performance, then the answer to the original post is Yes.
If the tech isn't much better than the answer is no.

The original post was regarding the use of a crop lens so the question is likely regarding the crop area of the K1 sensor, only.
The original post had NOTHING to do with enlarging an image to that of the full frame area.


I don't know why some people get hung up on enlarging an image when comparing effects of light on the FF sensor vs crop.
Quality within the same area on a FF vs Crop has NOTHING to do with enlarging an image.
Quality of light coming from the lens is NOT affected by the size of the sensor. (That would be highly against all laws of physics, you wouldn't only go to jail, you'd probably have your atoms ripped to pieces and strewn about the universe in a millisecond)

Imagine the light from the sun hitting your body on a warm day.
But since a large surface affects the light, the planet on which you are standing somehow intensifies the light millions of times.
And as it shines onto Andromeda far off in the distance, being much larger than this planet, the light is made even brighter and clearer, meanwhile passing through your body -- you've just vaporized by the magical creation of energy.
WTF? Really? I do not get where these fascinating ideas come from.

[enoeske]

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever., with regards to the original post.
You have to stop making claims about better performance when you are changing parameters.

The original post had NOTHING to do with enlarging an image.

Quality within the same area on a FF vs Crop has NOTHING to do with enlarging an image.
Quality of light coming from the lens is NOT affected by the size of the sensor. (That would be highly against all laws of physics, you wouldn't only go to jail, you'd probably have your atoms ripped to pieces and strewn about the universe in a millisecond)

Imagine the light from the sun hitting your body on a warm day.
But since a large surface affects the light, the planet on which you are standing somehow intensifies the light millions of times.
And as it shines onto Andromeda far off in the distance, being much larger than this planet, the light is made even brighter and clearer, meanwhile passing through your body -- you've just vaporized by the magical creation of energy.
WTF? Really? I do not get where these fascinating ideas come from.

You are not understanding what is being said. I am, and others who have said the same thing, are correct.

[redrockcoulee]

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever., with regards to the original post.
You have to stop making claims about performance when you are changing parameters.

The original post had NOTHING to do with enlarging an image.

Quality within the same area on a FF vs Crop has NOTHING to do with enlarging an image.
Quality of light coming from the lens is NOT affected by the size of the sensor. (That would be highly against all laws of physics, you wouldn't only go to jail, you'd probably have your atoms ripped to pieces and strewn about the universe in a millisecond)

Imagine the light from the sun hitting your body on a warm day.
But since a large surface affects the light, the planet on which you are standing somehow intensifies the light millions of times.
And as it shines onto Andromeda far off in the distance, being much larger than this planet, the light is made even brighter and clearer, meanwhile passing through your body -- you've just vaporized by the magical creation of energy.
WTF? Really? I do not get where these fascinating ideas come from.

If you take a photo of a perching bird that fills the frame on the K5IIs and then take the same photo with the same lens with the K1 and crop that image to show the same amount of the bird and print the images to the same size are you not basically using the same amount of light that fell on that section of the image that is in the cropped part of the K1 as fell on the K5IIs and having the same number of pixels that recorded the image. So there should be no benefit of using a full frame sensor over a APS-C sensor of the same quality. if the K3 has more pixels the resolution would be higher for that shot that for the indentical K1 image.

If you used a different lens on the K1 or moved the camera forward so that the final images for two cameras were identical from a compostion stand point the K1 should be better.

Is this correct?

[amoringello]

You are not understanding what is being said. I am, and others who have said the same thing, are correct.

It is correct in context, perhaps. But the context is irrelevant to the original post and not correct in that context.

---------- Post added 03-16-16 at 12:33 PM ----------

If you take a photo of a perching bird that fills the frame on the K5IIs and then take the same photo with the same lens with the K1 and crop that image to show the same amount of the bird and print the images to the same size are you not basically using the same amount of light that fell on that section of the image that is in the cropped part of the K1 as fell on the K5IIs and having the same number of pixels that recorded the image. So there should be no benefit of using a full frame sensor over a APS-C sensor of the same quality. if the K3 has more pixels the resolution would be higher for that shot that for the indentical K1 image.

If you used a different lens on the K1 or moved the camera forward so that the final images for two cameras were identical from a compostion stand point the K1 should be better.

Is this correct?

EXACTLY!
Unless you change some parameters (focal length, distance to subject, etc...), the physics of how the light falls on the plane behind it do not change.