Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-17-2019, 01:43 AM - 3 Likes   #76
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,856
I'm not convinced that the "more real estate" argument holds as true in the digital era as it did with film.

If you were to compare an 8"x10" contact print from a view camera with an 8"x10" enlargement from 35mm film, you'd see a very real and very obvious difference. But if you were to compare an 8"x10" print from a K-3 with an 8"x10" print from a 645Z I doubt you'd see much of a difference at all, as both will have been downscaled to that size.

Comparing photos from different digital formats at web size can be misleading. A high percentage of the people shooting with the 645Z are extremely skilled and experienced photographers, so inevitably the general standard of technical quality is high even at web size. There is a much more varied level of technical skill and experience among those using the smaller formats, so inevitably the quality is more variable.

The only way to answer this question for certain would be with a double-blind test using prints from the different formats at non-interpolated sizes. Subjective bias is a huge factor when people know which format they are looking at.

This is not to say that larger digital formats don't have advantages. Of course they do. The question is whether we as individuals will be viewing/printing at resolutions where those differences become worth the extra cost and the bigger heavier gear.


Last edited by Dartmoor Dave; 06-17-2019 at 01:58 AM.
06-17-2019, 02:04 AM - 1 Like   #77
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,172
QuoteOriginally posted by termy Quote
But of course, that will depend on what is meant by "small posters".
As I understand it, for Europe, small poster 50cm x 75cm / 20"x 30", smaller than 20"x30" isn't quite considered as a poster.
The most common poster size is more or 60 cm x 90 cm / 24"x36". Commercial size posters start at 80cm x 120cm / 32" x 48".
Viewing prints at arm length. Of course, the resolution required depends on viewing distance.

Last edited by biz-engineer; 06-17-2019 at 02:15 AM.
06-17-2019, 04:11 PM - 1 Like   #78
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 15,902
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
I'm not convinced that the "more real estate" argument holds as true in the digital era as it did with film.

If you were to compare an 8"x10" contact print from a view camera with an 8"x10" enlargement from 35mm film, you'd see a very real and very obvious difference. But if you were to compare an 8"x10" print from a K-3 with an 8"x10" print from a 645Z I doubt you'd see much of a difference at all, as both will have been downscaled to that size.
Sorry, I know I said I would leave this thread alone as I have exceeded my allowable post per thread limit, but I have compared (largish 13x19 inch) prints made with the K3 to prints made with the K1, and yes, there is a very obvious difference. The larger format renders things very differently. Granted, I didn't use the same lenses, my comparison would have been done using the K3 with the FA 31/1.8, and the K1 with the A50/1.2.
I feel they are similar enough in quality.
If the more real estate argument doesn't hold true in the digital age, why are we still using cameras rather than cell phones when we want top quality?
06-17-2019, 04:34 PM - 3 Likes   #79
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I have compared (largish 13x19 inch) prints made with the K3 to prints made with the K1, and yes, there is a very obvious difference. The larger format renders things very differently. Granted, I didn't use the same lenses, my comparison would have been done using the K3 with the FA 31/1.8, and the K1 with the A50/1.2.
I wonder how much of that is down to having a greater resolution for the field of view at the same reproduction size, though... The K-1 has a 36MP sensor vs the K-3 with its 24MP sensor. For the same field of view on each camera, the K-1 is capturing more detail because of the sensor resolution - agreed? But if you look at, say, the Nikon D750 with its larger-real-estate 24MP sensor, at base ISO the detail captured (judging by DPR's studio comparison tool) near the frame centre (where most lenses do OK) is comparable to the smaller-real-estate-sensor K-3. This largely mirrors my own findings, where shots from my 24MP Hasselblad HV and Sony A7II are more-or-less equivalent in detail to my K-3 for the same field of view and reproduction sizes. At least, that's my perception, after several years of use... I haven't carried out clinical tests to confirm.

Not trying to argue the point with you, Bill... I'm just raising the possibility that resolution might be a significant factor too, rather than simply real-estate.

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
If the more real estate argument doesn't hold true in the digital age, why are we still using cameras rather than cell phones when we want top quality?
I think the point here is, a cell phone camera sensor is typically tiny when compared to any enthusiast or professional format. The difference between, say, APS-C and full frame is considerably less. There's a difference, for sure... but it's nothing like as big. This is why, for instance, some folks opine that the K-1 is close enough to the 645Z - with its larger sensor - that clear justification for the 645Z might be difficult for some users...


Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-17-2019 at 04:56 PM.
06-17-2019, 05:45 PM - 1 Like   #80
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Not maybe so Mike, so.. More real estate = better picture. Every other criteria is a compromise.
Real estate does provide the highest potential image quality but only if you can get a good shot and getting a good shot depends on other factors.

The 8x10 has horribly compromised qualities such as atrocious frame-rate, extremely limited lens selection, slow maximum shutter speeds, and slow focusing (in addition to the weight and cost issue). It's the most compromised choice for getting good images of twitchy little birds in flight.

