Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-16-2021, 11:39 AM   #31
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: People's Republic of America
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,845
QuoteOriginally posted by Markpszk Quote
Gear chasing is a great...to the point ...term. I appreciate you saying that. That's what it feels like.

I like your thinking, and thanks for all the info.

I will also look up Roman Johnston and a D850. thanks!!

I still have a leading question: Can I use my present lenses on the 645Z camera? and, if so, is there any advantage to it?

---------- Post added 09-16-21 at 11:13 AM ----------


I'm liking your thinking!

Thank You!!

I will be looking up Roman Johnston
The D850 is basically Nikon's equivalent to the K-1. It has a little bit more megapixels but technically, a K-1 should be able to do basically what the D850 does in terms of printing size.

And the 645Z belongs to a different system with a different mount. If you buy that body you'll need all new lenses as well. But it's quite affordable in the used market right now (affordable for medium format, that is), and there's even a 645Z here in our Forum Marketplace with I think 3 lenses, for quite a good deal (I don't know the seller).


Last edited by ChristianRock; 09-16-2021 at 12:00 PM.
09-16-2021, 12:10 PM   #32
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21,591
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
This kind of calculation just assumes that the large print has the same viewing distance of a small print, where 300dpi is important (and I even question that, since the human eye can only resolve 220-230dpi, from what I read). 300dpi is really for pixel peeping with a magnifying glass.

Nobody will do that with a 5'x8'.

So I think a K-1 or 645Z image will be more than fine.

I would argue even an APS-C image would do fine when interpolated (as you mentioned) because of the viewing distance.

Is anyone here familiar with Roman Johnston? He seems to sell prints quite a bit, I guess mostly for office spaces, and a lot of his prints are about 3.5x5 (that's feet) and a lot of his most known/best selling pictures were taken with cameras with 12MP or even less (he's been around for a while and uses a D850 now).

You may have missed that I provided a caveat of 100dpi might be sufficient. That would drop pixels required in each direction by 3x (9x smaller total pixels) and is discussed in more detail in one of the links. It would still be a little short if my math holds but close. If that resolution is sufficient I would really suggest trying the gigapixel software as well to see if that helps also. I would also say that pixel shift files from the K1 would be a great starting point for this.

---------- Post added 09-16-21 at 03:36 PM ----------

To add to this earlier answer the k-1 produces files that can be printed at 100dpi a little larger than 4í x 6í.

How Large Can I Print My Digital Image? ? Pro Photo Supply

Last edited by UncleVanya; 09-16-2021 at 12:36 PM.
09-16-2021, 01:09 PM   #33
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: People's Republic of America
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,845
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
You may have missed that I provided a caveat of 100dpi might be sufficient. That would drop pixels required in each direction by 3x (9x smaller total pixels) and is discussed in more detail in one of the links. It would still be a little short if my math holds but close. If that resolution is sufficient I would really suggest trying the gigapixel software as well to see if that helps also. I would also say that pixel shift files from the K1 would be a great starting point for this.

---------- Post added 09-16-21 at 03:36 PM ----------

To add to this earlier answer the k-1 produces files that can be printed at 100dpi a little larger than 4’ x 6’.

How Large Can I Print My Digital Image? ? Pro Photo Supply
Sorry, I wasn't replying to say you were wrong - I just wanted to isolate that 300dpi calculation because some people seem to want to live by it. If they ever worked for a billboard advertising company, they would change their mind...

Even setting a number like 100dpi is deceiving because, again, viewing distance.

When you increase the size of a print, you increase the viewing distance by the same percentage. So a lot of people have argued that anything over 6-8MP (depending on whom you ask) is "wasted pixels", unless you get really close to the picture and start looking at small details, which means you'll be seeing a very small portion of a much larger picture - and that is not the intention of the artist, because now you're not looking at a composition anymore.

I've seen all sorts of viewing distance vs ppi charts. Here's just an example.



