Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-22-2018, 05:22 AM   #46
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Pedrodelta's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Blighty
Posts: 61
QuoteOriginally posted by Take-5-JB Quote
Yes for the short answer.

Now my diatribe....I started with 35mm film in 1977. I love being back to FF......... .........My ability doesn't shadow the pace of technology development. Are we spoiled, hyper-focused, prima donnas, or just marketing puppets? Shoot what you want/like, don't worry about fashion and appearance, process to your hearts desire, and be happy with your equipment. Go forth and enjoy what you do.

JB
+1 Well said.


Last edited by Pedrodelta; 06-22-2018 at 05:25 AM. Reason: to condense
06-22-2018, 06:54 AM   #47
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,128
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
I am not arguing about pixel peeping. To me, a sample of one, I am saying that the K1 made me stop missing film. It is an overall "atmosphere?" of the image I like to much. Nothing I can put into numbers. My k5's or K3 simply do not have "it". They are great cameras and can certainly do the job, but there is just something about the K1 images that really appeal to me. I am talking about 35mm format film only as that is the full frame equivalent. [
And I am saying that I stopped missing film the first time I took a photo with 7MP digital APS-C

QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
I used to work with films that have the digital equivalent of 1 terabyte of information per square inch. Each image was 9" x 9". That is 81 terabytes per image. And the roll of film can be up to 10,000 feet long. There simply is no digital equivalent of that today. How good is that? imagine being able to read the date on a newspaper from 20 miles away. I have seen this. This film was developed in the 1960's too. There is a reason we still fly U2's. And I would bet that there is something past the SR71 too. To me. Google Earth is low res data. Very useful, but still nowhere near as good as is technically possible.
Military applications are different. I know from my own experiments that 35mm Kodachrome contained roughly 6MP of information; I had 35mm slides scanned at 6mp; comparing scanned image on computer screen to slide image projected on screen, every bit of detail on the slide was also on the scan. I know the lens was not the issue, because using that same lens on my K-30 gave me sharper images than it ever gave me on slides.
06-22-2018, 08:37 AM - 2 Likes   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,321
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote

Military applications are different. I know from my own experiments that 35mm Kodachrome contained roughly 6MP of information; I had 35mm slides scanned at 6mp; comparing scanned image on computer screen to slide image projected on screen, every bit of detail on the slide was also on the scan. I know the lens was not the issue, because using that same lens on my K-30 gave me sharper images than it ever gave me on slides.
Do you know if the Kodachrome was ASA 64 or ASA 25. It would probably make a bit of a small difference. Just curious because I haven't see anyone mention that they have done what you have. Maybe because pixel peeping threads simply do not interest me all that much. Since I retired I simply want to make pleasing images. I have a degree in conventional photographic systems and have no desire to dig that deep into digital imaging.


I have a friend of mine who is from a multi generational family of "camera nuts". He is currently in the process of digitizing and and sorting over 30,000 images. He is using and older Canon DSLR with a 6 megapixel sensor tethered to a computer running Lightroom. The camera is mounted on a light stand and he even had a local machine shop custom make film strip carriers in various format sizes. He has developed curves for various manufacturers color film negatives and does a few final tweaks before saving each image. Once he gets going he can easily process 200 images an hour. He spent a lot of time designing and building and tuning his system to get it to the operational level it is now.


The drive for more pixels on smaller sensors is becoming a nightmare for lens designers and manufacturers. In the days of film, 35mm lenses were more expensive than medium format lenses as they had to perform a lot better than the medium format lens did. You could actually use a lower quality lens on larger format system and get better results. This because you did not have to enlarge the original image as much. There is a reason that the new Pentax 50mm f1.4 lens has something like 15 elements in it and is massive in size. I will have to perform on a level that a 35mm film lens never had too. And with a lot lower sales volume to spread development costs over. I do not see our hobby? becoming less expensive in the coming years.
06-22-2018, 09:44 AM   #49
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,128
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
Do you know if the Kodachrome was ASA 64 or ASA 25. It would probably make a bit of a small difference. Just curious because I haven't see anyone mention that they have done what you have. Maybe because pixel peeping threads simply do not interest me all that much. Since I retired I simply want to make pleasing images. I have a degree in conventional photographic systems and have no desire to dig that deep into digital imaging.
Most all of my slides were Kodachrome 25, and I picked those for my test because I expected them to be the sharpest. Also, I picked ones with identifiable detail {images with books in view, or railroad cars with lettering - that sort of thing}.

