Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-03-2015, 03:51 PM   #136
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
No, for freezing motion and handhelp tele lens, 1/500th shutter speed with indoors lighting = ISO1600 minimum @ f3.5 . Using ISO800 lead to more blurred photos. So, the best tradeoff lens sharpness + noise is around ISO1600 to ISO2000, it's a setting at a corner of the APSC perf, it is not possible to do better with having a larger sensor.
Say you shoot 135mm f/3.5, I can shoot at 77mm f/2.2. You are at iso 1600, I'am at iso 640.

This is not science fiction, I have this FA77 and I have no issue to keep iso 800 and reasonnable shutter speed using the fast apperture of the lens.

We could argue that at f/2.2 the lens is soft. True up to a point because one or 2 time I got landscape shot at that apperture and that lot of sharper than one would think.

My biggest issue is that 77mm f/2.2 (equivalent of FF f:/3.5) is already very thin dof so my issue there is to be able to close the lens to say f/4 - f/5.6... Sure I would be at 3200-6400 iso depending of the apperture I choose. But if I want more dof, I need to close down the FF too... to f/5.6 or f/8 so I get 6400-12800 iso range.

There no silver bullet, what I get on one side, I loose on the other side. It is only if I want to use the widest possible apperture on FF that I get better low light shoots.

11-03-2015, 04:02 PM   #137
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
My faster lenses are designed for FF... so a faster lens on APSC is not a valid argument.
Both lenses work on both system.

85mm f/1.4 on APSC will match 135mm on FF at f/2. There no faster lense up to my knowledge at such focal length.
A 135mm f/2 on APSC will match a 200mm on FF at f/2.8. There faster 200mm lense but it is VERY expensive.
if we go the very expensive route, a 200mm f/2 on APSC will match a VERY expensive 300mm f/2.8 on FF and also...
300mm f/2/8 on APSC will match a VERY expensive 400-500mm f/4 on FF... (450 but I think the primes are either 400 or 500).

You see for prime on teles, the question is to know if f/1.4 85 is better or worse than 135mm at f/2 that is better or worse than 200mm at f/2.8 and so on.

For zooms this is the same usually 70-200 f/2.8 are easy to find, they get you to up equivalent 300mm f/4 on an FF and there no zoom that are faster than f/4 and go up to 300m. If you get such zoom say a 100-300 f/4, you'll need a 150-450 f/5.6 to match...

Sure for shorter focal length were basically I don't need at much speed a 24mm f/1.4 will match a 35mm f/2 and there better than f/2 on FF. And a 35mm f/1.4 will match a 50mm f/2 while a 50mm f/1.2 will match a 85mm f/1.9...

And I soon as you close down the apperture, the only argument that remain is purely the comparison of lens performance.

Yes FF are better but slightly better (and much bigger/heavier) for a pro this make lot of sense. For an enthousiast, this is you that lift the bag and pay the lenses, so you choose. But in all cases if you take 2 great photographer of same level, great equivalent APSC and FF gear, the difference for most shoots will not be visible, a few shoots will show a slight difference and on the occasion, you get one picture that look significantly better on that FF than on that APSC... That's it. The whole question is how important it is for you.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-03-2015 at 04:32 PM.
11-03-2015, 04:14 PM   #138
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Exactly. So why do I need pixel shift when I'm shooting landscape? All I have to do is to tap 4 times on my phone screen if I don't want to touch the shutter button from my camera and I will get pretty much the same thing. Yes, with Canon I will spent 4 minutes more on my computer to stack those images.

But you don't have to agree with me. Grab a Pentax K-3 II and a Canon 6D and make some tests on your own in the field.

On the other hand I have much better low light performance and better DOF for 200$ more than what I paid for K-3 II. And I can use all Sigma Art lenses or brand new Tamron lenses (35mm f1.8, 45mm f1.8).

