Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-29-2020, 02:43 PM   #91
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Kevin B123's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Hampshire
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,668
The real feature of the K-3iii will be the Pentaprism, 100% coverage, 1.05x magnification. the K-3 is 100%, 0.95x.
I'd like to know what that translates too as a user experience.
Today I was out using up a roll of film with my ME Super (92%, 0.95x) and the viewfinder made composition so easy, it was a real joy to use, how will it compare?
Actually, 92%, 0.95x doesn't sound a lot, but it really is.
And when they scale it up for the K-1iii?

11-29-2020, 02:53 PM   #92
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
I think you could probably word that better before a hell fight breaks out!!
If we take the pixel density into account and we want to hold 24 mp on a subject the K1 shot in 1.22 crop will give you 25mp on your subject. so in reality the difference in between a 300 mm lens when shot on both cameras will be 450mm 1.5 crop FOV vs 366mm with 1.22 crop FOV and this is
not taking into account that reach is only theoretical, as you know you don't increase captured resolution equal to the increase in pixel density.

Last edited by Ian Stuart Forsyth; 11-29-2020 at 02:59 PM.
11-29-2020, 03:50 PM - 2 Likes   #93
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,818
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
One of the biggest issues is in electronically moving the delicate analog signal from the pixel in the middle of the sensor to the read circuitry. The microscopic traces on the chip that carry these signals have both resistance and capacitance that slow the progress of the signal and increase the time it takes for a high-quality read-out. A bigger sensor has longer traces with more resistance, more capacitance, and slower read-outs.

That's why so many smartphones beat larger cameras in the frame rate game.

The Sony A9 does a lot of high-tech tricks to speed the read-out but they can't completely overcome physics. Both the A9 and A9II are inferior to the Pentax K-1 on still image quality despite the A9II being both much newer and much more expensive than the old K-1.

If you are a cinematographer and want high frame rate video: use a smaller sensor.

If you are a photographer and want high quality still photos: use a larger sensor.
Once again, kudos for a great explanation of the technical issues, and the take-away for everyone.
11-29-2020, 04:04 PM   #94
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,096
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
as you know you don't increase captured resolution equal to the increase in pixel density.
That is right. The lens plays a bigger part.
And this has been a great thread but I think it has been lacking in the emphasis on the lens aspect.
If you are looking at buying into a given format ,lenses and all, then this is a very valid thread.
If you have an arsenal of apsc only lenses then apsc it is.
But if, like me, the vast majority of your lenses are FF capable, then you need to be aware that these lenses present with much better resolution on the full frame rather than on apsc.

11-29-2020, 04:34 PM   #95
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,991
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
That is right. The lens plays a bigger part.
And this has been a great thread but I think it has been lacking in the emphasis on the lens aspect.
If you are looking at buying into a given format ,lenses and all, then this is a very valid thread.
If you have an arsenal of apsc only lenses then apsc it is.
But if, like me, the vast majority of your lenses are FF capable, then you need to be aware that these lenses present with much better resolution on the full frame rather than on apsc.
To be clear, though, this isn't because of format... it's due to the sensor's pixel density - agreed? For any lens (full frame or APS-C) the 24MP APS-C sensor in a K-3 is more demanding of performance than a 36MP full frame sensor (for the same portion of the image circle)... but if the same lens fitted to a K-1 and K-5, it should resolve in much the same way, as their sensors have very similar pixel density...
11-29-2020, 05:32 PM   #96
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,096
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
but if the same lens fitted to a K-1 and K-5, it should resolve in much the same way, as their sensors have very similar pixel density...
No
I covered it here
Dumb lens question - PentaxForums.com in #12
Well at least I haven't been debunked yet
It is all about visualising the image circle.

EDIT and from post 34 of that thread
" First of all both resolution of the lens and the megapickles of the camera both contribute to the final image so there is not a black and white answer here.
A good lens is expected to achieve 100 lines per millimetre.
Lets turn that into points of detail 1/100mm square. And yeah I know - a questionable conversion - i think the reality wouldn't be that good.
That converts into a apsc rectangle on the image circle at 3.5 megadots.
So with the K3 that is 3.5 megadots converted to digital with 24megapixels
On the K-1 sensor that would be 5.25 megadots converted with 36 megapixels.
So still a no-brainer."

Last edited by GUB; 11-29-2020 at 05:37 PM.
11-29-2020, 07:04 PM   #97
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Southeastern Michigan
Posts: 2,906
What it boils down to is- if you get the same framed shot with the 36mp FF setup, (with a quality lens of course) by either using a longer FL lens or by moving closer, as you have gotten using APS-C at 24mp, the FF shot will technically contain more resolution. But if you shoot the scene from the same position with the same lens with a 36mm FF which will present a wider angle than APS-C, then have to crop to get he same image framed as the 24mp APS-C framing, then the APS-C image will technically contain more resolution.
11-29-2020, 07:13 PM   #98
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,096
QuoteOriginally posted by mikesbike Quote
But if you shoot the scene from the same position with the same lens with a 36mm FF which will present a wider angle than APS-C, then have to crop to get he same image framed as the 24mp APS-C framing, then the APS-C image will technically contain more resolution.
Yes the apsc will contain more pixel pitch based resolution than the cropped FF image. But it will contain the same lens based image detail as the cropped FF.
But in the context of this discussion this is not a practical approach to usage.
The practical approach is to fill the frame with either format in which case the K-1 wins hands down as far as lens resolution is concerned. And for that matter pixel count.
(as per post above)

11-29-2020, 08:42 PM - 1 Like   #99
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 960
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
To be clear, though, this isn't because of format... it's due to the sensor's pixel density - agreed?
No
When we look at lenses that have been tested on both formats and they share the same amount of pixels you will see that the larger format will show a increase in captured resolution, this is even when the larger format still employs the use of a AAfilter.
This is why the smaller format can get away without using a AAfilter as it is using this as a way of combating artifacts.
11-29-2020, 09:14 PM - 1 Like   #100
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,096
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
No
I covered it here
Dumb lens question - PentaxForums.com in #12
Well at least I haven't been debunked yet
It is all about visualising the image circle.