I agree that people focus too much on pixel peeking. I always sat my "audience" to slide shows behind the projector because I wanted them to look at the entire picture, because that was what I was thinking of when I took the picture. I did my experiment in 2003, because I didn't want to leave film until digital could demonstratively do better. I have always been limited by how much money I'm willing to spend on my hobby, so my conclusion was that I would go digital when cameras in my price range (*) could deliver at least 3000 pixels horizontally.

And, please don't take my words as criticism of you - I didn't mean that. We are allowed to have different goals and different evaluations of how things fit into those goals.


(*) The most expensive camera I've ever purchased was a Canon Elan kit I purchased for $700 in 1995. Taking inflation into account, I now feel comfortable purchasing a KP.

06-22-2018, 09:53 AM   #50
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,128
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
I have a friend of mine who is from a multi generational family of "camera nuts". He is currently in the process of digitizing and and sorting over 30,000 images. He is using and older Canon DSLR with a 6 megapixel sensor tethered to a computer running Lightroom. The camera is mounted on a light stand and he even had a local machine shop custom make film strip carriers in various format sizes. He has developed curves for various manufacturers color film negatives and does a few final tweaks before saving each image. Once he gets going he can easily process 200 images an hour. He spent a lot of time designing and building and tuning his system to get it to the operational level it is now.
My digitizing system is an ancient WinXP system I inherited from my Dad running a Nikon LS-2000 scanner. My media dates back only 50 years, but much of them have picked up scratches and/or fungus spots; this scanner scans each line 16 times and uses parallax to eliminate most defects that are not actually into the emulsion layer, but then I use gimp to review each scan and "fix" any issues. I've been doing this since 2009, and am close to the end; I'd have to check my records {yes, I am counting them}, but I believe this slow process is just past 5000 now. I have Plustek and Epson scanners, but they seem to leave more "artifacts" behind for me to clean up.
06-22-2018, 10:09 AM   #51
Pentaxian
panonski's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Zagreb
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 624
QuoteOriginally posted by roti Quote
Hi,

On FF vs APS-C one can find tons of articles and discussions on the internet, and possibly even in this forum. I'd like however to risk a little bit and open the topic here (again): If you have experience shooting APS-C, and at some point switched to FF, how did that work out for you? What made you decide, and are you happy with your decision?

I am obviously asking to help myself make this decision.

roti
I would never go FF, because current APSC sensor is quite enough for me.


I would go even smaller - like microfour third


FF and Middle Format are capable for highest paid jobs, and I'm not in that league, so why bother with
06-22-2018, 10:47 AM   #52
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,321
reh321 - No offense taken. My liking the K1 images best is just what it is. No logical explanation for it at all.


panoski - After almost 50 years of doing film and image evaluations, I look at images different than most people. Overall technical quality is what I see first. Even on LeRolls glamour shots. I can even see things in his shots that some art directors would want fixed. A small shadow on the forehead, a freckle or a few hairs out of place etc.


The first time you see an image rejected by an art director, you just sit and scratch your head. But they rule the roost in the publishing and advertising world so you have to make them happy if you want a repeat customer. Sadly I have not yet figured out how to turn this habit off and it has cost me a lot of money these last 6 years. But hey, I would just wind up leaving it to my kids and they all make a lot more money than I ever did so they don't need it.

06-22-2018, 10:53 AM   #53
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
reh321 - No offense taken. My liking the K1 images best is just what it is. No logical explanation for it at all.


panoski - After almost 50 years of doing film and image evaluations, I look at images different than most people. Overall technical quality is what I see first. Even on LeRolls glamour shots. I can even see things in his shots that some art directors would want fixed. A small shadow on the forehead, a freckle or a few hairs out of place etc.


The first time you see an image rejected by an art director, you just sit and scratch your head. But they rule the roost in the publishing and advertising world so you have to make them happy if you want a repeat customer. Sadly I have not yet figured out how to turn this habit off and it has cost me a lot of money these last 6 years. But hey, I would just wind up leaving it to my kids and they all make a lot more money than I ever did so they don't need it.
That's just sad. You really can't enjoy photography like that. My wife is like you, a perfection hunter. Before I print anything I pass it on to her to clean it up. And when we sit and watch digital slide shows she makes me take out images I like, because she can't bear to look at them. (Usually not more than 2 or 3 per 500, but hey, it's still pain.)

