[normhead]

for me, the k-1 is better at everything... so no contest, no matter the subject. still miss my k-3 though.

So what you're saying is you never want to exceed the reach of your K-1 with the lenses you have, fair enough.

---

Last edited by normhead; 02-27-2017 at 11:58 AM.

[Rupert]

For 99.9% of my wildlife shots I am always sitting in the same chair! Pardon the sloppy desk and room....Tax time.....you know how that is!



I think the K1 would be better for my wildlife shooting if I could get one of those Tamron or Sigma 150-600 lenses. Maybe they will come around in time and make a Pentax mount?

Regards!

[sculptor666]

SO what you're sayaing is you never want to exceed the reach of your K-1 with the lenses you have, fair enough.

well, not never! benefits of dr/ibis/focus outweigh the reach issue. i hate cropping, but at 36mp i have to admit that it's possible to do with really good results. at some point i'll get the 560 or 600... until then i'll get better at hiding/waiting/driving to places with better opportunities for the equipment i have.

[photoptimist]

I would certainly agree that size in pixels is a decent first approximation to photograph size as far as cropping, enlarging, and printing are concerned. But the approximation seems to fall apart at the extremes of format differences.

Can one honestly say that a 12 MPix crop from a K-1 or 645Z really is the same "size" as a 12 MPix image from an iPhone? I'd argue that the shallow well depth and much lower DR of the iPhone sensor would surely limit the perceptual resolution of prints in many imaging conditions. The iPhone image simply can't be enlarged as much even if it has the same number of pixels. Especially in regards to resolving shadow details or subtle details in tone, the 12 MPix iPhone image might need to be downsampled to produce a print with the same quality as a 4 or 6 MPix crop from a large-format, large-pixel sensor. The same issue would affect comparisons between newer and older cameras.

---

Last edited by photoptimist; 02-27-2017 at 11:29 AM.

[normhead]

I would certainly agree that size in pixels is a decent first approximation to photograph size as far as cropping, enlarging, and printing are concerned. But the approximation seems to fall apart at the extremes of format differences.

Can one honestly say that a 12 MPix crop from a K-1 or 645Z really be the same "size" as a 12 MPix image from an iPhone? I'd argue that the shallow well depth and much lower DR of the iPhone sensor would surely limit the perceptual resolution of prints in many imaging conditions. The iPhone image simply can't be enlarged as much even if it has the same number of pixels. Especially in regards to resolving shadow details or subtle details in tone, the 12 MPix iPhone image might need to be downsampled to produce a print with the same quality as a 4 or 6 MPix crop from a large-format, large-pixel sensor. The same issue would affect comparisons between newer and older cameras.

Dynamic rage is an issue on some images but not others.
In this image I only used half the dynamic range available. It's a 1:1.7 sensor ( a Q-S1), but I still had lot of DR to play with because of lighting and background conditions. Look at that DoF at 1000mm and ƒ4.


For resolution I resorted to lw/ph, line width per pixel hight not MP. Different systems can achieve different lw/ph with the same MP. For example a K-5 will achieve about 2100 lw/ph with a good lens using Imaging Resources numbers, photozone numbers are higher, but they won't show you the charts so you can judge for yourself). If you have 2000 lw/ph then a 20x 30 inch print will be able to display 100 distinct lines per inch. A K-5 needs 4900x 3200 to achieve that, pretty typical for a Sony sensor. Some of the Canon sensors do almost as good or better with less pixels. SO it's not all about MP.

To use the same reference for a K-1 print you can print to 36 x 54 inches. My screen resolution is 103 pixels per inch, so any image with 100 lw/ph will look about the same as it does on my screen.

But the simple fact is, most of us don't print 20x30 or have screens that are 30 inches wide and 20 inches high at 103 DPI. Whether we are using a K-x a K-5 , a K-1 or a 645z we are capturing resolution we can't display. I'm not talking oversampling, where IQ can be improved, I'm talking about resolution that is lost because there are no out put devices capable of making use of it, unless you print really big.

Someone once suggested to me that my wife's 233 pixels per inch retina (21.5 inch) display would look better than my 103 2650x1440 27 inch screen. It doesn't. The bigger pixels fully utilized look better using the same image, because some of the resolution that would have been lost because it was too small to see has been enlarged enough to be visible.

On a recent test , same image, same lens (DFA 28-105 shot at appropriate distances) her K-5 and my K-1 image looked identical on both screens. We were both throwing out detail to fit the work space. Maybe the K-1 was throwing out more, but what was left seemed to be identical. That's what concerns me about many of these conversations. People are often claiming superior resolution, when in fact, the way they are displaying their images simply means they are discarding more resolution.

They are getting nothing for their money.

Of course as soon as I say that, someone comes in and says "Well I print 40x 60 inch prints all the time so I use every bit of that resolution." and everyone else hides behind their "big print" skirts, as if they do the same.

Folks simply don't want to admit they don't use the resolution they paid for. People like me looking to sell their work will live with the large files because we always want to print at the highest resolution possible. But I don't take 10 images a year out of 30,000 that are worth printing. I'm willing to pay for a K-1, just for those 10. I think a lot of people imagine they are me.

