[normhead]

I'm sorry but don't trust imaging-resource. They do bad samples often, just look awful hi-iso shots of Sony RX, other sites did them better.

If you can suggest a better source for these kinds of images, then I'd love to hear it, and so would everyone else. But I've asked for these types of images repeatedly on this site and no one seems up to the task.

both up-res'ed/enlarged to 9000px

Did you miss the part about the micro-fiche machine?

[msatlas]

Getting back to the original post a bit, sensor resolution is always going to get better. Compare a K-5 to pro FF DSLRs from 10 years ago and it's no contest. There are benefits to FF over APS-C other than just pure resolution.

FF allows for shallower DOF for a given angle of view, because you use a longer lens than APS-C for the same given angle of view. So you can more comfortably stop down a lens to where it's sharp and still get shallow-enough DOF.

You can get better high ISO & low-light performance. Pentax's SR sure helps in low light but would you rather use SR or just be able to bump up the ISO while avoiding noise and get a faster shutter speeed that allows you to take pictures of moving things?

Not saying that Pentax doesn't also have its benefits. I have a nice small Domke F-5XC shoulder bag into which I can fit my Pentax body & 5 lenses, and it's light enough to carry around all day. Pentax is by far the most photographer-friendly APS-C system (IMHO). It's cheaper than FF, has the best lens backward compatibility, etc.

But there are concrete reasons to go FF besides just resolution.

[ironlionzion]

The two images are very different sizes . makes them really hard to compare... why not just bring the K-5 IIs image up to the size of the the other image for comparison? Or is proving someone else might have made a mistake or accusing them of deliberately fudging results) more important than the topic at hand? AH

I showed you how the D800E image you posted and the D800E John posted are CLEARLY different images. I looked at all the ISO samples of the D800E and couldn't find one that matched your sample.

Maybe you made a careless mistake. The fact that you won't live up to the mistake says a lot. Even going as far as blaming me for changing the subject.

Well, you compared two images stating that it was a comparison between the K5 iiS and the D800E. The fact that it isn't actually the D800E IS CENTRAL TO YOUR (falsified) ARGUMENT.

[normhead]

But there are concrete reasons to go FF besides just resolution.

That's not in question. The question is do you get better prints in terms of perceived IQ with a higher resolution camera, and at what size of print does that kick in at... and unfortunately it may turn out that the only way to do that is to print something up. Lots of people have demonstrated techniques with FF cameras that would be difficult if not impossible to replicate in APS-c, but for most of us, it's not a style we are enamored of. It's also been pretty much established that if reduced enough the images become indistinguishable. So my effort today was in trying to determine the limits around those subjects.

RIght now I'm waiting to get a chance to replicate John Bee's images on my own computer... and try and figure out what I might have done wrong. Just the discrepancy in image size between mine Johns and AHs image sizes would suggest I didn't do what I think I did. So I'm going to be giving that a look, when I get back to my computer. If folks who make the effort to check your work for you, the least you can do is go back and see what happened. Given two people have taken the time to check what I did and got a different result, I'll definitely be giving it a second look with more care to making sure I'm doing what I thought I was doing.

[normhead]

Well, you compared two images stating that it was a comparison between the K5 iiS and the D800E. The fact that it isn't actually the D800E IS CENTRAL TO YOUR (falsified) ARGUMENT.

You really need to take a pill.

[UnknownVT]

Did you miss the part about the micro-fiche machine?

Nope those were from the Imaging-Resource.com Studio shot images cropped from a different part of the image -
I merely used an area that would show the difference due to the resolution.

These were the respective images used:
Pentax K-5IIS
Nikon D800E
(caution: both the links will open the full sized images)

In fact when I first posted the more moderate enlargement of the K-5IIS so that it merely matched the Nikon D800E 100% crop
- it got this response:

Something doesn't seem right with that picture, it's incredibly blurry and out of focus for the K-5iis shot, maybe they used a 18-55 with severe back/front focus problems?

These are the original 100% crops next to each other:

we are talking about the difference between 36Mp (D800E) and 16Mp (K-5IIS)
- which is in theory 149% increase in linear resolution for the D800E over the K-5IIS
The K-5IIS is very good - but it is not miraculous.

[JinDesu]

I'm sorry but don't trust imaging-resource. They do bad samples often, just look awful hi-iso shots of Sony RX, other sites did them better.

They don't do BAD samples, AFAIK. They present them BADLY.

When you bring up the image comparometer, they often compare pictures that have NR on, etc, vs other pics that don't. For example, if you go to the image comparometer and compare the k-5 vs the 5D Mk3, it looks like the 5D Mk3 has almost 2-3 stops vs the k-5. However, if you have a sharp eye, you'll notice that the 5D Mk3's files have NR on, while the k-5 has none (or low, I forget).

When you actually go to the individual camera pages, and you find the correct files to compare, the k-5 is only 1 stop weaker than the 5D Mk3 pictures.

So don't use the image comparometer. Go to individual camera pages and select the most EQUIVALENT files (or process your own RAWs).

(But processing your own RAWs requires you to have the individual camera profiles - so doing so for the k-5IIs RAWs may not extract the full information until they release the updates).

