[reh321]

Huh, you don't lose any reach, if using a lens with a circle designed for full frame, such as the 300mm, you gain more image captured on the sensor at the same distance as an Aps-c camera due to the larger sensor.

We've been through this before. Let's say you take a picture of a bird. If the image completely fills the frame on a K-3ii, then the K-3ii puts 24MP on the bird. Using exactly the same lens from exactly the same spot at exactly the same time, the bird will take up 2/3-rd the width and 2/3-rd the height of the sensor on the K-1, so the K-1 puts (2/3)*(2/3)*36 = 16MP on the bird.

---

Last edited by reh321; 06-02-2016 at 03:02 PM. Reason: fix typo

[normhead]

Huh, you don't lose any reach, if using a lens with a circle designed for full frame, such as the 300mm, you gain more image captured on the sensor at the same distance as an Aps-c camera due to the larger sensor.

But you lose the extra magnification you gain from having 24 MP inside the crop image instead of 15 MP, which will be about 33% more resolution on the subject. In many cases you just have to crop more on the FF and get 33% less resolution on your image, compared to a K-3.

Reach could certainly be defined as magnification, so yes, you do lose reach. The only way to match the magnification of K-3 with a K-1 is to use a longer lens. You gain lots of real estate around the edges, but the centre of the image will be fewer pixels and less resolution.

If you use a longer lens, say a 400 instead of a 300, then your subject will have the same magnification on the K-1, and if you use 450 instead of 300 you'll get the whole 36 MP of resolution crammed into your frame and much higher resolution.

If you were using that 51 MP Canon then you wouldn't be losing any magnification, using a 36 MP ff, you're losing 33% magnification.

Using a 16 MP camera compared to the K-1, you don't lose any reach. You just get more around the outside.

[Oldbayrunner]

We've been through this before. Let's say you take a picture of a bird. If the image completely fills the frame on a K-3ii, then the K-3ii puts 24MP on the bird. Using exactly the same lens from exactly the same spot at exactly the same time, the bird will take up 2/3-rd the width and 2/3-rd the height of the sensor on the K-1, so the K-1 puts (2/3)*(2/3)*36 = 16MP on the bird.

Ok, lets say you take a picture of a bird. If the image fills the frame on a ist D with it's 23.5 x 15.7 sensor, then puts 6.10 MP on the bird. Using exactly the same lens from exactly the same spot at exactly the same time the bird will take up 2/3rd the width and 2/3rd the height of the sensor on the K1, so the K1 puts (2/3)*(2/3)*36= 16MP on the Bird, so now does this mean since the ist D has less MP then per your example a K3ll using approximately the same size sensor (.1mm less) capturing the image at the same dimension using the same lens, now one could say the K1 has more reach using the same lens since the MP is greater than that of the ist D? I think not.

---------- Post added 06-03-16 at 08:09 AM ----------

But you lose the extra magnification you gain from having 24 MP inside the crop image instead of 15 MP, which will be about 33% more resolution on the subject. In many cases you just have to crop more on the FF and get 33% less resolution on your image, compared to a K-3.

Bull, you don't lose any extra Magnification. The image captured by an APS-C camera vs a Full frame will be the same magnified dimension regardless of how many MP the sensor has, you'll only lose resolution.

Reach could certainly be defined as magnification, so yes, you do lose reach. The only way to match the magnification of K-3 with a K-1 is to use a longer lens. You gain lots of real estate around the edges, but the centre of the image will be fewer pixels and less resolution. If you use a longer lens, say a 400 instead of a 300, then your subject will have the same magnification on the K-1

This was exactly the selling point reasoning when trying to convince photographers buying Digital crop sensor cameras were a good thing. Less lens to carry around.

If you were using that 51 MP Canon then you wouldn't be losing any magnification, using a 36 MP ff, you're losing 33% magnification.

Again Bull, your not losing 33% magnification since both FF sensors are approximately the same size the magnification will be the same, what you lose is 33% resolution. You can't logically tell me because a camera has more MP then another camera with the same format size sensor it will have more magnification due to having more MP.

[normhead]

Bull, you don't lose any extra Magnification. The image captured by an APS-C camera vs a Full frame will be the same magnified dimension regardless of how many MP the sensor has, you'll only lose resolution.

IN the APS-c area of the K-1 sensor, the K-3 provides, 24 MP and 2700 lw/ph of resolution.
The K-1 will provide 15 MP and approximately 2100 lw/ph.

