Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-24-2016, 01:06 AM   #46
bxf
Site Supporter
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,121
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
you mean people like normhead, who have never owned a ff digital camera?
No, I can't be bothered to look for specific posts, but there is no shortage in PF or youtube of comments from people who have used both formats. And don't forget that the superiority of the FF becomes significant only when one cannot achieve the desired result with an APS-C body i.e. if I can open up a stop and still obtain acceptable results, what would I gain by using FF under the same circumstances?


QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
...if you look at how sony has tweaked the a7rii, vs. the 645z, you'll see that they are neck-in-neck throughout most of the range, while the d7200 isn't playing in the same league at all: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
The very highly regarded d810 is also quite behind the a7rii, which should serve as clear evidence that there's more to this than just the difference in format.


Last edited by bxf; 03-24-2016 at 03:19 AM.
03-24-2016, 01:14 AM - 2 Likes   #47
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gabriola Island
Posts: 591
QuoteOriginally posted by bxf Quote
Sorry, but there are too many people who, although acknowledge the (sometimes) superiority of FF, quite clearly state that the difference IS NOT "miles ahead".
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
you mean people like normhead, who have never owned a ff digital camera? lol

we don't yet know what pentax has done to the k-1 sensor, but if you look at how sony has tweaked the a7rii, vs. the 645z, you'll see that they are neck-in-neck throughout most of the range, while the d7200 isn't playing in the same league at all: Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

it's dr vs. iso... you can plug in older tech like the d810/a7r, they fall somewhere in between, i couldn't find a pentax crop sensor camera for that graph.

there is no pq parameter where the k3ii will be comparable to the k-1; the k-1 af performance should be much better, k-1 has 5-axis ibis, etc... so yes, it's going to be miles ahead.
Speaking as someone who has used an A7r intensively for two years, I cannot agree that the K-1 will be "miles ahead" of the K-3ii in terms of real world image quality. A 24 megapixel, no AA filter sensor is perfectly capable of producing excellent large prints. In the real world the differences between well-executed images from the two cameras will be fairly subtle. The extra resolution of a 36 megapixel sensor is nice, and does improve the rendering of fine detail somewhat, but that's all.

I do see the K-1 having advantages in terms of a larger viewfinder, better image stabilization, robustness in tough conditions, and shutter longevity. It appears to be the basis of a very solid system that will serve many people well.

I got an A7r because it works beautifully with a number of my lenses that cannot be adapted to Pentax. I also find the EVF very useful in situations that occur often in my work, such as manual focus with ultrawide lenses, in deep forest under heavy overcast.

I may pick up a K-1 in a year or two if it meets expectations.
03-24-2016, 02:52 AM   #48
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,255
Wow, that is one of the worst written pieces I have ever read. The first sentence: "Most professional photographers work with full frame cameras, most likely almost all of them actually." is a travesty and it is all down hill from there. I don't think there is anything particularly new here.

Currently, APS-C offers smaller camera bodies, faster frame rates, and cheaper prices for gear, while full frame offers faster lenses, bigger bodies and more expensive prices for gear. For many folks, APS-C cameras are good enough and the bump in dynamic range and high iso ability that the full frame sensors offer is not needed. Often the budget doesn't allow for a 1800 dollar camera body and additional lenses.

I guess I don't think people probably need a poorly written article to tell them if they need full frame or not -- and most people aren't going to buy a camera based on need anyway, but rather based on want and finances.
03-24-2016, 03:34 AM - 1 Like   #49
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Roi-et, Thailand
Posts: 773
QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
Speaking as someone who has used an A7r intensively for two years, I cannot agree that the K-1 will be "miles ahead" of the K-3ii in terms of real world image quality. A 24 megapixel, no AA filter sensor is perfectly capable of producing excellent large prints. In the real world the differences between well-executed images from the two cameras will be fairly subtle. The extra resolution of a 36 megapixel sensor is nice, and does improve the rendering of fine detail somewhat, but that's all.

I do see the K-1 having advantages in terms of a larger viewfinder, better image stabilization, robustness in tough conditions, and shutter longevity. It appears to be the basis of a very solid system that will serve many people well.

