Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-06-2014, 04:10 AM   #136
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,607
QuoteOriginally posted by Dieseler Quote
If my 12Mpix K-r was weatherproof, I would not have bothered upgrading to a K5iis, since the resolution upgrade has been a 'non-event' to me (I can't see much improvement using my 55-300 lens, maybe with a DA*300 I would).

As I mentioned here, 12Mpix would be enough for me, even in FF.
The 55-300 isn't really a lens that can leverage a high resolution sensor. It would maybe manage at 80mm f/8 but other than that...

10-06-2014, 04:16 AM   #137
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The 55-300 isn't really a lens that can leverage a high resolution sensor. It would maybe manage at 80mm f/8 but other than that...
I beg to differ. Again.
10-06-2014, 05:48 AM   #138
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,698
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The 55-300 isn't really a lens that can leverage a high resolution sensor. It would maybe manage at 80mm f/8 but other than that...
My Sigma 70-300 is definitely improved by the K-3 and the 55-300 is better, so I'm not sure that makes any sense. This "you have to have better lenses on APS-c" verses Full Frame nonsense presented by idiots championing Full Frame systems, and as per usual, without presenting a shred of evidence. Yet it is repeated verbatim over and over.

Actual IR tests with the D7000 and D7100 showed that some lower quality lenses actually improved more with better sensor, as much as 60% when the high end stuff averaged around 20% improvement. But then, they actually did some tests, instead of spouting the pseudo science repeated over and over to prove you need an FF.

It is absolutely amazing when the pseudo scientists are arguing "physics is on our side, you can't argue with science" how often they have left out many different parameter sets that apply to the real world. Not one has advanced a theory of "optical physics" that explains the observations in the IR measurements. So a word to them all. Before you say another word, about anything, show me how your knowledge of "optical physics" explains the IR measurements. If you can't do that, you obviously don't understand "optical physics" as much as you think you do. Any discussion that doesn't examine every real world outcome is propaganda, not science. A little knowledge can be a lot more dangerous than total ignorance.

Where I would expect a 55-300 to not do that well based on past experience would be if you wanted to use a TC with it. While the DA*60-250 and DA*300 lose no quality at all with a Pentax TC, my F 70-210 and A-400 have their CA and purple fringing magnified to the point of uselessness. But used on their own those lenses definitely are improved by shooting with a K-3. As pointed out, whether or not a 20% improvement means anything is anther question. We tend to think of photographic things as doubling or halving being one stop. So when you think of going from A2 to A1 as being one paper stop, you realize 20% is a lot less than the 100% increase you'd need to maintain lw/ph ratios. But what lw/ph you need to make good prints has always been open to debate as well. These debates are endless circles.

People are subject to endless MP increases because they don't know what they need. I suspect camera companies want to keep it that way, except for maybe Caon, who continue to refuse to enter the MP race in a serious way. I didn't buy the K-5ii or K-5IIs so I would have bought a 16 MP K-3 for the improvement in AF, and would have preferred a 20 MP K-3, because I don't like where the noise thing is going. I completely understand why Pentax had to go 24MP because of market forces, D7100, D5200 and D3200 all 24 MP, and because it helps prevent people from going to the D610, but practically, it does very little for Pentax shooters. Nothing like going from my K-20D to a K-5.

Last edited by normhead; 10-06-2014 at 07:22 AM.
10-06-2014, 07:07 AM   #139
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
That is why I'm asking. Beside being able to crop a bit more or print slightly (20%) bigger I'd like to see the IQ advantage of 16 as opposed to 24 Mpx. As far as I can tell there is very little which can't be accounted for by lens, focus, light, SR efficiency, sensor response, post-processing etc. differences.

---------- Post added 06-10-14 at 01:41 ----------

I beg to differ.
I guess I could see what I can do. I own a K3 and a K5 II. The only thing is that where you will see a difference is in the things you mention -- more cropping or printing bigger. I don't believe that AA filter removal makes a lot of difference -- K3 jpegs are probably sharper out of camera, but if you shoot RAW, you will be able to sharpen the K5 files till they are pretty close. K3 tends to get artifacts quicker than K5 II when sharpening.

I just hate to do these sorts of comparison photos because people really tend to start picking them apart to try to explain any differences -- defending whichever camera they like. It just isn't that big a deal. The K3 has a little more resolution (which probably isn't needed by most people), the K5 II has a little more dynamic range at base iso. They both are good cameras.

Most of the time, the difference is going to be unnecessary and certainly not visible in online posting. To max out any image quality, you should shoot stopped down, use a tripod, the normal stuff you would do to get the best possible.

