[normhead]

It depends, not? I don't think Pop Photo is still around, but they used to have a recommended max size at given iso for each camera. Often you could shoot, say a 4 by 6 at 12K and get by. The same is not true for an iphone where in good light it will be fine, but if the iso starts creeping up then things get shaky pretty fast. My biggest quibbles with iphones is really the ergonomics though, which are terrible.




This is the sort of image where even on APS-C I probably couldn't have gotten much detail out of the image and still keep the sky blue in the background. It isn't a great image, but I post it more to illustrate the difference that the extra dynamic range makes.

I repeat this constantly...our best-selling image of all time was a 20x30 inch print was taken with a 12 MP point and shoot. 4x6 for 12MP? When the original Canon 5D was a hit among wedding photographers at 13 MP. I know a guy who continued to use his well after the D800 was released. Let's not get silly.

That being said, the Dynamic Range of a K-1 is something else. But honestly I shot a waterfall scene on my K-1 and a couple of weeks later Tess shot it on her K-5. Maybe our exposures were a bit different, but her K-5 had better apparently Dynamic Range and a better sky. More detail both ind the sky and in the white water.

Given a friend's work with his Canon with 12 EV dynamic range I'm starting to wonder if proper exposure isn't more important than the DR of the camera. After all, the Dynamic Range captured in the input does not affect the Dynamic Range of the ouput. It doesn't matter whether you are looking at a print or computer monitor, the Dynamic range you captured is severely clipped.

Someone tell me I'm wrong.

---

Last edited by normhead; 09-21-2017 at 12:11 PM.

[Rondec]

I repeat this constantly...our best-selling image of all time was a 20x30 inch print was taken with a 12 MP point and shoot. 4x6 for 12MP? When the original Canon 5D was a hit among wedding photographers at 13 MP. I know a guy who continued to use his well after the D800 was released. Let's not get silly.

That being said, the Dynamic Range of a K-1 is something else. But honestly I hsot a waterfall scene on my K-1 and a couple of weeks later Tess shot it on her K-5. Maybe our exposures were a bit different, but her K-5 had better apparently Dynamic Range and a better sky. More detail both ind the sky and in the white water.

Given a friend's work with his Canon with 12 EV dynamic range I'm starting to wonder if proper exposure isn't more important than the DR of the camera. After all, the Dynamic Range captured in the input does not affect the Dynamic Range of the ouput. It doesn't matter whether you are looking at a print or computer monitor, the Dynamic range you captured is severely clipped.

Someone tell me I'm wrong.

I think the goal with exposure is probably to get it as close to highlight clipping as possible without actually clipping any highlights. I haven't owned a K-1 and K5 at the same time so I have a hard time commenting on it, but my guess is that some of the benefit you get from the full frame versus APS-C comparison is purely due to the fact that the full frame gets resized down a lot more to make the same print size. On a pixel level the K5 should be exactly the same as the K-1, which is pretty good, but so is the K5.

When I am shooting I tend to underexpose by a stop and that usually protects my highlights enough while leaving plenty of detail in the shadows.

But frankly, the K3, which was widely disparaged as being a step back from the K5 in dynamic range still can usually do a decent job with capturing a scene if you don't blow it out and have relatively low iso.

[normhead]

I think that's the trick with any low DR camera is not blowing the highlights. I Love my K-1, but I would have no problem using the K-3 for landscape. When you think about it, say yours dynamic range of your image is either 12 EV or 14 EV. They are both going to try to fit what they have 4 times as much info in the case of the 14 EV image, into the same little wind, that is barely more than 8.5 EV at best. The 12 EV image will be stretched more to cover the existing new framework. Right off the caerma you'll have higher contrast. WIth the K-1 you are more likely to have a scene where the three inside level's points cover almost the whole histogram and you only have small bits of histogram at the edges between, to get the contrast you want on your subject. It's great to have it, but you really have to work that 14 or 15 EV file to make it look good sometimes. It can take a lot of work to get my K-1 images to look as good as the XG-1 jpeg looks right off the camera.

More dynamic range definitely means more work to obtain the same look if you like high contrast. Rondec's image above being a case in point.

[photoptimist]

I repeat this constantly...our best-selling image of all time was a 20x30 inch print was taken with a 12 MP point and shoot. 4x6 for 12MP? When the original Canon 5D was a hit among wedding photographers at 13 MP. I know a guy who continued to use his well after the D800 was released. Let's not get silly.

