|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-02-2016, 08:41 AM
|
| |
I really would like to see a thread dedicated to pixel shifted images -- showing its advantages and maybe the artifacts that you see with it as well.
I know that there are pixel shifted images sprinkled through the K-1 thread and elsewhere on the forum, but I think it would be nice to see them one place. I for one have been impressed with the feature. I use DCU to create a TIFF file with motion correction enabled and then do further editing in Lightroom.
Here are a couple of images to start off the thread (full size on Flickr).
 House After Sunset by Vincent1825, on Flickr
 Natchez Community Church by Vincent1825, on Flickr
 Tree at Sunrise by Vincent1825, on Flickr
I will say that over time, I have found that it is best turn down the sharpening in DCU considerably. It just has a tendency to make files look artifacty on close inspection.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-17-2016, 02:38 PM
|
| |
"Read the prior posts."
1.)
Okay, so you agree this is about crop vs FF...
2.)
Okay, you also agree that by mentioning a crop lens, we are talking about the cropped portion of the FF sensor...
3.)
But I'm viewing them at the same size on my monitor -- so the smaller (crop) image DOES have to be enlarged. Otherwise I could never view it at the same (full screen) size as the FF image.
4.)
Wait, yes it does. You said so in your first post. This IS about cropping. And by your third post, its also about enlarging.
5.
umm...but...that's all this is about.
6.)
Yes, that is what we said just a few posts into the thread. There won't be much, if any, improvement to using The K-1 in crop mode instead of the K-5iis.
So...cropping and enlarging?
I'd would like you to clarify what you think the OP is about because you are sending all kinds of mixed messages.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-17-2016, 04:30 AM
|
| |
The same arguments are presented over and over and over. The one thing that I am repeatedly failing to understand is Clackers' insistence that DXO's SCREEN tab is the relevant one. Sure, I understand his argument with respect to pixel/RAW noise, but in the end, one has to perform comparisons on the end result, i.e. a print or screen image. In either medium, the images from the different sensors must be produced to the same given size in order for the comparison to be meaningful. As I understand it, such a comparison is represented by the PRINT tab on the DXO graph.
Why is this even arguable?
PS It is not my intention to disparage Clackers. I just happen to be unable to see the logic of his argument on this matter.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-16-2016, 04:05 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-14-2016, 07:09 PM
|
| |
And the screen capture of the coins which obviously shows more noise with the micro 4/3 camera?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-14-2016, 06:53 PM
|
| |
Eric Fossum on DPR in the Photographic Science and Technology forum spent a considerable amount of trying to explain how wrong you are and even after putting up with your insults he then finally got feed up you your antics and logged a formal complaint that setup the path in getting you banned. Even after his and other individuals who tried to educate you on the subject they put up with you for sometime and anytime one of these individuals showed you the error of your train of thought with hard science you resorted to insults and now you are trying to prove the same thing here. If you want to disprove any bodies work maybe you should take a look at your own.
Now who I am going to believe people like Eric ( a person that has likely forgot more about sensor design than most people in the industry know, written more published papers on sensor design, is leading the way to the next big thing in digital imaging "Joints photo sites", is a long time member( might even be the founder) of International Image Sensor Society. Or you and your miss guided ramblings
Welcome to Dr. Eric R. Fossum's Web Address |
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-13-2016, 10:45 AM
|
| |
He bought a Samsung Galaxy because all that matters is "pixel pitch and technology" ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-10-2016, 03:55 PM
|
| |
exactly... you can match any usable aps-c dof with ff dof, crop sensors do not have any dof advantages at all.
with ff you have more usable aperture stops on a lens, it's not just the wide open end that has an advantage.
if you want to limit your shot to the point of visible diffraction, it's about ~f/8 on crop and ~f/11 on ff, so you wouldn't be able to use f/11 on crop.
ff clearly has more control over dof than aps-c does.
i don't know why basic photography has to be so difficult for some people to understand :lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
01-02-2016, 01:05 PM
|
| |
jay, always nice to see posts from you, pal. Hope all is well.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
12-30-2015, 07:33 PM
|
| |
I plan to slip my GR in the bag with the FF. That's my idea of FF+1! I would never consider maintaining 2 systems.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
12-17-2015, 03:52 PM
|
| |
that's a good idea, because you always lose those arguments.
i hate to point out the obvious :confused: but jay never said a single word about a d810 cropped image anywhere in his post
once again, another shining example of aps-c brain cells failing to fire :lol:
---------- Post added 12-17-15 at 03:05 PM ----------
yes, the topic of this thread was about formats, not cropping a ff sensor, normhead keeps going o/t...
it was cute that digitalis posted a photo of an 8x10 print(why?), but, if you've ever used an 8x10 camera, you know that it's a nightmare... the film is never fully flat, so resolution across the frame is all over the map, a standard length lens is what, 300mm? etc... it's not practical at all, especially in this modern digital age.
i'm not sure why some crop people on this forum have inferiority complexes about their cameras :confused: i own pentax and i like pentax cameras... but making up stupid and pointless scenarios like putting a crop lens on a d810 is just silly.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
10-12-2015, 04:04 PM
|
| |
Heie, you're an amazing ambassador for Pentax. I've watched your youtube video quite a few times, and I always think 'this guy is doing Pentaxians proud', and I love you for it (in a plutonic sort of way).