Thus using a K-1 to capture the APS-c image area costs you both pixels and resolution.
To get the advantage of a K-1 you must use the whole FF sensor, and that involves a longer, heavier, less portable lens that may not even be functionally practical. If you crop, even 33% (and many of my K-3 images are cropped more than that) using the K-1 will cost you resolution.

The only way to use the whole image area of the FF sensor as opposed to a K-3 sensor, is to use a longer lens. But in many cases, that is physically impossible. I already max out my APS-c capability. Hence the K-1 will cost me resolution.

My choice K-1 to K-3 is to have less resolution for the images I take most, and for the most part, un-needed resolution for most of the images I take that are not using long glass.

For most or the images I take a 6MP *ist was fine.

I guess, unlike myself, you've never seen one of those guys with the 600mm lens on a Full frame walk away from his gear, to get the image he wants with a 70-200 on his APS-c body and leave his big rig in the parking lot. I see it on a regular basis. Unless you can afford both, the majority of the time, the APS-c system is more portable, and that is critical for true wildlife images, and higher resolution, for the same circumstances.

I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend. You must be one of those folks who believes there is a format out there that is better at everything than other systems or formats. Life isn't like that. Life is full of trade offs. If you just bought a K-1 and ditched your K-3 you just made one.

For most of what I do a K-1 is overkill.
For half the images I take, a K-3 will give me more resolution.

So between the half of my shooting where APS-c is better, and the 45% where I'm using a 1260x 820 image that doesn't need half the resolution I currently have available, I'd essentially be buying a K-1 for 5% of my workflow., at the absolute most.

So, yes, for many folks 24 MP APS-c is better than a 36 MP K-1, although the K-1 will excel in some situations. Get over it.

(If you're still having trouble with the concept, look at the images in this thread.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/322226-nature-return-hummers.html
Taken with a DA*200 and 1.4 TC for 340mm hand held and cropped probably 50%. To take the same image with a K-1 you'd need to be steadily hand hold a 500mm lens, and following the hummer with it. Is that even physically possible? Shooting with the same lens on a k-1 would involve a 75% crop, K-1 pixels, would be 36/4, or 8 MP. 50% of 24 MP on APS-c is 12 MP. 8 MP is pretty good amateur quality, 12 MP is pretty good pro quality. I don't know if I can make this any clearer.)

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-03-2016 at 06:31 AM.

[grispie]

So, yes, for many folks 24 MP APS-c is better than a 36 MP K-1, although the K-1 will excel in some situations.

interesting topic.
This kind of coincides with my thinking of buying a da300 (which has FF image circle), but which probably will do me more good on my K3.
The K1 interests me more from a landscape pov, ie dynamic range when shooting in sunset/sunrise. Thus in the wide-angle range and portraits.
Both cameras complement each other that way. Well, I have to afford buying the K1/15-30 and da300 first ;-)
Therefore i think my priority will go to the da300 and put the K1/15-30 on my future list..
Makes common sense to me or i am missing sthing.

[normhead]

interesting topic.
This kind of coincides with my thinking of buying a da300 (which has FF image circle), but which probably will do me more good on my K3.
The K1 interests me more from a landscape pov, ie dynamic range when shooting in sunset/sunrise. Thus in the wide-angle range and portraits.
Both cameras complement each other that way. Well, I have to afford buying the K1/15-30 and da300 first ;-)
Therefore i think my priority will go to the da300 and put the K1/15-30 on my future list..
Makes common sense to me or i am missing sthing.

The one relevant point would be, you don't have to have a great landscape lens to benefit from a K-1. I bought an FA-J 18-35 which has performed very poorly on my lens comparison tests, and cost me about $100. But that 18-35 will produce higher resolution images on a K-1, than the best 12-24 will on a K-3. If you are shooting landscape, you don't have to buy a great lens to benefit from the larger format. If I could buy K-1 tomorrow, I would use it for landscape with what I have, in fact even the range of consumer zooms I have that cover an FF image circle, I'd probably use it anyplace I don't have to carry a lot of glass.

Today, I'm thinking of heading out to a botanical gardens. I'll probably take the Sigma 70 macro and DA*200. I won't have to walk much, I won't have to carry much, if I had a K-1 I'd take it, with the same two lenses. But this is my first such trip in 10 years. And since it's almost certain none of the images will ever be printed really large, it's unlikely I'll miss the resolution. I'd just be taking up 50% more space on my hard drive.

