Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-12-2021, 09:16 PM   #136
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 6
Hi Pablo, I do different types of fotos - landscape, city / urban, day/night, Astrophotography, some portraiture and my favorite thing is to ride my bike with my camera. I have a K1(1) and the 24-70 f/2.8. The lens is amazingly sharp...can't complain about the IQ. It's also very heavy and combined with the heavy K1 body it becomes unreasonably heavy for field use (hiking/riding). I realized that I don't need the full range of the 24-70. I shoot mainly in the 30- 50mm range. I think you know where this is going. I purchased a used 31mm f1. 9 and haven't used the 24-70 in a few months. The 31mm is lighter and so sharp. I also have an FA 50 f1.4. These lenses handle 90% of my fotos. Don't bother with the 24-70. It's great but not so practical. Regarding the K1....I rarely print anymore. How big is ur TV?? I convert my .pef's to hi quality .jpg, upload to Amazon Prime and view on my big TV! If you're gonna look on your iphone or laptop, stay with your KP....get a Limited lens. 👍🏻

10-13-2021, 12:38 AM   #137
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,855
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Subjective opinion is what photographs are about, photography itself is technical.This is why a technically garbage image can be a great photograph while a technically perfect image can be a garbage photograph.
Yes, I agree.


QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Conflating the technical (objective) with the aesthetic (subjective) is the most common mistake that happens in these sorts of discussions.They are separate subjects and need to be treated as such.
So your point is that this particular thread is about a purely technical question -- about the measurable resolution of specific lenses on specific sensors -- and so there's no place for subjective opinion in this one particular discussion? I'm happy to agree with that, as long as you're not excluding subjective opinion from other discussions about other areas of photography where it is a valid thing to talk about. Such as whether I prefer the colour rendering of one camera over another, for example.
10-13-2021, 12:49 AM - 2 Likes   #138
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,855
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
The lenses resolving power creates an image. A lens of high resolving power will create more detail and this can be thought of as more information. The lens resolution could be thought of as a measure of it but resolution is measured lineally (LW/PH) and to think of it in relationship with pixels (which is an area based concept) an area based term is needed. Lens information seems an appropriate term.
So you're basically saying:

If you've got a large light sensitive surface, made up of tiny individual elements (chemical grains or pixels) that are able to capture very fine detail, and you project a very sharp image onto that surface with a high resolution lens, then you'll end up with a very detailed photograph.

Which is also something that's been known since at least the 1840s. I don't see the point of larding it up with so much pseudo-technical sounding gobbledegook that people are unable to figure out what you're actually trying to talk about.

In the context of this thread, the question is whether or not the difference between APS-C and FF is big enough for it to make any significant difference in the vast majority of use cases. I would argue that the difference between the two formats is so small that it's undetectable in most cases other than extremely large prints, or in the extremely tight crops that @Ian Stuart Forsyth likes to deploy.
10-13-2021, 02:13 AM   #139
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Ian Stuart Forsyth Quote
The K5 was shot further away and then cropped to 6mp[COLOR="Silver"]
So it isn't an apples to apples test then? It doesn't exactly take into account that a macro might be better at a close up shop like on the DS than a further away shot or other factors (AA filter perhaps?). I'm not too sure of the working distances here but I consistently crop my KP down to 6 MP or less for certain shots.

I'd say this less than 6 MP crop here with my KP actually has finer details than your K5 and has more dense pixels. Though of course it does lack the AA filter. But I'd consider this a mediocre lens (M75-150) in terms of overall sharpness.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51424048988_634911cdd5_o.jpg

10-13-2021, 03:06 AM   #140
Unoriginal Poster
Loyal Site Supporter
iheiramo's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Espoo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,175
K1 just feels right in the hand

I guess for me the main reason to prefer FF over APSC is the user experience. After moving to K1 I did upgrade my K5 to K3, based on Norm's comments, in hope of gaining usefull option. In truth, I don't want to use it. It's too small for my large hands, there's no room for index finger on the grip, and OVF is annoyingly small to play with manual lenses. So if K3 has some advantages over K1, they apparently don't mean much for me. And I prefer my lens line up in FF compared to how they perform in APSC mode. Focal lengths and view angles just fall into better place and wider apertures give results that I find more pleasing.

For sharpness and detail there is very little difference IMO, so it's other things why I choose to pay more for my photography. I also have had the chance to test K3iii. Liked the tech and OVF, but the form is still too small. So, I continue with my K1ii until I can replaced it with new version.

