Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-09-2010, 08:22 PM   #16
Veteran Member
bogiesbad's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lower AL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 355
QuoteOriginally posted by NecroticSoldier Quote
Okay, so today I asked my Canon camera guy friend. I asked him why not Pentax? and he said ewww because it was not full frame (sad).

So, is there a big deal if it is full frame or not?

Is Pentax going to release a full frame anytime soon?
Canon ain't MF so Canon sucks ...Nikon and Sony too.

03-09-2010, 11:18 PM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 253
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
LOL. If he has a Canon 50D, that model is NOT FF.

The old 5D and 5D2 are full-frame though. Maybe he means he has a 5D.

And yes, the whole 'rocking full-frame' debate is rather pointless. Few APS-C (or 4/3 etc) photographers ever achieve the maximum potential out of their existing equipment, so 'upgrading' to FF for most would be pretty pointless. I see a lot of people (including some of my friends ) buying expensive, high-end APS-C cameras (D300s, 7D etc) and expensive lenses and flashes, and yet still taking photos that are technically of terrible quality. Yet some of these folks are lusting after FF gear in the belief that somehow 'rocking full-frame' would make them better photographers. I don't think so.
Yes, it's not as clear-cut as some think. Moving to FF means spending more $$ on good lenses. We had a group photo taken by a photog with a D700 and 24-70/2.8 Nikkor and I was surprised by the amount of distortion and field curvature in the resulting photo. I just looked up the photozone review of that lens, and what I saw matches the test results.

And while the "razor-thin" DOF can be nice (due to using a longer focal length to get the same field of view as compared to APS-C), it can also be a hindrance. Having to stop-down in order to get your subject(s) in focus sort of negates the benefits of FF. I learned this recently playing around with my friend's 5DII.

Really, the main benefits of FF are the higher pixel count, and better ultra-wide and low-light performance. Though the first and last are inversely-related, and the second is becoming less so, as demonstrated by the recently-announced Sigma 8-16 for APS-C.
03-10-2010, 10:51 AM   #18
Veteran Member
ghelary's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 617
QuoteOriginally posted by GoremanX Quote
Megapixels = completely irrelevant at this point. Once we passed 5 mpixels, none of it really mattered much anymore. An argument could be made for 3 mpixels as the threshold where it stopped mattering.
One of the funniest arguments around there. Mpx does matter, if you print. It is true that if you only post on Internet, above 3Mpx it doesn't matter anymore. But on large prints there will be a large difference between say 6Mpx (*ist) and 14Mpx (K7) and 40Mpx (645D) provided everything is shot in similar conditions.


When good is good enough depends largely on personnal requirements.
03-10-2010, 10:56 AM   #19
Veteran Member
rustynail925's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,552
What about cropping it might help to have a higher MP right?

03-10-2010, 11:34 AM   #20
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteOriginally posted by rustynail925 Quote
What about cropping it might help to have a higher MP right?
yes more mp's very much matter when cropping. the higher resolution gives you more room to crop and still have a useable printable photo afterwards.
03-10-2010, 11:40 AM   #21
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,761
QuoteOriginally posted by RioRico Quote
And THAT is where FF makes a difference. If you go from FF to HF/APS-C, all your lenses get longer -- that is, their FOV gets smaller, so the APS-C camera 'sees' less of a scene. Oh wow, that 400mm lens now reaches like a 600mm!! Well, not really, as we've gone over in other threads. But now all your wide-angle FF lenses become 'normal' on APS-C, and the ultra-wides are just wide, and you gotta pay a sh!tload to get a lens with a really really wide FOV. Bummer.

Ah, but I have a FF Pentax cam! And it only cost me US$13. THIRTEEN BUCKS!! It's called a ZX-M. It takes 135 film cannisters. A fast 24mm lens grabs scenes nicely. A 21mm lens is ultrawide. The Zenitar 16/2.8 is an actual fisheye. And that Vemar 12mm? Sacre bleu!! But the cam isn't digital. Bother. It WOULD be nice to have a FF digicam, even at only 10mpx, just to get wide views with the lenses I already own. Hey, there are M42-Nikon and M42-Canon adapters! And PK-Canon adapters! Oh sh!t, am I doomed to buy an old Canon FF?!?!?

ANSWER: Probably not, not at these prices, not until someone dies and I'm in the will. Hey Uncle Ray, would you like some lemonade?
I do enjoy your stream of consciousness.

Wide angle was one of the reasons I started shooting film again. Wow, the field of view from my old Sigma 17-35 DG EX is amazing on FF. However, it is not like I wouldn't have some excellent choices to get the same view on APS-C.
03-10-2010, 11:44 AM   #22
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,761
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
yes more mp's very much matter when cropping. the higher resolution gives you more room to crop and still have a useable printable photo afterwards.
True. Assuming your lens, focus, shutter speed and holding technique is up to it.

The "soft lens" thread on lenses not being up to the resolution of the sensor comes to mind. It is certainly food for thought.
03-10-2010, 11:56 AM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,530
QuoteOriginally posted by NecroticSoldier Quote
Oh... Sorry I don't know anything about other companies... I spent all my time researching on Pentax, because that is the very company that produced my beloved K1000. I love it a lot and I'm a die hard Pentax fan believe it or not.

All I know is he has money to purchase all that...

You're right. Just checked it out.
Canon EOS 50D = 22.3mm x 14.9mm and my K-X = 23.6mm x 15.8mm
Megapixels might be more than mine though... but it cannot equal the large arsenal of almost all the Pentax lenses ever made!

I guess it sorta isn't about what you have, but how you use them sorta thing?

