Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-06-2016, 04:25 AM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,760
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
cameras with high megapixels aren't really designed for high frame rate shooting anyway
Exactly. There are many reasons why sports-shooting cameras (D5, D500, 1Dx, 7D2 etc) stick to 20MP or less. Partly for better fps and general camera responsiveness, but also better performance out of camera (schlepping huge files around slows down PP and slows uploading while in the field), and the recognition from sports pros and their editors that for most of their output, even 'low-res' 12MP is good enough to produce a full-page print spread.

And FWIW, for JPEG resolution, if you Imatest K-1 JPEG and RAW images, at just about any ISO the JPEG vs RAW resolution difference might be very hard to see:


[from photoreview.com.au]

06-07-2016, 03:16 AM   #47
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 337
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by dafbp Quote
You (and others) should read properly before rubbishing (that's flying around today) other people's posts.
I NEVER said the K-1 was rubbish, I just said that it "forces" you to shoot in RAW to get the IQ you're expecting, limiting it (yes, I did say making it rubbish, but in action photography ONLY).
Funny, I was referring only to the one thing everybody says Pentax is not good for, and that it's crippling itself even more by overcooking jpegs, and suddenly I'm saying that the whole camera is rubbish!

The K-1 review here in PF also says that the jpegs have visible loss of quality. I never said that, merely commented on a post stating the same. The post I quoted says "there is no much advantage in IQ when using the camera JPEG processor, in order to keep the file sizes and burst rate, most of the 36Mp vs 24Mp details are lost". The rest of the phrase is about ISO, so not really taken out of context.

To the OP (only) that was asking for opinions about the K-1, I'm sorry for not giving the expected feedback and causing a lot of unrelated replies.
No need to apologize, I was not offended. I enjoy a little controversy. I understand your point about not having better quality JPEG's and having to use RAW, its another thing to consider really. I'm not that much of a RAW guy, though I should be to get the most of my K-3 files (I shoot JPEG and RAW).

---------- Post added 06-07-16 at 08:23 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
It's a lot of money for something that won't improve most photos we take, or for some people, any photos they take. APS-C is an excellent compromise on the various available formats.


I have the K-1, and an A7 before it, but understand anyone sceptical of whether it will improve their photography. It will improve certain kinds of shots, and all of us have to decide whether the extra money, weight, softer corners and reduced depth of field are worth it. I will still also be using my K-30 as I've always done.


No different from debate about buying an expensive lens, IMHO.
i was in a camera store months and months ago, I tried out a Sigma 150-500 on a D7100 and then on a D750. Both at ISO 2000 and the D750 was vastly superior at ISO 2000. I'm just wondering whether there is a similar thing with the K-3 to the K-1, I guessing it is.

Some folks have eluded that the K-3 @1600 is approximately like the K-1 @ ISO 4400, if that is then my ears have gone up like a. I'll ask if someone can post some photo examples on this thread if it isn't too much trouble.

---------- Post added 06-07-16 at 08:27 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
It is a really tough question to answer. Basically with the K-1, you get more resolution and about a stop and a half better high iso performance and dynamic range -- that is to say that iso 1600 on a K3 has about the same noise and dynamic range as iso 4500 on the K-1 (a very rough estimate). In addition, you have the side benefit of being able to shoot more narrow depth of field, if you do a lot of portraits.

If all you do is shoot landscapes from a tripod and you never prints really big, I don't know that the benefit is there, but if you shoot high iso, want to experiment with pixel shift and astro tracer, and have some full frame compatible lenses, then it is really reasonably priced, at least here in the US.
Could I trouble you for an example of a couple of pictures from the K-3 @ 1600 and the K-1 @ 4500 ? No rush, if its handy for you.

---------- Post added 06-07-16 at 08:36 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by noelpolar Quote
A lot of the discusions regarding the K-1 seems to focus on it's ability to produce "better output" over x, y and z. I would suggest, for many, it's real value is in the joy or pleasure it will bring over and above the x, y and z's to it's owner.

In this area I believe the K-1 is almost unprecedented.
Yes joy is a wonderful thing, and I think a lot of the K-1 owners are busting so much they'll start singing "Its a wonderful world" by Louis Armstrong.

We've had discussions for a very long time about FF and the pro's and the cons, and one thing was how lenses would be sharper on the future Pentax FF because the height and width of the sensor produce greater lines (I forget how it goes, I'm a little tired now). So a 24mp crop camera vs a 24mp FF camera, the lenses or images should be 1/3rd sharper on FF - thats what people have claimed (unless I'm remembering wrong). That is true , right ? (Posing the question to everybody).
06-07-2016, 04:24 AM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,650
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
So a 24mp crop camera vs a 24mp FF camera, the lenses or images should be 1/3rd sharper on FF - thats what people have claimed (unless I'm remembering wrong). That is true , right ?
What? You seem like you want to believe that, Zoolander. 😀



06-07-2016, 05:15 AM   #49
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 337
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
What? You seem like you want to believe that, Zoolander. ��
I had this conversation a long time ago. If you have a lens that tops out at 45 lines per millimeter on crop, that Line widths per millimeter (LW/PH) translate on a 36 x 24mm sensor, versus 24 x 15mm crop sensor, and equates to an increase in 1/3rd of resolution. 36mm divided by 45 lines is gonna be more than 24mm divided by 45 lines. Thats the concept.