EDIT and from post 34 of that thread
" First of all both resolution of the lens and the megapickles of the camera both contribute to the final image so there is not a black and white answer here.
A good lens is expected to achieve 100 lines per millimetre.
Lets turn that into points of detail 1/100mm square. And yeah I know - a questionable conversion - i think the reality wouldn't be that good.
That converts into a apsc rectangle on the image circle at 3.5 megadots.
So with the K3 that is 3.5 megadots converted to digital with 24megapixels
On the K-1 sensor that would be 5.25 megadots converted with 36 megapixels.
So still a no-brainer."
It is a bad day when you have to debunk your own post! How come no one checked my maths!!
so that should read --


" First of all both resolution of the lens and the megapickles of the camera both contribute to the final image so there is not a black and white answer here.
A good lens is expected to achieve 100 lines per millimetre.
Lets turn that into points of detail 1/100mm square. And yeah I know - a questionable conversion - i think the reality wouldn't be that good.
That converts into a apsc rectangle on the image circle at 3.7 megadots.
So with the K3 that is 3.7 megadots converted to digital with 24megapixels
On the K-1 sensor that would be 8.6 megadots converted with 36 megapixels.
So still a no-brainer."


So an even bigger difference - definitely a senior moment.
(Apart from a rounding off error I multiplied by 1.5 to get the FF size when I should have x1.5 x1.5 to calculate on an area basis.)



11-30-2020, 02:29 AM   #101
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,550
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
No
When we look at lenses that have been tested on both formats and they share the same amount of pixels you will see that the larger format will show a increase in captured resolution, this is even when the larger format still employs the use of a AAfilter.
This is why the smaller format can get away without using a AAfilter as it is using this as a way of combating artifacts.
But if both formats have the same amount of pixels then the pixel density is different, right?
11-30-2020, 02:56 AM   #102
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,096
QuoteOriginally posted by Serkevan Quote
But if both formats have the same amount of pixels then the pixel density is different, right?
That is right but it is the lens and its limitations that is the main driver in the resolution. That is Ian's point.
11-30-2020, 03:17 AM   #103
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North-East of England
Posts: 15,991
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
No
When we look at lenses that have been tested on both formats and they share the same amount of pixels you will see that the larger format will show a increase in captured resolution, this is even when the larger format still employs the use of a AAfilter.
This is why the smaller format can get away without using a AAfilter as it is using this as a way of combating artifacts.
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
It is a bad day when you have to debunk your own post! How come no one checked my maths!!
so that should read --


" First of all both resolution of the lens and the megapickles of the camera both contribute to the final image so there is not a black and white answer here.
A good lens is expected to achieve 100 lines per millimetre.
Lets turn that into points of detail 1/100mm square. And yeah I know - a questionable conversion - i think the reality wouldn't be that good.
That converts into a apsc rectangle on the image circle at 3.7 megadots.
So with the K3 that is 3.7 megadots converted to digital with 24megapixels
On the K-1 sensor that would be 8.6 megadots converted with 36 megapixels.
So still a no-brainer."


So an even bigger difference - definitely a senior moment.
(Apart from a rounding off error I multiplied by 1.5 to get the FF size when I should have x1.5 x1.5 to calculate on an area basis.)



Thanks, both, for your explanations. I haven't had enough coffee this morning to get my head around this, but I'll try again later on

Probably the best thing I could do is to take some test shots with both my 24MP APS-C K-3 and 24MP full frame Sony A7 MkII using the same sharp lens. That way, even if I continue to be confused by the explanations (which is a distinct possibility ), I should at least see the difference.
11-30-2020, 03:27 AM   #104
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,096
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Thanks, both, for your explanations. I haven't had enough coffee this morning to get my head around this, but I'll try again later on

Probably the best thing I could do is to take some test shots with both my 24MP APS-C K-3 and 24MP full frame Sony A7 MkII using the same sharp lens. That way, even if I continue to be confused by the explanations (which is a distinct possibility ), I should at least see the difference.
And check my maths!!
11-30-2020, 03:30 AM   #105
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,096
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Thanks, both, for your explanations. I haven't had enough coffee this morning to get my head around this, but I'll try again later on

Probably the best thing I could do is to take some test shots with both my 24MP APS-C K-3 and 24MP full frame Sony A7 MkII using the same sharp lens. That way, even if I continue to be confused by the explanations (which is a distinct possibility ), I should at least see the difference.
And do the comparison with a less than ideal lens - say an old zoom - I think that is when I notice it most.
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, benefits, body, camera, crop, dslr, ff, film, fisheye, format, frame, k1, k10d, kp, lens, minutes, pentax, photography, quality, sensor, situation, size, system, tripod, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another my maybe-right understanding of APS-C camera vs Full Frame talkskiwon Pentax K-3 8 10-11-2019 02:25 PM
K-r relevance today mars76 Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 01-07-2015 05:05 AM
Enthusiast vs Prosumer vs Semi Pro vs Pro vs APSC vs Full Frame mickyd Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-12-2013 07:14 PM
K-r ff "relevance" poll ccd333 Pentax K-r 16 06-23-2011 11:36 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 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