Pentax K-3 II is a real competitor to Nikon D7200 or Canon 7D Mark II, but trying to compare it to full frame cameras...it's not right. But then again, pixel shift images looks impressive when all necessary conditions are fulfilled.
if you tap 4 time on your phone, you are not on a tripod, the pictures will not be aligned => you'll not get anything sharp. Maybe an HDR shoot with auto align, but you'll not get something pixel sharp. Handled, HDR work but remove sharpness, you need to put the phone on a tripod... And counting we are not almost the same sensor size with 1.EV difference but with 5EV difference, you'll need 32 shoots (2^5 for 5 EV) at least to march the FF picture quality at iso 100.

if you tap 4 time on your canon, without tripod, same issue. With a good tripod, the same you need for pixel shift, then the pixel will be perfectly aligned and then you'll get lower noise level (like a iso25 mode) but you still need to perform full bayer interpolation. The key to this pixel shift is that the sensor move precisely between each shoot and so each pixel has all 3 colors information instead of 1. So no if you tap 4 time on the Canon, it will not work as well as pixel shift because each pixel has only 1 color information. There maybe less noise in the colors, but that still 1 single color per pixel.

But with both camera, you can do a panorama and get more definition this way. A tripod with pano head is better for near objects, but this is not mandatory.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-03-2015 at 04:21 PM.
11-03-2015, 11:26 PM   #139
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,522
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Say you shoot 135mm f/3.5, I can shoot at 77mm f/2.2. You are at iso 1600, I'am at iso 640.
77mm is too short for taking photos in a stadium. You have to keep in mind that we need the right focal length and the speed. I know that I could use a 77mm f1.8, I could use my 55mm 1.4 but that's not the point, 55mm is too short in a stadium or I'd need to be on the play ground itself in the middle of players and it's not possible. And there no such Pentax AF135 f2, except manual focus maybe, which at the speed of execution is just non sense. It's funny to see you bringing up a 135 f2 in here as you know that such a lens is not available and you know it. You are no a beginner and you are familiar with focal the trio FL, aperture and shutter speed, and you know the limitations so why comment on things that you know hit the camera system limits.

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
70-200 f/2.8 are easy to find, they get you to up equivalent 300mm f/4 on an FF
No, as far as speed is concerned, 200 2.8 on APSC is also 2.8 on FF. At the distance DoF is not a problem. With a FF cam and working distances, the lens of choice for sport is a 100-300 f2.8 (sorry Ricoh, it's not 150-450 f56 ...) .

---------- Post added 04-11-15 at 07:33 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
if you tap 4 time on your phone, you are not on a tripod, the pictures will not be aligned => you'll not get anything sharp.
You seem not to know that processing software can align stack of image with overall accuracy better than a pixel by taken multiple reference points, stack of photos can be from any camera, including a iPhone. Anyway, for stacking, the question was not about using a tripod for pixel shift and no tripod for the 6D. The point was that if you need a tripod, you stack images from any camera (6D whatever) that compare with pixel shift quality and in high iso without tripod conditions you get better images that the K-3.

---------- Post added 04-11-15 at 07:36 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Pentax K-3 II is a real competitor to Nikon D7200 or Canon 7D Mark II, but trying to compare it to full frame cameras...it's not right. But then again, pixel shift images looks impressive when all necessary conditions are fulfilled.
That makes sense.


Last edited by biz-engineer; 11-03-2015 at 11:45 PM.
11-04-2015, 01:24 AM   #140
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
No, as far as speed is concerned, 200 2.8 on APSC is also 2.8 on FF. At the distance DoF is not a problem. With a FF cam and working distances, the lens of choice for sport is a 100-300 f2.8 (sorry Ricoh, it's not 150-450 f56 ...)
Yeah but if you shoot 200mm f/2.8 on FF, I can shoot 135mm f/2 on APSC.

