[Class A]

Also thanks for pointing out the advantage of APSC when shooting macro, ...

There is no advantage to APS-C when shooting macro.

Some APS-C cameras may support more digital zooming (cropping) but that's not a consequence of their sensor format but of their higher pixel density.

For instance, shooting macros with a K-5 (II) or K-1 (II) will give you pretty much the same images in terms of resolution because these sensors share pretty much the same pixel density (~208 pixels/mm vs 205 pixels/mm horizontally).

If you choose a K-3, then you get 256 pixel/mm horizontally which is a ~19% increase in resolution which could be used for "digital zooming". You'll be stressing the lens' capabilities more when doing this, but it is often a legitimate way to simulating getting closer.

However, this is not a perk courtesy of the APS-C format but of a higher-density sensor. So if you are looking for the ideal macro camera, do not pay attention to the sensor format but to the sensor pixel density.

[swanlefitte]

Of course if you only shoot jpg and want straight out of camera a smaller sensor allows one to back away which gives more dof. One might need 1:1 to fill the frame with 35mm but only 1:1.5 on apsc.

[Class A]

Of course if you only shoot jpg and want straight out of camera a smaller sensor allows one to back away which gives more dof.

If that's the case, just back away with your FF camera and shoot in APS-C crop mode.

Everything else being equal, an APS-C image is just a pre-cropped FF image (without an option for undoing the cropping). There really is no advantage to APS-C unless the particular APS-C sensor happens to provide a higher pixel density.

[LensBeginner]

It is clear that it is utterly impossible to say 40,000 sensible things about Pentax in a month (lifetime?). Encouraging verbal flatulence on this site does humanity no favours. It is quality that should be encouraged, not quantity.

This one is better than last one (the 15 & 77mm LTD one), maybe because likes aren't a requirement.
Besides, a rapid count shows that with this pace the 40k mark can't be attained within the month.

Regarding macro, I've always found the reproduction ratio to be kinda meaningless, or bettert means something when used on the same sensor, even better on the same camera.

It doesn't take into account quality, croppability and, more important, final viewing size, resolution & distance.
Because in the end we all kinda look at the pictures we take, don't we?

Maybe it had more sense when you printed what you shot, no cropping, and all done on 35mm film? were other formats used for macro, in the age of film?

[swanlefitte]

Agree with you. I am just thing more about really tiny 3d things like a mustard seed. FF would need about 10x (no dof) or heavy crop (wasted pixels) But a 20.3mp 1/2.3 sensor like the LUMIX DC-ZS70S with small yet dense pixels will be better.
Its a trade off smaller pixels not as good but better dof. When the sensor is bigger than the subject convention wisdom starts to change. I suppose that goes up to the point when the pixel becomes bigger than the subject. At that point the picture is the average of all information, i suppose that is 1 bit.

[Wild Mark]

The benefit of higher pixel density in the k3 over the k1 does give it the edge wrt macro. But enter the k1ii with hand held pixel shift. Effectively this combo makes the k1ii a macro monster. What I would like to know is the ‘effective’ pixel density in a pixel shift sceanrio.

[Class A]

But a 20.3mp 1/2.3 sensor like the LUMIX DC-ZS70S with small yet dense pixels will be better.

It depends on the lens. The requirements on lens quality are a lot higher, if you use very small sensors with very high pixel densities.

The enlargement factor for smaller sensor is higher, for a 1/2.3" sensor it is 5.5, and this will magnify any lens problems (just like cropping does).

Its a trade off smaller pixels not as good but better dof.

You don't obtain better DOF from using small sensors (or smaller pixels).

When the sensor is bigger than the subject convention wisdom starts to change.

Why do you think that?

Just crop the image of a big sensor to the dimensions of the small sensor. As long as you still have as many pixels as the smaller sensor has, there will be absolutely no difference to capturing with a small sensor in the first place.

[normhead]

It is clear that it is utterly impossible to say 40,000 sensible things about Pentax in a month (lifetime?). Encouraging verbal flatulence on this site does humanity no favours. It is quality that should be encouraged, not quantity.

Sensible is overrated.

