[Fenwoodian]

These last few days I finally got around to printing up a bunch of pixel shifted photos I took in Savannah Georgia USA last summer.

They were all shot outdoors, at the historical Bonaventure Cemetery.

There was not much wind that day, and of course I used a sturdy tripod. I mostly used an old manual focus Pentax 20mm lens (forget which one) on my K3ii.

The TIFF files that I converted in Pentax's "Digital Camera Utility 5" from the DNG RAW files were each around 140 - 145MP. I resized them to 240dpi and 17 x 25.5 inches.

Well, the prints' detail was absolutely amazing! The few clumps of Spanish moss that had gently moved in the slight breeze during the exposure were very tiny and if you looked extremely close you could see that they were slightly blurry, but nothing ugly or distracting.

I have already saved up for a Pentax full frame, but not that I've got some more experience printing K3ii pixel shifted images, I'm seriously rethinking whether or not I have a need for the full frame.

[jatrax]

I'm seriously rethinking whether or not I have a need for the full frame.

But what about a FF with Pixel shift?

[Digitalis]

now, let us see you try doing that with a BIF....no? I suppose there is hope for the K-1 yet.

[jimr-pdx]

I have one of those with my Fuji F550 set to DR mode!

[luftfluss]

These last few days I finally got around to printing up a bunch of pixel shifted photos I took in Savannah Georgia USA last summer.

They were all shot outdoors, at the historical Bonaventure Cemetery.

There was not much wind that day, and of course I used a sturdy tripod. I mostly used an old manual focus Pentax 20mm lens (forget which one) on my K3ii.

The TIFF files that I converted in Pentax's "Digital Camera Utility 5" from the DNG RAW files were each around 140 - 145MP. I resized them to 240dpi and 17 x 25.5 inches.

Well, the prints' detail was absolutely amazing! The few clumps of Spanish moss that had gently moved in the slight breeze during the exposure were very tiny and if you looked extremely close you could see that they were slightly blurry, but nothing ugly or distracting.

I have already saved up for a Pentax full frame, but not that I've got some more experience printing K3ii pixel shifted images, I'm seriously rethinking whether or not I have a need for the full frame.

At the very least, your satisfaction with Pixel Shift could mean that you wait a while before buying the FF, so any potential issues are resolved before spending your money.

[Zephos]

These last few days I finally got around to printing up a bunch of pixel shifted photos I took in Savannah Georgia USA last summer.

They were all shot outdoors, at the historical Bonaventure Cemetery.

There was not much wind that day, and of course I used a sturdy tripod. I mostly used an old manual focus Pentax 20mm lens (forget which one) on my K3ii.

The TIFF files that I converted in Pentax's "Digital Camera Utility 5" from the DNG RAW files were each around 140 - 145MP. I resized them to 240dpi and 17 x 25.5 inches.

Well, the prints' detail was absolutely amazing! The few clumps of Spanish moss that had gently moved in the slight breeze during the exposure were very tiny and if you looked extremely close you could see that they were slightly blurry, but nothing ugly or distracting.

I have already saved up for a Pentax full frame, but not that I've got some more experience printing K3ii pixel shifted images, I'm seriously rethinking whether or not I have a need for the full frame.

Yes but you are still limited to static scenes with no wind, etc.

[JeffB]

These last few days I finally got around to printing up a bunch of pixel shifted photos I took in Savannah Georgia USA last summer.

They were all shot outdoors, at the historical Bonaventure Cemetery.

There was not much wind that day, and of course I used a sturdy tripod. I mostly used an old manual focus Pentax 20mm lens (forget which one) on my K3ii.

The TIFF files that I converted in Pentax's "Digital Camera Utility 5" from the DNG RAW files were each around 140 - 145MP. I resized them to 240dpi and 17 x 25.5 inches.

Well, the prints' detail was absolutely amazing! The few clumps of Spanish moss that had gently moved in the slight breeze during the exposure were very tiny and if you looked extremely close you could see that they were slightly blurry, but nothing ugly or distracting.

