Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-14-2015, 09:57 PM - 3 Likes   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
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...


Boring subjects look great in great light, great subjects look boring in boring light. Always try to shoot great subjects in great light... This is actually the hard part, everything else is controllable and easy.

10-16-2015, 02:55 AM   #32
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
Always try to shoot great subjects in great light
and don't forget subject isolation, having a sharp background, or funny bokeh aberration that pixel shift causes can distract from the main subject if its in the foreground which is the number one reason why people want full frame in the first place (less pissing around in post)
10-16-2015, 03:15 AM   #33
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,233
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
and don't forget subject isolation, having a sharp background, or funny bokeh aberration that pixel shift causes can distract from the main subject if its in the foreground which is the number one reason why people want full frame in the first place (less pissing around in post)
I'm not clear what you are talking about. If you are talking about narrow depth of field, then yes, you wouldn't use pixel shift for it. But my experience is that that is more applicable to portrait photography where you probably would not be printing at such large sizes as Ed is talking about here. In the majority of landscapes, the goal is not to obtain bokeh at all, but rather to have everything in focus -- foreground to background and if pixel shift adds detail to those photos, then it can be beneficial.

I don't think Ed was saying that there isn't a place for full frame cameras. Obviously he owns one. He is just saying that for this specific application pixel shift can give results that compare to a high pixel count full frame camera.
10-16-2015, 04:36 AM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,527
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
and don't forget subject isolation, having a sharp background, or funny bokeh aberration that pixel shift causes can distract from the main subject if its in the foreground which is the number one reason why people want full frame in the first place (less pissing around in post)
Pixel shift does not change the information incoming to the sensor. Pixel shift equates oversampling. The only situation where pixel shift result in aberration is when the image changes between the 4 samples being captured. If sharp / blurred areas do no change during the pixel-shift sampling process, there is no aberration, the edge between sharp plane and blurred plane also gets more resolution.

10-16-2015, 08:28 AM   #35
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Pixel shift does not change the information incoming to the sensor. Pixel shift equates oversampling. The only situation where pixel shift result in aberration is when the image changes between the 4 samples being captured. If sharp / blurred areas do no change during the pixel-shift sampling process, there is no aberration, the edge between sharp plane and blurred plane also gets more resolution.
I'm talking about the aberration you get from the lens, the problem with bayer filters is you always lose some detail due to diffraction but that also helps hide lens flaws. by the way oversampling is the wrong word to use to describe pixel shift (oversampling would imply mathematical guess based on nearest neighbour) leveraging is a better word to use as it takes 4 sets of data and works out the average for each pixel which in turn improves overall image accuracy
10-16-2015, 09:04 AM - 1 Like   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
and don't forget subject isolation, having a sharp background, or funny bokeh aberration that pixel shift causes can distract from the main subject if its in the foreground which is the number one reason why people want full frame in the first place (less pissing around in post)


Most people who use this as reason to justify full frame really have no idea what the depth of field for a F1.4 50mm or 85mm lens looks like on a full frame camera.


The depth of field is SO NARROW that it is really only usable in VERY and LIMITED specific situations. F2.8 on an APS-C camera is MORE THAN sufficient for isolating a bride for a very close head shot bridal portrait, for example. Her portrait would look ridiculous if her nose were in focus and her eyes weren't or her eyes were in focus but her nose wasn't.


As someone else said, I think Full Frame is great. But only very marginally better than APS-c and the gap is closing.


In practice I have been shooting APS-c weddings since the Canon 20D and NEVER had the reason or desire to shoot FF weddings. The only thing I wanted FF for was resolution and rendering in landscapes, and APS-c has killed that need/desire.


I will probably buy a Pentax FF if it's any good.
10-16-2015, 09:06 AM - 1 Like   #37
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 168
QuoteOriginally posted by civiletti Quote
That is not a very good answer. There is nothing personal in this. We make images with cameras and lenses and then compare them. It is a fine thing to do, but many factors can influence the end product. Making everything equal is not so simple. If we want to declare a particular camera outperforms another camera, we should explain how we tried to keep everything equal. If we skip that part, serious readers will discount our judgment.
Look dude, it's a personal opinion. I hate how this place goes all ham on anyone trying to give any opinion that isn't formulated out of perfect scientific lab test that need to hold up in Scientific America. I mean really. You need to evaluate your life if you are giving this guy grief for making a good effort at providing info for others.