I got an A7r because it works beautifully with a number of my lenses that cannot be adapted to Pentax. I also find the EVF very useful in situations that occur often in my work, such as manual focus with ultrawide lenses, in deep forest under heavy overcast.

I may pick up a K-1 in a year or two if it meets expectations.
As a K5/IIs/K3 user who also has the A7r I have to agree, 36 megapixels don't make a huge difference over the crops depending upon final application, in fact full frame can be unforgiving for the amateur. A really hate the A7r as a camera though, it's slow and clunky and has the ergonomics of a house brick. Haven't used the A7rII, so dunno on that one.

For DSLR to make sense over mirrorless these days, the advantage has to be in the autofocus and shutter lag (of lack thereof) departments. AF speed, tracking and response should be the DSLR's advantage. Also AF utility like 399 AF points spread far across the sensor combined with eye detection AF in AF-C (the A7rII does this now apparently) really makes the case for continuing on the Sony mirrorless path.

It's all a first world problem, so doesn't really matter a jot in the scheme of things.

03-24-2016, 03:49 AM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,806
QuoteOriginally posted by HopelessTogger Quote
It's all a first world problem,
On the other hand, if you want to document 3rd-world problems, having a tough-as-nails DSLR that maps location and camera orientation can be vital. I can see forensic pathology (scene examination) and criminal investigation as strong "use cases" for the K-1. Any war zone journalist worth their salt should also keep the tags "on" for every shot.

I'm liking the K-1 on paper as much for all the other things it brings to the table as for the sensor size. I suspect the APS-C camera it spawns is in many ways going to be the best in the world, even if it can't shoot a gazillion frames a second at ten million ISO.
03-24-2016, 08:11 AM   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Roi-et, Thailand
Posts: 773
QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
On the other hand, if you want to document 3rd-world problems, having a tough-as-nails DSLR that maps location and camera orientation can be vital. I can see forensic pathology (scene examination) and criminal investigation as strong "use cases" for the K-1. Any war zone journalist worth their salt should also keep the tags "on" for every shot.

I'm liking the K-1 on paper as much for all the other things it brings to the table as for the sensor size. I suspect the APS-C camera it spawns is in many ways going to be the best in the world, even if it can't shoot a gazillion frames a second at ten million ISO.
I live in both funnily enough, and yes, I do use the Pentax gear for shooting in and around the farm at my developing world home and on site here in the "first" world. Haven't got any tough lenses though, only the 100WR regards weather resistance. The FA's are useless in the monsoon. It takes both camera and glass to be weather sealed to make a weather sealed system.

It had crossed my mind, the ruggedized appeal of the K-1 and the new trinity of zooms and yes . . . it does tug at the bank account. However, until the AF is confirmed to be super good, I'm keeping the pile of cash needed dry. For me AF is where it's all at, because I'm pretty useless at MF.
03-24-2016, 09:57 AM   #52
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
Speaking as someone who has used an A7r intensively for two years, I cannot agree that the K-1 will be "miles ahead" of the K-3ii in terms of real world image quality. A 24 megapixel, no AA filter sensor is perfectly capable of producing excellent large prints. In the real world the differences between well-executed images from the two cameras will be fairly subtle. The extra resolution of a 36 megapixel sensor is nice, and does improve the rendering of fine detail somewhat, but that's all.

I do see the K-1 having advantages in terms of a larger viewfinder, better image stabilization, robustness in tough conditions, and shutter longevity. It appears to be the basis of a very solid system that will serve many people well.

I got an A7r because it works beautifully with a number of my lenses that cannot be adapted to Pentax. I also find the EVF very useful in situations that occur often in my work, such as manual focus with ultrawide lenses, in deep forest under heavy overcast.

I may pick up a K-1 in a year or two if it meets expectations.
I have the same reactions from using the A7r, but I will probably pick up a K1 sooner than that--just after the inevitable initial bugs are fixed. Getting to use my old film lenses with IBIS is probably worth it.
03-24-2016, 01:33 PM   #53
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by bxf Quote
No, I can't be bothered to look for specific posts, but there is no shortage in PF or youtube of comments from people who have used both formats. And don't forget that the superiority of the FF becomes significant only when one cannot achieve the desired result with an APS-C body i.e. if I can open up a stop and still obtain acceptable results, what would I gain by using FF under the same circumstances?
agreed, don't replace any camera if you haven't reached the limit of what it can do.

