|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-07-2016, 06:14 AM
|
| |
36mm across the full frame sensor - 36mm x 45 LPMM = . 1620
24mm across the crop sensor - 24mm x 45 LPMM = 1080
So a lens that can only ever resolve 45LPMM, but because of the larger sensor area you apparently get more detail. (Sorry in my post further up I had divide, it should have been multiply.)
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-07-2016, 05:15 AM
|
| |
I had this conversation a long time ago. If you have a lens that tops out at 45 lines per millimeter on crop, that Line widths per millimeter (LW/PH) translate on a 36 x 24mm sensor, versus 24 x 15mm crop sensor, and equates to an increase in 1/3rd of resolution. 36mm divided by 45 lines is gonna be more than 24mm divided by 45 lines. Thats the concept.
Hopefully someone can chime in here and clarify as I'm not entirely sure.
---------- Post added 06-07-16 at 10:24 PM ----------
Back in the day when there were 10 and 12mp cameras and buffers were small, they were slow to write files. Now there are high megs pixel cameras and they behave similarly. We've got high mega pixel 4k cameras too, and their buffers and transfer rates are improved. I think sensor size is related to ISO performance rather than buffer sizes considering 4k.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-07-2016, 03:16 AM
|
| |
No need to apologize, I was not offended. I enjoy a little controversy. I understand your point about not having better quality JPEG's and having to use RAW, its another thing to consider really. I'm not that much of a RAW guy, though I should be to get the most of my K-3 files (I shoot JPEG and RAW).
---------- Post added 06-07-16 at 08:23 PM ----------
i was in a camera store months and months ago, I tried out a Sigma 150-500 on a D7100 and then on a D750. Both at ISO 2000 and the D750 was vastly superior at ISO 2000. I'm just wondering whether there is a similar thing with the K-3 to the K-1, I guessing it is.
Some folks have eluded that the K-3 @1600 is approximately like the K-1 @ ISO 4400, if that is then my ears have gone up like a. I'll ask if someone can post some photo examples on this thread if it isn't too much trouble.
---------- Post added 06-07-16 at 08:27 PM ----------
Could I trouble you for an example of a couple of pictures from the K-3 @ 1600 and the K-1 @ 4500 ? No rush, if its handy for you.
---------- Post added 06-07-16 at 08:36 PM ----------
Yes joy is a wonderful thing, and I think a lot of the K-1 owners are busting so much they'll start singing "Its a wonderful world" by Louis Armstrong.
We've had discussions for a very long time about FF and the pro's and the cons, and one thing was how lenses would be sharper on the future Pentax FF because the height and width of the sensor produce greater lines (I forget how it goes, I'm a little tired now). So a 24mp crop camera vs a 24mp FF camera, the lenses or images should be 1/3rd sharper on FF - thats what people have claimed (unless I'm remembering wrong). That is true , right ? (Posing the question to everybody).
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-03-2016, 10:23 PM
|
| |
Thanks everyone for your responses but I can't decide still.
I looked at what Adam suggested the 28-105 and the review page has a few reviews. Looking at some of the photos, it looks a little too soft for my liking. Having some sharp 2.8's and primes then going back to a kit lenses is like moving from champagne to cordial.
I like the look of the Sigma 24-70 HSM and its 70-200 brother, I think if I found second hand copies it might be the go. Look, I don't want screw drive. I've got a Sigma 50mm HSM and the AF is clunky ......... zip-clunk-clunk as it moves the focusing elements and hesitates (Which is noisy for HSM). But its still better than SKREEEEEEEEEECH-SKREECH, like you're stepping on a rat every time you auto focus. Gonna have to sell off some lenses to fund the change over.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-03-2016, 07:56 PM
|
| |
Dear K-1 owners,
I am contemplating switching from my K-3 to the K-1.
1st question:
Is it worth it, and how much better is the K-1 over K-3/K-3ii in terms of IQ, ISO and overall performance ?
2nd question:
That performance benefit coupled with buying some FF zoom lenses - does the performance outweigh the added costs of zooms?
As I am more into zoom lenses for general photography, I don't have FF 24-200mm 2.8's, but I have a few FF primes. This is a cost I'm concerned about of $1200-2000 AUD, then the body @ $2800 AUD.
|
