Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-22-2012, 10:52 AM - 4 Likes   #1
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,713
I'm actually astounded K5 IIs-D800e IQ

Warning...there is a correction posted later in this thread... I'm not going to delete this post, just so everyone can see the process. I'm hoping this will stand as an example of peer review. One guy posts finding, second guys says, 'you made a mistake". First guy takes abuse from idiot, (but doesn't lie down and take it). First guy goes back and reviews findings, finds mistake makes correction.. in the end we come to some hopefully valid conclusions. To me that's a great day at the office. Thanks to John Bee for checking my work.


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....


K5-11s


D800


Looking at the two images...first thing I wonder is, where exactly does this FF resolution advantage kick in?
Second is, the tech head gear promoting FF proponents on this site have sold me a bill of goods.

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.


Last edited by normhead; 10-22-2012 at 03:21 PM.
10-22-2012, 10:58 AM - 1 Like   #2
Pentaxian
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,456
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
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.
Your conclusion is entirely correct. I've been arguing that for ages. I don't know whether the comparison holds up at high-ISO though but I'm actually not even interested in the answer to that question. FF is simply a bad deal to me where a suggested IQ improvement (that, as you show, is highly theoretical in nature) is offset by a big increase in weight, size and expense.
10-22-2012, 11:02 AM   #3
Pentaxian
aurele's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,906
QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
Your conclusion is entirely correct. I've been arguing that for ages. I don't know whether the comparison holds up at high-ISO though but I'm actually not even interested in the answer to that question. FF is simply a bad deal to me where a suggested IQ improvement (that, as you show, is highly theoretical in nature) is offset by a big increase in weight, size and expense.
FF is not only about pixel peeping

Give me an APS-C with a VF as big as the one in my film SLR and with the size of APS-C body and i'll leave forever the FF desir
10-22-2012, 11:17 AM   #4
Pentaxian
panoguy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Washington, D.C.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,279
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Looking at the two images...first thing I wonder is, where exactly does this FF resolution advantage kick in?
Bragging rights, the second after you trip the shutter... "mine's bigger than yours!"

Oh, and 3...2...1... (someone writes "you should've compared to the D800E")

10-22-2012, 11:26 AM - 1 Like   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago Suburbs.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 450
Digital Photo Pro article

QuoteOriginally posted by newmikey Quote
Your conclusion is entirely correct. I've been arguing that for ages. I don't know whether the comparison holds up at high-ISO though but I'm actually not even interested in the answer to that question. FF is simply a bad deal to me where a suggested IQ improvement (that, as you show, is highly theoretical in nature) is offset by a big increase in weight, size and expense.
"New Trends in Pro DSLRs", posted October 2, 2012 on Digital Photo Pro magazine website argues the same thing. Everyone raving about FF, but many of the advantages for cost effective features that pros need are being built into high-end APS-C cameras or are inherent to having a smaller camera able to use both the FF lenses and APS-C lenses. Michael J McNamara's argument is that the format is "...going to be around for a long time based on its relative cost, size and several performance advantages over full-frame HDSLRs." I think he mentions the only identifiable niche that FF has an advantage is the need for narrow DOF that FF has over smaller formats.

As for image resolution, he says, "As manufacturers continue to pack more pixels into their full-frame sensors than their APS-C sensors (and they will, won't they?), photographers may start to notice a greater drop in resolution at apertures above ƒ/11 due to lens diffraction. Unfortunately, diffraction affects all lenses equally due to the physics of light and becomes more noticeable in high-resolution sensors (above 20 megapixels) and at apertures above ƒ/11—something to consider when you're trying to squeeze out more depth of field in a scenic or macro shot."