I printed a 7.2MP file once to A2 size. It turned out quite well. It was my wife at the beach when she was pregnant. I could actually see the grains of sand in the picture. But if got my eye within an inch of the picture, yeah I could see a little bit of pixelation...
09-16-2021, 01:28 PM   #34
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21,591
I am sympathetic to the idea that lower than 100ppi might work fine. But having been in spaces with large prints I find both types of viewing are prevalent. Some spaces encourage close viewing. This isnít wrong - and Iím not saying that you are saying otherwise - as long as there is room to back up and view the full composition as well as look at details.

So I apologize if my message appeared to push super resolution as the only approach - I intended to show both aspects and I think I failed to give enough time to the lower ppi approach. I appreciate your input and guidance.

09-16-2021, 01:46 PM   #35
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: People's Republic of America
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,845
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I am sympathetic to the idea that lower than 100ppi might work fine. But having been in spaces with large prints I find both types of viewing are prevalent. Some spaces encourage close viewing. This isnít wrong - and Iím not saying that you are saying otherwise - as long as there is room to back up and view the full composition as well as look at details.

So I apologize if my message appeared to push super resolution as the only approach - I intended to show both aspects and I think I failed to give enough time to the lower ppi approach. I appreciate your input and guidance.
Oh you don't have to apologize. I wasn't clear in my reply that I was actually agreeing with your point, just wanted to expand on it for the OP's benefit.
09-17-2021, 05:07 AM   #36
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2020
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 54
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
645z is the highest resolution Pentax / Ricoh available. And it has the most dynamic range sensor. So for some types of photos, Landscapes for example, thereís some advantage to using it. However, at these sizes the Brenizer method (Brenizer Method - Wikipedia) may be the best approach as the file sizes needed for 300dpi are massive. 100dpi may be sufficient depending on planned viewing distances. Hereís a link that gives some guidelines on the size of file needed for various print sizes ( How Large Can I Print My Digital Image? ? Pro Photo Supply ).

Given the relatively small gap in the k1 vs 645z and the expense of medium format and given your desired print sizes Iíd guess you could stay with the K1 - but there could be some benefits to going with the 645z. The tripod and head would necessarily need to be larger and stiffer and your workflow on the computer with large files will require more horsepower so to speak. Iím honestly unsure if the budget is enough to switch to the 645z and potentially upgrade the computer/monitor and tripod and any positioning gear needed for precision shooting using this method. My gut says that the existing gear is pretty good and investing in making it work may be a better choice than gear chasing. Perhaps a high grade prime to use as your Brenziner lens would be useful. The D FA 85 comes to mind.

Obviously spare bodies etc become less of a consideration if the earlier Pro comments were about quality not commercial work.

Edit: 5íx8í at 300dpi needs an original file that is 18000x28800 pixels. The k1 produces a file that has Max. image resolution: 7360 x 4912; the 645z produces a file with Max. image resolution: 8256 x 6192. (Sourced from digicamdb.com). Note also that the ratio of pixels is not the same so while the final ratio may seem to make one or the other format more appropriate, using this method already involves composing without a single view in the camera and requires many images taken in a single session which probably takes the ratio largely out of play.

Bear in mind another possible path is to use sophisticated software like Gigapixel. Hereís an article on the Fuji GFX 100 and how useless the pixel Shift feature is vs using this software. Fujifilm's Pixel Shift Feature in the GFX 100 is Utterly Pointless | PetaPixel. Iím not suggesting the Fuji (although a fine camera I think swapping systems is beyond the budget given the body costs 10k and there are other expenses to consider). Iím suggesting the use of the same software perhaps with the Brenizer method as the base for some images.
I think I am getting very comfortable with continuing with the system I have.

So, new question: and I do realize I can be looking up and reading etc.
In general, technically, what is the difference between shooting a photo at 70mm with a 24-70 lens, at 70mm with a 70-210 lens, and a 80mm prime lens?

