Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-15-2016, 12:15 PM   #151
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Well, a K-1 cleans up better than a K5 II in Lightroom. If you did a resize (remove roughly three out of four pixels to get to 8Mp instead of a downsample), the performance would be the same, though, as you imply.
Wow if you throw away 3/4 of the information of the K1, the K5-II manage to be as good. That's impressive...

I'd say you should change your postprocessing software man. A decent one would never throw up information like that.

07-15-2016, 12:48 PM   #152
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,939
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And that's a point the people concerned about "what camera is better at high ISO" tend to ignore. As you're ISO goes up, you Dynamic range goes down. To a certain extent this in compensated for by the fact that in low light there is less contrast in the scene, so you need less dynamic range to capture it. and wishing reason, loss of Dynamic Ranges is correctable in post processing. But in many images it's not the noise that ruins your high ISO image, it's the loss of dynamic range, and uncontrolled light sources creating shadows in odd places.
I have always thought that this is the issue with high iso performance. If you know what you are doing, noise reduction isn't too hard to do, but images just start looking washed out and plasticky after a certain point.
07-15-2016, 12:49 PM   #153
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
Ok... I dowloaded a K1 picture at 6400 iso, a raw actually. Same for K5-IIs. I applied exactly the same noise algorithm and processing on both. I resized the K1 image to match the K5-IIs. The raw both come from Imaging Resources and the picture was taken with the same lens. A sigma 70mm macro.

You can see the both crop in attachment. The first one is K5-IIs, the second is K1. I let you judge what look best in practice between the 2.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-31-2017 at 02:03 PM.
07-15-2016, 12:57 PM   #154
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,167
It would appear, to these poor, old, bespectacled eyes, gazing at a small, old laptop screen, that the bottom picture has slightly less contrast and perhaps a touch less detail. But I absolutely will not wager any of my meager retirement wages on the observation.

07-15-2016, 01:25 PM   #155
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
It would appear, to these poor, old, bespectacled eyes, gazing at a small, old laptop screen, that the bottom picture has slightly less contrast and perhaps a touch less detail. But I absolutely will not wager any of my meager retirement wages on the observation.
The K1 picture lost part of its contrast in pentax forum, it look sharper on my computer. I was thinking it was the focus but no... Pictures at home are 2.5MB and 250kB at Pentax forum... At home the K1 look sharper... I wonder if I shouldn't use flickr instead.

The K5-IIs manage well on highlight were the signal is strong but is lost in shadow details where you can see the effect of noise.: The pattern on the main center subject disappear on the K5-IIs and the noise is more visible on the black of the right bottle.

6400 iso should be a lot, but the lighting is actually good... The performance here more match what you'd get at 1600 iso in low light.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-15-2016 at 01:32 PM.
07-15-2016, 01:40 PM   #156
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
From flickr this time...

It is funny how Pentax Forum import algorithm managed to destroy the details of the K1 on the previous comparison !!!

K1:



K5-IIs:

07-15-2016, 01:56 PM   #157
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
The first 2 capture were representative of a "small" print were a good part of the detail of the K1 is lost. Kind of what DxO does with "print" setting...

But we all know that the noise is the same per pixel... So what would happen if we zoom enough to see the pixels of the K1 to match what a large print would do... So we see for outselve how "it doesn't matter anymore" if you print large enough. Funilly, the difference is actually more visible.

If you had a doubt how much of a difference it does make to apparent noise when you change actual resolution both have much less noise a K5-IIs resolution than K1 and K5-IIs look really terrible at K1 resolution.

K1 100% crop:



K5-IIs enlarged crop to match K1 resolution:

07-15-2016, 04:44 PM   #158
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,327
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
If you had a doubt how much of a difference it does make to apparent noise when you change actual resolution both have much less noise a K5-IIs resolution than K1 and K5-IIs look really terrible at K1 resolution.
Pretty bad demosaicing artefacts in both ...

07-15-2016, 11:30 PM - 1 Like   #159
Loyal Site Supporter
Pioneer's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Elko, Nevada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,167
All I have been able to tell for sure from all of these recent comparisons is that more megapickels results in more detail which allows you to either print larger or crop smaller. We have returned again to the age of film where the size of the negative determined the level of detail, and sometimes tonal range, of a print.

