Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-28-2021, 03:15 AM - 1 Like   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,177
Pentax Q has more reach than a Pentax K3. Smaller sensor is better.

07-28-2021, 04:12 AM - 4 Likes   #32
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
I guess my issue with this entire thread and discussion is the generalization that APS-C or cropped sensors in general have more reach. Inherently they do not.

What gives the reach is the pixel density.

A perfect example is the K5 to K1 comparison. If you scale up the K5 sensor, in terms of total megapixels and pixel density from its 16 MP 16x24 mm format to 24x36 mm format of the K1 sensor, you get exactly the 36MP image size from the K1. Therefore using the K1 in cropped mode or cropping a shot using the same lens as on a K5, is exactly the same as using a K5 and the reach is the same.

The “Reach” Norm is describing, is simply the pixel density per square mm, the more pixels the more you can crop in (assuming the lens has the resolution to make a useable image)

The reach disused here is all about the ability to crop in and nothing else. The problem is that that ability has limits. These limits are lens resolution, and sensor performance and noise.
07-28-2021, 04:23 AM - 1 Like   #33
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I guess my issue with this entire thread and discussion is the generalization that APS-C or cropped sensors in general have more reach. Inherently they do not.

What gives the reach is the pixel density.

A perfect example is the K5 to K1 comparison. If you scale up the K5 sensor, in terms of total megapixels and pixel density from its 16 MP 16x24 mm format to 24x36 mm format of the K1 sensor, you get exactly the 36MP image size from the K1. Therefore using the K1 in cropped mode or cropping a shot using the same lens as on a K5, is exactly the same as using a K5 and the reach is the same.

The “Reach” Norm is describing, is simply the pixel density per square mm, the more pixels the more you can crop in (assuming the lens has the resolution to make a useable image)

The reach disused here is all about the ability to crop in and nothing else. The problem is that that ability has limits. These limits are lens resolution, and sensor performance and noise.
You have nailed it. This is not a format discussion but a pixel density discussion.
07-28-2021, 04:35 AM - 1 Like   #34
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
I guess my issue with this entire thread and discussion is the generalization that APS-C or cropped sensors in general have more reach. Inherently they do not.

What gives the reach is the pixel density.

A perfect example is the K5 to K1 comparison. If you scale up the K5 sensor, in terms of total megapixels and pixel density from its 16 MP 16x24 mm format to 24x36 mm format of the K1 sensor, you get exactly the 36MP image size from the K1. Therefore using the K1 in cropped mode or cropping a shot using the same lens as on a K5, is exactly the same as using a K5 and the reach is the same.

The “Reach” Norm is describing, is simply the pixel density per square mm, the more pixels the more you can crop in (assuming the lens has the resolution to make a useable image)

The reach disused here is all about the ability to crop in and nothing else. The problem is that that ability has limits. These limits are lens resolution, and sensor performance and noise.
I think almost everyone understands that. But here in Pentax-land the practical impact of that is if you have a current K-1 and a K-3 series camera with all the same lenses you have more ability to crop and get more reach with the APS-C camera. In general today's APS-C cameras have higher pixel density than all but the most expensive FF models, while still maintaining other attributes like noise that give them advantages over smaller sensors.

I think it can be helpful to point out that the mantra that FF >> APS-C is an oversimplification. There are advantages to the smaller format, including (usually) the ability to crop.

07-28-2021, 04:56 AM   #35
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I think almost everyone understands that. But here in Pentax-land the practical impact of that is if you have a current K-1 and a K-3 series camera with all the same lenses you have more ability to crop and get more reach with the APS-C camera. In general today's APS-C cameras have higher pixel density than all but the most expensive FF models, while still maintaining other attributes like noise that give them advantages over smaller sensors.

