Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Why did you go full frame?(Multiple choice)
l need better high ISO performance 7431.62%
l need more shallow DOF 4720.09%
lt's the latest photography trend 83.42%
Everybody's doing it 62.56%
Other 16168.80%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 234. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-16-2021, 06:18 AM   #226
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
I personally avoid referring to 135 format as “full frame” because I see it as a marketing ploy to make a small format sensor sound like the biggest and best thing ever. Judging from what I see on most forums, it has been a highly effective ploy.

From where I sit, Four Thirds and APS-C and 135 format are close to the same size and close to the same performance. The amount of words expended hashing over the difference between them is kind of ridiculous.
APS-c and FF are pretty similar, I suspect 4/3 and 36mm would be different, but there is video evidence that for everyday shooting that's not the case. Someone did a video comparing 4/3 and 36mm prints, at 16x20. No one knows how large you have to print before the larger sensor becomes necessary for better print quality. It's largely undetermined and depends in part of subject and style.

01-16-2021, 07:25 AM   #227
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,173
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There is nothings as disappointing as people crowing about their low res FF cameras that provide no discernible difference over 24 MP APS_c for the type of photography they do.
My experience with pixel shift (using the K1) indicated that pixel size can decrease down to about 2.5um and still capture more details from the glass.

Therefore, currently, only the Canon 90D, micro 4/3 cameras and 1" cameras capture the most out of optics.
All other apsc models, and full frame models and medium format models, still have a lot of room for higher pixel density.
Currently, the most cost effective cameras are probably those compact 20Mp from Panasonic.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Except for the snob value attitudes of some who seem to believe a half frame digital is only half as good as a full frame when in fact about 90% of what a full frame can do a half frame APS-c can do, and some times APS-c can do better.
Your interpretation tells you about a snob attitude. If I want more image quality, but the price of more image quality increases much faster than quality, what can I do about it? I'd much prefer that a full frame 50Mp camera would cost $1000, and MF such as a 645Z would cost $1500... What can I do to have those prices go down so that other folks stop thinking I'm snob?
01-16-2021, 07:38 AM   #228
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Central Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,032
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Your interpretation tells you about a snob attitude. If I want more image quality, but the price of more image quality increases much faster than quality, what can I do about it? I'd much prefer that a full frame 50Mp camera would cost $1000, and MF such as a 645Z would cost $1500... What can I do to have those prices go down so that other folks stop thinking I'm snob?
There was a 645Z on Ebay a few days ago priced at $2500 but including some accessories plus two lenses, a 55 and a 75.

I briefly considered it but comparing some shots I captured last weekend alongside those from a very experienced photographer carrying the 645Z (first time I'd seen one in the wild), was evidence enough for me that I'd find little reason to use it. It took shooting the same subjects under the same conditions to prove it for myself though. Now I'll stop considering one.
01-16-2021, 07:52 AM - 1 Like   #229
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by gatorguy Quote
There was a 645Z on Ebay a few days ago priced at $2500 but including some accessories plus two lenses, a 55 and a 75.

I briefly considered it but comparing some shots I captured last weekend alongside those from a very experienced photographer carrying the 645Z (first time I'd seen one in the wild), was evidence enough for me that I'd find little reason to use it. It took shooting the same subjects under the same conditions to prove it for myself though. Now I'll stop considering one.
A forum member talked me out of one. No IBIS (critical for my "take pictures while walking" style. The need for a fairly heavy tripod. One system lenses. Tess is out right now with my DFA 28-105 on her K-5. 36mm and APS-c use the same mount. And unless I find some clients with really deep wallets, I won't find a market for the size of prints that might justify the added resolution. When you are reducing size, not enlarging, which is usually the case, any extra lw/ph is thrown out. People might tell you they can see the difference between a 1.5x reduction and 2x reduction, but they'd be wrong.

01-16-2021, 08:07 AM - 1 Like   #230
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Quebec City, Quebec
Posts: 6,493
Pentax 645Z pictures taken with a P67 105 mm f/2.4 : good Dynamic Range at least ...



01-16-2021, 10:38 AM - 3 Likes   #231
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by RICHARD L. Quote
I'd like to see photos like this taken by a phone, a Q, a K-3, a K-1 and a 645Z and have us try to guess which is which. Especially at web sizes it would largely be an exercise in trying to pick out idiosyncrasies that clue you into the format, rather than quality/sharpness/dynamic range, etc.
01-16-2021, 11:50 AM   #232
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I'd like to see photos like this taken by a phone, a Q, a K-3, a K-1 and a 645Z and have us try to guess which is which. Especially at web sizes it would largely be an exercise in trying to pick out idiosyncrasies that clue you into the format, rather than quality/sharpness/dynamic range, etc.
In DPReview.com, you can use their Studio Shot Comparison tool to compare a Pentax Q7, KP, K1ii, and 645Z in RAW or jpeg at various ISO. Ideally they'd have a Field Shot Comparison tool, but because of constant changes due to the environment, time of day, time of year, weather, etc., that'd be problematic.

When looking at their test site, they also reveal the lens used and metadata of the shot. Typically a reputed top performer like the DA* 55mm, FA 77mm, or DFA 645 90mm.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

01-16-2021, 12:01 PM   #233
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,124
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
It's funny how film camera technology formats generally progressed from large to medium to small (135 or 35mm) and smaller formats (e.g., 110 and 8mm) whilst digital progressed from small to APS-C to "Full" to larger formats.

In the original daguerreotype and tin-type worlds, the prevailing "full" format was the 6˝" × 8˝" plate that could be cut into smaller formats. What would become the approximate size of roll film's "medium" format shot (2" × 2˝") was the tiny 1/9th daguerreotype and tin-type plate. (Preservation Self-Assessment Program (PSAP) | Daguerreotypes, Ambrotypes, and Tintypes).