Reminds me of Nation Lampoons vacation when the grouch old father in law, after looking at Clark's giant holiday light display, says, "Clark, you know the little white lights aren't blinking".
10-16-2015, 09:08 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 615
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
I'm talking about the aberration you get from the lens, the problem with bayer filters is you always lose some detail due to diffraction but that also helps hide lens flaws. by the way oversampling is the wrong word to use to describe pixel shift (oversampling would imply mathematical guess based on nearest neighbour) leveraging is a better word to use as it takes 4 sets of data and works out the average for each pixel which in turn improves overall image accuracy

I say shoot both and decide what does what and is useful for what.


There's a lot of things about digital photography that in theory are wonderful and in practice are meaningless or bad. Like AA filters.


Pixel shift makes my K3II return D810 images under certain conditions which tend to be 90% of what I would want a D810 to shoot. End of story for me.

10-16-2015, 09:12 AM   #39
Loyal Site Supporter
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,005
Very interesting! I'm impressed. When you can show me a huge print with a pixel shifted squirrel...I'm a buyer!

Regards!
10-16-2015, 10:54 AM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,527
Well, buying 3 or 4 cameras model (K-5, K5-IIs, K-3, K-3II, D750, D810, 7DII) and lenses might well represent as much money as buying a new MF system. What I learned with Pentax is that I spent as much money for 3 APSC upgrades than if I had bought a D800E straight away. But, Pentax executives once stated that it was good to offer many different lenses (covering the sames FL ranges) because people like to try them out. I agree with the Pentax exec. If we buy a 645z system right away, we have nothing to buy for the next 10 years, no need to wait for something else, it's boring. It is more exciting to buy a K-3, then a K-3II, and then wait for a FF or another APSC with more BSI pixels, then upgrade to another full frame or whatever.
10-16-2015, 03:22 PM   #41
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
Most people who use this as reason to justify full frame really have no idea what the depth of field for a F1.4 50mm or 85mm lens looks like on a full frame camera.
that's a bs generalisation your forgetting some of us have shot with actual 35mm film and larger so we know damn well how shallow the depth of field is and what to expect

QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
There's a lot of things about digital photography that in theory are wonderful and in practice are meaningless or bad. Like AA filters.
aa filters are not a bad thing, the are just not needed today as the latest and greatest camera's have several times more pixels to work with than cameras a decade ago



o
10-16-2015, 03:55 PM   #42
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,830
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
that's a bs generalisation your forgetting some of us have shot with actual 35mm film and larger so we know damn well how shallow the depth of field is and what to expect
I shot FF MF and larger, for many years, yet never bothered to get a 1.4 lens, the fastest I shot was 1.8. How many of us have shot ƒ1.4 on film? I doubt it's very many, you want us to run a poll? I know I never did. If you shot 1.4 on film then you also know, the problem on film always seemed to be getting enough DoF, not getting narrow DoF. I often ended up shooting 200 ISO or 400 ISO because I knew I couldn't get enough D0F with a finer grain film.

Last edited by normhead; 10-17-2015 at 07:31 AM.
10-16-2015, 05:49 PM   #43
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,438
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
...really have no idea what the depth of field for a F1.4 50mm or 85mm lens looks like on a full frame camera.

The depth of field is SO NARROW that it is really only usable in VERY and LIMITED specific situations.
So true and consistently finding accurate focus into that range is VERY difficult, is out of the capability of currently available PDAF systems and is virtually impossible using optical manual focus with the stock focus screens on current model cameras. F/1.8 is somewhat more accessible, but just barely.


Steve

(...uses a well-calibrated split image finder...)
10-16-2015, 05:57 PM   #44
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,438
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
How many of us have shot ƒ1.4 on film?
I have and for the most part, it ain't fun. Ditto for f/2 and faster at greater than 75mm.


Steve
10-16-2015, 06:08 PM   #45
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,438
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
What I learned with Pentax is that I spent as much money for 3 APSC upgrades than if I had bought a D800E straight away.
I feel for ya man...

I have been shooting flagship model Pentax digital for almost eight years and have spent less than $2500 for APS-C gear.


Steve
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 04:44 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