I think it can be helpful to point out that the mantra that FF >> APS-C is an oversimplification. There are advantages to the smaller format, including (usually) the ability to crop.
Yes true. I addressed this to myself 3 or 4 years ago when I was thinking about an upgrade to the K01. But I came to the conclusion the the gain going to the K3 simply did not have "bang for buck" and I think Norm's images support this because the OP ones show the limiting effect of a given lens on that increased pixel density.
My choice instead was the K-1 and I have no regrets.
But for sure Norms view is valid and things like birding that need "reach" are easier / cheaper to achieve with the K3.
Another area that is similar is close up shooting. Using the same lens and filling the frame in FF just gives dof hassles. I tend to pull back a bit and create the same subject magnification as it would be on apsc. So once more greater pixel density would be a plus.
07-28-2021, 05:56 AM - 1 Like   #36
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Original Poster
QuoteQuote:
I guess my issue with this entire thread and discussion is the generalization that APS-C or cropped sensors in general have more reach. Inherently they do not.
The two criteria are field of view and magnification.

If you compare sensor of the same MP they do. That APS-c gives you more reach they meets both criteria.
If you compare 36 MP FF to 24 MP APS-c they meet both criteria.
If you compare 36 MP FF to 6 or 10 MP APS-c, they meet the narrow field of view criteria and magnification is you reduce the images to the same 6 MP canvas.
But in terms of magnification per MP, 12 MP FF would give you less magnification than 8 MP ASPc. So the image is still magnified in terms of pixels on the subject relative to it's size, in MP.

24 MP APS_c vs 24 MP FF, the APS_c gives you less field of view and more magnification.
And the APS-c sensor will always give you a magnifcation advantage in the number of pixels on the subject relative to the size f the frame, in every instance.

Your computer can't tell what the pixel size was once the image leaves the cameras. Pixel size really isn't part of the discussion. If you reduce a 36 MP K-1 image to 6 MP (or even 12 MP) to normalize the image to the same canvas size a the K100D, the APS-c image still has narrower DoF. And a larger subject.

mag·ni·fy
/ˈmaɡnəˌfī/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: magnify; 3rd person present: magnifies; past tense: magnified; past participle: magnified; gerund or present participle: magnifying
1.
make (something) appear larger than it is, especially with a lens or microscope.
"the camera's zoom mode can magnify a certain area if required"

APS-c makes the subject appear larger than it would appear in FF with the same size canvas, in every image. Can we put this to rest?
People seem to arguing that producing a bigger subject is not magnification because of the way it's achieved. I'm going to argue the way it's achieved is irrelevant, as long as there are more pixels incorporated into the subject and there is more detail, it's magnified.

Last edited by normhead; 07-28-2021 at 06:03 AM.
07-28-2021, 08:21 AM   #37
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2019
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,976
The images are great... those little guys are beautiful.


For what it's worth, on my screen the K-1 image is noticeably more detailed at the pixel level. The lens might be hitting its maximum resolution - and that would be the biggest bottleneck in printing large, methinks. That said, on such a small, vibrating bird (which is fully airbourne on the K-3 shot and holding onto the feeder for the K-1) there are enough variables that can throw off an image by just a hair that I'm not sure I could confidently say it.


Last edited by Serkevan; 07-28-2021 at 08:28 AM.
07-28-2021, 08:47 AM - 1 Like   #38
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Original Poster
QuoteQuote:
The images are great... those little guys are beautiful.

QuoteQuote:
For what it's worth, on my screen the K-1 image is noticeably more detailed at the pixel level. The lens might be hitting its maximum resolution - and that would be the biggest bottleneck in printing large, methinks. That said, on such a small, vibrating bird (which is fully airbourne on the K-3 shot and holding onto the feeder for the K-1) there are enough variables that can throw off an image by just a hair that I'm not sure I could confidently say it.
I speculated the same thing further up the thread. I know a 2x on this lens is workable on the K-1, but not on the K-3. Even more evidence that at 1.7x the lens TC combo may not be out resolving the sensor.

There is another possibility though. Contrary to popular belief, hummer feathers are relatively course. It's possible what detail was there was fully visible on the K-1 image and just made larger on the K-3 image, creating the illusion of finer detail on the K-1. The idea of increasing detail depends entirely on there being significant subject detail to resolve. Reducing the size of images tends to make them look sharper. IN any case, I do like the K-1 images better, by a small margin. But, that wouldn't be true if I took the TC off the camera and reshot.

