Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-22-2015, 08:35 AM   #76
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,474
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The aperture settings are missing for K-3 and D750, so, the image-resource comparison can't be considered as a valid proof of equivalence...
He used the "E" word. Does that mean it is time for me to bring up Hitler?


Steve

10-22-2015, 08:49 AM   #77
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
I guess I would just say that if you are mostly shooting stopped down a little and not printing very large, you probably won't see a big difference. If you shoot at f2 on APS-C or print very large a lot or are always hitting iso 1600 on your crop camera (and want to print those files big), then sure, there is a difference. For a lot of shots, there isn't a big difference.

I have brought up multiple times that the only way you get benefit from full frames better performance is if you are willing to shoot with more narrow depth of field. this is probably fine to do in many situations, but I have had a lot more photos spoiled by too narrow a depth of field than too much and if I am stopping down to match my APS-C depth of field and pushing the iso to compensate, then that benefit will go out of the window.
10-24-2015, 04:04 PM   #78
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by civiletti Quote
Norm, if I had a Pentax full frame DSLR with the same sensor tech as my K5, I would make the images you request. But then, the relationship between format, lens aperture, and diffusion is so simple, that anyone willing to think a little does not need images to confirm it.

---------- Post added 10-21-15 at 08:28 PM ----------




This agrees with what I have been writing and you have been arguing against! Full frame diffraction limiting happens at about one stop smaller aperture than on APS-C. Have you lost track of the discussion?
But what normhead says stay valid... there no much difference between the 2 cameras in the comparison. Other aspects may have more influence like how much you hand shake and the actual lenses.

For example the comparison is made with a 70 macro. That's a very sharp lense. And when I take picture with my DA35 or FA77 I also get VERY sharp pictures. I know I can print large with theses 2. Honestly these 2 lenses are so sharp that you don't need more... And even 24MP without pixel shift is enough.

I know that for the DA15, DA21, and F135 that's not exactly the same. the F135 need to be closed down and is a purple monster. The DA15 isn't as sharp as I would like, even the 21 due to aspects like field curvature, so it will depend of the shoot. One would say yes, with an FF your wide angle would look better blahblahblah. True to a point but that doesn't explain then with the sigma 8-16 is a such high performer or how great pictures taken with a samyang 16mm f/2 APSC lense look like. It also discard the differences in price.

Where I agree is that pixel shift is a trick that work sometime, so I don't find it interresting. I would prefer it work all the time and that it help my lower performing lense to perform better. I'am not sure that is the case. If my lense is sharp the picture will be sharp even without pixel shift. And yeah, a 24MP APSC will perform very similar to a 24MP FF. But honestly this is not were the problem is...

The biggest thing maybe between APSC and FF is that f/2.8 on that APSC with that lense might not be as good as f/4 on that FF sensor with another lense. At f/4 the other lense might be more constrasty, sharper and have less optical flaws than the APSC lense at f/2.8... The FF lense might have better focus transition...

Not like you could not use the same lense at f/4 on your APSC, but that it would not give the same framing... The preference for the rendering of larger format is that the focus transition look better on longer focal length but that if you want to have some field of view out of it, you need a large sensor to fully benefit of it.

I know time when I took pictures with the 77 and I really wanted the dof I could get a f/2... but I took pictures at many apperture and overall kept the f/2.8 because it allowed me to get much better contrast. The f/4 was best but I could get it from post processing... From f/2, getting the same result as f/4 would have made the picture over cooked. So I choosed the f/2.8 shoot and lost a bit of subject separation.

But that's not that a common problem to me neither.

No, my problem is really my WA sharpness and that I don't want to mess up with big lenses. Going FF mean big as well as high quality APSC WA. I'am stuck.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 10-24-2015 at 04:18 PM.
10-24-2015, 08:56 PM   #79
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,866
QuoteOriginally posted by civiletti Quote
Norm, if I had a Pentax full frame DSLR with the same sensor tech as my K5, I would make the images you request. But then, the relationship between format, lens aperture, and diffusion is so simple, that anyone willing to think a little does not need images to confirm it.
No, nothing is ever simple. You always need to confirm it. That how incorrect assumptions get started.


