Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-02-2013, 06:37 AM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Western Missouri
Posts: 429
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
thats actually a great question.

I don't know the numbers, and I'm going to speak out of my butt here for a second: What if the FA 77mm LTD out resolves the K5iis' 16mp Sensor, will it out resolve a 24mp FF sensor? Will the image quality be better on the ASPC body or the FF body?


I know when it comes to updated lenses my favorite on my D800 is the 24mm f2.8 D lens. It makes me really wonder how much better the 28mm f1.8 G can be? What am I missing? All I know is, whatever it is, I'm happy enough with my 24 2.8 that it doesn't bother me.

What bothers me is the fact I got this exotic Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Planar ZF 2, but I think at the end of the day the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 G actually out performs it... Makes me wonder if I should just ditch the Zeiss and put it towards upgrading my 80-200 to the 70-200. And that upgrade would only be because I would like to have VR.
My take on the Nikon side was there were so many folks online speaking of certain lenses being too old for digital capture even in the days of the D70. My experience with those lenses shooting Reala simply didn't support any of the claims of poor image quality from the lenses. That AF24/2.8D lens is often the third in a series of Nikon lenses considered obsolete because of digital with the AF28/2.8D and AF20/2.8D numbers one and two on that list. Granted, that 28/2.8 is the wallflower of the three but it isn't that bad of a lens. I think the mainstream Nikon community is just so heavily focused on buying the newest and most expensive lenses available, and I wanted nothing to do with that. I think the elephant in the room is Nikon's DX cameras haven't worked well with their older FX lenses, period. Instead of replacing my seven lenses with all-new pro lenses all the while contemplating jumping back to Pentax 100% I simply replaced my DX camera with an FX camera, and I saw a big jump in image quality.

In terms of the Zeiss 50 vs. the Nikon 50, my opinion would be both are excellent when used for their intended purposes. Nikon earned its reputation in the hands of news photographers - I think that speaks volumes about its style. I would wager the Zeiss lenses are very capable in a wider variety of shooting environments. And the images I've seen point to the Zeiss image style being a little closer to the traditional Pentax style. All said, though, if I had picked the D800 I don't know that I would ever feel the need to buy a new Nikon lens again unless resistance to flare is a high priority. Which it is when shooting concert shots. Shooting for a hobby, I have the luxury of foregoing the 70-200/2.8 and picking the 105, 135, and 180 lenses from the early '80s to shoot on my D600. They were excellent lenses back then and still are today.

I'm really curious about the Pentax side though. Back in the darkroom days no one would have ever though of cropping a full third off of an image in the enlarger and then placing the remainder on an 11x14 paper but that is exactly what we do when shooting crop-format DSLR images and viewing them on a computer screen. I hate to say this but I think that Pentax may be holding their 35mm-digital format DSLR because all of those older lenses we have may positively shine on such a camera and we wouldn't need to buy all new lenses.

09-02-2013, 06:52 AM   #47
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,389
QuoteOriginally posted by B Grace Quote
My take on the Nikon side was there were so many folks online speaking of certain lenses being too old for digital capture even in the days of the D70. My experience with those lenses shooting Reala simply didn't support any of the claims of poor image quality from the lenses. That AF24/2.8D lens is often the third in a series of Nikon lenses considered obsolete because of digital with the AF28/2.8D and AF20/2.8D numbers one and two on that list. Granted, that 28/2.8 is the wallflower of the three but it isn't that bad of a lens. I think the mainstream Nikon community is just so heavily focused on buying the newest and most expensive lenses available, and I wanted nothing to do with that. I think the elephant in the room is Nikon's DX cameras haven't worked well with their older FX lenses, period. Instead of replacing my seven lenses with all-new pro lenses all the while contemplating jumping back to Pentax 100% I simply replaced my DX camera with an FX camera, and I saw a big jump in image quality.

