Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-08-2016, 08:38 AM   #31
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Tjompen1968 Quote
Off course you can blow up your files to whathever size you want. Sometimes the detail is not needed. Make a billboard with the 5-6 MP file. No problem. I have a 4MP print on my wall at A3+ size and it looks great. The difference is how much detail you can see when comparing a 4MP and a 36MP print.

The main reason for me to buy the K-1 is the better tonality that comes with the larger sensor. Not the MP, the sharpness or lesser noise compared to the K-3 but the tonality. Looking on a 645Z image and comparing it to the K-3 it is the tonality that catches my eye.
Same when I compare 135-film to 120-film or 4x5.
For me the attraction to the K-1 is pixel shift, an advance in technology. I was looking at some images form my Sigma Merril DP2 last night, and if I can get that from the K-1 or K-5II, without catering to all those DP2 idiosyncrasies
I'll be a happy dude.

QuoteQuote:
The difference is how much detail you can see when comparing a 4MP and a 36MP print.
Points I always repeat.
How much detail do you lose on the average print taken with a D810, because it's so fine you can't really see it. The assumption is that it makes a difference. No one has proved it.

And the second point is that more resolution does't necessarily mean more enjoyment of the print or of the image, in any medium in which it's likely to be viewed.

Despite all the hogwash that's gone on "resolution, resolution resolution" there is not one piece of verifiable testing that has shown, people will like your prints more at higher resolutions. There's not even a blind test showing that you can tell the difference. People pixel peep these images and see differences. But there is no screen I know of that allows you to show a 6000 x 4000 K-3 image as a pixel peeper. If you have to resort to pixel peeping to show differences, you probably don't have meaningful difference.

I've seen some great images taken with the 645z, and D810, but I have no idea what the image would look like if taken with a K-3 or K5. The pixel size of the K-1 should be about the same as that of a K-5. Without pixel shift you would expect a lot of difference in colour depth etc? We've had the K-5 for years. Nothing new to see there.

03-08-2016, 08:51 AM   #32
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,940
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Points I always repeat.
How much detail do you lose on the average print taken with a D810, because it's so fine you can't really see it. The assumption is that it makes a difference. No one has proved it.

And the second point is that more resolution does't necessarily mean more enjoyment of the print or of the image, in any medium in which it's likely to be viewed.
So I guess you downsample all your images to 4Mp?
03-08-2016, 09:19 AM   #33
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
So I guess you downsample all your images to 4Mp?
There was a guy who took a D800 image of a scene and a K-01 image of the same scene and printed them both at A2 or A3. Then asked his wife who didn't know which was which which she liked best. She like some part s of the K-1 image best, and some parts of the D800 image best, and could make a decision which she like most. It was posted here on the forum.

That is the only actual blind test of this nature that I know of. All the nonsense that's been posted about the need for more resolution over the years has never been supported by even one real world test indicating they had any merit at all. I've been watching.

I'm not talking about whether or not you can see a difference pixel peeping. I'm talking about research that shows if people enjoy the high res images more than any other image that's say 12 MP or higher. There is a difference between I can see a difference and I like the difference at a normal viewing distance.

When something better comes along, I'll be happy to endorse it, but for now, that is the best there is. And it's always better to go with the best actual research, than every body's "common knowledge" self supporting opinions, that are not backed by any research at all.
03-08-2016, 09:35 AM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,940
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There was a guy who took a D800 image of a scene and a K-01 image of the same scene and printed them both at A2 or A3. Then asked his wife who didn't know which was which which she liked best. She like some part s of the K-1 image best, and some parts of the D800 image best, and could make a decision which she like most. It was posted here on the forum.

That is the only actual blind test of this nature that I know of. All the nonsense that's been posted about the need for more resolution over the years has never been supported by even one real world test indicating they had any merit at all. I've been watching.

I'm not talking about whether or not you can see a difference pixel peeping. I'm talking about research that shows if people enjoy the high res images more than any other image that's say 12 MP or higher. There is a difference between I can see a difference and I like the difference at a normal viewing distance.