QuoteOriginally posted by civiletti Quote
This agrees with what I have been writing and you have been arguing against! Full frame diffraction limiting happens at about one stop smaller aperture than on APS-C. Have you lost track of the discussion?
Well actually it agrees with what i said, which was if you compensate for DoF, FF and APS-c are equal. 22 APS-c is 332 FF for DoF and the you end up with one stop less light for the FF camera, meaning total light, and noise are the same for the same image. FF only has an advantage is you take a different picture with different DoF, but use the same ISO and shutter speed.

Looking at the charts you could also notice that the drop pff on 32 is so much, that it's only moderately ahead of 22 on APS-c, even with the huge discrepancy in posable resolution, 4000 for FF 2350 for APS-c.

I'm not sure you're even reading the numbers.




The drop off as a percentage is pretty similar. Normalizing DoF, you can get just as good an image at 22 on APS-c on a 16 MP camera as you can on a 36 MP FF. The two graphs , which are actual measurements do not support the notion that diffraction affects APS-c more than FF. But these are actual measurements of actual lenses, not theoretical non-sense unsubstantiated by any real world testing.

10-25-2015, 01:57 AM   #80
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,546
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The drop off as a percentage is pretty similar. Normalizing DoF, you can get just as good an image at ƒ22 on APS-c on a 16 MP camera as you can on a 36 MP FF. The two graphs , which are actual measurements do not support the notion that diffraction affects APS-c more than FF. But these are actual measurements of actual lenses, not theoretical non-sense unsubstantiated by any real world testing.
There are generalities that are valid for most cases, and particular cases that lead to a different results. There are always people who point out a particular case to invalidate the state of the art. So, we get things like "no, FF is not better than APSC if if if if if...". Okay fine. I have not issues with depth of the field and autofocus with my Nikon Coolpix 2100 or Canon Powershot 710 IS. But when I used K200D, the image quality was so much better that there was no need to compare. But, for people who can spend much and value depth of field more than anything else, there are a lot of point and shots cameras that just do that for cheap and in a small size. When the Pentax FF will be out, please continue to say that APSC is better, and please don't buy a Pentax FF then.
10-25-2015, 04:26 AM   #81
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,041
QuoteOriginally posted by rullrich Quote
Well, it's a forum called PentaxForums so I don't thinks it's wrong concentrate on that said brand. But still I find people quite openminded. Did you realize that the comparison was done by a pro with 30 years of experience? Was this comparison made to distract people from FF? Not, it wasn't, it was to show people what's possible with a specific camera from a specific brand. But what people do first is to critize the methodolgy of the comparison itself and second cry for FF, as if it was the holy grail for everything. So don't tell me you mean this by "open". And by the way: nobody in this thread defends something to death, but if someone feels that arguments are only arguments and nothing else, than please provide some evidence, and please do it as a photographer, so that dummy amateurs like can follow your experience.
Come on, it took quite some effort to find a FF camera that can be beaten by a Pentax K3ii feature. The Canon will probably be replaced next year by a new model with more megapixels and many other features. The shortcomings of K3ii hyper reoslution mode are also obvious. At the same time this discussion is not at all about FF vs. APS-C as other factors become important. We are looking at a valid comparison that is overinterpreted by most of you above.
10-25-2015, 04:59 AM   #82
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,253
QuoteOriginally posted by zapp Quote
Come on, it took quite some effort to find a FF camera that can be beaten by a Pentax K3ii feature. The Canon will probably be replaced next year by a new model with more megapixels and many other features. The shortcomings of K3ii hyper reoslution mode are also obvious. At the same time this discussion is not at all about FF vs. APS-C as other factors become important. We are looking at a valid comparison that is overinterpreted by most of you above.
An odd comment. I posted earlier a link to imaging resource's evaluation of the pixel shift feature and it was pretty clear that the pixel shift, where it could be used, produced more detail/dynamic range than available full frame cameras except for those with the Sony 36 megapixel sensor in them (42 megapixel sensor wasn't available then).