Hopefully someone can chime in here and clarify as I'm not entirely sure.

---------- Post added 06-07-16 at 10:24 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Exactly. There are many reasons why sports-shooting cameras (D5, D500, 1Dx, 7D2 etc) stick to 20MP or less. Partly for better fps and general camera responsiveness, but also better performance out of camera (schlepping huge files around slows down PP and slows uploading while in the field), and the recognition from sports pros and their editors that for most of their output, even 'low-res' 12MP is good enough to produce a full-page print spread.

And FWIW, for JPEG resolution, if you Imatest K-1 JPEG and RAW images, at just about any ISO the JPEG vs RAW resolution difference might be very hard to see:
Back in the day when there were 10 and 12mp cameras and buffers were small, they were slow to write files. Now there are high megs pixel cameras and they behave similarly. We've got high mega pixel 4k cameras too, and their buffers and transfer rates are improved. I think sensor size is related to ISO performance rather than buffer sizes considering 4k.


Last edited by zoolander; 06-07-2016 at 05:24 AM.
06-07-2016, 05:46 AM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,650
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
36mm divided by 45 lines is gonna be more than 24mm divided by 45 lines. Thats the concept.
But there will be 36/24 times less pixels on each line, right? ☺



06-07-2016, 06:14 AM   #51
Veteran Member
zoolander's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gold Coast
Photos: Albums
Posts: 337
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
But there will be 36/24 times less pixels on each line, right? ☺
36mm across the full frame sensor - 36mm x 45 LPMM = . 1620

24mm across the crop sensor - 24mm x 45 LPMM = 1080

So a lens that can only ever resolve 45LPMM, but because of the larger sensor area you apparently get more detail. (Sorry in my post further up I had divide, it should have been multiply.)
06-07-2016, 09:32 AM   #52
osv
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: So Cal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,080
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
And FWIW, for JPEG resolution, if you Imatest K-1 JPEG and RAW images, at just about any ISO the JPEG vs RAW resolution difference might be very hard to see:
interesting, but very misleading, because it shows jpeg resolution increasing over raw, which afaik can only be caused by in-camera jpeg sharpening... sharpening boosts mtf50 numbers, at the minimum: Sharpening and Standardized Sharpening for comparing cameras | imatest

examples of jpeg failing here, it doesn't take much: https://photographylife.com/raw-vs-jpeg
06-07-2016, 04:29 PM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,760
QuoteOriginally posted by osv Quote
but very misleading, because it shows jpeg resolution increasing over raw, which afaik can only be caused by in-camera jpeg sharpening
I guess you don't look at RAW's too often. RAW's can be a mess. Are a mess. Hence the name - they are raw material, designed for secondary processing into JPEG, TIFF etc.

06-07-2016, 10:13 PM   #54
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,650
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
36mm across the full frame sensor - 36mm x 45 LPMM = . 1620

24mm across the crop sensor - 24mm x 45 LPMM = 1080

So a lens that can only ever resolve 45LPMM, but because of the larger sensor area you apparently get more detail. (Sorry in my post further up I had divide, it should have been multiply.)
Nuh, this is the 'total light' fallacy.

Whether it is a full frame or crop sensor, in both cases of your example there are only 45 line pairs per millimetre coming through the lens.
There is no difference in that resolution.

You can say that you get 36/24 more lines, but you *also* get 24/36 fewer pixels to resolve them - you're running on the spot!
06-07-2016, 11:34 PM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,349
QuoteOriginally posted by zoolander Quote
If you have a lens that tops out at 45 lines per millimeter on crop, that Line widths per millimeter (LW/PH) translate on a 36 x 24mm sensor, versus 24 x 15mm crop sensor, and equates to an increase in 1/3rd of resolution. 36mm divided by 45 lines is gonna be more than 24mm divided by 45 lines. Thats the concept.
Lens resolution is maximum is the center and it drops towards the edges of the lens. For the same number of pixels, the overall resolution does increase with the sensor size, but not as much as the sensor size would indicate.
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!
aud, camera, d750, dslr, ff, field, iq, iso, jpeg, jpegs, k-1, k-1 owners, k-3, lenses, lines, lot, money, months, opinions, owners, performance, photography, photos, post, question, rubbish, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
k 135 f2,5. It's worth the money (waiting for FF to come)? bm75 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 31 05-31-2016 03:03 PM
Have 50/1.8, is it worth it to buy a 35/2.4? keanex Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 54 02-28-2016 12:52 AM
International travel, is it worth upgrading from K-30 to K-3/3ii? Newtophotos Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 12-27-2015 11:30 AM
Is it worth it to switch to K-5 II for the sake of ultrasonic dust removal? rrstuff Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 12-26-2013 05:53 AM
is it worth it to upgrade to the K-r? raf02 Pentax K-r 6 11-03-2010 11:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:48 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