When something better comes along, I'll be happy to endorse it, but for now, that is the best there is. And it's always better to go with the best actual research, than every body's "common knowledge" self supporting opinions, that are not backed by any research at all.
So you do downsample to 4Mp, at least until research tells you otherwise?

03-08-2016, 09:36 AM   #35
Pentaxian
Tjompen1968's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,329
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
For me the attraction to the K-1 is pixel shift, an advance in technology. I was looking at some images form my Sigma Merril DP2 last night, and if I can get that from the K-1 or K-5II, without catering to all those DP2 idiosyncrasies
I'll be a happy dude.



Points I always repeat.
How much detail do you lose on the average print taken with a D810, because it's so fine you can't really see it. The assumption is that it makes a difference. No one has proved it.

And the second point is that more resolution does't necessarily mean more enjoyment of the print or of the image, in any medium in which it's likely to be viewed.

Despite all the hogwash that's gone on "resolution, resolution resolution" there is not one piece of verifiable testing that has shown, people will like your prints more at higher resolutions. There's not even a blind test showing that you can tell the difference. People pixel peep these images and see differences. But there is no screen I know of that allows you to show a 6000 x 4000 K-3 image as a pixel peeper. If you have to resort to pixel peeping to show differences, you probably don't have meaningful difference.

I've seen some great images taken with the 645z, and D810, but I have no idea what the image would look like if taken with a K-3 or K5. The pixel size of the K-1 should be about the same as that of a K-5. Without pixel shift you would expect a lot of difference in colour depth etc? We've had the K-5 for years. Nothing new to see there.
Of course you see the difference between a 4, 5, 6 MP image printed 40x60 cm compared to a 24 or 36 MP at a normal viewing distance. Well, I see the difference. On a postcard it is off course less of a difference.

I enjoy my prints if there is more detail, more to discover in the image. If we would compare the K-1 and the K-5 that has similar pixeldensity the K-1 would have better tonality in the same way a medium format negative has compared to a 135-film negative. Less noise, smoother gradiations etc. The 645D and Z shows this.

Also, with 36MP you can crop the hell out of an image.

Well, this discussion has been going on since the istD. Who needs more than 6 MP? More or less the same as when Gates said that we will never need more than 640kB... (If he actually said it I am not sure but that's how the story goes...)

To end this discussion from my part I say that I want the larger sensor, with more MP than the K-3 because I feel that it will make my photographic journey even more fun. If it is better or worse than Canikon or other Pentax cameras I do not care, I love the Pentax implementation, the ergonomics, the playfulness Pentax gives me.

I am not sure I got the answers to my questions that started this thread but I do not care anymore about that.

Hasta la pasta

Last edited by Tjompen1968; 03-13-2016 at 08:17 AM.
03-08-2016, 09:55 AM   #36
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteOriginally posted by Tjompen1968 Quote
Off course you see the difference between a 4, 5, 6 MP image printed 40x60 cm compared to a 24 or 36 MP at a normal viewing distance. Well, I see the difference. On a postcard it is off course less of a difference.
That's not the point , the point is, is the image more enjoyable? The assumption seems to be that higher resolution means more enjoyment. I'm not sure you've established that even for yourself.

QuoteQuote:
Well, this discussion has been going on since the istD. Who needs more than 6 MP?
Interesting you should bring this up. I think back in the days of the 4 MP, there was still quite a bit of room for improvement. But I've had pros tell me they don't need more than 12 MP for what they do even after the D800 came out. So my guess is that after 12 MP it's the law of rapidly diminishing returns.

QuoteQuote:
I enjoy my prints if there is more detail, more to discover in the image.
Even if you have to use a magnifying glass to see the detail? I like images that look good from 8 inches away, as close as I'm likely to get with an un-aided eye. How much detail there is after that is pretty much irrelevant to me. The above image I posted looks great from 8 inches away.

