Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
|
Search this Thread |
12-11-2013, 11:28 AM | #16 |
With the release of the K-3, I'm completely un-impressed with what the extra-resolution is giving me. More room for cropping is nice, better AF, very nice… there are a lot of things I like about the K-3… but I'm seriously questioning needing more resolution than 24 Mp gives me. I was already at that point with my k-5. At 24 Mp, I'm not feeling the urge to go to 36. I seem to have hit my magic number. Of course, other people may have different magic numbers. I do wonder how many people are printing photos at all and what size they are printing, when they print. | |
12-11-2013, 12:26 PM | #17 |
With the release of the K-3, I'm completely un-impressed with what the extra-resolution is giving me. More room for cropping is nice, better AF, very nice… there are a lot of things I like about the K-3… but I'm seriously questioning needing more resolution than 24 Mp gives me. I was already at that point with my k-5. At 24 Mp, I'm not feeling the urge to go to 36. I seem to have hit my magic number. Of course, other people may have different magic numbers. If on the other hand you are going to crop very little or nothing off your images then I don't see any real benefit of 24MP or higher over 16MP or even of no AA filter vs having an AA filter. In such case I can however see some advantage in FF with regards to noise at low light levels, or even in 'lifted' shadow areas. | |
12-12-2013, 07:51 AM | #18 |
The point was not about outresolving sensors, but about the different enlargement factor between APS-C and FF. Every lens with an FF circle, no matter how bad or brilliant, how cheap or expensive it is, is sharper on FF because its imperfections aren't enlarged as much (for the same print size). If you want to get the same DOF then you need to stop down more on the FF camera. Which means the lens gains in sharpness, unless you are shooting at f/8 or higher on APS-C. If you shoot at wider apertures then lenses on an APS-C camera have to perform better at wider apertures to achieve the same sharpness as FF lenses. But I see the same myths (FF lenses are bigger and more expensive, FF is needed for extreme shallow DOF only, FF sensors have a low-light advantage) repeated over and over again and I find that annoying. I'm happy for anyone who is happy with their sensor size. There are Q users who are happy. There are four-thirds users who are happy. There are APS-C users who are happy. Great! But that does not mean one needs to spread false facts about sensor size. Can you replicate some of the shots with an APS-C camera? Yes, if you have the respective lenses. Can you replicate all of them? No way. Take your time to check out multiple pages of this thread. You'll see shots that you have never seen from an APS-C camera. Do you need to pixel peep to see the difference? No, not at all. If you don't notice the special quality that some of the shots in that thread have then APS-C is all you need. If you do see it, though, then you appreciate the power of sensor size. | |
12-12-2013, 09:16 AM | #19 |
Quote: I wouldn't call the Sigma 70/2.8 EX Macro "most expensive glass", yet it is sharper at f/4 than it is at f/5.6. Quote: You did not understand my argument. Quote: The point was not about outresolving sensors, but about the different enlargement factor between APS-C and FF. Every lens with an FF circle, no matter how bad or brilliant, how cheap or expensive it is, is sharper on FF because its imperfections aren't enlarged as much (for the same print size). Quote: I can recommend to visit the "Some Full-Frame Shots and Thoughts" thread some time. Can you replicate some of the shots with an APS-C camera? Yes, if you have the respective lenses. Quote: If you don't notice the special quality that some of the shots in that thread have then APS-C is all you need. If you do see it, though, then you appreciate the power of sensor size. The whole area of shooting for narrow DoF is a concept that has gone in and out of favour, popular for 1918 to 1930, banned by some galleries in the 60s because they felt it's main contributing factor was the limited technical ability of early lenses and emulsions. Photography tends to go exponentially. Doubling the sensor size gives you effectively one more stop. But one stop doesn't make a lot of difference, can be compensated for by stopping down one stop (or up one stop) in most situations, and therefore is completely replicable. APS-c beats FF for magnification (for macro), and resolution within the crop area, of things like wildlife, if that's what's important to you. FF gets you one more stop DoF and low light performance, if that's what is important to you. If neither narrow DOF nor low light performance , or wildlife or macro is important to you, in other words, if none of the advantages of either is important to you, you get a cheaper functional system using APS-c. Which is why APS-c is more popular. It's all very simple really. Last edited by normhead; 12-12-2013 at 09:28 AM. | |