10-22-2012, 11:28 AM   #6
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,713
Original Poster
That is the D800e. I should correct the post above...what's an odd "e" between freinds?
10-22-2012, 11:53 AM   #7
Veteran Member
Docrwm's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Somewhere in the Southern US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,275
Nice comparison. At first I thought you had gotten your hands on a IIs somehow Still not available at either Adorama or B&H as of a minute ago. I'm looking forward to field tests of it here. Thanks for the post.
10-22-2012, 11:55 AM - 1 Like   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
ISO100 default NR JPGs from respective cameras on: Imaging-Resource.com
Pentax K-5IIS crop up res'ed to same size as Nikon D800E (100% crop as-is)



Last edited by UnknownVT; 10-22-2012 at 12:15 PM.
10-22-2012, 12:04 PM   #9
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,480
Old habits die hard - to me that explains Canon being #1 and the idea that full frame is more 'natural' than aps-c. Once the lack of wide-angle options was solved the reason for full frame ended for me; anything larger and heavier than a K-5 will be on someone else's shoulder. If they come close to that with a full sensor, and I become a lottery winner I will revisit the matter.
10-22-2012, 12:04 PM   #10
Pentaxian
LeDave's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Minneapolis - St. Paul
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,895
QuoteOriginally posted by UnknownVT Quote
ISO100 default NR JPGs from respective cameras on: Imaging-Resource.com
Pentax K-5IIS crop up res'ed to same size as Nikon D800 (100% crop as-is)
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?
10-22-2012, 12:05 PM   #11
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,496
Hmmm....




Last edited by JohnBee; 10-22-2012 at 12:15 PM.
10-22-2012, 12:06 PM   #12
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,713
Original Poster
Pentax engineers refrain even from tehir patent abstracts is,(I paraphrase) "this lens is designed to take pictures the way people take pictures, not to do well on lens charts." The implication is that there is a difference between a lens and system designed for 2d rendering and 3d rendering. So yes, I wouldn't expect the KIIs to do as well rendering 2D text images in black and white. But you know what? I don't have any images on my wall of test charts and black on white text images.. and if I print them, I can't sell them. SO maybe youneed to get with the Pentax program here. Lenses and cameras for real world images that people actually take. By the same token, I could argue that a micro-fiche camera is better at reproducing text than my Pentax, but that doesn't mean I'd take pictures with it.

Often in artistic representations text is just represented as straight lines to fill the space of the words, with no actually text there at all. YOu don't need clear reproduction of text to have great images.
10-22-2012, 12:12 PM - 1 Like   #13
Site Supporter
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Hmmm....
Why is it that there is a clear difference between the K5 and D800 in John's pics but no difference in Norms?
10-22-2012, 12:16 PM   #14
Site Supporter
ironlionzion's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 409
I checked out Imagine Resource for myself....and the D800E looks a lot clearer and sharper than the Pentax. No clue what lenses they used, but to say that there is no difference between the two, according to the samples provided, is not true.
10-22-2012, 12:20 PM   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 1,812
QuoteOriginally posted by LeDave Quote
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?
No, these are the standard test images from Imaging-Resource.com
Pentax K-5IIS
Nikon D800E
(caution: both the links will open the full sized images)

The Pentax K-5IIS crop has been "enlarged"/up-res'ed by approx 149% linearly to be the same size as the Nikon D800E 100% crop -
the Nikon D800E is a 36Mp whereas the K5-IIS is 16Mp -hence the blurriness from the enlargement.

This is the 100% crop of the Pentax K-5IIS as-is (no enlargement)

Last edited by UnknownVT; 10-22-2012 at 01:02 PM.
Closed Thread

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!
advantage, camera, d800, dslr, ff, guy, image, images, photography, pixel, shooters, site
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon D800E vs Pentax 645D larkis Pentax Medium Format 148 12-17-2012 01:10 PM
K5 IIs nmrecording Pentax K-5 7 10-23-2012 12:01 AM
D800E vs Pentax 645D Video with Nick Devlin TCSJordan Pentax Medium Format 17 05-21-2012 07:11 PM
A tale of two cameras (D800E vs 1D4) Christine Tham Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 15 05-21-2012 03:02 AM
645d or Nikon d800e - HELP! EarthImage Pentax Medium Format 48 05-11-2012 07:44 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 PM. | 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