I think I pretty much understand all the "more is better thinking.. I'm just not sure it actually leads to more joy form buying more expensive gear, or more joy from the actual images. Some guys just like to think they have the biggest and best of everything and that's what makes them happy. How do i know you aren't one of those guys?
03-08-2016, 10:26 AM - 1 Like   #37
Site Supporter
enoeske's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Surprise, Az
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,925
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
That's not the point , the point is, is the image more enjoyable? The assumption seems to be that higher resolution means more enjoyment. I'm not sure you've established that even for yourself.

Interesting you should bring this up. I think back in the days of the 4 MP, there was still quite a bit of room for improvement. But I've had pros tell me they don't need more than 12 MP for what they do even after the D800 came out. So my guess is that after 12 MP it's the law of rapidly diminishing returns.

Even if you have to use a magnifying glass to see the detail? I like images that look good from 8 inches away, as close as I'm likely to get with an un-aided eye. How much detail there is after that is pretty much irrelevant to me. The above image I posted looks great from 8 inches away.

I think I pretty much understand all the "more is better thinking.. I'm just not sure it actually leads to more joy form buying more expensive gear, or more joy from the actual images. Some guys just like to think they have the biggest and best of everything and that's what makes them happy. How do i know you aren't one of those guys?
This is a pretty dismissive attitude. Just because YOU don't have a use for more megapixels, doesn't mean other don't. A lot of my work gets printed very large and having more resolution, clean high ISO and more sharpness make a big difference in my world. 6 to 8 foot prints for tradeshows are the norm. There's no need for a magnifying glass, you can see all the details in the shot. 4 Megapixels isn't going to cut it, nor printing out tiny postcards. I get a lot more enjoyment out of a image that looks good for my client, rather than explaining why the camera couldn't deliver what they wanted.
03-08-2016, 10:29 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,940
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I think I pretty much understand all the "more is better thinking.. I'm just not sure it actually leads to more joy form buying more expensive gear, or more joy from the actual images. Some guys just like to think they have the biggest and best of everything and that's what makes them happy. How do i know you aren't one of those guys?
Would that be wrong?

03-08-2016, 10:31 AM   #39
Pentaxian
Tjompen1968's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,329
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
That's not the point , the point is, is the image more enjoyable? The assumption seems to be that higher resolution means more enjoyment. I'm not sure you've established that even for yourself.



Interesting you should bring this up. I think back in the days of the 4 MP, there was still quite a bit of room for improvement. But I've had pros tell me they don't need more than 12 MP for what they do even after the D800 came out. So my guess is that after 12 MP it's the law of rapidly diminishing returns.



Even if you have to use a magnifying glass to see the detail? I like images that look good from 8 inches away, as close as I'm likely to get with an un-aided eye. How much detail there is after that is pretty much irrelevant to me. The above image I posted looks great from 8 inches away.

I think I pretty much understand all the "more is better thinking.. I'm just not sure it actually leads to more joy form buying more expensive gear, or more joy from the actual images. Some guys just like to think they have the biggest and best of everything and that's what makes them happy. How do i know you aren't one of those guys?
More resolution and size = more tonality that you can see even printed on a postcard. Yes, I can see the difference from 8 inches away, without glasses or a magnifying glass. And yes, higher resolution equals higher enjoyment for me. If you are happy with your 12MP, good for you, no need to spend more money. For me 12MP just is not enough.

Those who say 12MP is enought I guess are the pros that shot 135-film and not medium format. Sports shooters etc I guess, published in a newspaper/internet.

Last edited by Tjompen1968; 03-08-2016 at 10:42 AM.
03-08-2016, 10:20 PM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ponoka Alberta Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 545
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Interesting you should bring this up. I think back in the days of the 4 MP, there was still quite a bit of room for improvement. But I've had pros tell me they don't need more than 12 MP for what they do even after the D800 came out. So my guess is that after 12 MP it's the law of rapidly diminishing returns.
It really depends on what people think are diminished returns,
You can take a 36mp sensor and lens shoot it F/16 and it will be sharper than any 12mp sensor with the same lens across the entire Fstop range, including the peak Fstop for resolution for that 12mp sensor, something worth noting if you are not scared to stop down to F16 on a 36mp camera

