Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Which of the pairs is the FF image? You get 6 choices.
1 is FF 2843.08%
2 is FF 3553.85%
3 is FF 3858.46%
4 is FF 2436.92%
5 is FF 3858.46%
6 is FF 2538.46%
7 is FF 3147.69%
8 us FF 2741.54%
9 is FF 1523.08%
10 is FF 4264.62%
11 is FF 1523.08%
11 is APS_c 3046.15%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-02-2019, 12:29 PM   #136
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JensE Quote
I thought the thread was not about less DoF or more-DoF, but about pictures which will look basically the same on both formats.
Exactly, 90% of your photos will look the same if you're like me. Because they are reduced to 3840 x 2160, I don't shoot a lot of narrow DoF, and when I do it is often a long lens at ƒ2.8-ƒ5.6.
As pointed out before, for 90% of my images any camera will do, at least if you're like me. You buy your camera for the last 10% that every camera doesn't do.

07-02-2019, 03:09 PM   #137
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,391
QuoteOriginally posted by ZombieArmy Quote
I got a 2, dunno if that's good or bad
Two's good. Zero is better. My wife is a zero. I'm a two.
07-02-2019, 03:29 PM   #138
Pentaxian
timb64's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: /Situation : Doing my best to avoid idiots!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,506
I got a 2 in a range for my gender/age group of 0-8484 using an iPad mini.
07-11-2019, 12:53 AM - 1 Like   #139
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Cymru
Posts: 2,356
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
Tetrachromats see a wider variation in colour tones. That article makes it seem as if she sees different colours, which is highly unlikely.

Try this test: Free Online Color Challenge and Hue Test; X-Rite. It won't tell you if you're a tetrachromat (no online test can do that because monitors don't show enough colour variation) but it will give you some idea of the small tonal differences that can be difficult to spot. Women are generally better at this than men.
Good fun, thanks for this. Scored a 0. I put that partially down to being a spritely just-past-mid-20's year-old. I guess the two operations on my eye socket and laser surgery for a tear in my retina following a rugby injury hasn't been THAT deleterious.

07-11-2019, 01:18 AM   #140
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,177
For getting superior images with the K1, you've got to get out of the K3 equivalence. Keeping equivalence wipes out a large part of differences between formats. Keeping equivalence only give the larger format higher image resolution and that superior resolution isn't visible at the size of the computer screen. Since I have the K1, I usually find more difficult to get max IQ out of the K1, compared to how easy it was to get the max quality out of the K3. Simply, DoF become a more significant constraint to work around on the K1, but when putting effort into K1 settings (require a tripod more often), images are superior.

---------- Post added 11-07-19 at 10:35 ----------

We see that defending smaller formats often takes roots from the search of smaller and cheaper systems. Equivalence is a nice way to backup the idea of saving a lot of money and size by selecting a system of smaller sensor format. However, in 2019, the cost advantage won't work anymore, because prices of equipment of all formats are increasing faster than people's average income. In 2019 you have to go down two format step (Nikon P1000), in order to pay the prices of apsc five years ago. Prices are increasing faster than image quality. By 2019, the equivalence play can only translate into a size/weight advantage, not a cost advantages anymore. In some case, there's not advantages at all getting a smaller format camera system, just take the Olympus E-MX1, it's more expensive than a D500, what's the point of playing equivalence then?

Last edited by biz-engineer; 07-11-2019 at 01:36 AM.
07-11-2019, 02:31 AM   #141
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,241
That is true. and those guys with smaller formats know their strengts and weakness. I also think that eqivalence talk should just stop. Each format should be looked from their strongest point. And each should just go with those when considering options. I think that it is brought up with intention to confuse possible buyers to say that this is eqivelent of that and this, when it is only partially true. Most examples are made with PRO in exotic places and with their experience. When we get to go around shooting flowers and cats with dim light, no assistant no nothing, then it come down to be something else. Maybe.

well. it is still interesting.
07-11-2019, 02:46 AM   #142
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
I use a K3 a lot -- mainly when I want a little more reach to my lenses, but for my style of shooting (landscapes and photos of my kids), a K-1 II gives better results. The biggest things are that I get better dynamic range and better high iso ability with it.

I do feel like these sort of threads ask the wrong question. The question isn't whether you can take similar photos with a K3 as with a K-1, it is whether there are certain areas where it benefits you to have a larger sensor and if so what are those areas.