In this case, however, I think you've let your emotions run riot. Having read the girl's posts, she was concerned about the noise and usability of photos from crop sensors, rather than 'weather sealing'.
As a wedding shooter myself, I agree with her. I use Pentax gear, but I am DESPERATE for a FF option for the better high-iso and noise quality in murky conditions.
Thankfully I live in Australia so outdoors is never too murky and I can (just) get by with crop. Dark church and reception venues is another story though...
If/when Pentax gets the FF out, and if I ever need a second shooter, I'll be asking for the same as she did (actually more.....just a 50mm?)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-22-2015, 10:11 AM
|
| |
I doubt this will be really relevant in practical use. Who will look at an 80 MP image in 100% mode on a regular basis? It's not like existing lenses will fare worse on higher resolution sensors than on lower resolution sensors, they might just not be able to take full advantage of the additional resolution.
That will depend on whether Zeiss thinks they can make a decent profit on Pentax lenses. The Pentax FF could be a technological revolution of whatever magnitude, Zeiss will only supply lenses if the market share is promising enough. Let's hope that's going to be the case, also in order to get that 24, 50 and 24-35 mm 'Art' :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-20-2015, 04:52 AM
|
| |
Do you keep them same print size? i.e. if you're printing a series of 12x18's from your k-3, but you've cropped one of your k-3 images down to 3000x4500 pixels, do you print this one at 9x13.5 or at 12x18? If 12x18, you've "enlarged" it more than the photos you haven't cropped. If 9x13.5, you'll end up with a bunch of photos at odd sizes, and I don't think this is the way most people operate.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-26-2015, 12:12 AM
|
| |
I don't know whether this correlation actually exists.
It does make sense for people understanding equivalence and with a desire to make high-quality images to lean towards a full-frame camera. However, that does not imply that everyone who understands equivalence fails to see the motivation for the existence of smaller format systems.
It may be likely, though, that people understanding equivalence won't say things like "APS-C is the best sweet-spot format available". The difference in portability between an FF camera and the Q is huge. The difference between a K-3 and the future Pentax FF will not be large.
Although I like the build quality of the first Q and respect its design and engineering, I indeed would not consider it as a second camera system for me. The lack of DOF control is one aspect and the other is how taxing the Q sensor is on lenses that were never designed to be adapted on a Q. A corresponding FF camera would have to have 389 MP in order to provide the same magnification effect. Even great, classic lenses from the past are not up to this kind of magnification of lens aberrations.
This is not to say that one cannot take great photos with a Q. One absolutely can. Just like one can take great photos with one's phone. There is no denying, however, that the Q limits the kinds of photos one can take -- and this goes beyond not allowing "shallow DOF' with reasonable subject distances. If the photographer does not care about the kinds of photographs that cannot be taken with a Q then all is good.
Surely there are those people.
However, the source of many a equivalence debate are people who claim that they cracked the portable telephoto challenge and macro photography DOF challenges by choosing a tiny sensor system.
I never joined any thread just to bring someone down who is happy about the Q (or similar). I don't recall falconeye, jsherman999 or other equivalence experts do so either. It really seems that the debate typically starts with a false claim that someone intends to correct as a service to the community. This should not be misconstrued as "pushing FF everywhere".
Why the "Maybe"?
Perhaps the "Maybe" is justified because sometimes people just want to snap away to record something, or similar, without a vision in mind?
In any event, great photography does not depend on great gear. Gear is certainly secondary. That does not imply, however, that- Every photo can be taken with any piece of gear. Some gear enables certain photos that cannot be taken with inferior gear.
- Gear discussions should never take place, even on a gear forum. If you keep the photographer constant, better gear has the chance to improve their photography.
- All gear-related statements are fair go, whether they are nonsense or not. If someone says something that is technically incorrect, it should not be excused by pointing out that "the photographer's vision" is much more important.
The characterisation of FF as a tool for, and only for "narrow DOF", is wrong. There are many more good reasons for an FF system.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-22-2015, 07:20 AM
|
| |
Dan, thanks, this statement is exactly what I am looking for.. and also my understanding.
