Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-02-2015, 08:52 AM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rrstuff Quote
Wait, I thought you went all canon, save for K5II and a fisheye?


Well I didn't go "ALL" Canon.


And what Canon I did go, didn't work out so well. Making big prints (30x40, 40x60, cropped 16x48's) kinda shows you the limitations of your system pretty fast.

---------- Post added 10-02-15 at 09:59 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Paul the Sunman Quote
Was there any wind? That shot with so much foliage would not normally be suitable for pixel shift if there's a breeze.


I agree. But this wasn't a "grab" shot. I have driven the 250 miles one way three times in the past 6 weeks. The first time was to find the shot on a non windy SUNNY day. I found the shot, but the sun killed it. The next time was on a forecast cloudy day with no wind, and the 6D got the shot as well as it could. Yesterday I went back and left at 6am MDT to be there by 9am PDT because the forecast was for AM clouds, no wind.


So far I have spent 3 days and over $200 in diesel just for this shot. And sometimes that's what it takes. The point I'm trying to make is that what I have realized is that the majority of my best selling landscape shots could have been shot with pixel shift with the proper planning required to get the shot anyway. There are very few spectacular landscape shots by anyone that have been shot in a hurricane! (Or even a slight breeze. )

---------- Post added 10-02-15 at 10:05 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pathdoc Quote
One does have to allow for the possibility that the light on the day favoured the Pentax, but WOW. What a difference. How washed out and lifeless that Canon shot looks by comparison.

If the full-frame comes anywhere near this, the landscape photographers are going to be all over it. Come on, Pentax - we really want that DA15-like full-frame prime now.


It's not even that fair: The Canon 6D had a $1000 Canon 24-70 F4.0 L lens on it and the K3 was using a $450 well worn Tamron 17-50 F2.8.


I actually ordered the Pentax 16-50 2.8 SDM last night after seeing the results from the pixel shift. Not because the Tamron did a bad job, but because now that I know this is going to be viable, I also know that the Pentax 16-50 will give my shots that magic Pentax pixie dust color too.


I thought about waiting for the 24-70, but I can always use the 16-50 and k5IIs and K3II for weddings while waiting for the FF to gets to the being sold stage.

10-02-2015, 10:07 AM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,522
Pixel shift is not comparable to a 6D. The 6D does not have the limitation of having to use a tripod on totally still subject. However, when conditions allow pixel shift, pixel shift almost compares to diffraction limited medium format system. The reason is combining 4 shots shifted shots roughly equate to the amount on data of a single frame from an MF sensor at the same ISO, the random noise of the smaller APSC sensor being averaged out in the raw stacking process (deterministic errors remain). For best pixel shift results should are obtained by using a f2.8 lens and stop-it down to f4.0 or F5.6 (that's the reason why Ricoh use the DA*55 f1.4 stopped down a bit).

Last edited by biz-engineer; 10-02-2015 at 10:14 AM.
10-02-2015, 03:01 PM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Cumming, GA
Posts: 563
Bottom Line: Pixel Shift does expand the capability of the camera's sensor and allows it do much more resolution-wise without having to expand the camera.
Even with its limited tripod laden use it scores on image quality with no extra moolah. Its a no brainer winner.
10-02-2015, 03:27 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Pixel shift is not comparable to a 6D. The 6D does not have the limitation of having to use a tripod on totally still subject. However, when conditions allow pixel shift, pixel shift almost compares to diffraction limited medium format system. The reason is combining 4 shots shifted shots roughly equate to the amount on data of a single frame from an MF sensor at the same ISO, the random noise of the smaller APSC sensor being averaged out in the raw stacking process (deterministic errors remain). For best pixel shift results should are obtained by using a f2.8 lens and stop-it down to f4.0 or F5.6 (that's the reason why Ricoh use the DA*55 f1.4 stopped down a bit).


OK, if you say so. All I know is that no matter how hard you try, the 6D can't produce the same IQ quality for what I'm shooting and printing with a single press of the shutter button.


So it really isn't fair to compare the 6D as there's no way it could win... (But that maybe was what you were saying... )

---------- Post added 10-02-15 at 04:31 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by shardulm Quote
Bottom Line: Pixel Shift does expand the capability of the camera's sensor and allows it do much more resolution-wise without having to expand the camera.
Even with its limited tripod laden use it scores on image quality with no extra moolah. Its a no brainer winner.