I think we can all safely shake hands all around and agree that a 645Z raw file has more detail than a K-1 file which has more detail than a K-3 file which has more detail than a Q file and so on. I know that most participants in internet forums may not quite be ready for this but the equipment is probably good enough now.

It is probably also pretty safe to say that digital performs as well as film, just a bit differently. While the process for getting to the end result takes somewhat different routes the goal in the end is a photo in the hand, on the wall, or in some digital forum where it can be viewed and appreciated.
07-16-2016, 04:06 AM   #160
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,532
Now a crop after resizing to 8MP both K1 and K5, still 6400 isos:

Funilly there never a case where K5-IIs match K1... neither at 8MP, 16MP or 36MP...

K1



K5-IIs

07-19-2016, 12:51 AM   #161
Pentaxian
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,456
QuoteOriginally posted by Pioneer Quote
I think we can all safely shake hands all around and agree that a 645Z raw file has more detail than a K-1 file which has more detail than a K-3 file which has more detail than a Q file and so on. I know that most participants in internet forums may not quite be ready for this but the equipment is probably good enough now.
This is as close to an "absolute truth" as I have been able to see in this thread. With that said, we can now move on...
07-19-2016, 04:22 AM   #162
Imp
Pentaxian
Imp's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
It's a very limited market in my opinion and I look forward to picking one up for <$1000 in a year or two, new. We'll see.
And you said the D810 was a bargain at 3 grand

Kidding
07-19-2016, 09:37 AM   #163
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 698
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
So clearly FF is about 30-40% better at shallow depth of field shots, on paper. I have been a professional photographer for over 30 years, I'd be hard pressed to take 2 photographs that could actually show anyone these differences.

I've not know from a quantified standpoint what the difference is, but I'll take your word for it here. Thanks for doing the math, and sharing.


There are many reasons to buy a FF camera, depth of field superiority really just isn't one of them in my opinion and I think the math and practical application back me up. If you can't see the difference, who cares?
In tests where the difference is highlighted, I believe I can see the (rather small) difference. My belief is that I'm not really concerned about those rather small differences, so the FF on that basis really does not add value, for me at least. My conclusion is similar to yours. That said, however, the photos I've seen taken by the K-1 look really, really, good, so there may be other good reasons for the FF. For most of my photos, I'm generally trying to achieve more DOF, not less, so this thin DOF thing that so many here are so crazy-in-love-with is mostly contrary to what I'm trying for.

As a side note, many are considering if they should step up to the FF camera. I must be the only contrarian around here as I'm asking whether I could support a step down to a smaller sensor.

Thanks again for your contributions.
07-19-2016, 10:49 AM   #164
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 604
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Imp Quote
And you said the D810 was a bargain at 3 grand

Kidding




Ahhh, but the D810 IS a bargain at $3K. There's nothing you can't do professionally with a D810, the K1 is system limited worse than a Sony.


(Actually the biggest bargain out there at the moment is the D500, but that's another topic)


One camera body does not make a system...

---------- Post added 07-19-16 at 11:53 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by GlennG Quote
As a side note, many are considering if they should step up to the FF camera. I must be the only contrarian around here as I'm asking whether I could support a step down to a smaller sensor.

Thanks again for your contributions.


Then you throw the Nikon D500 into the mix and things really get strange: A DX camera with high iso performance of FF? Say what?




I wouldn't go any smaller than APS-c. The difference between M4/3 and APS-c is much bigger than any difference between APS-c and FF in my opinion.


But try it and see what you think, that's the only way to know for sure.
07-19-2016, 12:45 PM   #165
New Member




Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Tarnowskie Góry
Posts: 11
Watch this and all question will be answered:
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!
aperture, aps-c, background, blur, camera, dof, dslr, feet, ff, ff over aps-c, field, focus, frame, full frame, full-frame, k-1, k1, lens, paper, pentax k-1, people, picture, posters, stitching
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FF vs APS-C Field of View revisited Ole Pentax K-1 2 05-07-2016 02:13 PM
Confused about Angle of View of Lenses on FF vs APS-C? Kath Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 10-01-2015 09:55 AM
Does FF vs APS-C affect amount of light? windhorse General Photography 46 03-02-2015 07:07 PM
Quick question regarding field of view - FF vs APS-C glass? Julie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 12-23-2012 05:33 PM
APS-C does not increase focal length over FF, it decreases field of view. TomTextura Photographic Technique 135 06-09-2012 04:58 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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