Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-19-2016, 01:50 PM   #166
Imp
Pentaxian
Imp's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,342
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
A DX camera with high iso performance of FF? Say what?
That's what everyone one says, yet, surprise surprise, DXO says otherwise

07-19-2016, 02:01 PM   #167
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,878
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
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?
The D500 is Nikon's entry in the sports/events competition; in the past, users have talked in terms of having constant-wide-aperture telephoto zoom lenses, but I believe going to "insanely high" ISO is going to be the new approach. In fact, now that the K-1 is available for field photographers, I expect Pentax to turn their "flagship" APS-C line in that direction - perhaps the technology Pentax is trying out in the K-70 is preparation for a Pentax K-3iis {or some such thing} that will be their entry.


added thought: I even dare to hope the K-70 technology will be used to revive the "Q" line.

Last edited by reh321; 07-19-2016 at 02:03 PM. Reason: added thought
07-19-2016, 07:29 PM   #168
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 614
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Imp Quote
That's what everyone one says, yet, surprise surprise, DXO says otherwise


And people like Thom Hogan who actually shot the camera, surprise, surprise say something different than what DXO says, and they say why it's so.


DxOMarked | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan


I think this says it best though: "For some reason these posted numbers seem to have reverence for folk who don’t fully understand how they’re calculated."
07-19-2016, 11:17 PM   #169
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,486
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Pretty bad demosaicing artefacts in both ...

Look, I think Nicolas should simply have linked the two RAW files and people can see for themselves, without all his elaborate attempts at post-processing.


Hey, I'll do it:


http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/pentax-k5-iis/FULLRES/K52ShSLI06400NRAD.DNG


http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/pentax-k1/FULLRES/K1hSLI006400NRAD.DNG


Imaging Resource took the photos four years apart so they can never be the same ... shadows in different spots, the crayon box cover up rather than down, and so on - you can have fun spotting the differences. This is very rough.


But, say, bring 'em into the Lightroom Library module as I did (screenshot attached), make sure no additional presets are being applied (you can see I zeroed them) and choose comparison/pixel peep if you like.


Here's just one area. Back in Post 87, Nicholas claimed: "for quite challenging shoots in low light you'll benefit from better noise handling beyond the theoretical 1.3EV because the K3 is older and don't benefit of the same technology. Would you happen to be limited by your lens apperture rather than dof, the differnce will increase by 1.3 stop uppon the technology improvement. That why people say there 2EV difference, some even say 3-4EV."


The K5-IIs shot is on the left - it's four years older and APS-C. See if you think the brand new full frame K-1 shot on the right is twice (one stop), 4 times (2 stops), 8 times, or even 16 times better as Nicholas says.

Attached Images
 

Last edited by clackers; 07-21-2016 at 10:21 PM.
07-19-2016, 11:50 PM - 1 Like   #170
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,916
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
And people like Thom Hogan who actually shot the camera, surprise, surprise say something different than what DXO says, and they say why it's so.


DxOMarked | DSLRBodies | Thom Hogan


I think this says it best though: "For some reason these posted numbers seem to have reverence for folk who don’t fully understand how they’re calculated."
Right, but then his own observations perfectly matches dxomark curves, so I'm not sure what his point is.

"But heck with the data, what do I see? (1) minimal and ignorable differences between the D500 and D7200 in raw capture;"
As the DXOmark curves indicates.

"(2) slightly better noise reduction handling in the D500 over the D7200 in JPEGs;"
This can't be seen though as they don't evaluate jpegs.

"(3) better raw and JPEG output from the D5 than the D500 in the critical range I shoot sports in (ISO 1600 to ISO 6400, sometimes 12800);"
Right, as the curves says. (Except the jpeg part).

"(4) worse D5 raw output than the D4/D4s up to about ISO 1600, but not enough to fret about, and somewhat better D5 output than the D4/D4s above ISO 1600,"
As the curves indicates.

What was his point again?

Last edited by Gimbal; 07-19-2016 at 11:56 PM.
07-19-2016, 11:57 PM   #171
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Look, I think Nicholas should simply have linked the two RAW files and people can see for themselves, without all his elaborate attempts at post-processing.


Hey, I'll do it:


http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/pentax-k5-iis/FULLRES/K52ShSLI06400NRAD.DNG


http://216.18.212.226/PRODS/pentax-k1/FULLRES/K1hSLI006400NRAD.DNG


Imaging Resource took the photos four years apart so they can never be the same ... shadows in different spots, the crayon box cover up rather than down, and so on - you can have fun spotting the differences. This is very rough.


But, say, bring 'em into the Lightroom Library module as I did (screenshot attached), make sure no additional presets are being applied (you can see I zeroed them) and choose comparison/pixel peep if you like.


