[rawr]

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]

[zoolander]

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 ----------

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 ----------

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 ----------

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).

[clackers]

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. 😀

[zoolander]

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 ----------

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.

[clackers]

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? ☺

[zoolander]

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.)

[osv]

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

[rawr]

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.

[clackers]

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!

[biz-engineer]

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.

[Merv-O]

Dear K-1 owners,

I am contemplating switching from my K-3 to the K-1.

1st question:

Is it worth it, and how much better is the K-1 over K-3/K-3ii in terms of IQ, ISO and overall performance ?

2nd question:

That performance benefit coupled with buying some FF zoom lenses - does the performance outweigh the added costs of zooms?


As I am more into zoom lenses for general photography, I don't have FF 24-200mm 2.8's, but I have a few FF primes. This is a cost I'm concerned about of $1200-2000 AUD, then the body @ $2800 AUD.

Is the switch worth it it? Yes, Yes and Yes....buy the K-1 with the FF 18-105mm excellent WR kit lens and then keep your favorite DA glass that can be used with stellar results on the K-1ii. Bingo! Bang-O Bong-O!! Pentax is the bomb !

[normhead]

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.

Some actual numbers from IR...
16 MP APS_c tested out at 2100 lw/ph
24 MP APS-c tested out at 2700 lw/ph/
36 MP FF (K-1) tested out at 3500 lw/ph.
20 MP FF Canon 6D test at 2400 lw/ph

The difference between 24 MP APS-c and 24 MP FF is about 100 lw/ph or 2800 for 24 MP FF. Functionally identical. If you are to break that down into lines per mm, the 24 MP APS-c is way more.

In the case of a 20 MP FF (6D) 24 MP APS_c gives you a couple hundred more lw/ph plus it's smaller sensorr, so in terms of line per mm, it serious kicks the 6D's butt. Or to summarize, Pixel Density is way more important than format in determining lw/ph,

The king has to be something like the Panasonic FZ 2500 which gets 2500 lw/ph on a one inch sensor. 9mm c 12mm.

SO get this, the Panasonic in good light gets 2500 distinct lines out of a 9mm deep sensor. That's 277 distinct lines per mm. That's some serious resolution.

I think the error in your thought is thinking there are lenses that top out at 45 lines per mm.

An APS-c sensor has a depth of 16mm. So on a K5 2100 lw/ph divided by 16 gives you 133 line per mm.
A K-3 179 line per mm.
Using the same lens you're getting an extra 63 lines by increasing your pixel density.

Lets take the crappiest lens we know. The 18-55 kit lens. At 10MP, it produces max of about 2100 lw/ph (not the same measurement as the above.No one knows why klaus' numbers are so ,much higher than everyone else, it's one of those mysteries of the universe.) hopefully they are consistent,) At 16 MP that grows to 2604 lw/ph. Using the cheapest lens you can find, it's not the lens that limits the resolution, it's the pixel density. Hence the whole part about the lens producing 45mm across various sensors is in error. There is not a lens I know of that doesn't produce a higher lw/ph count with a denser sensor. And part of that will be that the smaller the sensor, the more of the sharpest part of the lens it uses.

If you don't look at real tests done with real lenses and sensors, it's easy to make this kind mistake.

If looking at older lens tests, many were done in paired line per mm, which would mean you have to cut the numbers in half to compare apples to apples. But you're still looking at 140 paired line per mm for the Panasonic, even if that's true. The resolution folks get out of even small sensor small lens cameras in digital leaves film in the dust. A lens producing 45 lines per mmm on digital would be piece of junk.

People who formulate this kind of intellectual notion without any kind of real world input, often screw up really bad. It may sound logical, but that in no way suggests it has anything to do with the real world. There are few theories in earth so simple someone somewhere can't take it, apply it incorrectly, and produce ridiculous results, and then claim science proves them right. It's especially common in photo blogs.The big question should be, who checked your work? Even real scientists have checks and balances.

[mikesbike]

A bit late for Merv-O to answer zoolander's inquiry.

But then Norm's response is very good. I so often see threads of this kind that include resolution as one of the upgrades to expect in the FF advantage, which is not so. The main advantage is in lower noise at higher ISO settings, and DR. But APS-C has made great strides in recent years in closing even that difference. The K-5 was a very big step in that direction. Now we have the K-70 and the KP, which apparently have advanced substantially more. One review I came across of the KP found its dynamic range coming in over 10 stops. I can't verify that, but it does indicate some degree of advancement even over the K-5, and I have had this impression, since I own both. The low-noise/high ISO is also well advanced, with excellent preservation of detail, even being about equal in the camera's jpeg output! Resolution of jpegs is also about equal, but for on-par performance sharpening has to be upgraded in the Custom Image menus to "Fine Sharpening", along with the 1+ level setting. Yet test review results are given only with default settings, hence showing a discrepancy. It is amazing to me how far along APS-C design has come, especially with the KP. A remarkable camera. It has caused me to pause in any consideration I've had for getting a FF body. For that now, it boils down to the use of certain lenses I already have.

Another consideration in these resolution specs is the picture-hight of APS-C is only 16mm vs 24mm for the FF sensor, so the lines are crammed into a smaller area. If it is 2,700 lines with APS-C it should equate to a density of over 4,000 lines with a FF sensor, which is a different way of saying what Norm said.

[Merv-O]

A bit late for Merv-O to answer zoolander's inquiry.

But then Norm's response is very good. I so often see threads of this kind that include resolution as one of the upgrades to expect in the FF advantage, which is not so. The main advantage is in lower noise at higher ISO settings, and DR. But APS-C has made great strides in recent years in closing even that difference. The K-5 was a very big step in that direction. Now we have the K-70 and the KP, which apparently have advanced substantially more. One review I came across of the KP found its dynamic range coming in over 10 stops. I can't verify that, but it does indicate some degree of advancement even over the K-5, and I have had this impression, since I own both. The low-noise/high ISO is also well advanced, with excellent preservation of detail, even being about equal in the camera's jpeg output! Resolution of jpegs is also about equal, but for on-par performance sharpening has to be upgraded in the Custom Image menus to "Fine Sharpening", along with the 1+ level setting. Yet test review results are given only with default settings, hence showing a discrepancy. It is amazing to me how far along APS-C design has come, especially with the KP. A remarkable camera. It has caused me to pause in any consideration I've had for getting a FF body. For that now, it boils down to the use of certain lenses I already have.

Another consideration in these resolution specs is the picture-hight of APS-C is only 16mm vs 24mm for the FF sensor, so the lines are crammed into a smaller area. If it is 2,700 lines with APS-C it should equate to a density of over 4,000 lines with a FF sensor, which is a different way of saying what Norm said.

Yes. I guess I was a bit late for Zoolander, but the intangible clarity of the FF format is un deniable. My minimum print is 8.5 x 11 and I will jump to 13 x 19 or even 2 x 3 and I see discernible differences in the K-1ii and other APS-c offerings. I stand by my comments on the K-1ii. I had to adjust a couple lenses with the fine adjustment on the camera, but it's humming now...

[reh321]

A bit late for Merv-O to answer zoolander's inquiry.

But then Norm's response is very good. I so often see threads of this kind that include resolution as one of the upgrades to expect in the FF advantage, which is not so. The main advantage is in lower noise at higher ISO settings, and DR.

I have probably been the greatest advocate for a 24mp FF camera - mainly because I have heard from Nikon users users that they would much rather have a 24mp FF D750 for low light situations than a 20mp APS D500. Since the D750 is currently priced around $1400, I've been hoping that a similar Pentax camera could settle at $1200-$1300 if they give it characteristics similar to a KP..