Thought FF (k1) would give me. Significant increase in light gathering vs k70

normhead · 10-31-2017, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

What you typically will see is a one stop improvement in noise and dynamic range with a full frame versus APS-C camera. Now, the K-70 is a newer generation sensor with an accelerator chip which gives it really excellent performance and its noise levels are really good for a crop camera.

The places where you would typically see a difference are either going to be at high iso or situations where you are pushing an image pretty hard by bumping shadows/exposure in certain places. Crop cameras just don't tolerate those sorts of adjustments as well before you start seeing artifacts and noise -- particularly once you get above base iso.

I'm not sure lumping APS-c into "crop sensors" is a fair comparison. APS-c would be the top of the crop heap, with very little difference between it and FF.

**Rondec** · 10-31-2017, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by normhead

I'm not sure lumping APS-c into "crop sensors" is a fair comparison. APS-c would be the top of the crop heap, with very little difference between it and FF.

APS-C is a 1.5 x crop and shows about a stop difference. Micro four thirds is 2x crop and is roughly another stop difference.

Nikon D850 vs Nikon D500 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

normhead · 10-31-2017, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

APS-C is a 1.5 x crop and shows about a stop difference. Micro four thirds is 2x crop and is roughly another stop difference.

Nikon D850 vs Nikon D500 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

As I said very little difference, and even that only in low light situations where you exceed the low light capability of the APS-c sensor but haven't exceeded the ability of the FF sensor. Given a real life DR of over 20 EV, one EV is a 5% advantage. That's about how often you can expect to have an FF advantage, unless you always shoot in exactly the right conditions. And for that stop of FF low light advantage, you lose one stop of DoF, so it works out pretty much even.

**Rondec** · 10-31-2017, 08:39 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

As I said very little difference, and even that only in low light situations where you exceed the low light capability of the APS-c sensor but haven't exceeded the ability of the FF sensor. Given a real life DR of over 20 EV, one EV is a 5% advantage. That's about how often you can expect to have an FF advantage, unless you always shoot in exactly the right conditions. And for that stop of FF low light advantage, you lose one stop of DoF, so it works out pretty much even.

APS-C is a crop sensor. So are iphone sensors. I think a lot of the point for equivalence is for folks who are used to one format to figure out how to get similar framing with another format. Dynamic range and SNR considerations are secondary. I was one of those who was (and still am) more used to APS-C than full frame and so I used the formulas in reverse to figure out what lenses I needed to get certain framing.

My experience with full frame versus APS-C is that with portraits, it is nice to be able to shoot a little more shallow depth of field with full frame. With regard to dynamic range and SNR they are both pretty good at base iso, but go up much over that and full frame does have a significant advantage. Most folks aren't maximizing the dynamic range captured in an image and so APS-C or even micro four thirds would be more than enough for most situations.

D4rknezz · 12-08-2017, 11:43 AM

When you are cutting butter, any knife will do and yield the same result.
When you are cutting prime rib ....

In photography, if you are shooting in ideal conditions all the time, your iphone can probably yield the same result.
when shooting in extreme conditions...

**monochrome** · 12-08-2017, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by D1N0

The K-1 made my Pentax-m 20mm F4 an ultra-wide lens instead of a moderately wide one. That's why I got it. All my lenses are like new now. Recent improvements in noise reduction make the K-70 noise levels almost as good as the K-1. In future full frames this technology will draw the larger sensor ahead again. The K-1 will still give you more detail than the KP because it has more and larger pixels. DR is probably also better. The main advantage is shooting full frame lenses. When you are indifferent about lenses, there is probably no use for a full frame.

Yes. I bought all these fabulous SMC film lenses and now they capture what they were designed to capture. (My out-of-pocket for the 26 Manual lenses is a bit less than the total of the 5 new D FA lenses).

.

Lord Lucan · 12-08-2017, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by D1N0

The K-1 made my Pentax-m 20mm F4 an ultra-wide lens instead of a moderately wide one. That's why I got it.

That's funny, that lens always was an ultra-wide lens; you are expressing it the wrong way round. It was designed as an ultra-wide for film cameras (ie full frame, same as the K-1). It is only a "moderately wide" lens if you use it on an APS-C camera, for which it was not designed or even imagined at the time.

rawr · 12-08-2017, 01:57 PM

Focal reducers or 'lens speed boosters' are probably the only thing that might boost the light gathering ability of K-1 camera/ lens pair.

Other than that, you are stuck with how efficiently the camera sensor hardware can translate photons hitting the sensor into electrical signals. Some cameras may not do this as efficiently as others. For example, cameras like the Sony A77 II use a fixed translucent mirror in front of the imaging sensor to constantly feed/bounce a proportion of the incoming light to an AF sensor, which thus directly reduces the amount of light reaching the imaging sensor. Other cameras may also add optical filters in front of the imaging sensor (eg anti-aliasing filters, or even IR), which may sometimes cause the sensor to be marginally less light sensitive. K-1 does not have any of this stuff in front of it's imaging sensor.

surfar · 12-08-2017, 02:45 PM

Are FR/speedboosters available for the K-1?...i thought they were only for mirrorless???

rawr · 12-08-2017, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by surfar

i thought they were only for mirrorless???