I have already saved up for a Pentax full frame, but not that I've got some more experience printing K3ii pixel shifted images, I'm seriously rethinking whether or not I have a need for the full frame.

The "full frame" lingo makes me laugh. It's only a "full" 35mm frame. 35mm was always considered "miniature" format alongside medium and large format cameras. The 18x24mm APC format does everything I want.

[luftfluss]

Yes but you are still limited to static scenes with no wind, etc.

That's mostly what he shoots - he's a landscape photographer. Pixel Shift is right in his wheelhouse.

[NZ_Ross]

I have already saved up for a Pentax full frame, but not that I've got some more experience printing K3ii pixel shifted images, I'm seriously rethinking whether or not I have a need for the full frame.

Well, time is on your side - now that you have proved the usefulness of the K3II pixel shift, you can sit back and wait when the Pentax FF is released, take time to consider the reviews, look at the images of the early adopters here on PF (and other places) and decide whether the Pentax FF is the camera for you, or alternatively the K3II is sufficient.

If the answer is the K3II then I would suggest that you will have sufficient savings for a couple of very nice lenses

Sounds like a win-win situation to me - there is no poor choice here.

[Hoggy]

The "full frame" lingo makes me laugh. It's only a "full" 35mm frame. 35mm was always considered "miniature" format alongside medium and large format cameras. The 18x24mm APC format does everything I want.

I've pretty much thought 'full frame' has been over-hyped anyways - even without pixel shift tech.

When you think about it -- just think how arbitrary it was that '35mm' became THE important size for sensors to mimic... How arbitrary it really was for 35mm film to become the dominant size [for those of us without $10,000 deep pockets]. (not knowing the exact history, here)

If/when a Pentax FF materializes, I may or may not be interested in ever getting it.. Maybe down the road - as long as it could still use my current lenses that are digital-only.

[biz-engineer]

Who needs a full frame, not me anymore...

You don't need a full frame, you don't even need a K-3, K-5 or K-3 are well capable of amazing excellent prints.

Full frame IQ is better, and the same goes for medium format cameras when size, weight, choice of lenses and AF speed are not a problem.

[starjedi]

These last few days I finally got around to printing up a bunch of pixel shifted photos I took in Savannah Georgia USA last summer.

They were all shot outdoors, at the historical Bonaventure Cemetery.

There was not much wind that day, and of course I used a sturdy tripod. I mostly used an old manual focus Pentax 20mm lens (forget which one) on my K3ii.

The TIFF files that I converted in Pentax's "Digital Camera Utility 5" from the DNG RAW files were each around 140 - 145MP. I resized them to 240dpi and 17 x 25.5 inches.

Well, the prints' detail was absolutely amazing! The few clumps of Spanish moss that had gently moved in the slight breeze during the exposure were very tiny and if you looked extremely close you could see that they were slightly blurry, but nothing ugly or distracting.

I have already saved up for a Pentax full frame, but not that I've got some more experience printing K3ii pixel shifted images, I'm seriously rethinking whether or not I have a need for the full frame.

Yes. For static objects, pixel shifted on k3ii will give you the IQ matching 645 camera. One stop above current 135 format. It should be fine!

[normhead]

So, now image you have a 36x24 with pixel shift and that you don't need a 645z. I wonder if the next 645 will have pixel shift.

Although it is true, you can produce levels of detail that are largely invisible to the eye. Printing at 300 DPI you could certainly do that. People can resolve up to 600 DPI, from 8 inches away, if they look really close. But from a normal viewing distance, most can't tell the difference between 72 DPI and 150 DPI.

If the added detail is in fact a layer of detail that is not easily seen, then there would be no advantage to going to an FF instead of a K-3. I've suspected we reached that point with a K-5, and some experiments have backed that up for up to 24x36 prints.

There's not a lot of difference between, K-3 and K-5 in the actual images they produce. The K-3 tends to shine in AF, burst mode etc. I suspect the FF will be more of the same. More focus points, faster AF, better tracking, not so much in the images but in the ease of getting them.