Only sigma has a 120-300 f/2.8 for 2800$, neither Canon or Nikon have a 100-300 f/2.8. Their lenses are f/4. This is the thing, if you want to get better than what a APSC shooter is going to get with is 70-200 f/2.8 you either spend 2800$ where some 70-200 f/2.8 models are at 600$, or you go for a 70-200 too, and you'll get less reach.

If you go for a 100-300 for your FF, the most likely is that you'll get an f/4 or f/5.6 lense. Let's face it. Oh you could take the sigma sure, but how many are doing that? No they take the geniune Canon or Nikon at f/4. Some get a bargain on an f/5.6 lens. And then if they don't have in addition the 70-200 f/2.8 and take the time to switch they don't get any more light gathering.

The worst thing is that if you really need reach and speed you'll spend a lot for a 200-400 f/4 (8000$ actually) and the guy with APSC will only need the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 to achieve the same!

The problem is that to leverage fully the FF advantage, you need to spend more like $10000 to be full of f/1.4 lenses and very fast zooms. All of this to be sure that a guy with its Samyang 85mm he brought for 300$ doesn't get sharper picture and more light gathering than what you got with your $2000 70-200 f/2.8... Like you'll want a 120-300 f/2.8 from sigma for 2800$ because well if shoot at f/4 300mm it quite easy to find a lens that cover 200mm f/2.8 in APSC for very reasonable price. This can even be a zoom.

Even if you go for 24-70 f/2.8, there a 18-35 f/1.8 waiting, it is really only that to replace that 70-200 zoom that the APSC guy need primes and that's not conveniant. That the biggest difference. Next one is that if both use their primes at f/1.4, where such lense at avaialble for the same framing, the FF get an edge, sure. The longuest focal length were you can achieve that is 85mm.

All of this doesn't make sense, in reality you have some gear, your get hopefully some great picture and if the photographer next to you is as great a photographer as you, he will get similar pictures. Sometime if you have spend much more on gear it will show a slight difference in your favor. In some other cases the slight difference will even give the edge on the cheaper gear.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-04-2015 at 01:36 AM.
11-04-2015, 01:40 AM   #141
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Pentax K-3 II is a real competitor to Nikon D7200 or Canon 7D Mark II, but trying to compare it to full frame cameras...it's not right. But then again, pixel shift images looks impressive when all necessary conditions are fulfilled.
Sure how theses proletarians even think of comparing their crap gear with what a real gentleman use for taking pictures, really? That's shocking.

Thes guys don't want to recognize the natural superiority of the real gear. FF vs APSC is not about a small sensor size difference. It is about the format god intended the pictures to be taken with and the format god designed most lenses for.
11-04-2015, 01:55 AM   #142
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,522
D4 + 100-300 f2.8 , no way K-3 can get similar results for dynamic shots, photographer doesn't matter in that case. With the D4 you'll get pixel sharp images, and with K-3 all you get is une bouillie de pixels.
11-04-2015, 02:02 AM   #143
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 634
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Sure how theses proletarians even think of comparing their crap gear with what a real gentleman use for taking pictures, really? That's shocking.

Thes guys don't want to recognize the natural superiority of the real gear. FF vs APSC is not about a small sensor size difference. It is about the format god intended the pictures to be taken with and the format god designed most lenses for.
I'm not sure I understand correctly what you're saying. If you say that an APS-C can match an full frame camera in real conditions (forget for a second pixel shift)...then why Ricoh even bother to come up with a full frame camera?

Later edit: When I said that I can tap 4 times my phone screen I was referring to the possibility to wirelessly control my 6D in order to not touch the shutter button or use the delay shutter. And like I said before, in theory you may be right, but do some comparison test between 4 stack images and one pixel shift image and then we can talk based on facts.


Last edited by Dan Rentea; 11-04-2015 at 02:08 AM.
11-04-2015, 04:39 AM   #144
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,224
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
I'm not sure I understand correctly what you're saying. If you say that an APS-C can match an full frame camera in real conditions (forget for a second pixel shift)...then why Ricoh even bother to come up with a full frame camera?