(Edit - This is for noise comparison. Sharpness comparison should be done this way, but humorously, Imaging Resources does suck at keeping the same focus points from picture to picture. Stop linking crops - link a full image or something. I've gone through their comparisons between the k-5, D7000, and 7D and noticed that different areas were in focus - leading to improper conclusions between internet users saying one was sharper than the other.)

[normhead]

Nope those were from the Imaging-Resource.com Studio shot images cropped from a different part of the image -
I merely used an area that would show the difference due to the resolution.

YOu're still not getting it... developing a lens that is compatable with focussing on a flat plane 2D object is different from developing a lens that provides good representation of 3D. I prefer comparisons of 3D as opposed to comparisons of 2D, because 100% of what i shoot is 3D. I don't shoot (and can't sell) images of scales, it's hard to create personal interest.

[Parallax]

I have to say, looking at these results, I think the indisputable conclusion has to be, for most shooters, and I bet less than 1% of the Pentax shooters on this site enlarge their images as much as I do... you're better off buying better lenses than investing in an FF system, which apparently offers no demonstrable advantages in IQ. At least not that I can see from these images.

But Norm, your forgetting about depth of field! With FF you can take a picture of a news paper and have the ink in focus and the paper it's printed on blurred. Don't you get it?

[ironlionzion]

YOu're still not getting it

You're still not getting it. You compared a K5 image with itself and declared that the K5 is just as good as a D800E. The ignorance amazes me.

[ironlionzion]

Download your pics and zoom in until the pixels are huge. You will see that the two pictures you posted, claiming to be from different cameras, are in fact the SAME.

[UnknownVT]

YOu're still not getting it... developing a lens that is compatable with focussing on a flat plane 2D object is different from developing a lens that provides good representation of 3D. I prefer comparisons of 3D as opposed to comparisons of 2D, because 100% of what i shoot is 3D. I don't shoot (and can't sell) images of scales, it's hard to create personal interest.

Excuse me, I do get it -
I don't need 36Mp either for now, and even shoot 10Mp mode with a 12Mp camera....

However you selected an area that would probably not show much significant difference, if any -
and I accept that for a 30x20 print the difference for that area you showed is not going to be that great between a 36Mp and even 16Mp - almost any 16Mp dSLR in fact, the older K-5, or K-30 would do it too
- that is not the point, just to use a silly example -
a 36Mp image of a plain blue sky is NOT going show much difference to a 6Mp dSLR either -
all I did was to pick some detail from the same shots that would show difference in detail -
I do not take pictures of book text print etc either -
but if one is trying to show significant detail difference one has to pick an area with enough detail to do so -
that is all

[philbaum]

I've been argueing methodology for ages with the tech heads on the site... buying into the "you have to have FF hype,"

I compared the K5IIs to the D600, not daring to compare it to the D800, because , honestly, I was starting to buy the FF hype.

So I decided to try one last experiment to convince myself of the value of FF.

The advantage of FF is more lines of resolution, so I though surely when enlarging photos, there's going to be a remarkable difference. I'll be able to convince the wife FF might be worth something to us.

SO here was my methodology. I took a 7000 plus pixel wide D800 image and a 4900 hundred pixel wide image from image Resource site...

I thought to myself, the largest I ever print is about 9000 wide, that 30x20 at 300 dpi, so I expanded both images to 9000 pixels. I cropped roughly the same part of the image so I coulds see both expanded images... here are the results....

.

Norm, thanks for the thread - an eye opener.

This year, i printed and stretched a canvas from my K5 to 24"x36". I've thought about going even larger, but then if i couldn't sell it...etc But the 36" length one was accepted by two juried shows and sold for a good sum at the second show. It was a very sharp canvas without being overly sharpened.

One of my memorable experiences last winter, was walking through heavy snow on Hurricane Ridge, WA. It was very cold so we bundled up like doughboys. It wasn't easy to rotate my camera bag around to the front, so i just resorted to stuffing the K5 down the front of my parka when i wasn't using it. I have no desire to switch to bigger heavier equipment, particularly the lenses. So i'm in the waiting camp with buying any FF, Pentax or otherwise. I'm sure in a year's time, there will be newer greater equipment and even more compelling reasons to change out cameras




It all comes down to obtaining the tools one needs. We're not all doing the same sorts of things, so why should we expect one camera to satisfy everyone.

[ironlionzion]

People keep posting thanking Norm for this "comparison." Really? No one is downloading the two photos Norm posted, and zooming in to see that they actually are the exact same photo? Not the K5 vs D800 as proposed.

[oxidized]

I dont see the point of comparing resolution, Clearly the pictures coming from a 36MP camera with a bigger sensor will be sharper than those of a 16MP camera. Whether you need the extra mega pixels is another argument. However the advantages of full frame are also that you can shoot with even winder lens (think nikon 12-24, rokinon 14, sigma 12-24), bigger brighter viewfinder (makes manual focus easier) and better bokeh for portraits... Now a big downside, processing/storing/backing up 36MP raw files can become quite the challenge VERY quickly...