SO, I agree, you may not feel a 36x24 sensor is necessary for IQ, but a camera is a lot more than final IQ. One of the things I like about Pentax is I can compete in end product with anyone out there, without the expense of their equipment. But, there are serious advantages to other systems as to the ease of getting those images.

[btnapa]

SO, I agree, you may not feel a 36x24 sensor is necessary for IQ, but a camera is a lot more than final IQ. One of the things I like about Pentax is I can compete in end product with anyone out there, without the expense of their equipment. But, there are serious advantages to other systems as to the ease of getting those images.

You are so right. I feel the same way.

One of the areas Pentax is seriously handicapped compared to Nikon and Canon or even Sony, is poor third party support in lenses and accessories. With the other systems, say if you do not want to buy the expensive original brand lens, you can go to a third party and buy a similar lens at a substantial discount and still have a product that is of the highest quality. With Pentax we are limited to mostly Pentax offerings. Luckily, what Pentax offers is second to none.

[Qwntm]

So, now image you have a 36x24 with pixel shift and that you don't need a 645z. I wonder if the next 645 will have pixel shift.

Although it is true, you can produce levels of detail that are largely invisible to the eye. Printing at 300 DPI you could certainly do that. People can resolve up to 600 DPI, from 8 inches away, if they look really close. But from a normal viewing distance, most can't tell the difference between 72 DPI and 150 DPI.

If the added detail is in fact a layer of detail that is not easily seen, then there would be no advantage to going to an FF instead of a K-3. I've suspected we reached that point with a K-5, and some experiments have backed that up for up to 24x36 prints.

There's not a lot of difference between, K-3 and K-5 in the actual images they produce. The K-3 tends to shine in AF, burst mode etc. I suspect the FF will be more of the same. More focus points, faster AF, better tracking, not so much in the images but in the ease of getting them.

SO, I agree, you may not feel a 36x24 sensor is necessary for IQ, but a camera is a lot more than final IQ. One of the things I like about Pentax is I can compete in end product with anyone out there, without the expense of their equipment. But, there are serious advantages to other systems as to the ease of getting those images.

Every point you make here is excellent, but maybe not in the way you intended....


The added detail is not easily visible, depending upon your print size. having shot the D810 and 5DIII and 6D, I am 100% APS-c now. There really is no practical advantages of FF for me. (And I print 30x40 inches a lot!)


A camera IS a lot more than final IQ. FF's are BIGGER and HEAVIER and MUCH more expensive. After 8 hours photographing a wedding, or 2 hours hiking with a camera backpack, I want as small and light as I can get that still gives me professionally competitive IQ. That's most APS-c current cameras. Now I want the one with the smallest and lightest lenses: There goes Canon and Nikon out. If I want fast lenses, there goes Pentax. If I want a DSLR with fast small WR zooms, Pentax is a WINNER!!! If I want a set of FAST primes, Fuji wins.


Guess what? I've got a Pentax system with fast zooms and flashes, and a Fuji system with only their fast primes. I shoot each about 50/50 these days. The only thing the Fuji system is really doing is showing me the few small gaps in Pentax's excellent lens range. A 16mm 1.4, 23mm 1.4, and 35mm 1.4 APS-c lens set form Pentax and the Fuji's would be GONE!


Pentax could have carved a real niche for themselves as the ONLY APS-c based Pro DSLR with a full set of small fast APS-c fast primes. They are SOOOOO CLOSE!!! The reason Fuji sales are up is because they have the lens set, not necessarily the cameras pros want to shoot. Love Fuji's lenses, not that big a fan of mirrorless. My preferred system right now is the Pentax with the fast zooms. But when that gets too heavy I am glad to switch out to the Fuji with the small fast primes.


As for Pixel shift, a straight well executed non pixel shift 24 mp image is going to probably deliver everything most people need out of an image. PS is nice to play with, but even without it, the K-3II resolution is spectacular.