Here's just one area. Back in Post 87, Nicholas claimed: "for quite challenging shoots in low light you'll benefit from better noise handling beyond the theoretical 1.3EV because the K3 is older and don't benefit of the same technology. Would you happen to be limited by your lens apperture rather than dof, the differnce will increase by 1.3 stop uppon the technology improvement. That why people say there 2EV difference, some even say 3-4EV."


The K5-IIs shot is on the left - it's four years older and APS-C. See if you think the brand new full frame K-1 shot on the right is twice (one stop), 4 times (2 stops), 8 times, or even 16 times better as Nicholas says.

I must have issues with my eyes because I don't see the 2 image having the same size...

Unfortunately, buying a K1 with 50% more pixels doesn't mean that suddenly my screen become 50% bigger, and that I'll use 50% bigger paper size when printing...

And if I really do it... If I print that large and look from near distance (as 2 100% crop would imply), everybody would instanly recognize that one have much fine details than the other...
07-20-2016, 12:05 AM   #172
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,916
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
The K5-IIs shot is on the left - it's four years older and APS-C. See if you think the brand new full frame K-1 shot on the right is twice (one stop), 4 times (2 stops), 8 times, or even 16 times better as Nicholas says.
There is definitely a lot more information in the K1 picture.

Do you think they are equal?
07-20-2016, 12:25 AM   #173
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,386
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
Do you think they are equal?
As far as SNR goes, yes. And if we were to move the K-5ii camera nearer to the scene, to satisfy equivalence aficionados, then there would be little if any difference.

07-20-2016, 12:52 AM   #174
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,916
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
As far as SNR goes, yes.
Really?

Signal being information and noise being spurious and random, I would say that there is a lot more information (signal) in the K1 picture (looking at the whole picture of course, or a downsized picture, whatever you like).


QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
And if we were to move the K-5ii camera nearer to the scene, to satisfy equivalence aficionados, then there would be little if any difference.
Then we would get the same amount of information in the center yes, however a lot of the scene would be missing. Again a loss of information compared to the whole scene captured by the K1.

Last edited by BigMackCam; 07-24-2016 at 12:26 AM. Reason: Edited mild vulgarity
07-20-2016, 02:54 AM   #175
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,386
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
I would say that there is a lot more information (signal) in the K1 picture
Unfortunately the mathematics of SNR does not care what is in the picture - whether it is fluffy kittens or just a boring grey card.
07-20-2016, 04:49 AM   #176
Imp
Pentaxian
Imp's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,342
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
And people like Thom Hogan who actually shot the camera, surprise, surprise say something different than what DXO says, and they say why it's so.
Just to set it straight, I'm not siding with DXO over real life use - I'm merely observing, ironically, how real life use and user perception is often perceptually different than on paper in the lab tests. I'd want to use a camera myself, and then judge for myself whether it is good enough for me or not. Therefore, still using my K-30!
07-20-2016, 10:59 PM   #177
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Unfortunately the mathematics of SNR does not care what is in the picture - whether it is fluffy kittens or just a boring grey card.
It funny how you take only what you like in the theory. Either it is applicable, the noise is random etc and the Snr measurement can apply to both K5-IIs and D810... either you can't. If you can't you can't claim they are equal, because they are unknown.

If you can the same theory say, that K5IIs picture enlarged to 36MB loose a bit more than3db and D810 picture reduced to 16MB gain a bit more than 3db.
07-20-2016, 11:12 PM   #178
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,614
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
As far as SNR goes, yes. And if we were to move the K-5ii camera nearer to the scene, to satisfy equivalence aficionados, then there would be little if any difference.
If you do that so that the APSC doesn't have the same framing, loosing more than half of the picture in the operation for a drastically different picture for pratical maters:
- you can do exactly the same with the other camera if it was the framing you really wanted to begin with
- or you take a completely different photo so speaking of equivalence make no sense as you'll not get an equivalent picture, only a bit less than half of it.
07-21-2016, 02:09 PM   #179
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Eastern Oregon
Posts: 614
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
There is definitely a lot more information in the K1 picture.

Do you think they are equal?


If you can't see any of that "more information" in a 30x40 print, who cares?


A 4x5 inch negative has a lot more information than a K1 picture, why are you not using that? Or even better, 8x10...
07-21-2016, 02:21 PM   #180
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,224
QuoteOriginally posted by Qwntm Quote
If you can't see any of that "more information" in a 30x40 print, who cares? A 4x5 inch negative has a lot more information than a K1 picture, why are you not using that? Or even better, 8x10...
Hi Ed, nice to see you here. Fuji is nice but no full frame. Haven't seen your own style review of the Pentax K1 on Photouniverse. When are you going to upload it ? Pentax K1 without special 30 years pro practical review of Photouniverse can't be. Call Ricoh , ask them to lend you a K1 body to doing a practical review of it on photounivers :-)
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, 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