That being said, the Dynamic Range of a K-1 is something else. But honestly I hsot a waterfall scene on my K-1 and a couple of weeks later Tess shot it on her K-5. Maybe our exposures were a bit different, but her K-5 had better apparently Dynamic Range and a better sky. More detail both ind the sky and in the white water.

Given a friend's work with his Canon with 12 EV dynamic range I'm starting to wonder if proper exposure isn't more important than the DR of the camera. After all, the Dynamic Range captured in the input does not affect the Dynamic Range of the ouput. It doesn't matter whether you are looking at a print or computer monitor, the Dynamic range you captured is severely clipped.

Someone tell me I'm wrong.

You raise some subtle points, normhead! It's not a matter of right and wrong so much as a matter of restrictions on low-DR cameras and opportunities with high DR ones.

Proper exposure certainly makes the most of whatever DR the camera offers -- a well-exposed image on a low-DR camera can look better than a mis-exposed image on a high-DR camera. And the best DR camera in the world won't help if the image is over-exposed and the highlights are blown.

Although a good photographer can get decent pictures with a low-DR camera, they are much more limited in the situations where/when they can get such pictures. A number of people of PF have noted that they can continue to shoot after their Canon-toting friends have packed up and gone home. And the ability to boost the shadows would seem to enable high-DR cameras to get the shot under harsher lighting conditions (backlighting a midday lighting). Thus, the high DR camera owner can extend their shooting both earlier and later than the low-DR camera photographers who are confined to the golden hours. Similarly, the high-DR camera user may be able to get better back-lit shots that the low-DR camera user simply avoids. Any decent modern camera (from smartphone to PhaseOne back) can get decent images of any genre but the better cameras can get decent shots under a wider range of lighting and subject-configuration scenarios. At the end of the year, both types of photographers might have great images in their portfolio but the high-DR camera user might have more great images or had an easier time getting great images.

The mismatch between scene DR, camera DR, and print/display DR is more a matter of artistic choice and PP than a reason to not need more DR than the final medium can muster. You've posted plenty of great images where you've boosted the shadows to bring them up into the DR range of print/display. And some kinds of photography really do need high-DR. The human eye is probably the ultimate HDR camera -- pushing 24 stops under some conditions although 14 stops seems to be the typical value. Part of the challenge for landscape and street photographers is trying to replicate the "being there in person" experience which implies that whatever camera they use needs to capture a wide enough DR to show all the details the human eye would see in both the highlights and shadows.

[Winder]

The one part that I always get confused on is when someone says big prints, how big are we talking here? Ive seen an iPhone print as big as 8X10, it looked fine, and id imagine it could go bigger. m43 size sensor, printed just fine at A3+, the image could have gone the next size up, but even then Ive heard some people making much bigger prints with that small of sensor. so what are we saying is a big print?

If you have great light this is true. If you only work in studio then M4/3 is more than enough. When you start pushing 800-1600 ISO for available light work you really start to need FF if you are going to make great A3+ sized prints. I have a Canon Promark 9500 II printer and with my K-3 colors really start to fall off once you 800 ISO. Lighter skin tones start to fall apart pretty quickly was the light get bad. Once I hit ISO 800 on my K-3 and looking at printing large I start looking at going to a B&W conversion. With the K-1 I can shoot at 3200 and still get great prints at the A3+ size.

[awscreo]

If you have great light this is true. If you only work in studio then M4/3 is more than enough. When you start pushing 800-1600 ISO for available light work you really start to need FF if you are going to make great A3+ sized prints. I have a Canon Promark 9500 II printer and with my K-3 colors really start to fall off once you 800 ISO. Lighter skin tones start to fall apart pretty quickly was the light get bad. Once I hit ISO 800 on my K-3 and looking at printing large I start looking at going to a B&W conversion. With the K-1 I can shoot at 3200 and still get great prints at the A3+ size.