The deeper issue is that the largest formats are "worst" at some dimensions of photographic performance (and "best" for others) and the smallest formats are "worst" at other dimensions of photographic performance (and "best" for others).

The "sweet spot" format varies from genre to genre and photographer to photographer.
06-17-2019, 05:59 PM - 1 Like   #81
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,170
The practical 'quality factor' also depends significantly on the image-processing chain and the viewing medium.
06-17-2019, 06:04 PM - 2 Likes   #82
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
I'm not convinced that the "more real estate" argument holds as true in the digital era as it did with film.

If you were to compare an 8"x10" contact print from a view camera with an 8"x10" enlargement from 35mm film, you'd see a very real and very obvious difference. But if you were to compare an 8"x10" print from a K-3 with an 8"x10" print from a 645Z I doubt you'd see much of a difference at all, as both will have been downscaled to that size.

Comparing photos from different digital formats at web size can be misleading. A high percentage of the people shooting with the 645Z are extremely skilled and experienced photographers, so inevitably the general standard of technical quality is high even at web size. There is a much more varied level of technical skill and experience among those using the smaller formats, so inevitably the quality is more variable.

The only way to answer this question for certain would be with a double-blind test using prints from the different formats at non-interpolated sizes. Subjective bias is a huge factor when people know which format they are looking at.

This is not to say that larger digital formats don't have advantages. Of course they do. The question is whether we as individuals will be viewing/printing at resolutions where those differences become worth the extra cost and the bigger heavier gear.
The "more real estate" argument always holds at technical, statistical level but only it only makes a visible difference under limited circumstances that include some combination of low light, high dynamic range, or high resolution.

Smaller sensors gather fewer photons and that means they gather less information about the scene. But that doesn't mean that a small sensor can't gather enough photons or information to provide a great image under most circumstances.

And, yes, the issue was more pronounced in the film era because film basically sucked at gathering photons which made the real estate argument more obvious.

06-17-2019, 06:17 PM - 1 Like   #83
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 220
It's a matter of preference. I like the shallower depth of field that can be achieved with a full-frame sensor, resulting in better subject isolation. I noticed this immediately when I moved from the D500 to the D850 with my f/4 telephoto glass.

To each their own. Find what works for you.
06-18-2019, 01:45 AM - 2 Likes   #84
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,856
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
The "more real estate" argument always holds at technical, statistical level but only it only makes a visible difference under limited circumstances that include some combination of low light, high dynamic range, or high resolution. Smaller sensors gather fewer photons and that means they gather less information about the scene. But that doesn't mean that a small sensor can't gather enough photons or information to provide a great image under most circumstances.

I agree with you. My point is simply that most photographers aren't viewing and printing large enough for differences in sensor size to be a significant factor.

I think subjective bias plays a major role in the differences that people believe they can see at screen viewing sizes and smaller print sizes, and I'd be very interested to see the results of any double-blind tests that might have been done. I'd assume that viewers would consistently be able to tell the difference between a phone camera and a K-1, for example, although of course lens quality would be a factor in that as well. But I'm not so sure that viewers would be able to reliably tell the difference between a KP and a K-1. Or perhaps even the difference between a KP and a 645Z if different user skill levels were averaged out.

And believe me, I'd be overjoyed if such a double blind test proved me wrong. It would give me a great excuse to start spending money on higher-end gear that I'm not convinced at the moment that I need.


Edit: The only double-blind test I've been able to find so far is this one: Effects of Three Types of Digital Camera Sensors on Dental Specialists' Perception of Smile Esthetics: A Preliminary Double-Blind Clinical Trial. - PubMed - NCBI. Interestingly, the test did suggest a statistically significant difference between full frame and what the abstract calls "half frame". Sadly I haven't got an account that lets me read the full paper, but I'd be fascinated to see the results of any other tests. It would be great if my belief that it's mostly subjective bias turned out to be wrong.

Last edited by Dartmoor Dave; 06-18-2019 at 02:12 AM.
06-18-2019, 05:21 AM - 2 Likes   #85
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
rogerstg's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rhode Island
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,168
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
Edit: The only double-blind test I've been able to find so far is this one: Effects of Three Types of Digital Camera Sensors on Dental Specialists' Perception of Smile Esthetics: A Preliminary Double-Blind Clinical Trial. - PubMed - NCBI. Interestingly, the test did suggest a statistically significant difference between full frame and what the abstract calls "half frame". Sadly I haven't got an account that lets me read the full paper, but I'd be fascinated to see the results of any other tests. It would be great if my belief that it's mostly subjective bias turned out to be wrong.
The results could easily be due to better optics, different focal length and more advanced in-camera processing inherent in whatever full frame system was used in the test. Use of the term "half frame" suggests a lack of camera knowledge and accordingly, a lack of understanding of the importance of other variables between systems.
06-27-2019, 01:45 PM - 1 Like   #86
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
I agree with you. My point is simply that most photographers aren't viewing and printing large enough for differences in sensor size to be a significant factor.

