Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-11-2013, 11:28 AM   #16
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
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.
Right. I actually agree. 36 megapixels is most useful if you are printing/viewing really big. I know that some on the forum are printing huge prints, but I really don't. For many applications (macro/landscape/wildlife) there just isn't much benefit going with a full frame camera. The big area where my wife would benefit is in wedding photography, where she pushes iso as much as she can in reception/wedding services.

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
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 698
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
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.
For me the one main benefit of 24MP is that it allows me to crop more thereby effectively getting more 'reach' with telephoto and more effective magnification in macro. Full frame would of course be of no help at all in such cases as pixel density is what matters when you crop a lot.

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
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
IN only the most expensive glass, if you're considering sharpness, are you going to be shooting anything but ƒ5.6 or ƒ8.
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
If you follow MTF scores, you know every lens made to date produces sharper images for the most part based on pixel density. There are no lenses that I know of that are topped out on FF and don't have 1.5 more sharpness than FF requires.
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I personally find it hard to comprehend the effort that's been expended trying to create confusion on this issue.
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The real world examples, most of the time you can't tell the difference. Especially if pixel peeking isn't part of your real world.
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.
12-12-2013, 09:16 AM   #19
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,824
QuoteQuote:
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.
And I wouldn't change a statement of general terms for a concept based on one lens.

QuoteQuote:
You did not understand my argument.
Or maybe you didn't understand my response. Sometimes the response is not about thinking inside the box created by the way it's by framed, but by showing that there's another way to look at it.

QuoteQuote:
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).
As I a said, only if you assume that those imperfections are in some way significant. If the difference is the difference between microscopic and half of microscopic, no one cares. I'm trying to frame these things in a way that help you understand that there's a difference between theoretical difference, and a practical difference. The existence of the former doesn't always lead to a difference in the latter.

QuoteQuote:
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.
That's a special interest thread. The thing is, you can say whatever you want. But as far as I can tell you've done no actual comparison. I'm not going to argue that you won't see any difference. I would argue that about half the time (in my work more like 80% of the time) you'll like the APS-c image more than the FF image. IN a thread like FF Shots and THoughts there are no comparisons, just self congratulation. The one guy who actually did side by side images for us, the images were so close together it was hard to tell the difference and I like the APS-c image more than I liked the FF image.

QuoteQuote:
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.
And exactly how are you supposed to notice that without anything to compare to? I've seen some stunning narrow DoF images taken with APS-c, are they better than the same image would have been taken with an FF? I don't know, but I'd like to have see some images before I make that decision.

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
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A 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.


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.
I think the issue is really what is good enough? Anything from four thirds up, with regard to sensor size, should be adequate for most purposes.

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.
12-12-2013, 05:06 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Or maybe you didn't understand my response. Sometimes the response is not about thinking inside the box created by the way it's by framed, but by showing that there's another way to look at it.
The last four paragraphs of your last post are factually wrong. Inside or outside of a box does not come into this at all.

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
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think the issue is really what is good enough? Anything from four thirds up, with regard to sensor size, should be adequate for most purposes.
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Honestly, when I look at the full frame thread, what impresses is the skill of certain photographers.
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.

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
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.
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.
12-12-2013, 05:35 PM   #23
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,824
QuoteQuote:
But your opinion that nobody else can make use of more capabilities is just your opinion.
Show me where I said that. (By the way, it isn't my opinion, and I have no idea who's opinion it is. You're the only person that has mentioned it.)

QuoteQuote:
You have physics against you and you have visual counter examples against you. In other words, it is facts against an opinion.
But you can't show me where or what physics, tut tut...

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.

QuoteQuote:
The last four paragraphs of your last post are factually wrong. Inside or outside of a box does not come into this at all.
You can see the truth in those statements, or you can quibble over tiny inconsistencies and misunderstandings, which you amplify beyond all recognition, which is your usual practice.

QuoteQuote:
But they shouldn't attack those that understand the facts and see the evidence.
Do you understand the fact that because of a higher pixel density, you can get more resolution out of a 24 Mp K-3 , than you can out of any currently available FF camera using the same focal length lens, on a subject that falls within the crop area of that the FF sensor? Can you not see the advantage that creates for wildlife and macro shooters? The evidence is there for you to see, why do you chose to ignore it?

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
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,217
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
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.
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!
dof, dslr, focus, k-3, k3, lenses, pentax k-3
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Super Takumar 1:3.5/135 lens dof Arcane Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 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 Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 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



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