|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-22-2016, 01:00 AM
|
| |
Neither is the size of a pixel, or the technology used.
Instead they look at the result, but as it turns out the size of a pixel does matter for the result, and the technology used as well. They also look at the number of pixels in their formulas when calculating the print graph.
So good pixels (large and with latest technology) and plenty of them is a winning concept, and guess what, that means a larger sensor has an advantage due to size, EVEN though size is not a direct input.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-08-2016, 11:24 PM
|
| |
Since we are referring to old posts, I might as well remind you all about post #138 (made by myself).
To save some time I quote it here.
:lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-27-2016, 11:26 AM
|
| |
Probably by dividing the sensor into several smaller areas that are read out in parallell.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-27-2016, 01:08 AM
|
| |
That was not my intention.
The K-5 and the K-1 has been expected to perform similar (at pixel level) ever since it became known that they would have a similar pixel size. Nothing new there. The performance increase per square mm of sensor has become smaller and smaller for every generation. 10 years ago a new sensor could mean vastly improved performance, not so much anymore, slight increases is all we can hope for.
If you want noticeably better iso perfomance now, you will have to jump to bigger sensors, bigger as in bigger total sensor area.
Software is unavoidable when it comes to digital photo. You will have to use it and it will affect end result. You will use up or downsampling to match print/view size, you can either use your preferred software or some other software will do it for you (as in printer driver or screen viewer), and it will affect noise. Why pretend otherwise?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-22-2016, 01:26 AM
|
| |
Really? I would call that SNR.
We have been through this so many times, but here we go again.
At pixel level, the K-5 and the K-1 were expected to be more or less equal. ( no measurements of the K-1 are available at DXO as of yet ).
The measurements from "Sensor noise DB" does seem to indicate that, at pixel level, the K-1 is worse then the K-5.
And yes, that is a disappointment and will be visible (well, in theory) when viewing pictures at 100%. (For instance the Andromeda shoot with a 200mm lens)
But in those cases were we will be using the entire sensor (hopefully most of the time) we should be looking at the SNR of the whole picture, and the fact that the K-1 has the double amount of (roughly the same quality) pixels of the K-5 will of course result in a cleaner image. (with all the normal disclaimers of the same viewing size and so on and so forth.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-20-2016, 12:52 AM
|
| |
Really?
Signal being information and noise being spurious and random, I would say that there is a lot more information (signal) in the K1 picture (looking at the whole picture of course, or a downsized picture, whatever you like).
Then we would get the same amount of information in the center yes, however a lot of the scene would be missing. Again a loss of information compared to the whole scene captured by the K1.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-20-2016, 12:05 AM
|
| |
There is definitely a lot more information in the K1 picture.
Do you think they are equal?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-19-2016, 11:50 PM
|
| |
Right, but then his own observations perfectly matches dxomark curves, so I'm not sure what his point is. :confused:
"But heck with the data, what do I see? (1) minimal and ignorable differences between the D500 and D7200 in raw capture;"
As the DXOmark curves indicates.
"(2) slightly better noise reduction handling in the D500 over the D7200 in JPEGs;"
This can't be seen though as they don't evaluate jpegs.
"(3) better raw and JPEG output from the D5 than the D500 in the critical range I shoot sports in (ISO 1600 to ISO 6400, sometimes 12800);"
Right, as the curves says. (Except the jpeg part).
"(4) worse D5 raw output than the D4/D4s up to about ISO 1600, but not enough to fret about, and somewhat better D5 output than the D4/D4s above ISO 1600,"
As the curves indicates.
What was his point again?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-14-2016, 11:50 AM
|
| |
I wrote that a long time ago, and it's still true. I rest my case, as they say.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
07-13-2016, 11:30 PM
|
| |
Give it up Nicolas06, clackers doesn't want to or isn't able to understand the print tab. His examples with the phone sensor or one million pixels one inch sensor show's he doesn't have a clue, even though it has been explained numerical times for him.
|