All those poor people using apsc, mft and smaller sensors outside of studios... btw, so K-1 is 4 times (or more) better than k-3 in terms of ISO? sounds like it's probably not true

[Winder]

All those poor people using apsc, mft and smaller sensors outside of studios... btw, so K-1 is 4 times (or more) better than k-3 in terms of ISO? sounds like it's probably not true

Since I own both and do print at the A3+ size.... yes it is true. You obviously don't own both or print very large. In terms of just noise there is not a 4 stop difference, but there is more to the quality of a print than simply noise. At ISO 800 the red channel on the K-3 starts to degrade and that means the skin tones start of lighter skinned models start to fall apart. The larger you are printing the more obvious the color shift becomes. I'm sure you have a good reason for wishing that it was not true and that I was just making it up because I have some dark motive or grudge against the manufacturer of my camera equipment so why don't you check with some of the review sites.

Pentax K-3 Review - Image Quality
Pentax K-1 Review - Image Quality

There might be some difference between my results and IR. I'm using Red River Paper and Precision Color inks with a custom profile. I don't know what brand of paper or ink they use in their print test, but I assume it is all Canon.

[awscreo]

Since I own both and do print at the A3+ size.... yes it is true. You obviously don't own both or print very large. In terms of just noise there is not a 4 stop difference, but there is more to the quality of a print than simply noise. At ISO 800 the red channel on the K-3 starts to degrade and that means the skin tones start of lighter skinned models start to fall apart. The larger you are printing the more obvious the color shift becomes. I'm sure you have a good reason for wishing that it was not true and that I was just making it up because I have some dark motive or grudge against the manufacturer of my camera equipment so why don't you check with some of the review sites.

Pentax K-3 Review - Image Quality
Pentax K-1 Review - Image Quality

There might be some difference between my results and IR. I'm using Red River Paper and Precision Color inks with a custom profile. I don't know what brand of paper or ink they use in their print test, but I assume it is all Canon.

I don't wish it to be true, it just seems weird that a sensor area only 1.5 times larger produces 4x time better image quality (even if it's just color).

Largest I printed was 12x36", mostly 16x20, few 14x20 and bunch of smaller 8x10 as gifts for relatives. I don't own K-3, true

[Winder]

I don't wish it to be true, it just seems weird that a sensor area only 1.5 times larger produces 4x time better image quality (even if it's just color).

Largest I printed was 12x36", mostly 16x20, few 14x20 and bunch of smaller 8x10 as gifts for relatives. I don't own K-3, true

Its not simply a matter of sensor size, but that is just part of it. The K-3 has a pixel pitch of 3.88 µm and the K-1 has a pixel pitch of 4.86 µm. According Ricoh there are also several improvements to the K-1 sensor substrate and imaging processor. You have several improvements that provide for a noticeable improvement in IQ especially with the transition of colors and DR.

If RIcoh had simply take the 24MP APS-C sensor and increased it to a FF sensor (keeping the 3.88 µm pixel pitch) and left everything else the same you would see a 1-2 stop improvement. The K-1 has both a larger sensor and larger photosites which capture more light and the couple that with an improved imaging processor and fabrication. Its not a 4x across the board improvement either. I'm being pretty specific about the red channel and lighter skin tones. If you were shoot macros of machine tools you would probably not see but a 1-2 stop difference (if that). I have not done it, but dealing with irons and steels you are not going to have to deal with the colors that cause the most problems.

At base ISO with controlled lighting the difference between the image quality is not going to be significant. As you move up to higher ISO and into more challenging lighting conditions the differences become much greater. I would have not issue using m4/3 in studio for most work. I use to shoot with an Olympus E-3 before switching to a K-7. I really like Olympus cameras, but I need something that can handle higher ISO when I don't have strobes with me. The OMD-EM1 is a really nice camera. If Olympus ever goes to a larger 4/3 format sensor that is comparable in size to the 36x24 I will probably be switching to Olympus and selling my Sony A7II.

[awscreo]

Its not simply a matter of sensor size, but that is just part of it. The K-3 has a pixel pitch of 3.88 µm and the K-1 has a pixel pitch of 4.86 µm. According Ricoh there are also several improvements to the K-1 sensor substrate and imaging processor. You have several improvements that provide for a noticeable improvement in IQ especially with the transition of colors and DR.

If RIcoh had simply take the 24MP APS-C sensor and increased it to a FF sensor (keeping the 3.88 µm pixel pitch) and left everything else the same you would see a 1-2 stop improvement. The K-1 has both a larger sensor and larger photosites which capture more light and the couple that with an improved imaging processor and fabrication. Its not a 4x across the board improvement either. I'm being pretty specific about the red channel and lighter skin tones. If you were shoot macros of machine tools you would probably not see but a 1-2 stop difference (if that). I have not done it, but dealing with irons and steels you are not going to have to deal with the colors that cause the most problems.