Theoretically, they are for lenses more than bodies. But yeah, most seem to be for [APS-C] E-mount, M 4/3 etc mirrorless bodies. But I think I have seen some for FF>APS-C non-mirrorless mounts somewhere.

I have yet to see a Speed Booster/ Lens Turbo to take 645 medium format lenses down to FF or smaller though. That would be fun.

surfar · 12-08-2017, 06:03 PM

That's possible by a 645 to EF mount adapter,then there are plenty of EF fr/sboosters .Should work on FFmirrorless/APEC/m43.

rawr · 12-08-2017, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by surfar

That's possible by a 645 to EF mount adapter

But no 645 (or 6x7!) to K-mount speed-booster exists AFAIK.

Way too niche, I suspect, even for anyone in Shenzhen to take an interest.

awscreo · 12-08-2017, 08:38 PM

This guy has a lot of material on the matter) I honestly stopped caring if my camera is better than other ones... As long as it does what I want it to do

https://youtu.be/EDZ2ApqU-uA

surfar · 12-08-2017, 08:39 PM

That's correct,but the fun is getting m42/39s and lenses that followed them onto mirror less bodies.

D1N0 · 12-09-2017, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Lord Lucan

That's funny, that lens always was an ultra-wide lens; you are expressing it the wrong way round. It was designed as an ultra-wide for film cameras (ie full frame, same as the K-1). It is only a "moderately wide" lens if you use it on an APS-C camera, for which it was not designed or even imagined at the time.

For the past 10 to 15 years we have been shooting digital on aps-c. I never used Pentax in the film age. I shot with a Praktica and later a Nikon. As this thread is about K-70 vs K-1 it is not very pragmatic to start talking about 35mm film. You smarty-pants remark only serves confusion.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs.......	Steelski	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	2	06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Any significant improvement in mid ISO quality since K5?	PPPPPP42	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	05-02-2017 09:59 AM
K1 price increase	robthebloke	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	8	09-18-2016 03:44 PM
If you could take photos at one significant moment, when and where would	ASheffield	General Photography	34	08-14-2014 06:04 PM
FF vs APS-C light gathering / noise	CypherOz	General Photography	21	06-13-2014 10:25 AM

10-31-2017, 07:39 AM	#16
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Rondec What you typically will see is a one stop improvement in noise and dynamic range with a full frame versus APS-C camera. Now, the K-70 is a newer generation sensor with an accelerator chip which gives it really excellent performance and its noise levels are really good for a crop camera. The places where you would typically see a difference are either going to be at high iso or situations where you are pushing an image pretty hard by bumping shadows/exposure in certain places. Crop cameras just don't tolerate those sorts of adjustments as well before you start seeing artifacts and noise -- particularly once you get above base iso. I'm not sure lumping APS-c into "crop sensors" is a fair comparison. APS-c would be the top of the crop heap, with very little difference between it and FF.

10-31-2017, 07:52 AM	#17
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by normhead I'm not sure lumping APS-c into "crop sensors" is a fair comparison. APS-c would be the top of the crop heap, with very little difference between it and FF. APS-C is a 1.5 x crop and shows about a stop difference. Micro four thirds is 2x crop and is roughly another stop difference. Nikon D850 vs Nikon D500 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10-31-2017, 08:15 AM	#18
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Rondec APS-C is a 1.5 x crop and shows about a stop difference. Micro four thirds is 2x crop and is roughly another stop difference. Nikon D850 vs Nikon D500 vs Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 As I said very little difference, and even that only in low light situations where you exceed the low light capability of the APS-c sensor but haven't exceeded the ability of the FF sensor. Given a real life DR of over 20 EV, one EV is a 5% advantage. That's about how often you can expect to have an FF advantage, unless you always shoot in exactly the right conditions. And for that stop of FF low light advantage, you lose one stop of DoF, so it works out pretty much even.

10-31-2017, 08:39 AM - 1 Like	#19
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by normhead As I said very little difference, and even that only in low light situations where you exceed the low light capability of the APS-c sensor but haven't exceeded the ability of the FF sensor. Given a real life DR of over 20 EV, one EV is a 5% advantage. That's about how often you can expect to have an FF advantage, unless you always shoot in exactly the right conditions. And for that stop of FF low light advantage, you lose one stop of DoF, so it works out pretty much even. APS-C is a crop sensor. So are iphone sensors. I think a lot of the point for equivalence is for folks who are used to one format to figure out how to get similar framing with another format. Dynamic range and SNR considerations are secondary. I was one of those who was (and still am) more used to APS-C than full frame and so I used the formulas in reverse to figure out what lenses I needed to get certain framing. My experience with full frame versus APS-C is that with portraits, it is nice to be able to shoot a little more shallow depth of field with full frame. With regard to dynamic range and SNR they are both pretty good at base iso, but go up much over that and full frame does have a significant advantage. Most folks aren't maximizing the dynamic range captured in an image and so APS-C or even micro four thirds would be more than enough for most situations.

