|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-21-2014, 08:20 AM
|
| |
I was pretty much correct then :)
Not that I typically have FF to APS-C comparison, but the main difference that I picked up on - was
1 - 2, 4, and 5 appeared to have the colour levels with more saturation (eg. check the log / brush difference in 5 and 6).
3 / 4 is a different image, so its more difficult to determine, but again, the greens in the trees/brush have much more detail (depth) and less shadow. The image appears less exposed on #3
1 / 2 is a similar image, but different lighting, but again the surrounding trees have less detail due to what appears to be lower light (less exposure, dynamic range).
That's just my opinion though. I'm by no means a pro.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-19-2014, 10:38 AM
|
| |
I think many have posted it here... a LOT of it comes down to the photographer. A good photographer can work within the limitations of many devices to get a great picture.
That being said, having good glass goes a LONG ways to rendering whatever you're taking. You can compose a great picture, but it might be all mush if your lens is cr@p, or filled with CA/PF.
When you go down in sensor size, it gets harder to render images with high contrast (IMHO). I've seen this with my wife's Nikon S5200. What shows up as a decent picture on my K-30 with cheapo Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 DC, its just a visual mess on the S5200.
All things being equal - on FF vs. APS-C, I prefer the higher dynamic range that is available through FF (and even more so on medium format). This, along with any possible low light benefits of FF, bring out more colours and image 'depth' that aren't always available with smaller sensors.
As it is, I personally don't really have any issues with the dynamic range of the K series APS-C sensors.
|