For example, I can take a photo with my K-1 that looks like this:



And post process it into this:



This is something I can't do with my K3 because the dynamic range just wouldn't be adequate. At the same time, I don't shoot much macro and seldom shoot wildlife. My longest full frame lens is 200mm and I mainly use that when I'm on vacation (my wife got it for wedding photography). So, I'm a special case.

But I guess the message of the thread should be that the important thing is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each camera and figure out if the strengths fit your needs and you can deal with the weaknesses.

07-11-2019, 03:02 AM   #143
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,857
What gets to me is when people blithely throw around terms like "superior image quality" and "better IQ" (ugh). It's just the same syllogism that gets repeated again and again:

Fred likes photos with high sharpness and resolution.
Sharpness and resolution are objectively measurable.
Therefore the photos that Fred likes are objectively the best sort of photos.

The faulty reasoning should be obvious.

People have different tastes, and if some people find that they get results that they prefer with APS-C, or Micro 4/3, or collodion wet plate, they are absolutely entitled to those preferences. "Fred" doesn't get to tell them that they are wrong just because they have made different choices to the ones that he believes are objectively correct.
07-11-2019, 03:13 AM   #144
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
What gets to me is when people blithely throw around terms like "superior image quality" and "better IQ" (ugh). It's just the same syllogism that gets repeated again and again:

Fred likes photos with high sharpness and resolution.
Sharpness and resolution are objectively measurable.
Therefore the photos that Fred likes are objectively the best sort of photos.

The faulty reasoning should be obvious.

People have different tastes, and if some people find that they get results that they prefer with APS-C, or Micro 4/3, or collodion wet plate, they are absolutely entitled to those preferences. "Fred" doesn't get to tell them that they are wrong just because they have made different choices to the ones that he believes are objectively correct.
Sharpness isn't really the point. When you use a larger sensor you should be able to keep dynamic range a little better at higher iso settings and have less noise at higher iso settings. If you only shoot at iso 100-400 it probably isn't enough to make a difference.

I don't think the point is really to say one is better than the other, but rather to understand the very real differences when you increase sensor size and let people choose what works best for them. I shoot the same stuff when I am using APS-C as I do with my full frame cameras. I typically like the results better with the full frame cameras, but each person is different and there will be plenty of folks who say "APS-C is good enough for my purposes" and that is totally fine.
07-11-2019, 03:19 AM   #145
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,177
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
But I guess the message of the thread should be that the important thing is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each camera and figure out if the strengths fit your needs and you can deal with the weaknesses.
For me, K3 gets +1 for macro, wildlife and outdoor sports (with good light), K1 does everything else better. K1 can be used in crop mode for macros, wildlife and outdoor sports, but it is still not a responsive as the K3, and K1 crops don't resolve as much as the K3. I sold the K3 with the belief I'd use the crop mode of the K1, but after practically use I realized how Canon was right to offer two lines of cameras: 7D and 5D lines. K1 gives me versatility, but at the same time it isn't the best for everything.
07-11-2019, 04:19 AM   #146
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,857
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Sharpness isn't really the point. When you use a larger sensor you should be able to keep dynamic range a little better at higher iso settings and have less noise at higher iso settings. If you only shoot at iso 100-400 it probably isn't enough to make a difference.

Sharpness was just an example, and it's just as easy for people to fall into the same logical trap with dynamic range. To think that because dynamic range is objectively measurable then it's a quality that a photo objectively must have. Personally I fell into that dynamic range trap myself when I first went digital, and it's only quite recently that I've rediscovered that areas of solid black can be quite beautiful in a photo -- something I used to take for granted in my Kodachrome days.
07-11-2019, 04:30 AM   #147
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,177
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
To think that because dynamic range is objectively measurable then it's a quality that a photo objectively must have.
That's right. Photo content and how the subject is lit has nothing to do with camera format. This thread is really about comparing apsc and full frame technically, by using some images for the comparison.
Like if you take two cars for a comparison, one with a small engine and another one with a big engine, you can always you see not difference between the two cars when driving downtown (speed limit is 30 mph), and also say that driving downtown is what you like the most. Some beautiful images do not require much dynamic range, some other photographs do benefit of the best dynamic range of a sensor.
07-11-2019, 05:18 AM - 1 Like   #148
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,857
All I'm asking is for people to be more careful with the terms they use, to avoid confusing subjective preferences with objective facts. To say "more dynamic range" instead of "superior image quality". To say "higher resolution" rather than "better IQ". It would help in keeping the technical and the aesthetic aspects of photography in the separate realms where they belong.
07-11-2019, 05:31 AM - 1 Like   #149
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
Sharpness was just an example, and it's just as easy for people to fall into the same logical trap with dynamic range. To think that because dynamic range is objectively measurable then it's a quality that a photo objectively must have. Personally I fell into that dynamic range trap myself when I first went digital, and it's only quite recently that I've rediscovered that areas of solid black can be quite beautiful in a photo -- something I used to take for granted in my Kodachrome days.
At the photo level, you are right. Some images do not need high-DR (e.g., well-lit interiors) and some even benefit from low-DR (e.g., the use of image noise or black/white clipping to create mood).