[swanlefitte]

You don't obtain better DOF from using small sensors (or smaller pixels).


Why do you think that?

Just crop the image of a big sensor to the dimensions of the small sensor. As long as you still have as many pixels as the smaller sensor has, there will be absolutely no difference to capturing with a small sensor in the first place.

Well you dont have as many pixels on a larger sensor. In theory they could. A large pixel has many advantages so they won't.
"Digital zoom" is needed when things are smaller than the sensor. Just like large prints benefit from 36mp over 20mp, where at "normal" size you don't see that benefit.
Now with the smaller sensor i can trade those extra pixels for dof.
But smaller pixels bring diffraction problems and lens problems are more apparent. At smaller sizes you are closing in on sizes of lightwaves so it gets much trickier when things are smaller than the sensor. Any subject larger than the sensor is like down sampling. Any subject smaller is up sampling.

[stevebrot]

Everything else being equal, an APS-C image is just a pre-cropped FF image

...and both are unreasonably severe crops of 4x5.

Regarding macro, I've always found the reproduction ratio to be kinda meaningless, or bettert means something when used on the same sensor, even better on the same camera.

Reproduction ratio provides a convenient means to estimate what to expect, assuming, of course that one has a good notion of the actual frame size. With film cameras, the frame size is fairly obvious and is impressed on the user every time the film is changed. With digital cameras it is not as obvious and I suspect that many owners overestimate the physical frame size they are shooting and when moving from APS-C to FF are surprised at the lower "bang-per-frame" they get at 1:1.

In a mildly humorous tone, here is one of my favorite 1:1 "macro" images...



1:1 with 6x7cm is soooo not as macro as one might expect.


Steve

[stevebrot]

What I would like to know is the ‘effective’ pixel density in a pixel shift sceanrio

The same as without PS, unless one is interested in downgrading the pixel density of a non-PS image based on Bayer interpolation loss. (PS essentially defeats Bayer interpolation.)


Steve

[Wild Mark]

The same as without PS, unless one is interested in downgrading the pixel density of a non-PS image based on Bayer interpolation loss. (PS essentially defeats Bayer interpolation.)


Steve

Thanks Steve. I partially gained my perspective from this:

"The output of a 24-megapixel Bayer sensor with pixel shifting could theoretically be compared to the detail reproduced by a conventional Bayer sensor with a resolution between 48 and 96 megapixels if we consider the total recorded color data shown in Figure 7. In fact, Olympus has already used a similar technology to implement super-resolution and increase the effective pixel count, albeit via a slightly different 8-image process. The net result of both approaches should be comparable. We tend to favor Pentax's approach for reasons explained in the conclusion of the article."

Read more at: How Pentax Pixel Shifting Works - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

It seems logical to me that effective pixel density increases with pixel shift and, when applied hand held in the K-1, I suspect the effective pixel density is much greater than the physical sensor.

[LensBeginner]

It seems logical to me that effective pixel density increases with pixel shift and, when applied hand held in the K-1, I suspect the effective pixel density is much greater than the physical sensor.

I think it the other way, that is with a conventional sensor you don't get all the pixels they say you do, because 2 values out of 3 for every pixel are "invented". With PS, 36 MP is 36 very real MP.

[Wild Mark]

I think it the other way, that is with a conventional sensor you don't get all the pixels they say you do, because 2 values out of 3 for every pixel are "invented". With PS, 36 MP is 36 very real MP.

Thanks but you essentially illustrate my point either way. Here you are saying that the native 36MP sensor is not actually 36MP, but with pixel shift it becomes a real 36MB.

No matter how you look at this, the four images combined into one through pixel shift will make the K-1ii a better macro camera than the 24MP K3ii when hand held.

[LensBeginner]

Thanks but you essentially illustrate my point either way. Here you are saying that the native 36MP sensor is not actually 36MP, but with pixel shift it becomes a real 36MB.

No matter how you look at this, the four images combined into one through pixel shift will make the K-1ii a better macro camera than the 24MP K3ii when hand held.

Yes of course. It's just a matter of perspective, but the gist remains the same.