K5 & M40:


K1ii& M40:


K5 & M85:


K1ii & M85:
10-13-2021, 03:30 AM - 1 Like   #141
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 Dartmoor Dave Quote
I don't see the point of larding it up with so much pseudo-technical sounding gobbledegook that people are unable to figure out what you're actually trying to talk about.
Here is my original justification that I have had to respond to since. Where is the "pseudo-technical sounding gobbledegook"?
Attached Images
 
10-13-2021, 03:48 AM   #142
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
Yes, I agree.




So your point is that this particular thread is about a purely technical question -- about the measurable resolution of specific lenses on specific sensors -- and so there's no place for subjective opinion in this one particular discussion? I'm happy to agree with that, as long as you're not excluding subjective opinion from other discussions about other areas of photography where it is a valid thing to talk about. Such as whether I prefer the colour rendering of one camera over another, for example.
As soon as you say the word prefer you have gone from objective to subjective. It's perfectly valid, this is art after all and the end result is what matters.
I don't believe everything needs to be quantified to the Nth degree, in fact I find people who do to be kind if annoying and boring, but I do think it is important to recognize that subjective preference is not objective measurement, even when we try to quantify things which cannot fit into that box.

---------- Post added Oct 13th, 2021 at 04:53 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
Here is my original justification that I have had to respond to since. Where is the "pseudo-technical sounding gobbledegook"?
I thought that was in the camera 101 course. Perhaps a few people were off sick that day.

10-13-2021, 04:00 AM   #143
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,112
Oh, boy.

Even the - mostly irrelevant - measurements-wise "better" discussion is not possible without massive subjective bias.

We are talking about zoom lenses. If the person making the decision has a subjective preference for the shorter focal lengths then story might be quite different from looking at the long ends (where the DFA24-70 is weakest).
Then we have the subjective question which aperture values are most relevant in actual use.
And we have the third question about how relevant extreme corner sharpness is.

Picking out 1) 45mm APSC equivalent + 2) F2.8 absolute + 3) extreme corners is a triple subjective decision that will lead to a fully subjective "better" based on measurements.
And it is highly possible that the APSC combo will win hands down.

Now one could as well include more "techno image quality " relevant aspects like 4) vignetting (which is a nice way of discussing noise on edges) where APSC usually is quite superior.
Or look at 5) lateral CAs where APSC image quality also tends to be better.
Are these aspects relevant for the decision maker?

So we have at least 5 completely subjective factors upon which the "better" discussion hinges.
10-13-2021, 04:02 AM - 1 Like   #144
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 ZombieArmy Quote
So it isn't an apples to apples test then?
I can't think of a setup to use that is as "apples to apples " as this one. He has been creative to arrive at it.
His lens and presumably it's aperture is common between the tests.
His subject magnification is matching (that is why the K5 has to be further away)
His pixel count is matching
Leaving the only variable the format size .
10-13-2021, 04:46 AM - 1 Like   #145
New Member




Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 14
Paulo: I had a K3-II with the older DA* 16-55mm f2.8 lens. I found the images were a little soft despite the lens retailing for over £800. The DX-O rating for sharpness was very low - ie. 10. It scored 15 overall which is on the 'poor' side. I recently 'upgraded' to a second hand K1 MkI (£895) with a second hand FA 24-70mm f2.8 Pentax lens (£695) and the image quality is significantly better. The new camera lens combo is very sharp all the way to the edge of the frame and the 36mp sensor gives very clean images in low light. It is a super camera-lens combo and second hand (in almost new condition) a real bargain. I recently traded my old K3-II in for a Pentax 15-30mm f2.8 monster, (£960 second hand) and that is a world class lens (source Tony Northrop). The quality is astounding even if the weight is a bit OTT (2kg with camera!). I can't find DX-O ratings for the new FA lenses and haven't tried the new 16-55mm APS-C lens but the K1 has exceeded my expectations. I would like to add the FA 7-=210mm lens but several reviews, particularly Cameraville, says that it is a poor lens with major lens creep and soft images. I hope this helps.
10-13-2021, 04:59 AM   #146
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,855
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
Here is my original justification that I have had to respond to since. Where is the "pseudo-technical sounding gobbledegook"?
Well, this "more information" stuff does seem like an overly complicated way of talking about what are really some very simple and well understood principles of photography. Calling it "pseudo-technical gobbledegook" is probably a bit hyperbolic of me, so sorry about that. I'm just slightly nervous that all this talk about "more information" might bring t. . . . l l. . . t into the discussion, and then we'll be stuck with a full blown eq. . . . . . . .ce thread.