However, at the level of a camera, I disagree. Given a choice between two completely identical camera models with identical prices, features, etc., with the only difference being the DR, would anyone say "no, I don't want the high-DR model, I prefer the low-DR model"? Why would anyone explicitly seek a low-DR camera given that in-camera or post-processing can readily add noise and clipping to simulate a low-DR effect?

Naturally, in the real market for real cameras, the high-DR models are not identical to the low-DR models in every way except DR. The high-DR models typically come with trade-offs such as higher prices, larger bodies, larger lenses, slower frame rates, worse video, CMOS (versus CCD) colors, brand new versus vintage/nostalgic bodies, etc. A photographer might explicitly prefer a small old used CCD camera and not mind the low-DR that comes with it.

Your deeper point is true: just because something is measurable, does not make it objectively better. Physical size is the best example of that -- some people prefer smaller cameras (but not too small) and some prefer bigger cameras (but not too big).

P.S. I like your point about distinguishing among the different technical dimensions of camera performance such as DR and resolution rather than use fuzzy terms like IQ. At both the levels of the photodiodes and the sensor read-out systems, there is a very strong trade-off between DR and resolution. Higher resolution cameras (in a given format) require smaller noisier pixels and faster noisier read-out systems. And if you change formats, higher resolution still has DR implications for read-out and adds some addition DR challenges with the larger sensor which is why the K-1 has a slower frame rate than the K-3.

Last edited by photoptimist; 07-11-2019 at 05:41 AM.
07-11-2019, 08:41 AM - 3 Likes   #150
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
I fell into that dynamic range trap myself when I first went digital, and it's only quite recently that I've rediscovered that areas of solid black can be quite beautiful in a photo -- something I used to take for granted in my Kodachrome days.
Whereas for people like myself who preferred high contrast that incorporate large areas of black or white, we quickly realized, the fact that you have more dynamic range doesn't mean you always have to use it. Some areas in many photos look better black or blasted white.

With high dynamic range you have the choice, even if you don't make use of it every time.

In cases like this the background is lighter in the unprocessed raw. But it's messy and adds nothing to the photo so I used the slider points on "levels" to black them out.

With film, both of these photos would have required special exposure in the field and processing techniques in the tank and then in the darkroom. With modern high DR cameras it can all be done in post, you don't even have to make up your mind what you're going for until you see it in post processing.


Where as in images like this high key image, I've blasted out all snow detail (in post). Having more Dynamic Range in no way obligates you to make use of it your final image.


With film for the above image, I'd have to have a nice fine grain film loaded, I probably would have had to slightly underexpose the dark areas of the dog, over-exposing the snow, then push the film (using a fine grain developer) to get detail in the black dog fur and completely obliterate snow detail, then print accordingly. With the wide DR of modern DSLR, I can make all those decision in post. I can clip 3 or 4 EV of DR and still have more DR than I might have had in film.

It's the DR of modern sensors that lets you go for one of those shots, one right after the other. You can change your ISO without changing film, you don't have the problem that when one shot on a roll is going to be pushed or pulled, every image on the roll gets the same treatment. You don't have to clearly label the films that are going to be pushed or pulled when changing film. The advantages of high DR are many. I remember clearly how difficult and how many steps had to be taken in getting images like the one of Tripper Dawg. And you didn't know if you got what you wanted until you saw the negative after processing, back in the lab. In the field you applied every bit of knowledge you ever learned and hoped for the best.

Last edited by normhead; 07-11-2019 at 12:27 PM.
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!
balance, camera, change, day, dof, dslr, equivalence, equivalent, ff, flickr, format, full frame vs aps-c, game, head, image, images, k-1, light, macro, norm, photography, post, pp, sensor, shot, shots, xg-1
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some questions about buying sony full frame + adapters + pentax full frame lens jhlxxx Pentax Full Frame 7 06-14-2017 05:13 PM
What happens when you put an aps-c lens on full frame(K-1)? fstop18 Pentax Full Frame 8 04-13-2016 08:34 AM
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 02:22 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