[stevebrot]

That is not a very good answer. There is nothing personal in this.

What he said...


Steve

[stevebrot]

SO Ed has actually taken the time to do side by side comparisons. My hat's off to you dude,

Indeed and I will remind anyone who did not read carefully on the other thread about these images that the two photos were shot on two different days and that it is about a 500 mile round trip for each shot. That is dedication. There may be reasons beyond simple tech for the superior print from the K-3II, but the evidence is clear that the potential is there for some very compelling results. I personally, would have liked to see full-resolution crops from the processed images, but that is just me. The proof is in the print and I believe there will be buyers for that one.


Steve

(BTW...$600 sounds like a lot of money, but the cost to produce is about a third of the price just for printing, mat, and frame for something that size.)

[civiletti]

Cause hell produces no amount of spin like an FF enthusiast defending his choice.

I do not have a full frame DSLR. I do like carefully controlled comparisons.

[biz-engineer]

Originally posted by biz-engineer Quote For $600, I don't buy your print, I buy a K-3II instead. Fine, I look forward to seeing your work! I will post a schedule of Art Shows I'll be at in 2016, and maybe I'll see you at one.

Sorry, there is a misunderstanding here. I apologize, I did not meant that your photographs are not good. I wanted to say, that if the pixel shift allow to make $600 prints, then the K-3II is definitely worth the money.

I won't travel in the US to expose my photographs beside yours, although in 15 years of digital photography, I do have photographs that could be exposed (some of the most beautiful being 10 Mega pixels...).
First, I not a pro, I do photography during my leisure time. Second, I think that art has nothing to do with pixel-shift, I think that comparing the resolution of two camera systems is more related to engineering than art.

I can tell you right now, Full Frame is definitely NOT "still the way to go." Believe that if you want, but my commercial work right now is done with APS-c as a choice over Full Frame. (Pending Pentax's FF release TBD, but no promises things have to be a big improvement over what I'm getting now. Size weight and cost are considerations.)

Sure, I have no doubt that your commercial work is done with APS-c as a choice over full frame . I look forward to your practical evaluation of the Pentax Full Frame. I afraid that you'll say that the new Pentax full frame is better than K3II pixel-shift (and normally it will).

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 10-11-2015 at 11:54 AM.

[Rondec]

Sorry, there is a misunderstanding here. I apologize, I did not meant that your photographs are not good. I wanted to say, that if the pixel shift allow to make $600 prints, then the K-3II is definitely worth the money.

I won't travel in the US to expose my photographs beside yours, although in 15 years of digital photography, I do have photographs that could be exposed (some of the most beautiful being 10 Mega pixels...).
First, I not a pro, I do photography during my leisure time. Second, I think that art has nothing to do with pixel-shift, I think that comparing the resolution of two camera systems is more related to engineering than art.



Sure, I have no doubt that your commercial work is done with APS-c as a choice over full frame . I look forward to your practical evaluation of the Pentax Full Frame. I afraid that you'll say that the new Pentax full frame is better than K3II pixel-shift (and normally it will).

I think the big question is how you can get better large prints. A straight k3 is going to do OK at normal prints sizes, even 16 by 20, but as you get larger and larger, you need help to get those prints to truly look sharp. This will require good technique (low iso, tripod) on whatever camera you are using. Imaging Resource had an article where they compared the K3 II with pixel shift to full frame cameras and the results were pretty impressive with regard to the detail added. Pentax K-3 II Review: Now Shooting! - Pixel Shift Resolution mode

In the end, these are all tools. The question is only what you need to do to get the final results you desire. Ed has shared that he has found this to be a relatively cheap camera body/lens to achieve good results. You can't ask for much more than that.

[Qwntm]

Sorry, there is a misunderstanding here. I apologize, I did not meant that your photographs are not good. I wanted to say, that if the pixel shift allow to make $600 prints, then the K-3II is definitely worth the money.

I won't travel in the US to expose my photographs beside yours, although in 15 years of digital photography, I do have photographs that could be exposed (some of the most beautiful being 10 Mega pixels...).
First, I not a pro, I do photography during my leisure time. Second, I think that art has nothing to do with pixel-shift, I think that comparing the resolution of two camera systems is more related to engineering than art.



Sure, I have no doubt that your commercial work is done with APS-c as a choice over full frame . I look forward to your practical evaluation of the Pentax Full Frame. I afraid that you'll say that the new Pentax full frame is better than K3II pixel-shift (and normally it will).

Fair enough, no need to apologize, I appreciate the clarification. (Maybe I spend too much time on DPreview? Everything everyone says is an attack over there...)


I agree art is somewhat in the eye of the cash holder. A D810 produces better IQ than a K3/II straight up by a small amount. (Like Arnold Palmer is better than the local club champion by only a few strokes.) The K3II with pixel shift is as good as a D810 straight. (And it's not just me and my 2 print test, has anyone else poo-pooing my print test read the Imaging-Resource pixel shift review where they actually compared the K3II PS to a D810 and 645D???? There's your controlled testing. My 2 print test only confirms what they found...) Luckily for me, the narrow window the K3II shoots pixel shift in works specifically for what and why I would shoot a D810 for. When I factor in size/weight/cost and personal preference the K3II allows me to NOT shoot FF at this time, and have to shoot a camera system I don't prefer too. Let the Pentax FF be small/light/ and priced right (for a FF) and there's no question I'll be shooting that. IF the New Pentax FF is not better than the K3II, Pentax is DOOOMED!!!

