|
Forum: General Photography
05-28-2018, 05:04 AM
|
| |
This part of the discussion can only be framed by what percentage of the images you take will be similar and which will be different. Between APS_c and FF about 90-95% of the images will be about the same. I'm guessing it will be less between a Q and 645z. But unless someone who uses both comes up with a number based on knowledge of images taken by the two systems , I'm not buying any of the "no overlap" theory., that statement is pretty much useless. I take a picture with my K-1, my wife takes the same picture with her Q. We look at them when we get home, sometimes we prefer the really wide depth of field of the Q image. That's reality.
"Taking pictures with a Q is not functionally equivalent to taking pictures with a 645Z, even though both cameras have digital sensors and interchangeable lenses." isn't. It can be functionally equivalent, there are things both do better than the other, but my guess is the majority of the images viewed on a normal monitor won't be that much different if you shoot a series of images using different parameters.
Bigger sensors are capable of handling demanding circumstances, but improvement is only noticed on the images where that capability is use. Most images don't use even a fraction of the capability of either.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
05-27-2018, 04:40 PM
|
| |
I measured a window, it was 4:3. Does that help in any way? :D
I've taken to having custom frames made at the printers. For $40 they'd do whatever size my print is. My days of looking for bargains on frames is over. Hurrah.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
05-25-2018, 10:05 AM
|
| |
Where as for people who crop to 16:9 for viewing on their 50" or bigger 4k TVs, find ourselves cropping quite bit and would crop more if the original image was 4x5. 3x2 is a happy medium. The interesting thing for me, is that since I've moved to 16:9 many of my landscapes look better and of over 700 files, only maybe 10 have been so much better at 4x5 or 3x2 to convince me I need to keep my 3x2 format.
I'm guessing I would prefer a 4x5 camera for portraits but apart from that, I don't see the attraction. Given my experience with 16:9 I find myself thinking of 5:4 as old tech. Even my group portrait of my grandkids and daughter from last summer is printed at 2:1. Think how small this file would have been taken with a 5:4 sensor.
 Robyn-trip-July-2017-20 by Norm Head, on Flickr
Printed 24x12 I definitely got way more resolution than a 4x5 sensor would have given me. compared to a 4x5. so while it's nice that those who's shooting style favours 5:4 sensors, I'd categorically deny that everyone will end up using more pixels with a 5:4 crop.
A 645D has 7294 horizontal pixels. My k-1 is 7360. For 99% of my images I get more pixels from a K-1 than I would from a 645D. I'd caution users against assuming they are going to get more resolution out of a 5:4 sensor just because it's 5:4. Do the analysis of how you crop your images before you decide that's right for you.
If I were considering a 5:4 sensor I'd take a random 20 images and crop them for best effect, then analyze my results. There are a lot of images where it doesn't matter much, but in many cases 3x2 is going to be the best comprimise, giving you decent crops from 2:1 to 5:4 with fewer wasted pixels. The biggest advantage to 5:4 or 4:5 in most situations is, you used to be able to get 4 pictures from a standard 8x10 sheet of photo paper. Modern paper doesn't even come in 8x10 or 4x5 anymore. But you can get 4x6. IN film days I used to send a lot of my prints out for custom printing so I could get 12x8 prints made. Even in film days 4:5 had it's limits.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
05-25-2018, 06:30 AM
|
| |
Yet I can only buy frames in 4x5 formats.
|