[reh321]

Ok, lets say you take a picture of a bird. If the image fills the frame on a ist D with it's 23.5 x 15.7 sensor, then puts 6.10 MP on the bird. Using exactly the same lens from exactly the same spot at exactly the same time the bird will take up 2/3rd the width and 2/3rd the height of the sensor on the K1, so the K1 puts (2/3)*(2/3)*36= 16MP on the Bird, so now does this mean since the ist D has less MP then per your example a K3ll using approximately the same size sensor (.1mm less) capturing the image at the same dimension using the same lens, now one could say the K1 has more reach using the same lens since the MP is greater than that of the ist D? I think not.

ist D is a totally irrelevant comparison from the past, like comparing a Model T to a Lincoln Continental. The simple fact is that if I were buying a new camera today and had the money to buy a K-1, a K-3ii would be the alternative choice. If I purchased the K-1 instead, in order to take the same picture I would have to spend even more money to buy a longer lens or a TC, or I would have to walk {potentially many} steps forward if that were possible {and if that didn't drive my subject away}. Most of us have that understanding of "reach". If you want to continue irrelevant blathering, then that is up to you. Since I take many more pictures of animals {using telephoto} than of landscapes {using wide-angle}, this approach is why I quickly dropped the idea of competing for a K-1.

added comment: Look at the title of this thread. K-1 and K-3ii are the relevant cameras.

---

Last edited by reh321; 06-03-2016 at 07:45 AM. Reason: completed thought

[normhead]

Since you do not have a K-1, I agree... you'll never know (but those that do have a K-1 will )

Enjoy... M

Well, actually, since I run photography trips in Algonquin park, I've compared D800 and D810 images, taken same time same place from clients many times, and I know exactly what, if anything I might be missing. But, keep living in your little dream world.

The difference between me and many of the shooters here, I've actually had the chance to compare images taken at the same time and place, so I know exactly what the difference is. Take two or three shooters to a location, and show them the best shooting angles etc. I actually haven't seen a K-1 shooter do the same kind of comparison, so I find y'all a little annoying. Owning a K-1 doesn't make you knowledgeable on any topic. There are going to be just as many people shooting k-1s because they are there, as there are shooting D800s and D810s because they are there, not because they make any difference to their output.

I've had a number of D800 or D810 shooters comment that the only reason my images are equal to theirs, is because I'm better at post. They can't comprehend the possibility that if my camera resolves the important elements of the scene, having more resolution is wasted, all you get is a larger file, and apparently, neither do you.

The difference between a K-1 and a K-3 is very narrow. There's a small range where a scene is too much for a K-3, before it becomes too much for a K-1, where you have an advantage. The chance of an image being in that window is remarkably small. When you hit the window, it's a wonderful thing, that extra resolution low light noise advantage etc. Much of the time, it's not important.

Of the K-1 images on the site so far, most could have been taken with any camera, the vast majority could have been taken on a K-3, There ave been a few, maybe 10% to 15% that made use of the K-1 factor, from a select number of posters who understand how to use the camera. There's a few of those, and some of those are using the K-1 in crop mode for some of their shots, where they'd clearly be better off with a K-3 for some of those shots, others epend on the low light capability and AF of the K-1.

But, smart people just don't say stuff like the above, life is more complicated than, "I own a K-1, I know more than you." Especially since i stayed at a Holday Inn last night.

[Oldbayrunner]

Most of us have that understanding of "reach". If you want to continue irrelevant blathering, then that is up to you.

Oh, I have a perfect understanding of reach. The REACH of a lens on ANY Aps-c camera or FF camera will only provide a difference in field of view when going from one sensor format to the other REGARDLESS of how old or how many MP those sensors have.... So are we to believe the image projected from a lens on a 25.5 x 15.6 Pentax ist D Aps-c sensor with 6.10 mp has much less reach than the image cast by the same lens on a 25.5 x 15.7 K3 24mp camera just because of the MP size? Anyone with an understanding of reach knows better than that. Now if you were talking about cropped image resolution loss when reducing the image size of a full frame image to that of an Aps-c image then that I would agree the more MPs provided is of great importance and your mathematics is spot on comparing the K3 24mp to the cropped 16mp K1 image.

[reh321]

Oh, I have a perfect understanding of reach. The REACH of a lens on ANY Aps-c camera or FF camera will only provide a difference in field of view when going from one sensor format to the other REGARDLESS of how old or how many MP those sensors have.... So are we to believe the image projected from a lens on a 25.5 x 15.6 Pentax ist D Aps-c sensor with 6.10 mp has much less reach than the image cast by the same lens on a 25.5 x 15.7 K3 24mp camera just because of the MP size? Anyone with an understanding of reach knows better than that. Now if you were talking about cropped image resolution loss when reducing the image size of a full frame image to that of an Aps-c image then that I would agree the more MPs provided is of great importance and your mathematics is spot on comparing the K3 24mp to the cropped 16mp K1 image.