12-08-2017, 11:43 AM	#20
D4rknezz Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 1,196	When you are cutting butter, any knife will do and yield the same result. When you are cutting prime rib .... In photography, if you are shooting in ideal conditions all the time, your iphone can probably yield the same result. when shooting in extreme conditions...

12-08-2017, 12:57 PM	#21
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by D1N0 The K-1 made my Pentax-m 20mm F4 an ultra-wide lens instead of a moderately wide one. That's why I got it. All my lenses are like new now. Recent improvements in noise reduction make the K-70 noise levels almost as good as the K-1. In future full frames this technology will draw the larger sensor ahead again. The K-1 will still give you more detail than the KP because it has more and larger pixels. DR is probably also better. The main advantage is shooting full frame lenses. When you are indifferent about lenses, there is probably no use for a full frame. Yes. I bought all these fabulous SMC film lenses and now they capture what they were designed to capture. (My out-of-pocket for the 26 Manual lenses is a bit less than the total of the 5 new D FA lenses). .

12-08-2017, 01:06 PM	#22
Lord Lucan Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2017 Location: South Wales Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,960	Originally posted by D1N0 The K-1 made my Pentax-m 20mm F4 an ultra-wide lens instead of a moderately wide one. That's why I got it. That's funny, that lens always was an ultra-wide lens; you are expressing it the wrong way round. It was designed as an ultra-wide for film cameras (ie full frame, same as the K-1). It is only a "moderately wide" lens if you use it on an APS-C camera, for which it was not designed or even imagined at the time.

12-08-2017, 01:57 PM	#23
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Focal reducers or 'lens speed boosters' are probably the only thing that might boost the light gathering ability of K-1 camera/ lens pair. Other than that, you are stuck with how efficiently the camera sensor hardware can translate photons hitting the sensor into electrical signals. Some cameras may not do this as efficiently as others. For example, cameras like the Sony A77 II use a fixed translucent mirror in front of the imaging sensor to constantly feed/bounce a proportion of the incoming light to an AF sensor, which thus directly reduces the amount of light reaching the imaging sensor. Other cameras may also add optical filters in front of the imaging sensor (eg anti-aliasing filters, or even IR), which may sometimes cause the sensor to be marginally less light sensitive. K-1 does not have any of this stuff in front of it's imaging sensor.

12-08-2017, 02:45 PM	#24
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,137	Are FR/speedboosters available for the K-1?...i thought they were only for mirrorless???

12-08-2017, 05:43 PM	#25
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by surfar i thought they were only for mirrorless??? Theoretically, they are for lenses more than bodies. But yeah, most seem to be for [APS-C] E-mount, M 4/3 etc mirrorless bodies. But I think I have seen some for FF>APS-C non-mirrorless mounts somewhere. I have yet to see a Speed Booster/ Lens Turbo to take 645 medium format lenses down to FF or smaller though. That would be fun.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-08-2017, 06:03 PM	#26
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,137	That's possible by a 645 to EF mount adapter,then there are plenty of EF fr/sboosters .Should work on FFmirrorless/APEC/m43.

12-08-2017, 08:05 PM	#27
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by surfar That's possible by a 645 to EF mount adapter But no 645 (or 6x7!) to K-mount speed-booster exists AFAIK. Way too niche, I suspect, even for anyone in Shenzhen to take an interest.

12-08-2017, 08:38 PM	#28
awscreo Veteran Member Join Date: May 2016 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,722	This guy has a lot of material on the matter) I honestly stopped caring if my camera is better than other ones... As long as it does what I want it to do https://youtu.be/EDZ2ApqU-uA

12-08-2017, 08:39 PM	#29
surfar Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: mid nth coast,nsw Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,137	That's correct,but the fun is getting m42/39s and lenses that followed them onto mirror less bodies.

12-09-2017, 05:37 AM	#30
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by Lord Lucan That's funny, that lens always was an ultra-wide lens; you are expressing it the wrong way round. It was designed as an ultra-wide for film cameras (ie full frame, same as the K-1). It is only a "moderately wide" lens if you use it on an APS-C camera, for which it was not designed or even imagined at the time. For the past 10 to 15 years we have been shooting digital on aps-c. I never used Pentax in the film age. I shot with a Praktica and later a Nikon. As this thread is about K-70 vs K-1 it is not very pragmatic to start talking about 35mm film. You smarty-pants remark only serves confusion.