The thing is, we've sold prints from 12 MP, 14 MP and 16 MP cameras. I'm not sure I'm not deluding myself as much as everyone else.

So far it's an untestable theory. I don't print over 20x30, because I don't think I can sell them.

Of the things that keep me from getting out and selling more prints, resolution was probably the last thing I needed to address.

---------- Post added 02-27-17 at 01:59 PM ----------

For 99.9% of my wildlife shots I am always sitting in the same chair! Pardon the sloppy desk and room....Tax time.....you know how that is!



I think the K1 would be better for my wildlife shooting if I could get one of those Tamron or Sigma 150-600 lenses. Maybe they will come around in time and make a Pentax mount?

Regards!

If you have a chair that works why would you change? Once you get things working, don't change anything. Even your socks.

[pres589]

Rupert, what about the DFA 150-450? I bet your squirrels will looks extra good through that nice piece of hardware, right?

[stevebrot]

For resolution I resorted to lw/ph, line width per pixel hight not MP

I thought that lw/ph is the abbreviation for "line widths per picture height". That along with lp/mm are common spacial frequency notations that predate digital capture.


Steve

(...sorry, but could not resist...)

[normhead]

Rupert told the squirrels he couldn't afford the 150-450 and the peanut butter too.

---------- Post added 02-27-17 at 04:07 PM ----------

I thought that lw/ph is the abbreviation for "line widths per picture height". That along with lp/mm are common spacial frequency notations that predate digital capture.


Steve

(...sorry, but could not resist...)

But they have become much more interesting with digital...
For example theoretically, if you have a 4912 pixels high image. Obviously if you could make 4912 single pixel lines alternating black and white, you'd have you'd have 4912 distinct lines... so why can you only produce 3500 on a test chart with a K-1, the possibilities for exploration are endless. With analogue, I never asked that question. It just was what it was.

What does 3500 have to do with 4912 ?

Where do the extra 1412 pixel rows go?

It's like the meaning of life being 42.

It's more defined as a question in digital, but, it is still better not to think about it.

[BigMackCam]

@normhead - I'm so pleased you posted this, Norm. There is an admittedly-small subset of K-1 users who believe it's a "better" camera than the K-3 / K-3II, period. Although I decided against buying a K-1 at this point (never say never ), I shoot both full-frame and APS-C cameras, and there are pro's and con's for each. Depending on the application, sensor size & image circle cropping, operational speed and body size can individually or, as a whole, make an APS-C camera the better choice.

None of this is meant to disparage the K-1 or its fans... I've tried one a couple of times, and it's an outstanding camera. But it's not necessarily the best tool for the job in every situation!

[normhead]

Thanks, there's nothing for a walk like the K-3 and 18-135, there's nothing on the K-1 like my Sigma 8-16. There's nothing on the K-1 that matches the pseudo macro of the 18-135 or 16-85 for small flower shots while walking around. I carry the K-1, 50 macro, and FA*200 to give me the same capability I get from my K-3 and 18-135. Like many, I love the camera, but, you have to get that under control and be objective. And you have to feel like carrying it, when you head out the door. Many days I just say "pffft" and go with the K-3. So far I haven't regretted it when I do. Similarly there are some images I took with the K-1 I'm happy I had it instead of the K-3.

[HarisF1]

I completely agree. This thread has been a massive breath of fresh air. It's not always about the latest and greatest. Having both bodies is obviously the best situation but the K-3 is more than adequate for most needs.

You've also given me more of an incentive to go out with the K-3/18-135 combo. Ever since I started buying fancy lenses, I've been neglecting it

[JimJohnson]

Norm, I think your tag line still says all that needs to be said.

I'm looking to add full-frame to my capabilities too - or more accurately RE-add it. With the Ektachrome announcement, I've reassembled a decent Pentax film kit. While I have a well regarded Epson flat-bed scanner with film/slide adapter, I plan on using my bellows and K-3 to digitize my better images.

[Rupert]

If you have a chair that works why would you change? Once you get things working, don't change anything. Even your socks.

How about underwear......Mrs Rupert is pretty tough on me wearing clean underwear....and socks! Just sitting around in that chair I could go at least 4-5 day without a change, but she insists.

Rupert, what about the DFA 150-450? I bet your squirrels will looks extra good through that nice piece of hardware, right?

I have considered it, and still may, but I see those problems and it has scared me away. A lot of cash just to have problems.....In 10 years of Bigma shooting I have never encountered a single problem, they are tough as nails.

Rupert told the squirrels he couldn't afford the 150-450 and the peanut butter too.

Yep, peanut butter is worth more than my life around here, no doubt about it!

Nice thread this is.....I've learned a lot...may not remember it all, but I will remember the basic meat of the conversation. I appreciate that Norm uses terms and words we can all understand......many others are smart in technical areas, but can't communicate well to the ordinary masses and squirrel shooter like me.

Regards!

[todd]

For 99.9% of my wildlife shots I am always sitting in the same chair!

Is that XP?! Impressive!

[Rupert]

Is that XP?! Impressive!

Yep...and I have been putting off an upgrade for a long time. Like cats, I hate change! XP still works well for most of what I do, but Mrs Rupert's Windows 10 is pretty nice too....I think I might be liking it soon!

Regards!