Later edit: When I said that I can tap 4 times my phone screen I was referring to the possibility to wirelessly control my 6D in order to not touch the shutter button or use the delay shutter. And like I said before, in theory you may be right, but do some comparison test between 4 stack images and one pixel shift image and then we can talk based on facts.
I think what I would say is that not all full frame cameras are created equally. Canon's sensor quality is not great when it comes to low iso performance and having played with image files from the 6D and 5D MK III, I would be disappointed to use one of these sensors. Of course you can do tricks to add dynamic range -- shoot multiple shots and stack them or, do multiple exposures, but to me one big plus of having full frame is the ability to shoot a single exposure and be able to process it into a final image that has relatively low noise and lots of detail. Certainly the 6D does not fit that bill and is not a significant step above the K3 in this regard. If you shoot at higher iso or do lots of portraits, then the 6D probably would be fine in this regard.

I think the coming Pentax full frame will have a Sony sensor -- either the 36 or 42 megapixel variety -- and both of those do significantly out perform current generation APS-C sensors.

It is sad to me that Canon has lagged so far behind when it comes to sensor performance. They used to be cutting edge in that regard, but they have slipped considerably. There are still a lot of nice things about their cameras, it just feels like their sensors match up well against Sony sensors from a couple of generations ago.
11-04-2015, 05:59 AM   #145
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 634
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I think what I would say is that not all full frame cameras are created equally. Canon's sensor quality is not great when it comes to low iso performance and having played with image files from the 6D and 5D MK III, I would be disappointed to use one of these sensors. Of course you can do tricks to add dynamic range -- shoot multiple shots and stack them or, do multiple exposures, but to me one big plus of having full frame is the ability to shoot a single exposure and be able to process it into a final image that has relatively low noise and lots of detail. Certainly the 6D does not fit that bill and is not a significant step above the K3 in this regard. If you shoot at higher iso or do lots of portraits, then the 6D probably would be fine in this regard.

I think the coming Pentax full frame will have a Sony sensor -- either the 36 or 42 megapixel variety -- and both of those do significantly out perform current generation APS-C sensors.

It is sad to me that Canon has lagged so far behind when it comes to sensor performance. They used to be cutting edge in that regard, but they have slipped considerably. There are still a lot of nice things about their cameras, it just feels like their sensors match up well against Sony sensors from a couple of generations ago.
Please look at all my comments from this topic. I didn't said that Canon 6D is a significant step above the K3. All I said is:

1. If I stack 4 images the result will be pretty much the same as a pixel shift image.

2. At low ISO Canon images are a little better than K-3 II images, but at high ISO the difference is quite big (this is my personal opinion)

3. I went to Canon for different motives, other than image quality of the Pentax (K-5 II and K-3 II which I owned)

4. The 200$ difference in price worth the upgrade

If the upcoming Pentax full frame will have the best scores in DXO tests, then I will be glad, because I love Pentax.

36mp or 42mp from the Pentax full frame will not justify for me the aditional costs that comes with it: expensive lenses (with Canon I have Sigma and Tamron), another investments in a computer that can manage big files, etc. And all this reasons combined with the reasons that I mentioned in the other comment made me jump in Canon boat. I could've go with Nikon, especially that I have a lot of friends which use Nikon, but I didn't like skin tones and general colors from D610.

I'm not a brand addicted, I just took a decision based on my needs.

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 11-05-2015 at 08:02 AM.
11-04-2015, 06:53 AM   #146
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
I've been shooting surf comps for years and I've never needed anything faster than f4 or longer than 200mm
anyone thinking they need a really fast lens with massive reach to shoot sports obviously forgotten the rule of diminishing returns when it comes to distance. (the further the subject is the lower the contrast/detail that can be accurately captured)
11-04-2015, 07:24 AM   #147
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,224
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Please look at all my comments from this topic. I didn't say that Canon 6D is a significant step above the K3. All I said is:

1. If I stack 4 images the result will be pretty much the same as a pixel shift image.

2. At low ISO Canon images are a little better than K-3 II images, but at high ISO the difference is quite big (this is my personal opinion)

3. I went to Canon for different motives, other than image quality of the Pentax (K-5 II and K-3 II which I owned)

4. The 200$ difference in price worth the upgrade

If the upcoming Pentax full frame will have the best scores in DXO tests, then I will be glad, because I love Pentax.