At base ISO with controlled lighting the difference between the image quality is not going to be significant. As you move up to higher ISO and into more challenging lighting conditions the differences become much greater. I would have not issue using m4/3 in studio for most work. I use to shoot with an Olympus E-3 before switching to a K-7. I really like Olympus cameras, but I need something that can handle higher ISO when I don't have strobes with me. The OMD-EM1 is a really nice camera. If Olympus ever goes to a larger 4/3 format sensor that is comparable in size to the 36x24 I will probably be switching to Olympus and selling my Sony A7II.

Maybe they should compete at MF, that niche is still new and not heavily populated. They patented ff glass in recent times, but people speculated those were for other companies (although it's all hearsay).

[Rondec]

I don't wish it to be true, it just seems weird that a sensor area only 1.5 times larger produces 4x time better image quality (even if it's just color).

Largest I printed was 12x36", mostly 16x20, few 14x20 and bunch of smaller 8x10 as gifts for relatives. I don't own K-3, true

As Winder says, the K-1 is based on the K5 sensor made bigger. The K5 was probably the best APS-C sensor with regard to dynamic range and high iso performance that was out there for several years. It has been passed by the D7200 and several other cameras, but the K3 (while it has more resolution) didn't get up to the same level with regard to high iso performance or dynamic range at various isos. It is still a good camera and most of the discussion here is about points that wouldn't bother the average photographer, but you definitely could see the difference when pushing images a bit.

---------- Post added 09-22-17 at 05:48 AM ----------

You raise some subtle points, normhead! It's not a matter of right and wrong so much as a matter of restrictions on low-DR cameras and opportunities with high DR ones.

Proper exposure certainly makes the most of whatever DR the camera offers -- a well-exposed image on a low-DR camera can look better than a mis-exposed image on a high-DR camera. And the best DR camera in the world won't help if the image is over-exposed and the highlights are blown.

Although a good photographer can get decent pictures with a low-DR camera, they are much more limited in the situations where/when they can get such pictures. A number of people of PF have noted that they can continue to shoot after their Canon-toting friends have packed up and gone home. And the ability to boost the shadows would seem to enable high-DR cameras to get the shot under harsher lighting conditions (backlighting a midday lighting). Thus, the high DR camera owner can extend their shooting both earlier and later than the low-DR camera photographers who are confined to the golden hours. Similarly, the high-DR camera user may be able to get better back-lit shots that the low-DR camera user simply avoids. Any decent modern camera (from smartphone to PhaseOne back) can get decent images of any genre but the better cameras can get decent shots under a wider range of lighting and subject-configuration scenarios. At the end of the year, both types of photographers might have great images in their portfolio but the high-DR camera user might have more great images or had an easier time getting great images.

The mismatch between scene DR, camera DR, and print/display DR is more a matter of artistic choice and PP than a reason to not need more DR than the final medium can muster. You've posted plenty of great images where you've boosted the shadows to bring them up into the DR range of print/display. And some kinds of photography really do need high-DR. The human eye is probably the ultimate HDR camera -- pushing 24 stops under some conditions although 14 stops seems to be the typical value. Part of the challenge for landscape and street photographers is trying to replicate the "being there in person" experience which implies that whatever camera they use needs to capture a wide enough DR to show all the details the human eye would see in both the highlights and shadows.

I think the whole point of post processing is flattening an image's dynamic range a bit so that it can be displayed on your monitor or printed. That's what you are doing when you push your shadows slider and suddenly the dark splotches in the corner turn into trees. But of course if the sensor didn't capture the whole range of dynamic range from the image you end up having to choose between a washed out sky or really dark trees with no detail in them. I think too, that this is where EVFs struggle because they have quite limited dynamic range while our pupils are constantly dilating and constricting to allow us to see the different parts of a scene before us in the OVF.

I overstate it a bit, because there are plenty of images that don't entail that much DR, but I do shoot a lot at sunrise and sunset and I have found the results to be a lot better with the K-1 than with past cameras and I like the results I get with a single file (particularly a pixel shift one) versus shooting multiple exposures and making HDR (although I have done that plenty in the past).