Today's "full" format digital would be considered less than 1/36 of a "full" daguerreotype plate.
The finer-grained film emulsions tended to be slower speed, so better detail required slower speed / bigger negative.
The math is different for digital - and some of us waited until digital could deliver the same quality we were getting from film, and that came from “APS-C”.

Even now, a smaller digital sensor costs less, and some of us still have to consider cost.
01-16-2021, 12:10 PM - 1 Like   #234
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
In DPReview.com, you can use their Studio Shot Comparison tool to compare a Pentax Q7, KP, K1ii, and 645Z in RAW or jpeg at various ISO. Ideally they'd have a Field Shot Comparison tool, but because of constant changes due to the environment, time of day, time of year, weather, etc., that'd be problematic.

When looking at their test site, they also reveal the lens used and metadata of the shot. Typically a reputed top performer like the DA* 55mm, FA 77mm, or DFA 645 90mm.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
Sure, I've used that tool before. But my point was really that people will often post a 645Z or K-1ii shot at forum sizes with the intent of saying "wow, look at what this camera can do." But the reality is that unless you're looking for a very specific attribute of a larger format, or viewing at very large sizes, you can take almost any of those pictures with almost any decent camera. A Q7 will take a very nice landscape shot in good light, displayed here on PentaxForums at 1000 pixels across. Good enough that you might not be able to tell it from a 645Z image at the same dimensions.
01-16-2021, 12:22 PM   #235
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
Here, one of these is the Q7, one the 645Z. At forum sizes you basically can't tell the difference. So anyone posting shots here trying to prove anything... it doesn't work. Unless you're downloading much larger resolution files you can't tell.

(Edit: are we allowed to post files from the DPReview studio scene? I put these two images up as attachments, then it occurred to me that might be frowned upon, so I removed them at least for the moment.)
01-16-2021, 12:40 PM   #236
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,124
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
Here, one of these is the Q7, one the 645Z. At forum sizes you basically can't tell the difference. So anyone posting shots here trying to prove anything... it doesn't work. Unless you're downloading much larger resolution files you can't tell.

(Edit: are we allowed to post files from the DPReview studio scene? I put these two images up as attachments, then it occurred to me that might be frowned upon, so I removed them at least for the moment.)
I do post “100% crops” - when I want to show how much noise I {don’t} get on my KP at a particular ISO level,
I will sometimes crop a 1000bit x 600bit crop of the image, so it will be displayed as-is.
01-16-2021, 12:40 PM   #237
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
the reality is that unless you're looking for a very specific attribute of a larger format, or viewing at very large sizes, you can take almost any of those pictures with almost any decent camera. A Q7 will take a very nice landscape shot in good light, displayed here on PentaxForums at 1000 pixels across. Good enough that you might not be able to tell it from a 645Z image at the same dimensions.
Agreed. Without comparison, it's hard to appreciate the difference. And even with comparison, if scaled down to web or posting res and size, the differences may not even be visible.

And although I do have a pixel peeping reflex, I've been humbled by many experiences where the lighting and content of the shot outweighed any technical merits to a vast majority of viewers. Some of my most liked shots include ones taken on a 12MP iPhone 6s or a very noisy, grungy max ISO on a 10MP DSLR. Given a choice, I'd prefer to have a large sensor, low ISO, and a prime lens shooting under f/11...

...but someone once said, "the only two things that really matter are where you stand and when you release the shutter."
01-16-2021, 02:55 PM   #238
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Quebec City, Quebec
Posts: 6,493
Sorry if I goofed posting these two 645Z pictures here ... !
01-16-2021, 03:21 PM   #239
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
QuoteOriginally posted by RICHARD L. Quote
Sorry if I goofed posting these two 645Z pictures here ... !
I don't think you goofed at all, Richard. In fact, you helped the discussion in some ways. I broadly agree with @ThorSanchez and @Alex645 that web-sized reproduction minimises the benefits of one format over another such that it's difficult to say which is which. Heck, even a smartphone photo taken in good light looks great at 1000 pixels wide. That's why so many younger folks (and not just a few older ones) are quite happy to use a phone instead of lugging around a DSLR or mirrorless camera. In fact, phones are a real confusion because most have HDR modes that work fast enough even for moving subjects, so you can't even rely on the dynamic range of a scene to conclude it was taken with a big sensor. It's only when you view photos up close at larger reproduction sizes on screen or in print that the tell-tale signs begin to show. I'll bet your 645Z photos look great at larger sizes, even up close...

EDIT: I see Alex beat me to it with reference to phone images
01-16-2021, 04:09 PM - 1 Like   #240
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Quebec City, Quebec
Posts: 6,493
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I don't think you goofed at all, Richard. In fact, you helped the discussion in some ways.
Thank you for your "calming" words, BMC. Indeed, my pictures taken with the 645Z on tripod and at middle apertures make awesome 24" X 30" prints.

Best Regards !
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, answers, aps-c, apsc, argument, camera, density, dof, dump, ff, format, frame, full-frame, idea, k-1, k-3, lens, lenses, pentax, pixel, plan, prints, repair, shift, tamron, type
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did you leave Adobe? Where did you go? woodworm Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 116 07-05-2018 03:16 PM
Some questions about buying sony full frame + adapters + pentax full frame lens jhlxxx Pentax Full Frame 7 06-14-2017 05:13 PM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame.... Deedee Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 14 10-08-2013 05:39 AM
Full Frame Full Frame vanchaz2002 Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 12-11-2008 07:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:31 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