|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-07-2016, 11:34 PM
|
| |
Lens resolution is maximum is the center and it drops towards the edges of the lens. For the same number of pixels, the overall resolution does increase with the sensor size, but not as much as the sensor size would indicate.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-04-2016, 10:05 AM
|
| |
This question is roughly the same as having a small car and asking if it is worth getting the bigger model. Any car in good working conditions, even the smallest, can take you from A to B. That does not prevent people from buying $7K cars and other people buying $70K cars. I often see folks with 4x4 cars shiny pain never used for what a 4x4 drive cars were originally designed for. APSC, FF and MF are different formats. I think, one of the reason why Ricoh introduced a FF camera now is because the sensors have improved and their cost went significantly down with the ramping up of 300mm wafer fabs, making FF affordable for a wider user base. The K1 is the kind of camera that could be had for $1.5K or even less in the future, so basically, a fully featured multipurpose camera for nearly the price of high-end mirrorless. The K1 is one of the best value for money DSLR FF of its class. Unless size is a problem, it's a good choice. There's no hurry, maybe, in a year or two from now, it's going to sell for cheaper, with the same image quality.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-04-2016, 05:20 AM
|
| |
A) Landscapes:
You can raise the shadows by 5 stops without much noise (5 stops = raising ISO from 100 to 1600, so pulling up noise and signal from the dark to about ISO1600 quality level which on FF is still fairly good, but at the same level on a K3 , noise is visible and colors start to take a hit).
I earlier posted something about what ND filters I should buy again for the K1 due to the fact that my old ND grad filters that I'm using on the K3 lenses, don't fit anymore on the DFA24-70 because of the size of the filter thread.
Now, given the additional DR of the K1, I came to the conclusion that I'll skip the ND grad filters because:
1) I can use the extra DR of the K1 to pull more of the shadows
2) larger ND grad filters are twice the price compared to what I paid for the ones used with K3, so I save money
3) I don't need to carry and put ND grad filters on and off depending on lighting and what's in the frame
4) the problem of ND grad is the use is limited to straight lines otherwise they also attenuate the lighting on where we don't want to
So, I save $250 of filters + convenience of not having to use ND grad at all.
B) Indoor sports:
For indoor sports, dim tungsten lighting, with the K3 and Tamy 70-200 , I have to shoot between from ISO 2200 (best case) to 6400 (worst case), typically ISO 3200, f3.5 aperture (Tamy not sharp @ f2.8) 1/500th shutter speed , resulting image resolution for printing = 6 Mega of good quality pixels, max !!! With the K1 FF mode and Tamy 70-200 , shooting at f3.5, 3200 ISO, I get easily get around 12M of good pixels result, and if I'd use a DFA70-200 wide open, I'd get around 16Mpixels good. So , with the K3 indoor sports you get decent image printed rather small otherwise colors look ugly especially the red, and resolution takes a hit due to noise. Since indoor sport lighting is right at the edge of APSC capability, and visual perception isn't linear (you perceive much more difference in IQ from 5bits depth to 6bits depth compared to 7bits to 8bits depth), in low light ISO2200, a K1 just cross the barrier between mediocre image quality to good looking image quality.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-04-2016, 12:59 AM
|
| |
Yes and no. I still think there is no perfect camera for everything. It depends on what type of photography you do. In crop mode, the K1 is less performing than the K3. And when using the K1 in full frame mode (36Mp), beside less high iso noise there is no much advantage in IQ when using the camera JPEG processor, in order to keep the file sizes and burst rate, most of the 36Mp vs 24Mp details are lost. Then there is the depth of field thing; and yes, with fast lenses the K1 can render amazing where the same picture taken with the K3 will look good but ordinary. So some artistic portraiture, FF beats APSC. What I did, I considered that I'd keep the K3 for use with long lenses / wildlife or traveling with a couple of limited primes, and have the K1 for stills, landscape and portraiture. Then I revamped my lenses so that it made sense to use both formats, so I could sell some lenses and finance the K1 and a standard zoom with it. Basically, when having ASPC and FF or both from the same camera, it reduces the number of lenses you need because the x1.5 crop factor gives an additional option. You can also crop the 36Mp into a 24Mp image. In short, the K1 is big and slow but offer flexibility for post processing cropping etc... The K3 is faster, smaller and cheaper, but less room for cropping and processing the files.
About JPEG processing: I still have a Nikon coolpix2100, small sensor 2.5Mpixeln, JPEG look flashy, very colorful with lots of contrast (Nikon style :-) ) but... better not compare the photos with the real life gradation of tones and colors... Simple, for phones and point and shot cameras, a lots of effort is put into image processing to make images stand out to the eye of the purchaser, but that's fine for most people in hurry (take a shot a post it over the web).
|