---------- Post added 10-12-15 at 09:31 AM ----------

I think the big question is how you can get better large prints. A straight k3 is going to do OK at normal prints sizes, even 16 by 20, but as you get larger and larger, you need help to get those prints to truly look sharp. This will require good technique (low iso, tripod) on whatever camera you are using. Imaging Resource had an article where they compared the K3 II with pixel shift to full frame cameras and the results were pretty impressive with regard to the detail added. Pentax K-3 II Review: Now Shooting! - Pixel Shift Resolution mode

In the end, these are all tools. The question is only what you need to do to get the final results you desire. Ed has shared that he has found this to be a relatively cheap camera body/lens to achieve good results. You can't ask for much more than that.

Yes, exactly what I have found. APS-c with good technique and 16-24 mp's gets me to 16x20 and 24-30 no problem. But when you go 30x40 or 40x60 or crop heavily for a 16x48 or 24x72 then a 36, 42, or 50 mp full frame and now the K3II with PS are really the only way to go.


Thanks for posting the link to the IR tests. My 2 print example really only just confirmed those findings, no big surprise here. Though one take away might be that a 6D is NOT a D810, or all full frames are not the same. I'm pretty sure that if I had done my 2 print test with a D810 or 5Dsr, there would be little to no practical difference. And I think that's the whole point about the K3II and Pixel Shift.

[biz-engineer]

Or am I missing something?

I think you are seeing the big picture :-), not missing anything. At a viewing distance on 1x the diagonal of the print (so that we can see what the whole picture is about), the eye can't discern anything above 7 effective Mega pixels. However, when looking close or very close, the need for more mega pixels increases quickly.

[Qwntm]

When we discuss the resolution of the print and compare a small print to a large print one has to remember that the large print is only viewed from the same distance as the small print if you are a photographer. The rest of the human race looks at a large print from a larger distance making the lower resolution of the large print less of an issue.

A large panorama over my sofa will not reveal more detail to the viewer if I double the print resolution from 180 to 360 since only a photographer would stand on the sofa with his reading glasses.

BUT for me it is required that the resolution is 240 or above. I am a photographer =)

Or am I missing something?

The only thing your missing is the $600 price tag... Put that on a print and people take out their reading glasses and get INCHES away from it... Just sayin'

[Ratcheteer]

idiotic comparison , the aps-c is gonna look sharper cause it has a bigger depth of field

[civiletti]

When we discuss the resolution of the print and compare a small print to a large print one has to remember that the large print is only viewed from the same distance as the small print if you are a photographer. The rest of the human race looks at a large print from a larger distance making the lower resolution of the large print less of an issue.

A large panorama over my sofa will not reveal more detail to the viewer if I double the print resolution from 180 to 360 since only a photographer would stand on the sofa with his reading glasses.

BUT for me it is required that the resolution is 240 or above. I am a photographer =)

Or am I missing something?

It depends on the photograph. Moving in to examine the detail of a landscape image is not for photographers alone. The same is true of macro-images.

[Rondec]

When we discuss the resolution of the print and compare a small print to a large print one has to remember that the large print is only viewed from the same distance as the small print if you are a photographer. The rest of the human race looks at a large print from a larger distance making the lower resolution of the large print less of an issue.

A large panorama over my sofa will not reveal more detail to the viewer if I double the print resolution from 180 to 360 since only a photographer would stand on the sofa with his reading glasses.

BUT for me it is required that the resolution is 240 or above. I am a photographer =)

Or am I missing something?

My experience is that people look at the photograph from a distance and then move in closer to see the detail. If the detail is there, they much more impressed than if they see a pixelated mess or a soft smeared looking image.

If you are printing your own images for your home, people probably won't say anything, but if you are selling them, folks probably will be more willing to buy if an image is great on both distant and close up viewing.

[biz-engineer]

It's controversial, Picasso painting are very low resolution, but they are very expensive.

---------- Post added 14-10-15 at 13:13 ----------

It depends on the photograph. Moving in to examine the detail of a landscape image is not for photographers alone. The same is true of macro-images.

I figured that the resolution requirement essentially depends on the bandwidth contained in the scene / subject.

[AtitG]

i hope that ed would also show which situations in landscape photography works with pixel shift technology. I regularly watch his channel.ü

[normhead]

For $600, I don't buy your print, I buy a K-3II instead.

Ah, but then you don't get the image, you just get a camera. When I do my shows I'm always amused by the folks who ask me where I took the image. The want to go there with their camera and take the picture themselves. I tell them, "Couldn't go there again and take this picture. If you want this picture, buy this picture." The truth is, I've taken a picture been annoyed by the purple fringing or whatever and gone back to retake. Landscape doesn't work that way. The unique qualities of light colour , texture etc. are never the same twice. A lot of the time, a picture with a few flaws, is still better than any retake you'll ever get. If you like this picture, buy this picture. We sell our 30x40s for $300, and I don't see a lot of folks getting up close with them, they still stand back.

Usually the most compelling aspect of an image is not the resolution.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/203024-who-took...hotograph.html

I'm not saying you can't build a style based on resolution, as Gursky does, I'm saying that's a personal choice based on your personal style. Our most popular print was taken on a 10 MP point and shoot. We regularly sell prints printed at the 125 DPI range. You upscale them to 300 DPI to get the best out of your Canoan printer, but the basic image before the upscale can be as low as 100 DPI and still produce a print that fetches top dollar. Composition remains the chief aspect in saleability, resolution for most images , unless you're Gursky and actually charging hundreds of thousands for a print, remains way down the list.

[biz-engineer]

Landscape doesn't work that way. The unique qualities of light colour , texture etc. are never the same twice.

Yes, exactly, to be honest, the main issue that I have , is not not having pixel shift, or not having a FF camera. My main concern is not to be there at the right place and time... I should carry a camera all the time, because when I'm there at the right moment, I don't have the camera and when I have the camera with me, nature does not show-up...