I think subjective bias plays a major role in the differences that people believe they can see at screen viewing sizes and smaller print sizes, and I'd be very interested to see the results of any double-blind tests that might have been done. I'd assume that viewers would consistently be able to tell the difference between a phone camera and a K-1, for example, although of course lens quality would be a factor in that as well. But I'm not so sure that viewers would be able to reliably tell the difference between a KP and a K-1. Or perhaps even the difference between a KP and a 645Z if different user skill levels were averaged out.

And believe me, I'd be overjoyed if such a double blind test proved me wrong. It would give me a great excuse to start spending money on higher-end gear that I'm not convinced at the moment that I need.


Edit: The only double-blind test I've been able to find so far is this one: Effects of Three Types of Digital Camera Sensors on Dental Specialists' Perception of Smile Esthetics: A Preliminary Double-Blind Clinical Trial. - PubMed - NCBI. Interestingly, the test did suggest a statistically significant difference between full frame and what the abstract calls "half frame". Sadly I haven't got an account that lets me read the full paper, but I'd be fascinated to see the results of any other tests. It would be great if my belief that it's mostly subjective bias turned out to be wrong.
Unfortunately, probably only meaningful to dental technicians and others who work in poor light.
06-27-2019, 01:53 PM - 1 Like   #87
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London
Posts: 573
The K1 is an outstanding camera, but I don't see any special benefit in "full frame" unless you want (a) the biggest possible sensor (for best quality/resolution/etc) and/or (b) the capability to shoot with a minimal depth of field.

There is no relevance to having a sensor which is the same size as a piece of 35mm film

For landscape work in particular, FF is irrelevant unless you want max pixels.

If you can get a smaller sensor to deliver the quality etc you are happy with, then FF is pointless and merely results in a bigger and heavier camera and bigger and heavier lenses. I am sure that FF will eventually die out, along with the optical viewfinder (i.e. all SLRs will go mirrorless). How long this will take is anyone's guess; perhaps when cameras get to 100MP because any more than that will be unusable to most. Other things like image stabilisation make a much bigger difference to most users (and the K1 does that exceptionally well too).
06-27-2019, 08:10 PM - 1 Like   #88
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 220
QuoteOriginally posted by peterh337 Quote
For landscape work in particular, FF is irrelevant unless you want max pixels.

I wouldn't say its irrelevant. It all depends on the FOV the photographer prefers to work with. There is no right or wrong with these things. All a matter preference.
06-28-2019, 09:10 AM - 2 Likes   #89
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
When you hit that high dynamic range sweet spot, FF is to die for.


Last edited by normhead; 06-28-2019 at 09:55 AM.
06-28-2019, 09:47 AM - 1 Like   #90
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
Even if smaller sensors are "good enough" and enable smaller lenses and cameras, they won't kill FF.

The size of the human body and basic ergonomics drives camera design toward a box about as wide as the human face, at least as tall as a human hand, and about as thick as the human grip. Moreover, a camera body needs to be big enough to have conveniently-spaced dials and buttons, room for display panels, and sufficient volume for a decent battery. Thus, a camera body really does need to be somewhere around the size of the K-5 or K-1 and many seem to prefer something larger given the prevalence of adding vertical grips.

A lot of people think Sony cameras are uncomfortably small and light while the K-1 is perfect -- a 1-2 kg body-lens system feels more stable, balanced, and "solid" than a tiny hollow box.

So given that a camera the size of the K-1 is "perfect" for many photographers, what is the best sensor to go in it? Sure, you can put a tiny M4/3 sensor in a big body (e.g., Oly's latest flagship) but you lose dynamic range and subject isolation. Or, you can put crop-645 sensor in that body (e.g., Fuji's latest MF camera) but then you need ginormous lenses. Whether FF or APS-C is the best sensor for a K-1-sized-camera probably comes down to photographer's preferences for the highest possible IQ (and thinest possible DoF) or a camera with more reach and speed for action and BIFs.

As long as there are landscape, portrait, astro, and advertising photographers, FF will be popular. FF really does seem like the Goldilocks format size although that won't stop camera makers from offering larger or smaller bodies.
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!
aps-c, camera, da, days, dirt, dslr, equipment, ff, formats, frame, grip, guy, k-1, k-r, kp, laundry, lenses, nikon, pentax, photography, photos, plan, question, shutter, shutter count, thread, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Full frame vs half frame Paul Charlier Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 13 06-28-2019 04:12 AM
Some questions about buying sony full frame + adapters + pentax full frame lens jhlxxx Pentax Full Frame 7 06-14-2017 05:13 PM
From Full-Frame Sony... to Pentax... to Full-Frame Canon Mr_Canuck Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 42 01-21-2014 12:50 AM
Full frame or no full frame.... Deedee Pentax K-3 & K-3 II 14 10-08-2013 05:39 AM
Full Frame Full Frame vanchaz2002 Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 12-11-2008 07:09 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:05 AM. | 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