36mp or 42mp from the Pentax full frame will not justify for me the aditional costs that comes with it: expensive lenses (with Canon I have Sigma and Tamron), another investments in a computer that can manage big files, etc. And all this reasons combined with the reasons that I mentioned in the other comment made me jump in Canon boat. I could've go with Nikon, especially that I have a lot of friends which use Nikon, but I didn't like skin tones and general colors from D610.

I'm not a brand addicted, I just took a decision based on my needs.
That's fine. Sounds like Pentax doesn't have good presence in your country. Here in the States, the price of a 6D is 1400 on Amazon, while the K3 II is 810. That's closer to 600 dollars difference -- enough of a difference that you could get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a 50mm prime. I know that Pentax's presence in some countries is pretty dismal.

As to the third party lenses, there are still a decent number of Sigma and Tamron's available for cheap. Beyond which, in the US, Pentax lens pricing is pretty comparable to Canon/Nikon lenses.
11-04-2015, 12:05 PM   #148
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,522
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
I've been shooting surf comps for years and I've never needed anything faster than f4 or longer than 200mm anyone thinking they need a really fast lens with massive reach to shoot sports obviously forgotten the rule of diminishing returns when it comes to distance. (the further the subject is the lower the contrast/detail that can be accurately captured)
You really need f4 outdoors? For me f8 is sufficient, in summer time sunny weather I used my 18-250 at f8 and got good image quality from it.
Is surf indoors? Is 70-200 on APSC or 100-300 in FF massive reach ? Try indoors, and you'll understand what I'm referring to...
11-04-2015, 07:51 PM   #149
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,424
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
I've been shooting surf comps for years and I've never needed anything faster than f4 or longer than 200mm
anyone thinking they need a really fast lens with massive reach to shoot sports obviously forgotten the rule of diminishing returns when it comes to distance. (the further the subject is the lower the contrast/detail that can be accurately captured)
Is there some way we can make this comment a sticky...


Steve
11-05-2015, 03:37 AM   #150
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
You really need f4 outdoors?
that depends, ever try shooting off a jet ski, and i don't shoot at f4 its just a f4 lens strikes the right balance of weight and continuous autofocus speed (most f2.8s and wider can weigh 2 or 3 times the weight

QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Is 70-200 on APSC or 100-300 in FF massive reach
I consider 200mm to be the limit with aps-c and 300mm for full frame, going beyond and the image starts getting flatter due to the compression effect and contrast rolloff

QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Try indoors, and you'll understand what I'm referring to...
if your refering to indoor sports, then most venues have an ev of 10 (appox 1280 lux) film photographers had to work in these conditions, have a dslr made in the last 3 years then you too can push in post and still get cleaner and clearer shots than those film guys
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!
art, camera, canon, canon 6d, dslr, frame, images, k-3, k3, k3 ii test, k3ii, lens, panorama, pentax, pentax k-3, people, pixel, pixel shift, print, prints, resolution, shift, shift on k3, shot, test, test v canon
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
Testing K3 II pixel shift with dcraw tduell Pentax K-3 5 08-31-2015 10:59 PM
K-3 II Pixel shift for Macro? Omestes Pentax K-3 6 06-12-2015 08:13 PM
K3 II pixel-shift samples on IR. I'm impressed jonby Pentax K-3 42 06-02-2015 12:28 AM
K3 or Canon 6d - That is the question zorza Pentax K-3 95 05-08-2015 12:07 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:28 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