Again, the subject of this thread is comparing a K-3ii to a K-1. And in that context, the K-3ii will provide more "reach" than the K-1 does, unless the user spends even more additional money to get a much longer {and heavier} lens, or the user negates the advantages that one expects to get from spending an extra $1000 to buy the K-1 {by sacrificing so many pixels as to provide less detail than the K-3ii does, or by buying a TC that will lose light, thereby jettisoning the ISO advantages}

[pres589]

Maybe someone with a nice long lens could take a picture of the moon with the lens on a tripod and swap between a crop Pentax DSLR and then a K-1 and show how this all works out with a real world example? It would probably help put this debate to bed.

[Mistlefoot]

Maybe someone with a nice long lens could take a picture of the moon with the lens on a tripod and swap between a crop Pentax DSLR and then a K-1 and show how this all works out with a real world example? It would probably help put this debate to bed.

It woudn't. Because what "people want" and what "technically is" are 2 different things.

The K-1 itself comes with a crop mode. Pentax feel people want the option. One can argue till their blue in the face but people will still use long lenses on crop camera's for more reach and people will still say there isn't more reach etc.....silly to go on and on about.

[pres589]

It woudn't. Because what "people want" and what "technically is" are 2 different things.

The K-1 itself comes with a crop mode. Pentax feel people want the option. One can argue till their blue in the face but people will still use long lenses on crop camera's for more reach and people will still say there isn't more reach etc.....silly to go on and on about.

... but if you had two pictures, with exif data shown, and it clearly showed a "closer" (or however you want to term this) image of the moon, the issue would be well clarified and opinion would be out. So far no one has done this.

I understand why the cropped sensor on the same lens will show a closer/bigger/etc image of the bird or moon or whatever is being shot. But it's still hard to visualize which is why I think this thread is still going.

Eh, maybe don't do it, maybe people need to have something emotional to discuss.

[UncleVanya]

I was going to post a detailed explanation but I will just say this. FF vs. APSC has been debated for many many years and the consensus seems to be that APSC is in fact better for fast moving small wildlife. The reasons appear to be:

Faster frame rates. Even in cropped mode the FF cameras at 36mp class are typically unable to keep up with the cropped cameras. The Pentax K-1 and K-3ii follow that pattern.

More "reach' - despite the undebatable truth that the lens is showing the same physical size image on the sensor, there are three aspects that make it feel longer. First the angle of view shown makes the framing for the cropped area easier even if you later crop even more. This makes it feel longer to your mind which is not an unimportant consideration but it is one that you can learn to work around. Second the magnification of most APSC cameras viewfinders is larger than what the FF cameras offer. Typically the FF viewfinder is still larger overall but the cropped section ends up considerably smaller - this limits the detail you can see in the shot if you are going to crop to APSC or smaller. Third the pixel density of top end systems of each in the same generation tend to be higher in the cropped body than the FF - the exception to this would be the Canon 50mp FF. The effect of this is to give you more detailed crops than you would have otherwise and allow crops to "zoom" you to the subject and still retain acceptable image quality.

If you don't believe me - read the posts over the past 10 years or more from Nikon users and Canon users trying to determine which sensor size works best for their use. And no - despite the fact that a consensus seems to have emerged this has not stopped the debate. Pictures like the moon shot do not stop the endless debate because there are mixes of absolute truth and fiction (perceptual issues of the brain) at play here.

[Suhail]

Hi all,

I have been reading all the comments for the last two days, logged in today and quickly went through them all.

what's the result?!
I bet we're all curious...

I have made the choice on the basis of my style of photography - hiking with my dog and taking less than ordinary shots of whatever I get for record, cropping it most amateurishly, and then sharing it with dedicated followers, who are family, relatives, and friends. My dog offers me protection on those lonely trails (basically, it is psychological) and he is good in pointing out land animals (rabbits, coyotes, black bears) much before I am aware. However, I am expanding my shooting horizons and getting into more and more event shots for fun. But I think I will rather wait for investment in that direction.

All these shots have been taken at 6MP, the first one using 18-135 mm on K-S2 over a tripod.

I will take this pix off after few days.