12-12-2013, 09:57 AM - 1 Like | #20 |
I wouldn't call the Sigma 70/2.8 EX Macro "most expensive glass", yet it is sharper at f/4 than it is at f/5.6. You did not understand my argument. The point was not about outresolving sensors, but about the different enlargement factor between APS-C and FF. Every lens with an FF circle, no matter how bad or brilliant, how cheap or expensive it is, is sharper on FF because its imperfections aren't enlarged as much (for the same print size). If you want to get the same DOF then you need to stop down more on the FF camera. Which means the lens gains in sharpness, unless you are shooting at f/8 or higher on APS-C. If you shoot at wider apertures then lenses on an APS-C camera have to perform better at wider apertures to achieve the same sharpness as FF lenses. I don't see anyone putting in a lot of effort trying to confuse people. But I see the same myths (FF lenses are bigger and more expensive, FF is needed for extreme shallow DOF only, FF sensors have a low-light advantage) repeated over and over again and I find that annoying. I'm happy for anyone who is happy with their sensor size. There are Q users who are happy. There are four-thirds users who are happy. There are APS-C users who are happy. Great! But that does not mean one needs to spread false facts about sensor size. I can recommend to visit the "Some Full-Frame Shots and Thoughts" thread some time. Can you replicate some of the shots with an APS-C camera? Yes, if you have the respective lenses. Can you replicate all of them? No way. Take your time to check out multiple pages of this thread. You'll see shots that you have never seen from an APS-C camera. Do you need to pixel peep to see the difference? No, not at all. If you don't notice the special quality that some of the shots in that thread have then APS-C is all you need. If you do see it, though, then you appreciate the power of sensor size. Honestly, when I look at the full frame thread, what impresses is the skill of certain photographers. Mark Littlejohn impresses, whether he is taking photos with an APS-C camera or a full frame camera. What stands out is his ability to capture the scene he wants, in the way he wants and then post process it in his distinctive way. On the other hand, there are plenty of not so good photos in that thread that wouldn't push me to buy any particular format. | |
These users Like Rondec's post: |
12-12-2013, 05:06 PM | #21 |
I'm happy for you that APS-C is all you need and want. But your opinion that nobody else can make use of more capabilities is just your opinion. You have physics against you and you have visual counter examples against you. In other words, it is facts against an opinion. Have you read falconeye's article regarding the true reasons for FF? I repeat, you have physics against you. You can pretend that these arguments are just theoretical because practical examples don't demonstrate them. But you are fooling yourself if you believe that comparing samples of different cameras from a review site that were never meant for making sharpness comparisons, etc. proves anything. You are entitled to your opinion but please don't accuse others of spreading propaganda when all they are doing is setting the facts straight. Member Cannikin put it like this "I am getting the sense, with your constant "propaganda" accusations, that you are assuming that I am some FF fanatic trying to sell people FF cameras. I am not interested in "converting" anyone to the "FF cause". I am simply trying to provide objective information to a discussion about the properties of formats, and clear up the misrepresentations being thrown around as fact. Spin it as "propaganda" all you want."Like Cannikin, I'm not trying to sell larger formats to anyone. But I don't like false statements. If you don't realise that many of the examples in the full-frame images thread are impossible with an APS-C camera and lens then I cannot help you. The differences are not at all at the microscopic level. One of the main differences for me is the sharpness contrast, i.e., how big the difference is between the crisp subject and a blurry background. You can get blurry backgrounds with APS-C, of course, but the subjects tend to lose crispness as well when you open up the aperture, in particular when the subjects are not close and you thus have to go to very wide apertures (including wide open) in order to get some foreground/background blur (note that this is not about extreme shallow DOF at all). We prize a few lenses for their ability to maintain a high sharpness contrast even in such demanding situations but on APS-C they are rare and expensive. On FF lenses have to work less hard to give you that effect. There are cheap 50/1.8 AF lenses for FF (around a $100) that require an APS-C equivalent of 33/1.2. Good luck with finding a 33/1.2 lens for about $100 that performs as well as the 50/1.8 on FF. I'll withdraw from this discussion after responding to Rondec because it is not leading anywhere. Last edited by Class A; 12-12-2013 at 05:18 PM. | |