10-06-2014, 07:39 AM   #140
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
I guess I could see what I can do.
That would be great. Especially if you could do some shots with a 'not-so-wonderful' lens wide open - I'd be interested in seeing how much, if any, difference the extra resolution makes in a situation where the lens is probably the limiting factor. I'm sure that others would also find that informative.
10-06-2014, 07:57 AM   #141
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
That would be great. Especially if you could do some shots with a 'not-so-wonderful' lens wide open - I'd be interested in seeing how much, if any, difference the extra resolution makes in a situation where the lens is probably the limiting factor. I'm sure that others would also find that informative.
Not sure about that. I pretty much shoot with primes (DA/FA limiteds, DA *55) or the DA *zooms. I have gotten rid of most of my "not so good lenses."
10-06-2014, 08:10 AM   #142
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Not sure about that. I pretty much shoot with primes (DA/FA limiteds, DA *55) or the DA *zooms. I have gotten rid of most of my "not so good lenses."
DA15 wide open ? DA21 at a pinch ? Anything that is sharp in the middle but goes softish at the corners.
10-06-2014, 08:35 AM   #143
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
DA15 wide open ? DA21 at a pinch ? Anything that is sharp in the middle but goes softish at the corners.
Why would you want to see that? I never shoot my DA 15 at f4 -- not on the K5 II or the K3.

10-06-2014, 08:47 AM   #144
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,635
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
As far as I can tell there is very little which can't be accounted for by lens, focus, light, SR efficiency, sensor response, post-processing etc. differences.
That is a pretty good list and I believe the "etc." includes sensor design. But what do either of us know? I don't own a K-5 and you don't own a K-3. Both of our opinions are based on the reports of others.

That being said, after spending some time shooting with my friends K-50, I can testify that high ISO noise is noticeably less prominent with the 16 Mpx sensor. Yes, it may go away if I downsample the K-3 image to 16 Mpx, but that is sort of self-defeating and does not work equally well with all subjects.

The difference in resolution is a matter of specification and physics. Whether it makes any difference in day-to-day shooting, particularly if the display medium is a computer monitor at moderate pixel dimensions, is disputable. For many purposes, my recently sold K10D did just as good a job with the same lenses and the same photographer as the K-3. Unfortunately, the same is true for my Samsung smart phone.

Note that I used the term "many purposes". That is somewhat short of a generally applicable universal case. In reality, most of my K-3 images are noticeably better than those from the K10D and I am pleased with the upgrade.* If a different model with the full K-3 feature set, but with the 16 Mpx sensor, had been available, that would have been in my bag. I would have been willing to absorb the lower resolution (not that much better than the K10D) in return for the cleaner high ISO performance.


Steve

* Looking back, I wish I had done a direct comparison series while I still had both cameras. When my friend gets back from Europe, I may be able to do one with the K50.

---------- Post added 10-06-14 at 08:52 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by atilla457 Quote
Otherwise I discard the raw files.
End-of-day (or even mid-day) evaluation and winnowing is a good idea when in the field for long periods of time. It lessens the number of cards in the bag and the crush of work when you get home. I generally use my laptop with Picasa to evaluate the RAW files and do the deletions directly.

BTW...only 20Gb from a trip to Turkey? Apparently it was a short trip!


Steve

---------- Post added 10-06-14 at 09:03 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Dieseler Quote
If my 12Mpix K-r was weatherproof, I would not have bothered upgrading to a K5iis, since the resolution upgrade has been a 'non-event' to me (I can't see much improvement using my 55-300 lens, maybe with a DA*300 I would).

As I mentioned here, 12Mpix would be enough for me, even in FF.
Indeed. I don't know why anyone would have upgraded from a K-7, K20D, or even a K10D to shoot with the K-5 or K-5 IIs. Any improvements in sensor technology were incremental and have been since the *ist D. But increments are increments and few are those who did the upgrades that are willing to say that the increment was stupid.