Incidentally the K-1 image needed quite bit less PP to bring them up to standard, in fact they were both almost up to standard right off the camera, even in relatively unprocessed raw. 36 MP has it's benefits.

The ideal test in this case would be to find an image where the K-3 showed detail the K-1 didn't. But that would be a tedious trial and error exercise that could take quite a while. Were I making money doing it, it would be done. There's only so much I'll do out of personal interest.

This got done because Tess is away on a canoe trip. She sees much of my curiosity based endeavours as wastes of time.

She'd rather I was fixing the basement bathroom or making a cabinet for the kitchen to replace the one a new taller fridge made me remove. She has different prorities.

Last edited by normhead; 07-28-2021 at 09:36 AM.
07-28-2021, 09:54 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,869
QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I think almost everyone understands that. But here in Pentax-land the practical impact of that is if you have a current K-1 and a K-3 series camera with all the same lenses you have more ability to crop and get more reach with the APS-C camera. In general today's APS-C cameras have higher pixel density than all but the most expensive FF models, while still maintaining other attributes like noise that give them advantages over smaller sensors.

I think it can be helpful to point out that the mantra that FF >> APS-C is an oversimplification. There are advantages to the smaller format, including (usually) the ability to crop.
This has always been the case with every maker when it comes to megapixel capability of cropped format bodies, in the heyday of DSLRs (and we are past that now) there were 3-4 megapixel upgrades in crop sensors between each release of a full frame body

As to the ability to crop you need to also consider that is true for any one focal length between bodies, but definitely not as true or perhaps clear cut, if you shoot equivalent FOV lenses on each format. The K1 is 36 MP the K3 is 25. Clearly you can crop in more with lenses of an equal FOV in a full frame body than crop sensor, similarly you can crop in even more on a 645 sensor which has even more MP

I think the real issue with birding especially, is that regardless of the lens you have, you always crop, therefore the more MP you have, providing the lens resolving power is sufficient, the better. I don’t dispute that.

I crop many of my DA560 shots below APS-C format from my K1 MKII so you might ask why am I not using my K5. Simple, the K1 MKII af is better, and the sensor is a generation newer and better. Will I get the new K3 MKiii maybe…….

Last edited by Lowell Goudge; 07-28-2021 at 10:00 AM.
07-28-2021, 10:09 AM   #40
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
This has always been the case with every maker when it comes to megapixel capability of cropped format bodies, in the heyday of DSLRs (and we are past that now) there were 3-4 megapixel upgrades in crop sensors between each release of a full frame body

As to the ability to crop you need to also consider that is true for any one focal length between bodies, but definitely not as true or perhaps clear cut, if you shoot equivalent FOV lenses on each format. The K1 is 36 MP the K3 is 25. Clearly you can crop in more with lenses of an equal FOV in a full frame body than crop sensor, similarly you can crop in even more on a 645 sensor which has even more MP

I think the real issue with birding especially, is that regardless of the lens you have, you always crop, therefore the more MP you have, providing the lens resolving power is sufficient, the better. I don’t dispute that.

I crop many of my DA560 shots below APS-C format from my K1 MKII so you might ask why am I not using my K5. Simple, the K1 MKII af is better, and the sensor is a generation newer and better. Will I get the new K3 MKiii maybe…….
Once you crop below 24 MP, you'd be better off using a K-3 (or better yet a K-70, K-P or K-3iii) provides approx 50% more detail than a K-5. I suspect if you had a 24 MP camera you would have notice that. If you are copping anyway, an dAPS-c camerawomen gets you 24 MP where the K-1 pride 15, What's not to like?

I don't own a camera with the acleraor chip, but from what I can see, 24 MP with the chip is quite comparable to the 16 MP without in terms of clarity and detail, but still adds, another 600 lw/ph in detail.