For me, I'm 99% of the time on a tripod anyway. It may be a no brainer but it took some thought to realize the potential. And in actual use, it's like taking a time exposure. It's THAT easy and well implemented. Like I said, most of my best selling landscapes could have been shot with pixel shift and would have been better for it.


Moolah, size, weight, complicated interface...

10-04-2015, 12:32 AM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,522
I can see the difference from the images posted here from the K-3II and 6D. The 6D image has a resolution of 800x268 pixels, and the K-3II image has a resolution of 1200x520. Indeed, pixel shift is a winner.
10-04-2015, 03:02 AM   #21
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,226
That is impressive. As you say, regardless of format, most of the best landscape photos come on relatively still days. Anyway, whether pixel shift was used or not, the image is very nice. Beautifully captured and worth the effort, in my opinion.
10-04-2015, 04:14 AM   #22
Forum Member
radeon7750's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Romania
Posts: 95
Could you post the original images (full size)?
10-04-2015, 04:24 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Tjompen1968's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote

Another thing about pixel shift, your lens only has to be 24mp sharp, not 50mp sharp, yet it gives you 45mp output. think about it.
This is confusing me. I thought that the file you get using pixelshift is a 24 MP file. 6000x4000. Is that wrong? Are there different settings with the pixelshift or just one?

10-04-2015, 08:24 AM - 1 Like   #24
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,039
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
Another thing about pixel shift, your lens only has to be 24mp sharp, not 50mp sharp, yet it gives you 45mp output. think about it.

Nonsense
10-04-2015, 08:41 AM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,522
From full size shots taken with the 35 F2.8 macro, tripod, still subject, I see only slightly sharper image with pixel shift, but I have to zoom at 100% and look very very carefully. When there is moiré artefacts without pixel shift, the moiré artefacts also end-up in the pixel shift resolution, so regarding resolving power for periodic details, this is not more than 24Mp. What pixel shift does is slightly better demosaicing than bayer's pattern demosaicing, and noise reduction by averaging 4 pixels into 1. To benefit from pixel shift for landscape, diffraction should not kick-in, hence lower f-stop such f4 or f5.6 max...then depth of field should be considered...

Basically, stitching 4 vertical images and downsizing to 6000x4000 deliver more details then pixel shift. But obviously, stitching require more PP work than pixel shift.
10-04-2015, 10:46 AM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by zapp Quote

Nonsense


Nonsense
10-04-2015, 01:40 PM   #27
Pentaxian
Tjompen1968's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,329
Can someone with the K-3 II please answer if the pixelshifted image has 6000x4000 pixels or if it has another amount of pixels...
10-04-2015, 02:23 PM   #28
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,522
QuoteOriginally posted by Tjompen1968 Quote
Can someone with the K-3 II please answer if the pixelshifted image has 6000x4000 pixels or if it has another amount of pixels...
The jpeg converted image is 6000x4000, with pixel shift or without pixel shift. But the RAW file (before conversion) contains the information of 4 raw shots of 6000x4000 pixels.
After raw to jpeg conversion, the image is a 24Mpixels image, with eventually slightly more quality (eventually better sharpness and less noise).
10-04-2015, 02:30 PM   #29
Pentaxian
Tjompen1968's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The jpeg converted image is 6000x4000, with pixel shift or without pixel shift. But the RAW file (before conversion) contains the information of 4 raw shots of 6000x4000 pixels.
After raw to jpeg conversion, the image is a 24Mpixels image, with eventually slightly more quality (eventually better sharpness and less noise).
Thank you! (I finally found a pixel shifted DNG to check out...)
10-04-2015, 02:40 PM   #30
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,522
I'd be interested to see a 100% crop comparison between pixel shift and non pixel shift images taken with zoom lenses and apertures such at f16.
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!
breeze, camera, canon, day, dslr, ff, forecast, k-3, k3, k3ii, landscape, love, pentax, pentax k-3, pixel, pixel shift, reason, sensor, shift, shot, shots, tamron, time, tripod, weeks, wind
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K3II: Pixel Shift First Test DDoram Pentax K-3 168 11-24-2015 10:15 AM
K3II Pixel Shift ISO 6400 DDoram Pentax K-3 9 08-08-2015 09:49 PM
Pixel shift for landscapes seachongo Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 06-25-2015 03:25 PM
Pixel shift practical applications Spodeworld Pentax K-3 20 04-25-2015 10:01 AM
Pixel shift and bracketing Spodeworld Pentax K-3 9 04-23-2015 08:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 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