12-12-2013, 05:15 PM | #22 |
However, even if it were true that for "most purposes" you don't need more than four thirds, then there are still "some purposes" left. I take issue with people claiming that these "some purposes" are irrelevant because they involve pixel peeping or a shallow DOF aesthetic that they don't like. There is no denying that a good photographer can take a stunning shot with a Q. There is no denying either, however, that an FF camera gives the same photographer more opportunities. You can take bad or unconvincing shots on any format. And you can take shots on a larger format that are completely replicable on a smaller format. But there are certain large sensor and lens combinations which can produce images that you cannot replicate on a smaller format. This is a fact determined by the laws of physics and no "I don't see the evidence." claim can challenge that fact. If anyone doesn't see the evidence, fine for them. But they shouldn't attack those that understand the facts and see the evidence. | |
12-12-2013, 05:35 PM | #23 |
Quote: But your opinion that nobody else can make use of more capabilities is just your opinion. Quote: You have physics against you and you have visual counter examples against you. In other words, it is facts against an opinion. Like most of your attacks on me, a straw man argument constructed from your inability to rationally look at what I've written, and understand what I've said. The rest of your post is similar. Quote: The last four paragraphs of your last post are factually wrong. Inside or outside of a box does not come into this at all. Quote: But they shouldn't attack those that understand the facts and see the evidence. Maybe you should not take disagreements on matters of interpretation as personal attacks. Last edited by normhead; 12-12-2013 at 05:58 PM. | |
12-12-2013, 05:36 PM | #24 |
As I said, I'm happy for anyone who does not need/want more than four thirds or even the Q. However, even if it were true that for "most purposes" you don't need more than four thirds, then there are still "some purposes" left. I take issue with people claiming that these "some purposes" are irrelevant because they involve pixel peeping or a shallow DOF aesthetic that they don't like. Sure, if it weren't for the skill of certain photographers, the images wouldn't be convincing. There is no denying that a good photographer can take a stunning shot with a Q. There is no denying either, however, that an FF camera gives the same photographer more opportunities. Of course. You can take bad or unconvincing shots on any format. And you can take shots on a larger format that are completely replicable on a smaller format. But there are certain large sensor and lens combinations which can produce images that you cannot replicate on a smaller format. This is a fact determined by the laws of physics and no "I don't see the evidence." claim can challenge that fact. If anyone doesn't see the evidence, fine for them. But they shouldn't attack those that understand the facts and see the evidence. As I said, I don't disagree in many respects. I just think that at this point, APS-C cameras are really good and while it is easy for me to blame my lack of skill on the wrong camera, often when I learn more, I am able to get the photos I want. This is no way intended to discourage people who want full frame, or even medium format cameras. There are plenty of reasons to purchase any of those formats and I would be remiss if I indicated that just because they don't all apply to me, that I don't think they are important. I will just leave it at that. | |
|
Bookmarks |
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
dof, dslr, focus, k-3, k3, lenses, pentax k-3 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Super Takumar 1:3.5/135 lens dof | Arcane | Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands | 11 | 04-29-2013 01:51 AM |
Nature Playing at the Beach with DOF. | reed_page | Post Your Photos! | 7 | 04-22-2012 06:50 PM |
S-M-C Takumar 1:3.5/28 DOF problems | tak-pix | Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands | 4 | 04-01-2012 05:06 PM |
APS-C vs Micro 4/3 in DR and DOF | lightbulb | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 16 | 02-24-2012 07:27 PM |
Front/Back Focus vs DOF= 1/3:2/3? | jmg257 | Troubleshooting and Beginner Help | 4 | 01-10-2012 01:47 PM |