QuoteOriginally posted by bxf Quote
The very highly regarded d810 is also quite behind the a7rii, which should serve as clear evidence that there's more to this than just the difference in format.
that's my point, a lot of this will depend on what pentax does... if they release a turd sensor like what's in the 5ds/5dsr, there won't be nearly as much reason to upgrade... my guess is that they'll hit a home run tho.

the d810/a7r are a couple of years old by now, if you look at what sony did to the a6300 sensor re-design... sure it's the same 24mp that everyone else uses, but no other crop sensor is that sophisticated.

---------- Post added 03-24-16 at 01:51 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by John Poirier Quote
Speaking as someone who has used an A7r intensively for two years, I cannot agree that the K-1 will be "miles ahead" of the K-3ii in terms of real world image quality. A 24 megapixel, no AA filter sensor is perfectly capable of producing excellent large prints. In the real world the differences between well-executed images from the two cameras will be fairly subtle.
agreed, but "well executed" images that were shot in perfect lighting are not the reason to go ff over crop... you go ff because downrezzing improves every single aspect of pq; things like file latitude can't be measured, for example this is ff vs. ff file latitude differences:

Sony A7R teams up with Canon glass

you can't see the differences because you aren't pushing it; in terms of pq, you didn't really need the a7r... i got the a7r so that i could this at iso10,000, you can't do that with a k3ii:



03-26-2016, 05:40 PM   #54
bxf
Site Supporter
bxf's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Lisbon area
Posts: 1,121
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
you can't see the differences because you aren't pushing it
This may be a somewhat simplistic statement, but how many arguments would have been avoided if this particular point* was strongly emphasized?

* The IQ improvements possible with FF are only there if APS-C limits are reached.
03-26-2016, 06:43 PM - 2 Likes   #55
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Gabriola Island
Posts: 591
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote

agreed, but "well executed" images that were shot in perfect lighting are not the reason to go ff over crop... you go ff because downrezzing improves every single aspect of pq; things like file latitude can't be measured, for example this is ff vs. ff file latitude differences:

Sony A7R teams up with Canon glass

you can't see the differences because you aren't pushing it; in terms of pq, you didn't really need the a7r... i got the a7r so that i could this at iso10,000, you can't do that with a k3ii:
Perhaps you should not assume that the term "well executed" means only images shot in perfect lighting. That is your definition, not mine. There is vastly more to it than that. I really can't see how you managed to interpret my comment as you did. Kindly do not tell me what I need. After over 20 years of professional digital imaging, I think I can make that judgement for myself.

As you noted, your 10,000 ISO example is "pushing it". It represents only a small part of the broad spectrum of photography. There are extremes at which one format is better than the other. There is also a very large overlap in which both will produce excellent results.

No, I did not go FF for what you call downrezzing. I use the full resolution of the sensor to produce large images for sale in art galleries. I chose an A7r because it allows me to adapt some excellent MF lenses that cannot be adapted to Pentax, and I already owned, making the FF transition relatively affordable.

Last edited by John Poirier; 03-26-2016 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, car, chassis, company, dollars, ff, film, format, frame, full-frame, hint, images, k-1, k3ii, latitude, lol, minivan, pentax, range, reason, sensor, suv, terms, upgrade, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question How to Unpin the 'Pentax K-1 Full Frame' announcement at the top of page mee Site Suggestions and Help 8 02-26-2016 09:00 AM
Using the K-500 and looking at the K-3II - Is it worth the upgrade price? Rayn Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 05-23-2015 08:39 PM
The Full Frame: What are the alternatives? mikeodial Pentax Full Frame 131 04-17-2015 02:28 PM
First image of the Full Frame Curved sensor!ůmade for the RX2? interested_observer Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 12 09-15-2014 10:04 PM
Is the extra $ on the FA77mm worth it over the DA70mm? rustynail925 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 71 05-13-2010 08:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 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