Yes! I'm not afraid of sounding like a complete idiot, and I value the experience I am finding within this Forum.
09-17-2021, 06:26 AM - 1 Like   #37
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21,591
QuoteOriginally posted by Markpszk Quote
I think I am getting very comfortable with continuing with the system I have.

So, new question: and I do realize I can be looking up and reading etc.
In general, technically, what is the difference between shooting a photo at 70mm with a 24-70 lens, at 70mm with a 70-210 lens, and a 80mm prime lens?

Yes! I'm not afraid of sounding like a complete idiot, and I value the experience I am finding within this Forum.
The D FA lenses you mention are very good. The distortion and resolution are much better than older zooms. In terms of noticeable differences that depends on the specific prime picked. Assuming the D FA 85 f1.4, the most immediate difference is the option for up to two stops wide aperture. The ability to shoot this wide open offers a very shallow depth of field and potential advantages in iso required. The shallow depth of field may or may not be an advantage depending on your tastes. The bokeh will likely be better as well on the 85, but none of these lenses are terrible.

Here are some measurements of the 24-70: Pentax HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 ED SDM WR Review | ePHOTOzine

Vs.

Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW Review | ePHOTOzine

Unfortunately I canít find any measurements of similar depth on the D FA 85. The lens is excellent, but detailed resolution data appears to be hard to come by. However hereís the FA 77 review:

SMC Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited Lens | ePHOTOzine

The FA 77 was compared objectively to the D FA 85 here and found to be fairly similar, with the main differences at f2 being more purple fringing on the FA 77: HD Pentax-D FA* 85mm F1.4 ED SDM AW Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Looking at the MTF 50 chart of the 77 it compares reasonably well to the 24-70@70 and the 70-200@70. The biggest differences in measured data is geometric distortion, The FA 77 has almost none, The zooms have a bit more. Also where peak sharpness vs aperture occurs differs slightly, on the 70-200 @ 70, the peak is at f4. On the FA 77 the peak is around f8 (f5.6 has slightly higher center resolution but less even resolution than f8). Finally the size and aperture range are significant factors - the primes are faster, The 77 is much lighter and smaller than either zoom or the 85.

Realistically does any of this really matter? To me the size wins on the 77. But image quality is likely to be good with any of these. The 85 offers better wide open performance in terms of color fringing than the 77. Itís also faster than any of the zooms and faster than the 77. How much this ends up influencing your final image is unclear, Iíd bet the composition and light and skill of the photographer will matter more than the specific lens selected from this group - unless shallow depth of field is very important to you. Having one of these with you enable the opportunity to take the shot, so it really depends on the types of shots and method of shooting which youíll want at any given time.

09-17-2021, 08:24 AM - 1 Like   #38
Pentaxian
victordeamorin's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lyon area, France
Posts: 559
Another very significant difference besides image quality: the weight, size, comfort, ergonomics of each of these options is completely different. For me (but that's juts me) this aspect alone disqualifies 3 of the 4 above propositions
And also, shooting with a prime lens instead of a zoom is obviously much less flexible, IMO leading to a good exercise in practicing different viewing angles and standpoints, with the end potential to improve one's photographic skills...
09-18-2021, 02:41 AM - 1 Like   #39
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,823
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
If the most professional Pentax is the one that's been used by more professionals than any other, then it's the Spotmatic in its various incarnations. If you were a lucky sort of professional back in the 1960s then you were David Bailey, using your Spottie to take iconic shots of Jean Shrimpton and Twiggie. If you were another sort of professional back then, you were using your Spottie to document the Vietnam war and hoping it was well built enough to stop a bullet (it was).
My spotmatic is still the most confidence inspiring piece of equipment I have. It's amazing how good it feels to use, it's kind of surreal.

Pentax 6x7 is an amazing piece of kit, but for the few times I've held one in my hands it's kind of clumsy to use. Makes you almost feel like you shrunk
09-18-2021, 09:37 AM   #40
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2020
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 54
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
The D FA lenses you mention are very good. The distortion and resolution are much better than older zooms. In terms of noticeable differences that depends on the specific prime picked. Assuming the D FA 85 f1.4, the most immediate difference is the option for up to two stops wide aperture. The ability to shoot this wide open offers a very shallow depth of field and potential advantages in iso required. The shallow depth of field may or may not be an advantage depending on your tastes. The bokeh will likely be better as well on the 85, but none of these lenses are terrible.