If you own a k-5 and a K-1ii, the K-5 brings nothing to the table accept portability. It's redundant equipment. Well the K-1 burst rate and buffer are also ridiculous for a modern camera. And the k-5 helps out a bit there, but nothing like the FPS and buyer in the K-3 series. in many ways you're really missing out.

Last edited by normhead; 07-28-2021 at 10:19 AM.
07-28-2021, 02:49 PM   #41
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Original Poster
One more comment with reference to how the K-3 deals with resolution caused by the use of the 1.7x TV and the possibility of the lens not out resolving the sensor.In this case the lens has lots of headroom for both cameras.

K-1 image


K-3 image


Cropped o the same size.
K-1 crop


K-3 crop.

The K-3 crop clearly is higher res than the K-1 crop. The lower pixel count in the crop produces a less clean image. Advantage k-3.

Last edited by normhead; 07-29-2021 at 04:25 AM.
07-28-2021, 04:49 PM - 1 Like   #42
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
I thought I would take this concept to the extreme and rolled out the pentax Q (original).
The pixels are about 31% of the dimension of the K-1 / K5 pixels and about 37% of the K3
I used A series 50mm 2.8 macro at f5.6 of the Q and on the K-1
Target about 5 metres away for both. (tripod).
I was surprised how well ahead the Q was on this simple experiment about reach.
Q pixels on a apsc sensor ends up about 160 mp so there is room for improvement yet!!
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-1  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-1  Photo   
07-28-2021, 05:42 PM   #43
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
Original Poster
The rangers in the Algonqun Park used to drag a moose carcass, highway kill, out to the meadow in front of the visitors centre deck. I bought a QS1 to get some long range video with my DA*60-250. You'd see every type of reader out there, but you need 1200mm equivalent for decent images. Wolves, fishers, ravens, foxes etc.. Since I bought the Q it's never happened. I feel ripped off. I guess the moose are more careful than they used to be.
07-28-2021, 06:09 PM   #44
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,735
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The rangers in the Algonqun Park used to drag a moose carcass, highway kill, out to the meadow in front of the visitors centre deck. I bought a QS1 to get some long range video with my DA*60-250. You'd see every type of reader out there, but you need 1200mm equivalent for decent images. Wolves, fishers, ravens, foxes etc.. Since I bought the Q it's never happened. I feel ripped off. I guess the moose are more careful than they used to be.
One of the drivers for me getting a Q was an up and coming tramp into the Wilkins / Rabbit pass area in the South Island, New Zealand. We had to carry supplies for 14 days over rugged territory so weight was at a premium. Carried a M series 50mm f1.7 as a telephoto. We expected to encounter Kea at some point and we were not disappointed. Just a case of hearing Kea in the distance and spreading a bit of contents of your pack on the ground. These little sods will get into this stuff if given half a chance!. The downside to the Q was I was a bit inexperienced with it and didn't control the dynamic range enough. Most of my landscapes with snow in it lost detail in the snow.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX Q  Photo 
07-28-2021, 06:25 PM   #45
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 390
Interesting discussion....
Maybe I am missing something...when clicking on the 2 butterfly photos, K3 and K1 cropped images...and then enlargig them by clicking a couple of times....the K1 image shows more detail and in focus than the K3 (K1 shows clearer edge of the wings and the hairs are in focus next to the antennae). Or did I miss something or get the images mixed up? Did I say I hate pixel peeping...I hate pixel peeping.
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!
advantage, aps-c, camera, day, dslr, f/2.8, field, flickr, head, ii, images, k-1, k-3, lens, lenses, level, magnification, nests, norm, photography, pixel, reach, shots, test, tokina, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Focal length doesn't affect subject compression - demonstrated BigMackCam General Photography 71 03-18-2023 03:07 AM
Looking for more reach nono Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 20 09-26-2017 02:42 AM
IQ of FF vs APS-C primes on APS-C bodies lightbox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 24 11-10-2016 06:50 PM
Need more reach than 55-200 kit lens jogo21 Pentax K-30 & K-50 17 12-14-2015 06:59 AM
When is an APS-C lens not really an APS-C? lightbox Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 17 03-27-2015 07:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:48 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