From DXO Mark's evaluation, I think it is clear that for landscape applications, at least from low iso dynamic range standpoint, Canon cameras lag a lot. This is low level full frame up to flagship 5Ds. They are good cameras, but would not be choice for landscapes.
10-25-2015, 07:30 AM   #83
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,866
QuoteQuote:
There are generalities that are valid for most cases, and particular cases that lead to a different results.
Sometimes but not always, I wouldn't bet the bank on that. The issue I have with statements like that is so often they are made in places like the other thread on this issue, on the D750, where you have people who the last Pentax they shot with was the K10D, but they also have a new D750, and they say the FF is better. Well, the best DR camera made by Pentax was the K-5. SO, the first thing you have to ask, is are they comparing recent technology? My biggest problem comparing charts with diffraction limits is finding charts on recent systems. SInce they use the same lenses, the effect of diffraction on APS-c and FF is likely determined by pixel size, not sensor size. That is the same with CA etc., not what format the sensor is.

I'd love to see 24 MP a K-3 24 MP chart compared with a 24 MP D750 chart, that to me would be a real world test of diffraction limits. But making assumptions based on anything but pixel size, is going to lead to erroneous assumptions. Sensor size in itself has nothing to do with it.

Now if some guy wants to say his D750 is better than his K-10D I have no problem with that. But then if he wants to say it's better than my K-3, he better be ble to provide some examples, because there are many more differences that do not relate to FF vs APS-c between newer and older cameras. What I don't understand is why people who don't own both a K-3 and a D750 would even get into the issue. Or why they would comment in a an APS-c vs FF thread.

10-25-2015, 08:05 AM   #84
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
What I don't understand is why people who don't own both a K-3 and a D750 would even get into the issue. Or why they would comment in a an APS-c vs FF thread.
2 reasons:
- They want to choose the best alternative between the 2.
- They want to justify their past choice (either the money cautious APSC buyer want to show FF is no better or the FF supporter want to show the APSC camera are not up to snuff)

The reality is of course more complex and there no need to be a genius to get that if your compare 2 large sensor camera system with same MP, you'll not see a major difference in sharpness, for sure. As the sensors use the same technology you should not even expect real difference in high dynamic range or color deph.

What is left over is that one sensor is bigger than the other and so get more light at the expense of deph of field and use longer focal length for the same framing and so get slightly different in focus - out of focus transition.

So because the K3-II feature the pixel shift and the D750 not, in the few cases where pixel shift is legitimate, the K3 provide significantly better shoots. That's logical.

The D750 is a camera made for weddings: 24MP is more than enough and the goal is not ultimate sharpness and small details in landscape. The goal is to leverage the light gathering and dof possibility of an FF in a type of shooting that benefit the most of it. That's silly to expect such camera to play well in the ultimate resolution arena while it has not be designed for this and there much more obvious choice if you are after resolution like any of the D800 familly or the new 5DS / A7R-II cameras. The D750 is also playing the role as an entry-mid level FF for all that do not care/want that many MP but still want a reliable camera.

If pixel shift is really something you can leverage then the next logical step might be to do some pano as you can really jump in quality. You can take all sort of pano with any kind of field of view you like and get hundreds of MP. Ironically, this is going to work as well on FF & APSC cameras. The key is more to get an advenced automated pano head if you plan to do that often.
10-27-2015, 03:17 PM   #85
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,378
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
2 reasons:
- They want to choose the best alternative between the 2.
- They want to justify their past choice (either the money cautious APSC buyer want to show FF is no better or the FF supporter want to show the APSC camera are not up to snuff)

The reality is of course more complex and there no need to be a genius to get that if your compare 2 large sensor camera system with same MP, you'll not see a major difference in sharpness, for sure. As the sensors use the same technology you should not even expect real difference in high dynamic range or color deph.