But maybe if I don't write the actual fatal words. . . ?
10-13-2021, 08:12 AM - 1 Like   #147
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 326
Equivalence

QuoteOriginally posted by LittleGidding Quote
I shoot APSC because I prefer the field of view with focal lengths in the 24mm to 50mm range. Always much easier to get the look I wanted with slightly-wide to slightly-telephoto. When I shot on 35mm film I felt most of the traditional focal lengths were simply too wide for me; with APSC most primes are useable for my style of shooting. There's a convenience factor I appreciate
I used to think that way too. That I could use for instance a 35mm f/1.8 lens in 16x24 sensor and have the same sense as if I was using a 52.5mm f/1.8 in 24x36 sensor. And using a 24mm f/1.8 lens in 16x24 would give the same sense as if using a 36mm f/1.8 lens in 24x36 sensor. Everybody wrote that just apply the 1.5 factor and choose wider lenses on your 16x24 camera to achieve near as possible the sense that a 24x36 sensor would give. The manuals of APS-C cameras say the same: just apply the 1.5 factor to focal length of lenses to understand the feeling of the 24x36 camera. But this is not the case. The 1.5 factor must be applied to the aperture also. I can not feel roughly the look of a 50mm f/1.8 in a 24x36 using a 35mm f/1.8 in a 16x24. I would need a 35mm f/1.2 which I think does not exist. Consequently I can not feel roughly the look of a 35mm f/1.8 in a 24x36 using a 24mm f/1.8 in a 16x24. I would need a 24mm f/1.2 which I am almost certain does not exist. The widest in 24mm is f/2.8 if I am not mistaken.
In an old post about the relation between the formats someone gave a useful article about the equivalence. I think it clears everything. I give the link:
Equivalence
10-13-2021, 08:23 AM - 2 Likes   #148
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,855
QuoteOriginally posted by Hidrieus Quote
In an old post about the relation between the formats someone gave a useful article about the equivalence. I think it clears everything. I give the link:Equivalence
Nooooooooooo!!!!! For the love of humanity, NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Why do you think I only wrote: eq. . . . . . . ce?

Oh well, it's done now. Popcorn? Check. Valium? Check. Chair and whip to fight off deranged forum members? Check.
10-13-2021, 08:42 AM   #149
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
c.a.m's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,170
TBH, I've been trying to follow this thread, but having trouble understanding some of the notions.

I think that a rough, simple rule-of-thumb is that the full frame format offers about a one-stop 'advantage' over APS-C in terms of imaging and print quality. However, it gets complicated when considering, say, ten-year-old FF implementations to modern APS-C cameras. I shoot with Pentax APS-C cameras, and do not have a full-frame model.

There have been a number of these "FF vs APS-C" threads over the years. Some have provided useful insights, others rehashed the same stuff, while at least one long thread degenerated and was 'closed' by moderators.

Here's an interesting article from 2013: How & Why Sensor Size Affects Image Quality (APS-C vs FF vs compact) - PentaxForums.com

- Craig

Last edited by c.a.m; 10-13-2021 at 05:47 PM.
10-13-2021, 12:52 PM   #150
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,209
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
I can't think of a setup to use that is as "apples to apples " as this one. He has been creative to arrive at it.
His lens and presumably it's aperture is common between the tests.
His subject magnification is matching (that is why the K5 has to be further away)
His pixel count is matching
Leaving the only variable the format size .
While you think that's the only variable you'd be wrong

Interesting experiment but doesn't actually show you much.
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, apsc, body, camera, d700, da*16-50, dslr, ephotozine, factor, form, images, k-1, k-3, k-p, kp, lens, lenses, light, matter, mp, photography, sensor, situations, size, stop, version, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should Pentax bring “extended ISO” back to the new APSC or future FF flagship body? – tokyoscape General Photography 18 10-11-2019 07:40 AM
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Pentax KP vs. D750 raws at high ISO 25600 - Pentax APSC on par with Nikon FF beholder3 Pentax News and Rumors 72 03-01-2017 02:30 PM
ff/ apsc retired2007 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 03-28-2015 08:27 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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:58 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