In terms of the Zeiss 50 vs. the Nikon 50, my opinion would be both are excellent when used for their intended purposes. Nikon earned its reputation in the hands of news photographers - I think that speaks volumes about its style. I would wager the Zeiss lenses are very capable in a wider variety of shooting environments. And the images I've seen point to the Zeiss image style being a little closer to the traditional Pentax style. All said, though, if I had picked the D800 I don't know that I would ever feel the need to buy a new Nikon lens again unless resistance to flare is a high priority. Which it is when shooting concert shots. Shooting for a hobby, I have the luxury of foregoing the 70-200/2.8 and picking the 105, 135, and 180 lenses from the early '80s to shoot on my D600. They were excellent lenses back then and still are today.

I'm really curious about the Pentax side though. Back in the darkroom days no one would have ever though of cropping a full third off of an image in the enlarger and then placing the remainder on an 11x14 paper but that is exactly what we do when shooting crop-format DSLR images and viewing them on a computer screen. I hate to say this but I think that Pentax may be holding their 35mm-digital format DSLR because all of those older lenses we have may positively shine on such a camera and we wouldn't need to buy all new lenses.
There's some good info there, except for the last paragraph... digital is different than film. By reading the forum, and looking at people's prints, I feel APS-c can be printed to 24x36 inches and maintain an acceptable level of detail. People have actually done test prints comparing a K-01 to a D800 image, printed at that size and noted that in some parts of the image the K-01 image looked better. When producing great images there is no correlation where higher resolution is equated to the image being more pleasing. In fact at 11x14 you could argue there is no noticeable benefit to a D800 image over a K-5 image. 11x14 was pretty much the largest size you could get a sharp print from a 35 mm film negative... not so with digital. It's a totally different technology. With digital, the issue becomes not how much info you're using, but how much you're throwing out, or how much is irrelevant to print quality. I know that runs counter to the "bigger is always better" mentality of the technologists, but, photography is art, and art is rarely judged by the sophistication of the technology, or paintings made with pigment and brushes would't be selling for more than digital images by a considerable margin.
09-02-2013, 08:15 AM   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
There's some good info there, except for the last paragraph... digital is different than film. By reading the forum, and looking at people's prints, I feel APS-c can be printed to 24x36 inches and maintain an acceptable level of detail. People have actually done test prints comparing a K-01 to a D800 image, printed at that size and noted that in some parts of the image the K-01 image looked better. When producing great images there is no correlation where higher resolution is equated to the image being more pleasing. In fact at 11x14 you could argue there is no noticeable benefit to a D800 image over a K-5 image. 11x14 was pretty much the largest size you could get a sharp print from a 35 mm film negative... not so with digital. It's a totally different technology. With digital, the issue becomes not how much info you're using, but how much you're throwing out, or how much is irrelevant to print quality. I know that runs counter to the "bigger is always better" mentality of the technologists, but, photography is art, and art is rarely judged by the sophistication of the technology, or paintings made with pigment and brushes would't be selling for more than digital images by a considerable margin.
I have a portrait of my daughter that, if I pixel peep, looks a bit soft, but it looks great as an 11x14. I almost didn't print it for the frame. I thought it would be noticeable, but it wasn't. I've only ever printed pixel sharp images, larger, to canvases, but I wonder if a less than stellar image would hold up well at that size also(24x36). It's a bit more expensive to test that scenario.
09-02-2013, 10:05 AM   #49
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,389
QuoteOriginally posted by kenafein Quote
I have a portrait of my daughter that, if I pixel peep, looks a bit soft, but it looks great as an 11x14. I almost didn't print it for the frame. I thought it would be noticeable, but it wasn't. I've only ever printed pixel sharp images, larger, to canvases, but I wonder if a less than stellar image would hold up well at that size also(24x36). It's a bit more expensive to test that scenario.
I print up to 13x19 using APS-c with no noticeable image degradation. As I suspected, differences are noticeable close up , but not a a normal viewing distance. The fact that the viewing distance which is usually larger with a larger print limits how much detail you can see in a print is the one thing that always seems to be left out of this equation. At 8 inches you can see the difference between 600 dpi and 300 dpi, at 18 inches you can't. Of course whenever I say this some clown claims he needs to examine his images from 8 inches away and have them as sharp as possible. But most of us aren't that guy.