Here are some measurements of the 24-70: Pentax HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mm f/2.8 ED SDM WR Review | ePHOTOzine

Vs.

Pentax HD PENTAX-D FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW Review | ePHOTOzine

Unfortunately I canít find any measurements of similar depth on the D FA 85. The lens is excellent, but detailed resolution data appears to be hard to come by. However hereís the FA 77 review:

SMC Pentax-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited Lens | ePHOTOzine

The FA 77 was compared objectively to the D FA 85 here and found to be fairly similar, with the main differences at f2 being more purple fringing on the FA 77: HD Pentax-D FA* 85mm F1.4 ED SDM AW Review - Introduction | PentaxForums.com Reviews

Looking at the MTF 50 chart of the 77 it compares reasonably well to the 24-70@70 and the 70-200@70. The biggest differences in measured data is geometric distortion, The FA 77 has almost none, The zooms have a bit more. Also where peak sharpness vs aperture occurs differs slightly, on the 70-200 @ 70, the peak is at f4. On the FA 77 the peak is around f8 (f5.6 has slightly higher center resolution but less even resolution than f8). Finally the size and aperture range are significant factors - the primes are faster, The 77 is much lighter and smaller than either zoom or the 85.

Realistically does any of this really matter? To me the size wins on the 77. But image quality is likely to be good with any of these. The 85 offers better wide open performance in terms of color fringing than the 77. Itís also faster than any of the zooms and faster than the 77. How much this ends up influencing your final image is unclear, Iíd bet the composition and light and skill of the photographer will matter more than the specific lens selected from this group - unless shallow depth of field is very important to you. Having one of these with you enable the opportunity to take the shot, so it really depends on the types of shots and method of shooting which youíll want at any given time.
I appreciate your knowledge!

At what distance to a subject does a 200mm macro lens become ineffective? So, are they just as sharp all the way through?

To clarify: If I shot a bird with my 70-200 @ 200 ( say 60 feet away), would the 200 mm macro prime lens be just as sharp.
09-18-2021, 10:30 AM   #41
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 21,591
QuoteOriginally posted by Markpszk Quote
I appreciate your knowledge!

At what distance to a subject does a 200mm macro lens become ineffective? So, are they just as sharp all the way through?

To clarify: If I shot a bird with my 70-200 @ 200 ( say 60 feet away), would the 200 mm macro prime lens be just as sharp.
That really depends on the specific lens. But my experience with macro lenses is that they typically are just fine at a distance. Where some macro lenses may suffer is that they render a little too ďflatĒ and not as lively as some non macro lenses. This is ďaccording to some peopleĒ, personally I havenít experienced this problem. The macro lenses Iíve used most recently include the D FA 100 WR with and without the HD DA 1.4x rear converter and the Olympus 60mm macro. Both work just as well as short telephoto lenses as they do for macro work.

PB090381_DxO by -vanya_42nd-
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, 645z, body, camera, distance, file, focus, full-frame, gear, image, johnston, k1ii, k3iii, level, lot, method, pentax, pentax camera, pixels, plans, print, proffessional, pros, sizes, software, support
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K50 body acting weird, time to upgrade camera body... Considering KP vs Sony A7 ii sachmo Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 06-27-2020 07:57 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax K7 body / K20D Body (Sold) / istDs Body (Sold) Richter Sold Items 2 10-31-2013 06:14 PM
Best starting lens? Cheap body and nice lens? or nice body and okay lens? lovemehate Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 52 10-12-2010 07:27 PM
Best Body or Best Lens? Pentaxie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 38 04-21-2010 01:32 PM
istDS body, which lens best suits this body? ilozic Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 08-20-2008 01:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:54 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