To reference a parallel example, I use a 31mm f1.8 on a (future) Pentax FF with similar pixel density (assumption) as k-3. The resulting image cropped to APS-C size as if it is taken from the k-3, both images should be identical if both taken from the same distance from subject. Although the exposure could be slightly different due to metering of a bigger/smaller scene from the two cameras. DOF remains the same since subject distances are the same (?), though I am not sure.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-22-2015, 07:18 AM
|
| |
Many APS-C folks do exactly that while putting down m4/3 gear. Not that many of them use the word equivalence*. But the very ideas embodied in equivalence are often used to prove APS-C is "better" than m4/3. And were you hiding under a rock when the Q came out? The vitriol directed at that camera, by APS-C users in large part, was incredible. And many of the arguments were based in equivalence concepts. All miss-uses of the concept, in my view. Equivalence does not imbue a "better than" attribute on one format vs. another. It can provide useful information to make rational choice of one vs. another for a specific purpose. People are just so self-centered that they believe their "specific purpose" is or ought to be everyone's.
*It's such a misunderstood concept and so the word has become encumbered with all sorts of false meaning and emotional baggage. But many defend their choice of gear using the very ideas behind equivalence, yet will say in the same breath that equivalence is invalid.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-22-2015, 04:30 AM
|
| |
I think the argument mainly started because m4/3 shooters don't understand the full ramifications of crop factor. They only understand equivalent focal length. They think the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 is a 24-80mm f2.8 FF equivalent, when in reality it is a 24-80mm f5.6 equivalent.
It got really heated over at DPR when the Olympus 300mm f4 was announced, and there were several threads showing photos of it beside a huge Canon 600mm f4 FF lens, with price comparisons.
The Oly 300mm f4 is no smaller than a Pentax DA*300. If you shoot them with an EM-1 and K-3, and crop the Pentax image to 16mp and 4:3 aspect ratio, you will have the same image. That is equivalence. Comparing to a 600mm f4 is just ignorance.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-18-2015, 03:39 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-02-2015, 08:57 PM
|
| |
"An important consideration when choosing systems is to compare available lenses in equivalent terms of the same format. Often, lenses may have the same AOV, but not the same maximum aperture diameter. For example, the Canon 50 / 1.4 has the same AOV as the 30 / 1.4 on 1.6x and the 25 / 1.4 on 4/3, but it's max aperture diameter (50mm / 1.4 = 36mm) is larger than either. To match the aperture diameter of the 50 / 1.4 on FF, we would need a 30 / 0.9 on 1.6x and a 25 / 0.7 on 4/3, neither of which exist."
how do you match the 50/1.4 aov and dof on crop?
that's true, but when the dof doesn't match like that, is it an equivalent comparison:
-The photos all have the same diagonal angle of view (25mm x 2 = 31mm x 1.6 = 33mm x 1.5 = 50mm) and aperture diameter (25mm / 1.4 = 31mm / 1.8 = 33mm / 1.9 = 50mm / 2.8 = 18mm).
-The photos all have the same perspective when taken from the same position.
-The photos all have the same DOF (as well as diffraction softening) when they are taken from the same position with the same focal point and have the same display size.
Equivalence |
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-14-2015, 08:03 AM
|
| |
Ya, I agree... stripping makes you cheap, no matter how much they pay you... wait, you're talking about some other kind of stripping. OK then, carry on. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
04-24-2015, 12:33 PM
|
| |
you could say the same thing about getting a k3, instead of shooting with a smartphone.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
04-05-2015, 11:19 AM
|
| |
I wouldn't claim that APS-C cameras are just bridge cameras to FF. The smaller format does a damn good job of standing on its own. That being said, I'm going to run with the metaphor anyway.
There are plenty of people who will never have a need or desire to cross that format bridge. Nonetheless, with the K mount full frame officially on it's way now it will soon be entirely possible to have have one foot on each side of that bridge and still firmly be in Pentax land. Unfortunately, people who are simply asking and answering questions about what to expect on the other side of that metaphorical bridge can't seem to do so on this forum without a non-metaphorical troll butting in each and every time.
Often times I get a laugh out of watching the troll jump up and down while it waves its arms and grunts repeatedly. But after a while, it reduces to simply being obnoxious, unnecessary, and unwelcome. It's as if the troll believes that if it is relentlessly louder than everyone else it will succeed in preventing anyone from journeying across that bridge or even casting a glance in that direction. Well, the troll won't ever succeed to that extreme but it sure has made it difficult for people on the two sides of that format bridge to have an intelligent and fruitful conversation. It's a shame.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
04-05-2015, 03:47 AM
|
| |
So... reading between the lines here I guess I would not benefit so much from a FF if I mostly shoot landscapes with my K5IIs? I don't print.
I was a little bit late with this one, should have done it before the FF announcement:
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
03-30-2015, 01:35 PM
|
| |
wow! take it easy...
... this is suppose to be a "friendly" forum - read the PF logo. :)
I think he is entitled to his experience use of Pentax camera, and so do you. He don't really have to tried all the Pentax lenses on K3 before he can make any opinion about the system. I suppose you didn't use all Nikon cameras and lenses before you trash the D600? I just pointed that out, but whatever suit you, including your view of me. :lol:
(I'm out of here)
|