I need to correct the above 24x36 to 16x 24 (A2).

You can read the original post here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/digital-processing-software-printing/2288...ax-k-01-a.html

09-02-2013, 12:43 PM   #50
Veteran Member
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,519
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I print up to 13x19 using APS-c with no noticeable image degradation. As I suspected, differences are noticeable close up , but not a a normal viewing distance. The fact that the viewing distance which is usually larger with a larger print limits how much detail you can see in a print is the one thing that always seems to be left out of this equation. At 8 inches you can see the difference between 600 dpi and 300 dpi, at 18 inches you can't. Of course whenever I say this some clown claims he needs to examine his images from 8 inches away and have them as sharp as possible. But most of us aren't that guy.

I need to correct the above 24x36 to 16x 24 (A2).

You can read the original post here.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/digital-processing-software-printing/2288...ax-k-01-a.html
Viewing distance does make a huge difference. I had an image for a car dealership that was on a digital billboard for a solid year. It looked great driving by.

However for when I print for clients family and myself I don't want any Visible artifacts. I have printed a solid 14" prints off the K5, and have done a few 28" prints off the D800. I'm gonna go for a 30"+ print in the near future...
09-02-2013, 02:42 PM   #51
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,056
I'm thinking it is an interaction or relationship between a lens' MTF at different frequencies vs the sensor's pixel architecture and density. Usually, how 'sharp' a lens looks to us has more to do with its contrast somewhere above its maximum resolution, and apparently this characteristic is something the lens design can control. I could conceive where this frequency can resonate - constructively or destructively - with the sensor pixel pitch and processing.
09-02-2013, 05:33 PM   #52
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,389
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
Viewing distance does make a huge difference. I had an image for a car dealership that was on a digital billboard for a solid year. It looked great driving by.

However for when I print for clients family and myself I don't want any Visible artifacts. I have printed a solid 14" prints off the K5, and have done a few 28" prints off the D800. I'm gonna go for a 30"+ print in the near future...
I've made acceptable prints with no noticeable artifacts at 100 DPI, so that would translate to roughly 48 inches on a K-5...they it didn't look razor sharp close up, but still not as bad as you might think. I'm thinking I should crop an image to 100 (800x 1000) dpi and 8x10, and see what it looks like.... if the difference between a K-5 and a D800 is the difference between making a 48 inch print and a 96 inch print, I will never need a D800.

09-03-2013, 11:05 AM   #53
Veteran Member
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,519
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I've made acceptable prints with no noticeable artifacts at 100 DPI, so that would translate to roughly 48 inches on a K-5...they it didn't look razor sharp close up, but still not as bad as you might think. I'm thinking I should crop an image to 100 (800x 1000) dpi and 8x10, and see what it looks like.... if the difference between a K-5 and a D800 is the difference between making a 48 inch print and a 96 inch print, I will never need a D800.
How about the ability to crop down and still print 48"?
09-03-2013, 02:29 PM   #54
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,389
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
How about the ability to crop down and still print 48"?
I need to print at most 30 inches... so crop down and print 30, no problem. But it is an advantage to a larger format....lets not be glib about it... there's definitely more work for your zoom lens using APS-c. That's a judgement call as to whether or not it's worth it to you. With my 18-135 or 60-250 on the camera, there's not much excuse for not cropping in the viewfinder. But it could be worth it, there's certainly no shame in having a shooting style that favours post cropping.
09-03-2013, 02:47 PM   #55
Veteran Member
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,519
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I need to print at most 30 inches... so crop down and print 30, no problem. But it is an advantage to a larger format....lets not be glib about it... there's definitely more work for your zoom lens using APS-c. That's a judgement call as to whether or not it's worth it to you. With my 18-135 or 60-250 on the camera, there's not much excuse for not cropping in the viewfinder. But it could be worth it, there's certainly no shame in having a shooting style that favours post cropping.
I try not too, but sometimes you see something you didn't see in the viewfinder and a crop just makes the photo that much better. I've had a few where that happens. However I'm primarily a prime lens shooter. Rarely using a zoom

09-12-2013, 06:23 PM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Near Sydney, NSW
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 331
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
9: I miss image stabilization on EVERY lens.