What is left over is that one sensor is bigger than the other and so get more light at the expense of deph of field and use longer focal length for the same framing and so get slightly different in focus - out of focus transition.

So because the K3-II feature the pixel shift and the D750 not, in the few cases where pixel shift is legitimate, the K3 provide significantly better shoots. That's logical.

The D750 is a camera made for weddings: 24MP is more than enough and the goal is not ultimate sharpness and small details in landscape. The goal is to leverage the light gathering and dof possibility of an FF in a type of shooting that benefit the most of it. That's silly to expect such camera to play well in the ultimate resolution arena while it has not be designed for this and there much more obvious choice if you are after resolution like any of the D800 familly or the new 5DS / A7R-II cameras. The D750 is also playing the role as an entry-mid level FF for all that do not care/want that many MP but still want a reliable camera.

If pixel shift is really something you can leverage then the next logical step might be to do some pano as you can really jump in quality. You can take all sort of pano with any kind of field of view you like and get hundreds of MP. Ironically, this is going to work as well on FF & APSC cameras. The key is more to get an advenced automated pano head if you plan to do that often.

I don't think that's entirely true. Your D750 comments are legit but for some of us it's about cost and weight. I shoot events (concerts, wedding, and corporate events) and at the end of the day, my FF colleagues are much more exhausted. My K3 and K200D are much lighter and less bulky and the image quality is closed enough to justify it. As for Ed, he is saying that for landscapes, you don't need a large heavy camera to pack into the wilderness. A K3 will work just fine for large prints.

My .02
John
10-27-2015, 07:01 PM   #86
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 223
well all you manchildren have been arguing, I've been out playing with a mamiya rb67

the K-3II is a fantastic camera, but the full frame (and aps-c) canon and nikon's come with a better lighting system and not all subjects are still, and when it comes to making a living its more workflow than perfection
10-28-2015, 12:48 PM   #87
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by john5100 Quote
I don't think that's entirely true. Your D750 comments are legit but for some of us it's about cost and weight. I shoot events (concerts, wedding, and corporate events) and at the end of the day, my FF colleagues are much more exhausted. My K3 and K200D are much lighter and less bulky and the image quality is closed enough to justify it. As for Ed, he is saying that for landscapes, you don't need a large heavy camera to pack into the wilderness. A K3 will work just fine for large prints.

My .02
John
To me this is more a lens problem than a body problem. You need longer focal length and bigger lenses overall to keep the same framing. If you crop the quality argument is gone. Somebody that would manage to use the Pentax FF + FA31, FA43 and FA77 would get lot of quality and have no issue at all with weight. For something significantly longer an old F/FA135 could do the trick. But anything longer is going to be huge.

If you take f/4 zooms instead of f/2.8 zoom to keep things light, you may get more absolute sharpness on your 42MP FF but you'll lose the high iso adventage vs an f/2.8 APSC zoom as well as reduced deph of field possibilities.

But if I was the client and you were shooting APSC and you were going back to me with bit more noise than I would like, or something not perfect, I would ask why you didn't use a better camera. As a client I'am interrested in the result, not you exhaustion. I could expect you to get proper accessories to carry all of this with minimum trouble. Otherwise I'd check that at least if you don't provide as perfect images that you are cheaper. I have no reason to pay as much and get less.
10-28-2015, 01:22 PM   #88
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,378
Ratcheteer

ha ha...we're multitasking
10-28-2015, 02:12 PM   #89
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,844
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratcheteer Quote
when it comes to making a living its more workflow than perfection
I'd also cite the related aphorism: 'Perfect is the enemy of good'.
10-28-2015, 09:31 PM   #90
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
Let us not forget that with pixel shift, you have to use a tripod, and have a static scene. If you are using a tripod, you can get HDR, or any other technique requiring multiple exposures, from any camera which negate the pixel shift advantage. And the software to combine these images are generally pretty cheap and easy to use.
Sure pixel shift is somewhat easier, but less flexible.

Last edited by cali92rs; 10-28-2015 at 10:16 PM.
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 06:00 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