I feel the same way about proof readers, you have to have them, but they often don't enjoy the writing the way the rest of us do. Your talent is a curse.

Most of us don't consider art directors in our process. That's whole different level, and you get paid. I get annoyed with people commenting on my PP> I often do 30 images in an hour and a half sitting, and if there's going to be a pay check when I'm done, that's one thing, but people who want to apply art director standards to the forum, and some do, I have no use for that. It's a volunteer activity done for my own enjoyment. I can do the other thing, but why would I? It's work, and it's my time. If I don't needt art director standards to enjoy the work, anyone who doesn't like it can buzz off. I'm not being paid. I have to live with my expectations, others should live with theirs.

But if anyone wants to point out where I can make more money meeting art directors expectations, who will pay me more than the guys who just buy my stuff the way I print it, I'll be happy to comply. Those of us who have received offers from galleries , Art Wholesalers etc. know we can make money without going that route, should we choose to do so. So the big question satisfying art director standards would be what's in it for me? More work for me, for the same level of enjoyment boils down to wasted time.

Last edited by normhead; 06-22-2018 at 11:05 AM.
06-22-2018, 03:26 PM   #54
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,321
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
That's just sad. You really can't enjoy photography like that. My wife is like you, a perfection hunter. Before I print anything I pass it on to her to clean it up. And when we sit and watch digital slide shows she makes me take out images I like, because she can't bear to look at them. (Usually not more than 2 or 3 per 500, but hey, it's still pain.) .
Well Norm, I don't look for them they just seem to pop up the second that I look at a photo. But when it all comes together, that also pops out. No idea how I can process it so fast, but it is there and no getting around it. Maybe that is why I am such a fan of impressionistic painting. I can just appreciate the image for what it is.
06-22-2018, 06:33 PM   #55
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 563
its a mixed bad for me for a few different reasons.
the pros for aps-c were:
smaller body. smaller lenses. smaller filters. easier to travel. cheaper. lighter. etc.

then i switched to full frame and i discovered the extra real estate possible on a full frame sensor. it gave me more room to compose with previous lenses (as a 50mm suddenly felt like a 30mm on an apsc).
what i also liked was the depth of field/bokeh/separation i was receiving.
i also loved the viewfinder being so much bigger and i'm not straining my cheeks/eyes to view through it.
i also liked the lower light performance and the over all image quality.

what i didn't like is that full frame is forcing me to go more towards portrait photography due to lenses.
the 15-30 is TOO big and i cant put filters on em. as such, i'm going towards other interested that allow me to carry smaller lenses.

so the trade off is that i'm running away from landscapes, while running towards portraits
06-23-2018, 02:01 AM   #56
Pentaxian
panonski's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Zagreb
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 624
I realise for real estate photos, you have to compose 2 or three images with different exposures if you have mixed content in picture. Like many shadows in room space, and lots of view from wndows, or outside sunny ambient in same pic.
--
I tried shoot such situations, with RAW, puting the exposuer into the middle, and after that in PP, I lifted some shadows, and pull down some skylights.
But in very contrasty situation, it's hard to get even and natuarl looking colors everywhere.


The best in that situation is to compose 2 images at least, in different program suitable for that.
--
I was not try to do that with RAW from FF, and I'm thinking it certainly must be better with more dynamic range in FF.

--

Then again,
it still could be not as good as composing.

So, once again - APSC is more then adequate for the purpose, because of the same job I must to do, in both ways.
--
Low depth of field, and lovely bokeh thing for portraits ?


I tried older Pentax FF lens 50 mm f 1.8, on my K-3 , and in small space. I found this is more then enough to blur everything behind 0.5 -1 meter away. Does that satisfie my needs ?
I believe, it does.



FF is too big for me, to bother with small advantages in picture quality.


KP sensor with 24 MPix, is good enough. To me. Maybe for someone is not, but this is me... FF would be tempting only when size of the lens would be small enough, because FF body it self, could be the same size.
Other than heavyness, I have not any negatives for FF. It's bigger and better then APSC, but do I need that ?
I already have in KP sensor who beats even older K1 FF sensor,
and this sensor is better then many FF sensors from Canon, Nikon rivals...
--
So it's like I already have FF quality, with little lower depth, which I dont need anyway.