---------- Post added 03-08-2016 at 11:27 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Tjompen1968 Quote
More resolution and size = more tonality that you can see even printed on a postcard. Yes, I can see the difference from 8 inches away, without glasses or a magnifying glass. And yes, higher resolution equals higher enjoyment for me. If you are happy with your 12MP, good for you, no need to spend more money. For me 12MP just is not enough.
It is also worth noting that the more accurate one can record the very nature on how the light its self is being projected from the lens give you better data for thing like lens correction, NR, and also combating diffraction its self with software.
I also have a strong belief that its always better not having to sharpen a 36mp image over trying to sharpen a 12mp image so that its looks the same at a given output size, this reduces most of the IQ robbing artifacts you see in images captured at lower resolutions.

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 03-08-2016 at 10:30 PM. Reason: correction
03-08-2016, 11:15 PM - 2 Likes   #41
Senior Member
afan137's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Kyoto
Posts: 157
I don't understand why every time Norm is joining into the discussion, it is like I am reading Ken Rockwell saying that the best camera is the one with you, the best DSLR ever made is D40, and etc, etc.

Last edited by afan137; 03-09-2016 at 12:09 AM.
03-09-2016, 05:40 AM   #42
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteOriginally posted by afan137 Quote
I don't understand why every time Norm is joining into the discussion, it is like I am reading Ken Rockwell saying that the best camera is the one with you, the best DSLR ever made is D40, and etc, etc.
Is this what Ken Rockwell said?
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
For me the attraction to the K-1 is pixel shift, an advance in technology. I was looking at some images form my Sigma Merril DP2 last night, and if I can get that from the K-1 or K-5II, without catering to all those DP2 idiosyncrasies
I'll be a happy dude.
As per usual, hyperbole takes over. But I agree, the best camera is the one with you. But my photography teacher said that in 1967, when did Ken Rockwell start saying it? It's been an idiom among professional photographers since well before that I'm sure. I'm sure a lot of technically oriented photographers don't get it.

So, if you want to know who I first heard say "The best camera is the one you have with you." I first heard it from Bill Scanlon our technical studio instructor in the Photo Arts program at Ryerson Politech in 1967. I know why I listened to him, he was an amazing and inspirational photographer. I just don't know why I would listen to you?

You might want to think about that response, before you compare me to any other of the idiots out there.

Maybe you remind me of bozo the clown, but do I say anything? Stick to the technical point and artistic points and we'll be fine.

Last edited by normhead; 03-09-2016 at 06:05 AM.
03-09-2016, 10:03 AM - 1 Like   #43
Senior Member
afan137's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Kyoto
Posts: 157
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Is this what Ken Rockwell said?

As per usual, hyperbole takes over. But I agree, the best camera is the one with you. But my photography teacher said that in 1967, when did Ken Rockwell start saying it? It's been an idiom among professional photographers since well before that I'm sure. I'm sure a lot of technically oriented photographers don't get it.

So, if you want to know who I first heard say "The best camera is the one you have with you." I first heard it from Bill Scanlon our technical studio instructor in the Photo Arts program at Ryerson Politech in 1967. I know why I listened to him, he was an amazing and inspirational photographer. I just don't know why I would listen to you?

You might want to think about that response, before you compare me to any other of the idiots out there.

Maybe you remind me of bozo the clown, but do I say anything? Stick to the technical point and artistic points and we'll be fine.
Norm, this tread the OP asked about the lens performance when it will be used on K-1, and the FPS. But then suddenly you threw a picture taken with your Optio 80w, saying how sharp it is. And you want to drag the discussion that Fullframe sensor won't make better picture. (As you said: I doubt it. 36 MP is oodles of overkill for landscape).
You seemed to be irritated when OP saying:.
QuoteQuote:
more MP than the K-3 because I feel that it will make my photographic journey even more fun.... .
And your answer was: .
QuoteQuote:
"more is better thinking.. I'm just not sure it actually leads to more joy form buying more expensive gear, or more joy from the actual images. Some guys just like to think they have the biggest and best of everything and that's what makes them happy. How do i know you aren't one of those guys?.
When people want to buy better gear, more MPx for their purpose, why do you feel it is so wrong? Why do you even have to throw picture taken with your Optio 80w, saying that it is great (for you) ?! Of course you can print your image, even Apple promoted that Iphone can be used to print as big as billboards (Apple extends ?Shot on iPhone 6? campaign to billboards, newspapers, magazines and more).