[photoptimist]

I think the whole point of post processing is flattening an image's dynamic range a bit so that it can be displayed on your monitor or printed. That's what you are doing when you push your shadows slider and suddenly the dark splotches in the corner turn into trees. But of course if the sensor didn't capture the whole range of dynamic range from the image you end up having to choose between a washed out sky or really dark trees with no detail in them. I think too, that this is where EVFs struggle because they have quite limited dynamic range while our pupils are constantly dilating and constricting to allow us to see the different parts of a scene before us in the OVF.

I overstate it a bit, because there are plenty of images that don't entail that much DR, but I do shoot a lot at sunrise and sunset and I have found the results to be a lot better with the K-1 than with past cameras and I like the results I get with a single file (particularly a pixel shift one) versus shooting multiple exposures and making HDR (although I have done that plenty in the past).

Exactly! Neither OVF or EVF are perfect and it's up to the photographer to decide which user interface works best for them:

OVF:
Advantage: you see nearly the full DR of the scene and can see details in the shadows and highlights.
Disadvantage: you don't know how the chosen exposure will clip the scene unless you take a test shot and chimp it .*

EVF:
Advantage: you see the clipping of shadows and highlights associated with the chosen exposure settings in the scene & histogram.**
Disadvantage: you only see a fraction of the DR of the sensor which is a fraction of the DR of the scene -- missing the details in the shadows and highlights which may affect composition or acceptability of the image.

* Actually, an experienced photographer will have a pretty good idea of this or will use spot metering to control it. Old film photographers don't need to chimp so the EVF holds less advantage.

** The EVF over-clips the scene: if the EVF shows no clipping, there's no clipping. But if the EVF shows some clipping, there may or may not be clipping in the RAW image.

[Fcsnt54]

Lots of great balanced info in this thread. Learning a lot.

Not sure if this was mentioned, or if a DSLR has it(don't see it on the K-1), but with a zoom lens on a milc it shows the Focal length on the Screen. So although its focus by wire(not really all that consistent), you can set the zoom to lets say 23, 25, 62, and it shows you what you have the lens set at.

[awscreo]

Lots of great balanced info in this thread. Learning a lot.

Not sure if this was mentioned, or if a DSLR has it(don't see it on the K-1), but with a zoom lens on a milc it shows the Focal length on the Screen. So although its focus by wire(not really all that consistent), you can set the zoom to lets say 23, 25, 62, and it shows you what you have the lens set at.

Oly pro zooms have hard stops at infinity and closest focus when you switch to manual focusing, probably the best focus - by-wire implementation, at least from what I've seen.

[Wasp]

I recently bought a cheap Samsung NX100 with the 20-50mm retractable kit lens to try out the mirrorless thing for myself. So far it has worked out pretty well.

An EVF is available for it but I don't have one (yet). For me it is not the deal breaker that I feared it might be. If you don't venture out into the bright sun, the live view screen works just fine.

I thought that a K mount adapter would be an imperative, but the kit lens is pretty good. So I haven't ordered an adapter (yet).

For me, the Samsung is the camera that I can take everywhere. With the lens retracted, it fits into a pocket. Or in the glovebox of my car. Places that even a Pentax K-x would not fit, especially with an 18-55mm lens attached. It mostly travels in a corner of my laptop bag.

Having a proper camera with me (instead of a crummy phone camera) means that I can grab shots wherever I go. Most of them are rubbish but there have been a few keepers.

The mirrorless does have some disadvantages. There is a noticable lag between pressing the button and taking the picture. And the shutter is not as quiet as I thought it would be. The lens I have does not have image stabilisation. Samsung made (note the past tense) such lenses but I don't see myself buying a whole new bag full of Samsung glass. The 50-200mm looks nice but for now that too remains on ice.

I did get a very cheap little tripod that I thought would travel nicely with the Samsung. It turned to be a real piece of junk that is easily damaged. It still works but one of the legs has a dent in it making it hard to retract. Another legs now has a paper clip in lieu of a plastic bracket that broke. This damage occurred while travelling in the back of my car, not while in actual use. For $5 I got my money's worth I suppose. Fail...

The NX100 scratches the itch I had just fine .As an adjunct to my Pentax kit is is great but I don't see it ever replacing my DSLRs.