Yet,

FF would / could be the future for photograpy markets, because of mirrorless thing, which ads space to further decrease FF cameras, to look again like in film era days.

One thing could be, the great game changer for all of us.
That's
curved sensors which are on it's way.

And hey, it's not all !
Sony patended one more thing, and that's something like DP Sigma sensor technology with pixels on each other verticaly, and not side by side horizontaly in flat space.


Add to that curved sensor, with new smaller lens, and you are in 400 MPIX photography already !



But that's at least 5,6, maybe even 10 years in a front of us.

So,

If I can avoid todays heaviness in cameras, I would do that. Luckily APSC from KP is a monster, and KP is lighter then ever.

I find this more then enough for my style.

Last edited by panonski; 06-23-2018 at 09:59 AM.
06-25-2018, 07:36 AM   #57
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latvia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 112
To throw in my 2¢, FF has one seldom mentioned advantage: bigger/brighter viewfinder. My upgrade to K-1 was bitter sweet — while it was better than my K-5, it still can't hold candle to Pentax ME (which I still have, just to ruin joy from my camera purchases).

While the camera is noticeably heavier, I can't agree that the whole system is much heavier, because the lenses are not directly comparable. E.g. DA* 16-50mm F2.8 (565g) equivalent is D FA 24-70mm D2.8 (787g), but the latter gathers one extra stop of light. 200mm F2.8 on APS-C and 300 F4 on FF, where the weight increase is 30%, which is noticeably more. My point is, light-gathering power is what FF is good at and increased weight of the FF comes with increased light-gathering power. I wonder if the upcoming 70-200mm F4 will weight about as much as DA* 50-135mm F2.8.
06-25-2018, 08:22 AM   #58
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Tranzistors Quote
To throw in my 2¢, FF has one seldom mentioned advantage: bigger/brighter viewfinder.
Honestly, I just look through the viewfinder with any camera. Sometimes I don't even know which one I'm looking through.

QuoteOriginally posted by Tranzistors Quote
but the latter gathers one extra stop of light.
Which it spreads over twice the area, so exactly the same intensity on the sensor for both cameras.

To me, these seem like theoretical justification points, rather than practical points.

Last edited by normhead; 07-19-2018 at 08:18 AM.
06-25-2018, 10:33 AM   #59
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
I’m happier with using my FF lenses my K-1 than my KP because the lens focal lengths and associated exposure triangle settings are completely intuitive after 45 years of shooting 35mm format. With APSc I’m forever thinking about conversions. As a consequence I shoot mostly snapshots with KP using DA lenses and some automation, whereas on K-1 I shoot mostly carefully exposed shots using Manual Mode and manual lenses.

That’s just my take on the hobby - I prefer manual exposure and focusing to letting the camera and lens do more of the work.
06-25-2018, 12:27 PM   #60
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Latvia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 112
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Honestly, I just look through the viewfinder with any camera. Sometimes I don't even know which one I'm looking through.
In my experience bigger/brighter viewfinder reduce composition mistakes. For studio work perhaps this doesn't matter, but in the field every detail helps. Maybe it's just me.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Which it speeds over twice the area, so exactly the same intensity on the sensor for both cameras.
That is true, but the extra sensor area buys you reduced overall image noise (not per-pixel noise) and thinner DoF.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
To me, these seem like theoretical justification points, rather than practical points.
For a well controlled studio work, shooting at F8, there really is no reason to move to full-frame. Even μ4/3 will do just fine.
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, aps-c, camera, canon, decision, ff, finland, full-frame, glass, hand, head, hobby, jump, k-1, k-5, k-50, leica, neck, option, pentax, photo, size, stability, train, tripod, window, winter
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-1 owners ! Is switching to FF worth it ? zoolander Pentax DSLR Discussion 89 11-16-2018 08:24 AM
Why I am Switching Back from Canon FF cali92rs Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 06-26-2015 09:17 AM
Alien Skin Software/ Switching to FF? dr_romix Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 3 01-08-2013 11:00 PM
Would you buy the first FF if it is a K-01 or wait for the FF DSLR? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 07-18-2012 10:09 PM
Switching from Pentax to FF 123ben Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 31 05-25-2012 02:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:38 PM. | 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