For $1000 less than the 70-200 f2.8 VC you can either get this or the 70-200 f4 VC. For the speed upgrade, and $200 savings.. I'll take the 80-200 any day of the week. That being said... I will probably eventually upgrade to the 70-200 f2.8
What about the new Tamron 70-200 VC with USD?
By all accounts (user and technical review) it's meant to be basically AS GOOD as either the Canon/Nikon equivalents and it's $1100 at some places. It's a CRAZY bargain, and would pair well with the 24-70 you want too.
09-12-2013, 07:33 PM   #57
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by Quazimoto Quote
What about the new Tamron 70-200 VC with USD?
By all accounts (user and technical review) it's meant to be basically AS GOOD as either the Canon/Nikon equivalents and it's $1100 at some places. It's a CRAZY bargain, and would pair well with the 24-70 you want too.
Whilst amazing value for money it is not as good as the Nikon equivalent, AF is slower, it is not weather sealed (to anywhere near the same degree), it has about 1 stop less in VR and not the same compatibility with TCs. However if you don't need blazing fast AF or the WR and just damn good AF is sufficient, then with the amazing multi-year guarantee you get with Tamron lenses it is well worth consideration.
09-13-2013, 07:51 AM   #58
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 37,389
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
I try not too, but sometimes you see something you didn't see in the viewfinder and a crop just makes the photo that much better. I've had a few where that happens. However I'm primarily a prime lens shooter. Rarely using a zoom
The biggest problem with a tight crop in the viewfinder is how often you miss the spot you were aiming for, to the point where I've been thinking how awesome a 600mm lens on a 645D would be. Point the lens in the right direction and fire for BiFs... WIth my A-400 on APS-c quite often the bird is not where I want it in the frame. But then, I don't really want to carry a D800 with a 600mm or a 645D with a 600 either. I'll carry the K-5 and the A-400, but if I could find a way to get comparable image quality without carrying that weight I would. I'm watching the Q really close, but the Q7 images just aren't there yet. Maybe someday a DA*200 2.8 on a Q.. but not yet, at least as far as I can tell.
09-13-2013, 09:17 AM   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2011
Location: Southern California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,082
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The biggest problem with a tight crop in the viewfinder is how often you miss the spot you were aiming for, to the point where I've been thinking how awesome a 600mm lens on a 645D would be. Point the lens in the right direction and fire for BiFs... WIth my A-400 on APS-c quite often the bird is not where I want it in the frame. But then, I don't really want to carry a D800 with a 600mm or a 645D with a 600 either. I'll carry the K-5 and the A-400, but if I could find a way to get comparable image quality without carrying that weight I would. I'm watching the Q really close, but the Q7 images just aren't there yet. Maybe someday a DA*200 2.8 on a Q.. but not yet, at least as far as I can tell.
Perhaps a Nikon V1, FT-1 adapter and a 300mm/4? That would give you 810mm EQ, with modest AF.
09-13-2013, 09:39 AM   #60
Veteran Member
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,519
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by kenafein Quote
Perhaps a Nikon V1, FT-1 adapter and a 300mm/4? That would give you 810mm EQ, with modest AF.

Or a m4/3....

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!
d600, d800, day, f2.8, grip, k5, lenses, love, nikon, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
first day with the D600 Wired Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 224 06-14-2013 11:33 PM
My first day out with the Q TcKay Pentax Q 3 05-05-2013 01:59 PM
A few test photos from the first day with the k-01 robert Pentax K-01 4 11-10-2012 04:10 PM
First day out with the Pentax K-5 Eberbachl Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 5 04-21-2012 03:55 AM
First day with the Q Wired Pentax Q 10 03-19-2012 08:56 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:43 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