I have never tried anything other than a Pentax though, sadly.
Bolded, Italicized, Underlined and Quoted for truth. Or in interweb vernacular: BIUQFT


I have a 6MP K100D Super and am quite happy with the images it can create. Do I wish I had more widgets? Sometimes. Do I need more widgets to create images that make me happy? Not so much.

03-10-2010, 12:01 PM   #24
Senior Member
JesseDavis's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Yokohama
Photos: Albums
Posts: 180
QuoteOriginally posted by rustynail925 Quote
What about cropping it might help to have a higher MP right?
bingo! It's true of course that you may never need them, but having more pixels is rarely a bad thing (assuming they aren't noisy like digicams and bridge cameras).

The good thing these days is that even used sensors are enough for most of us. I do feel I would like a little more than my 10d thoug
03-10-2010, 12:18 PM   #25
Veteran Member
GoremanX's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Georgia, VT
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,652
QuoteOriginally posted by ghelary Quote
One of the funniest arguments around there. Mpx does matter, if you print. It is true that if you only post on Internet, above 3Mpx it doesn't matter anymore. But on large prints there will be a large difference between say 6Mpx (*ist) and 14Mpx (K7) and 40Mpx (645D) provided everything is shot in similar conditions.
Really? That makes no sense at all... Sure the 40mp picture would be a fair bit larger. After all, that's a tripling of pixels. But going from 6mp to 14mp isn't such a big deal, ESPECIALLY when it comes to printing.

A 6mp picture printed at 300dpi with no scaling whatsoever would be 10" on its long side. At 600dpi, it would be 5" on its long side.

A 14mp picture printed at 300dpi with no scaling whatsoever would be 15" on its long side. At 600dpi, it would be 7.5" on its long side. That's more than double the pixels, and only a 50% increase in size. Or if you want to go the other way, the 6mp picture ends up being only 33% smaller.

If you scaled the 6mp up to the same size as the 14mp picture using high-quality interpolation, the difference would be imperceptible. Both printed pictures would probably look identical. So your assertion that there's a large difference in printing is incorrect. Further improvements in megapixels will also make no difference unless we're talking about doubling or tripling. For example, a 20mp picture would only gain another 5" on the long side at 300dpi, or 2.5" at 600dpi. That's a 33% improvement over 14mp, or the 14mp picture is only 25% smaller. Again, interpolation makes this difference irrelevant. We're already at a point where pixel density on the sensor has come close to its maximum. Doubling of pixels won't be happening again in APS-C or Full Frame.

Someone mentioned cropping, and that's a valid point. Having more megapixels gives us more options for cropping while retaining more detail. We gained a 2.5" to 5" cropping advantage by going from 6mp to 14mp.
03-10-2010, 12:44 PM   #26
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by bogiesbad Quote
Canon ain't MF so Canon sucks ...Nikon and Sony too.
Yeah !

I dunno if those guys heard about Hasselblad and Mamiya either.
03-10-2010, 12:47 PM   #27
Senior Member
JesseDavis's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Yokohama
Photos: Albums
Posts: 180
^^Clarity! As Goreman so pointedly points out the point

Megapixels are an AREA measure, and when we double megapixels, we don't double the 'size' of a picture as we usually think about the length of the sides.

The problem is when you buy, its rather easy to forget that and think: 'I want that because it's got twice the megapixels!'

Well, its got a ~20% 'bigger' picture. Whoop dee frikkin doo

but I still want more anyway
03-10-2010, 01:25 PM   #28
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by JesseDavis Quote
but I still want more anyway
"640K should be enough memory for anyone."
BillGates claimed he never said that, and who am I to doubt BillGates?
[references to BILLGATES IS SATAN rants deleted]
But I digress.

Having more clean, quiet megapickles means more detail, more leeway for cropping, probably better low-light performance, etc. There's a catch. With film, if you want to change resolution, grain, light-capturing characteristics, etc, you buy a different roll of film. With digital, you buy a different camera. The camera IS the film. With (quite costly) MF and LF cams, you can buy different backs: for films, to upgrade the digital sensor, etc. Still pricey, but you needn't change cameras with every update. I can (and do) regularly use film cameras made in 1995, 1975, 1950, 1930, 1910 -- load a fresh roll of Velvia into the Kodak Monitor or KW Patent-Etui 6x9's, and I get resolution no MF digital can match (and they're smaller and lighter and cost me a total of US$50 together). But they're not digital. Bother. Guess I'll go eat worms and die.
03-10-2010, 02:24 PM   #29
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
for someone with limited lens options, MP count does seems useful. resolution and detail quality is not lost even when cropped, not to mention what you get for a high performance camera. and since screens are getting bigger and used as a digital photo frame, Higher Pixel count does matter, atleast for those who have such. it is also very much needed for those who make large prints for a living. higher MP gives more breathing room and workable space for the image. unless you are a serious photographer, this is highly critical. but for the ordinary hobbyist, I think this is just too much.
03-10-2010, 08:38 PM   #30
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 253
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
for someone with limited lens options, MP count does seems useful. resolution and detail quality is not lost even when cropped, not to mention what you get for a high performance camera.
There will be some loss with cropping, as lens quality will come into play. Of course the loss will be less with more $$$ glass.
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!
camera, dslr, frame, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Full is Your Frame? Venturi Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 05-16-2009 04:30 AM
Your Full Frame is Here!!! Das Boot Pentax News and Rumors 15 04-05-2009 09:02 AM
Is Full Frame Enough? mithrandir Photographic Technique 10 10-04-2008 10:00 PM
DA 10-17 on full frame? nixcamic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 09-23-2008 07:12 PM
Full Frame???? vanDam Pentax DSLR Discussion 32 01-24-2008 08:40 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:22 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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