What is great enough for you, maybe not great enough for others. You unconsciously has hijacked this thread for your own enjoyment.

Aha, about KR, I think I read it somewhere around 2009 that he said so. I can't figure it out when he said "the best camera is the one with you" from his crappy website. But you can try to read this: Your Camera Doesn't Matter.
03-09-2016, 12:13 PM   #44
Pentaxian
ScooterMaxi Jim's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 1,501
This is an interesting thread in that it really highlights some shifting perspectives regarding what's the highest priority.

Given that the typical Pentax user is not particularly concerned about getting the best sports-action results out of a FF body, the marginal differences between 4.4 and 5fps is an odd fascination. What we would want to see, though, is the sensor that is designed to best control issues with CA and fall off in the corners. Work to a Pentax strength of overall IQ.

I'd have to agree overall with Norm, though, that the ultimate IQ difference between 24 and 36mp begins to be marginal. To the extent that marginal lenses (and there will be quite a few of them) require some cropping, the added pixels have more significance. But from an ultimate image quality perspective, Pentax has to continue working on improving overall AF accuracy and speed - both in bodies and lens motor design. That is where the biggest concern remains.

Last edited by ScooterMaxi Jim; 03-09-2016 at 12:55 PM.
03-09-2016, 01:58 PM   #45
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
QuoteOriginally posted by ScooterMaxi Jim Quote
This is an interesting thread in that it really highlights some shifting perspectives regarding what's the highest priority.

Given that the typical Pentax user is not particularly concerned about getting the best sports-action results out of a FF body, the marginal differences between 4.4 and 5fps is an odd fascination. What we would want to see, though, is the sensor that is designed to best control issues with CA and fall off in the corners. Work to a Pentax strength of overall IQ.

I'd have to agree overall with Norm, though, that the ultimate IQ difference between 24 and 36mp begins to be marginal. To the extent that marginal lenses (and there will be quite a few of them) require some cropping, the added pixels have more significance. But from an ultimate image quality perspective, Pentax has to continue working on improving overall AF accuracy and speed - both in bodies and lens motor design. That is where the biggest concern remains.
Wonder if that is ever likely to happen? When you look at the cost of the faster AF Nikon and Canon bodies, it Pentax ever going to ask for that kind of a premium.

Nikon D610, 24 MP $1600. Nikon D750 $2300. IN Canada there's a 7 hundred dollar premium for that AF unit and a little bit more FPS. It's unlikely that Pentax has the capacity or the sales volume to support what is for most a specialty item. And just adding a faster AF unit if one is available for $700 pretty much knocks theK-1 out of range for a huge number of Pentax shooters. IN fact, with the D750 being what it is, I'm surprised we'd even entertain this conversation. Apparently it's great little camera, it does what a lot of people want, everyone from the forum who's bought one loves it.

The odds of Pentax ever producing such a camera are slim to non-existant. If you want one, you have to switch.

Last edited by normhead; 03-10-2016 at 01:48 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!
basics, camera, dslr, ff, frames, full frame, full-frame, half, image, images, k-1, k1, lens, lenses, mp, pentax k-1, picture, resolution, self, sensor, size
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Right or wrong decision ??? kjphilippona General Photography 36 11-11-2015 11:45 AM
Thematic So Wrong It's Right - Flawed Photos That Just Work Bluescale Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories 22 09-04-2015 12:50 PM
Nature Whats Wrong, What's Right? plantej Photo Critique 10 07-09-2015 03:25 PM
Studio kit... right stuff, wrong time. Buddha Jones Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 2 03-29-2009 03:58 PM
Sometimes wrong is right Mark2100 General Talk 5 02-07-2009 09:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:54 PM. | 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