Steve

---------- Post added 10-06-14 at 09:10 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Why would you want to see that? I never shoot my DA 15 at f4 -- not on the K5 II or the K3.
Because he is narrowing the requirements to make a point, that being that even the best camera cannot overcome an optical deficiency. Never mind that with a low resolution camera, even the kit lens and a FA 31 Limited perform similarly. The gap only widens with higher resolution sensors.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 10-06-2014 at 09:12 AM.
10-06-2014, 09:34 AM   #145
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Eureka, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,890
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Any improvements in sensor technology were incremental and have been since the *ist D. But increments are increments and few are those who did the upgrades that are willing to say that the increment was stupid.
But not all the increments are created equal. Sensor technology kind of hit a brick wall in 2010, and we haven't seen much improvement since. Because of this insane demand for constantly getting something better, camera companies had to figure out a way to come out with cameras that at least seemed "better." So they started cranking up the MP counts, even though we had clearly reached a point where doing such would run into rapidly diminishing returns. When Pop Photo mag measured the attainable resolution from the 16MP K-5 and the 24MP Nex 7, they found a 5% difference. All else being held equal, if you're making 20 by 20 inch prints, the Nex 7, with it's 5% resolution increase, will enable you to print 20.5 by 20.5 inches. 50% larger files gives you half an inch in a 20 inch print! Is it rational to accept 50% larger files for just a half inch of added print size?
10-06-2014, 09:50 AM   #146
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,698
QuoteOriginally posted by northcoastgreg Quote
But not all the increments are created equal. Sensor technology kind of hit a brick wall in 2010, and we haven't seen much improvement since. Because of this insane demand for constantly getting something better, camera companies had to figure out a way to come out with cameras that at least seemed "better." So they started cranking up the MP counts, even though we had clearly reached a point where doing such would run into rapidly diminishing returns. When Pop Photo mag measured the attainable resolution from the 16MP K-5 and the 24MP Nex 7, they found a 5% difference. All else being held equal, if you're making 20 by 20 inch prints, the Nex 7, with it's 5% resolution increase, will enable you to print 20.5 by 20.5 inches. 50% larger files gives you half an inch in a 20 inch print! Is it rational to accept 50% larger files for just a half inch of added print size?
Most people simply don't realize when going from 16 MP to 24 mp, you are only increasing your image width from 5000 to 6000 pixels. If you have 5000 pixels wide, how much better can 6000 pixels wide be? Yet that is the actual math you're looking at. Discussing MP makes it sound like more of an improvement. It sounds like a 50% improvement, not a 20% improvement.
10-06-2014, 09:51 AM   #147
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote

---------- Post added 10-06-14 at 09:10 AM ----------

Because he is narrowing the requirements to make a point, that being that even the best camera cannot overcome an optical deficiency. Never mind that with a low resolution camera, even the kit lens and a FA 31 Limited perform similarly. The gap only widens with higher resolution sensors.

Steve
Also I'd like to see if the higher resolution makes it easier to 'rescue' those 'once in a lifetime' shots which turn out slightly less than perfect because of a slight mis-focus etc. - I'm sure that we've all taken those. The simplest way I could think of was to shoot with a lens which has good centre sharpness but soft corners and then see how much difference there is when you sharpen or downscale the images.
10-06-2014, 10:13 AM   #148
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,238
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I don't know why anyone would have upgraded from a K-7, K20D, or even a K10D to shoot with the K-5 or K-5 IIs
Seriously? The K-5 was a quantum leap--especially as regards noise. Also I'm getting much sharper shots with the K-5IIs & K-3 than I did with the K-5. I'd like to think it's due to my vastly improved skills but I doubt that's a major factor.
10-06-2014, 10:26 AM   #149
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I don't know why anyone would have upgraded from a K-7, K20D, or even a K10D to shoot with the K-5 or K-5 IIs. Any improvements in sensor technology were incremental and have been since the *ist D.
K-7 -> K-5ii. Much better high ISO noise, much better AF. The K-7 still gets used though. Better colour - no tendency to magenta tint on browns as on the K-5. But I'm hi-jacking the thread again ...
10-06-2014, 10:35 AM   #150
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,435
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Also I'd like to see if the higher resolution makes it easier to 'rescue' those 'once in a lifetime' shots which turn out slightly less than perfect because of a slight mis-focus etc. - I'm sure that we've all taken those. The simplest way I could think of was to shoot with a lens which has good centre sharpness but soft corners and then see how much difference there is when you sharpen or downscale the images.
Well, I can tell you the answer to that. It can't. If you shoot a landscape and it is fuzzy on 16 megapixel, it will still be fuzzy on 24 megapixel. If you shoot and things are sharp on 16 megapixel sensor, there may be more detail on a 24 megapixel sensor. Conceptually it wouldn't make sense that it could be otherwise, could it?
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!
4k, auto, camera, comparison, computer, course, dslr, filter, head, image, jpg, k-3, k-5, k3, k5, lens, lenses, life, medium, megapixel, people, photography, pictures, post, quality, resolution, steve
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is the image processor in Pentax K-r is good enough? dmnf Photographic Technique 10 05-15-2013 09:43 AM
Pentax WG-2 Waterproof 16-Megapixel Fl_Gulfer Pentax Price Watch 3 03-10-2013 12:35 PM
is 16-45 mm wide enough? boone Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 01-26-2011 12:56 PM
[Auto-ISO] so, is the K5 and Kr brave enough to use max iso? Reportage Pentax K-5 13 10-24-2010 03:30 PM
Is the 16-50mm sharp enough? lbenac Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 03-09-2009 03:04 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13 PM. | 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