Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 14/9/14, Darren Addy, discombobulated, unleashed: Have you tried it? I disagree. You still get fisheye lines, but only the center crop from it, so it isn't as noticable as if they extend to the edges, as in a full frame. h that got me thinking, I've got a 17/4 fisheye somewhere - I'm going to dig it out and try it on my Fuji X-E1 for the weekend. Off to Manchester to see friends and haven't shot anything in ages. So that's X- E1, Voigtlander 15/4, Pentax 17/4 and Pentax 85/1.4 to play with :-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate, || (O) |Web Video Production --www.seeingeye.tv _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 14/09/14 19:46, Larry Colen wrote: Toralf Lund wrote: On 14/09/14 16:31, Igor PDML-StR wrote: Zos, I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor. Here is the link: http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on-the-canikon-debate/ (from the thread OT? In case you are having some insomnia tonight... ) http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg703996.html He starts talking about the interplay of the high resolution lenses and the sensor shortly after 4:00. Personally, I'm too lazy to look up that right now, but I'm thinking that it might make sense to have a sensor resolution of up to 8x the one of the lens. I'll leave it as an exercise to find out how I came up with that number (told you I was lazy.) But I'm also wondering if one could make that 6x instead, and also reorganise the sensor (see above.) Nyquist rate times the bayer pattern. Double should be good enough to get unaliased luminance data, but you need to look at the sample rate for each color. What you are really asking for is that each color be sampled at over the nyquist rate. I wonder if there are pathological cases where the repeating pattern is at 45 degrees and you need another 1.4 times the resolution to avoid aliasing. What if it is a curvy (meandering) line? Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Zos, I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor. Here is the link: http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on-the-canikon-debate/ (from the thread OT? In case you are having some insomnia tonight... ) http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg703996.html He starts talking about the interplay of the high resolution lenses and the sensor shortly after 4:00. HTH, Igor Zos Xavius Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:45:44 -0700 Can someone cross post this video or at least let me know the thread that it was in so I can scan for it? :) On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR pdml...@komkon.org wrote: I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 14/09/14 16:31, Igor PDML-StR wrote: Zos, I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor. Here is the link: http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on-the-canikon-debate/ (from the thread OT? In case you are having some insomnia tonight... ) http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg703996.html He starts talking about the interplay of the high resolution lenses and the sensor shortly after 4:00. Personally, I'm too lazy to look up that right now, but I'm thinking that it might make sense to have a sensor resolution of up to 8x the one of the lens. I'll leave it as an exercise to find out how I came up with that number (told you I was lazy.) But I'm also wondering if one could make that 6x instead, and also reorganise the sensor (see above.) - T HTH, Igor Zos Xavius Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:45:44 -0700 Can someone cross post this video or at least let me know the thread that it was in so I can scan for it? :) On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR pdml...@komkon.org wrote: I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Toralf Lund wrote: On 14/09/14 16:31, Igor PDML-StR wrote: Zos, I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor. Here is the link: http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on-the-canikon-debate/ (from the thread OT? In case you are having some insomnia tonight... ) http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg703996.html He starts talking about the interplay of the high resolution lenses and the sensor shortly after 4:00. Personally, I'm too lazy to look up that right now, but I'm thinking that it might make sense to have a sensor resolution of up to 8x the one of the lens. I'll leave it as an exercise to find out how I came up with that number (told you I was lazy.) But I'm also wondering if one could make that 6x instead, and also reorganise the sensor (see above.) Nyquist rate times the bayer pattern. Double should be good enough to get unaliased luminance data, but you need to look at the sample rate for each color. What you are really asking for is that each color be sampled at over the nyquist rate. I wonder if there are pathological cases where the repeating pattern is at 45 degrees and you need another 1.4 times the resolution to avoid aliasing. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 14/09/14 19:46, Larry Colen wrote: Toralf Lund wrote: On 14/09/14 16:31, Igor PDML-StR wrote: Zos, I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor. Here is the link: http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on-the-canikon-debate/ (from the thread OT? In case you are having some insomnia tonight... ) http://www.mail-archive.com/pdml@pdml.net/msg703996.html He starts talking about the interplay of the high resolution lenses and the sensor shortly after 4:00. Personally, I'm too lazy to look up that right now, but I'm thinking that it might make sense to have a sensor resolution of up to 8x the one of the lens. I'll leave it as an exercise to find out how I came up with that number (told you I was lazy.) But I'm also wondering if one could make that 6x instead, and also reorganise the sensor (see above.) Nyquist rate times the bayer pattern. Double should be good enough to get unaliased luminance data, but you need to look at the sample rate for each color. What you are really asking for is that each color be sampled at over the nyquist rate. Exactly. I'm also wondering if the extra green of the bayer pattern is rather pointless at such a resolution, but I haven't really thought about it a lot... I wonder if there are pathological cases where the repeating pattern is at 45 degrees and you need another 1.4 times the resolution to avoid aliasing. Hmmm... Also something to consider, I suppose. - T -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? By far. Mostly used are my 28-80 f3.5-4.5 F, 70-210 f4.0-5.6 F and 300 f4.5 FA. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor On 13/09/2014 10:40 PM, Ken Waller wrote: I certainly never saw the 1.5 factor as being a negative for the type of photography I do, although I hardly ever use my 17-28mmf3.5 SMC F fisheye on digital. You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital. jco On 9/14/2014 7:35 PM, Ken Waller wrote: You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? By far. Mostly used are my 28-80 f3.5-4.5 F, 70-210 f4.0-5.6 F and 300 f4.5 FA. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor On 13/09/2014 10:40 PM, Ken Waller wrote: I certainly never saw the 1.5 factor as being a negative for the type of photography I do, although I hardly ever use my 17-28mmf3.5 SMC F fisheye on digital. You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
IMHO the question of telephoto vs wide as it relates to APS-C vs FF is a moot one. I shoot ultra-wide more often probably anybody on this list and the Sigma 10-20mm gives me a 15-30mm equiv. FOV on APS-C. In the old days a 15mm rectilinear was as wide as you could buy. On the other end, when I shoot shoot telephoto, I'm glad to have the Bigma be a 75-750mm equiv FOV with the 1.5x focal length multiplier. The APS-C gives me a 15-750mm focal length range with my full frame capable lenses. I'd be giving up about 250mm on the long end and next to nothing on the short end if I switched to a full frame Pentax. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? By far. Mostly used are my 28-80 f3.5-4.5 F, 70-210 f4.0-5.6 F and 300 f4.5 FA. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor On 13/09/2014 10:40 PM, Ken Waller wrote: I certainly never saw the 1.5 factor as being a negative for the type of photography I do, although I hardly ever use my 17-28mmf3.5 SMC F fisheye on digital. You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital. jco Have you tried it? I disagree. You still get fisheye lines, but only the center crop from it, so it isn't as noticable as if they extend to the edges, as in a full frame. The effect is subtle, but can be quite pleasing: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4249410738/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4248660978/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4248010833/ I sold mine, but it is one of those lenses I plan to own again, even for use on APS-C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
yes, Ive tried it, you end up with a semi fisheye which is like being semi pregnant On 9/14/2014 7:52 PM, Darren Addy wrote: On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital. jco Have you tried it? I disagree. You still get fisheye lines, but only the center crop from it, so it isn't as noticable as if they extend to the edges, as in a full frame. The effect is subtle, but can be quite pleasing: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4249410738/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4248660978/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4248010833/ I sold mine, but it is one of those lenses I plan to own again, even for use on APS-C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital. But its too nice a lens to part with. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital. jco On 9/14/2014 7:35 PM, Ken Waller wrote: You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? By far. Mostly used are my 28-80 f3.5-4.5 F, 70-210 f4.0-5.6 F and 300 f4.5 FA. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor On 13/09/2014 10:40 PM, Ken Waller wrote: I certainly never saw the 1.5 factor as being a negative for the type of photography I do, although I hardly ever use my 17-28mmf3.5 SMC F fisheye on digital. You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I still have my mint smc pentax K 17mm f4 fisheye lens but havent used it in a long time. Just another reason to want a full frame digital k mount body from somebody if not ricoh/pentax. On 9/14/2014 8:02 PM, Ken Waller wrote: fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital. But its too nice a lens to part with. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital. jco On 9/14/2014 7:35 PM, Ken Waller wrote: You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? By far. Mostly used are my 28-80 f3.5-4.5 F, 70-210 f4.0-5.6 F and 300 f4.5 FA. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor On 13/09/2014 10:40 PM, Ken Waller wrote: I certainly never saw the 1.5 factor as being a negative for the type of photography I do, although I hardly ever use my 17-28mmf3.5 SMC F fisheye on digital. You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
these are interesting images but I dont see any fisheye effects at all On 9/14/2014 7:52 PM, Darren Addy wrote: On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital. jco Have you tried it? I disagree. You still get fisheye lines, but only the center crop from it, so it isn't as noticable as if they extend to the edges, as in a full frame. The effect is subtle, but can be quite pleasing: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4249410738/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4248660978/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4248010833/ I sold mine, but it is one of those lenses I plan to own again, even for use on APS-C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I don't either personally. A 10-17 would be a lot more interesting with its adjustable FE effect for about the same cost really IMO. On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 9:52 PM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: these are interesting images but I dont see any fisheye effects at all On 9/14/2014 7:52 PM, Darren Addy wrote: On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, JC OConnell hifis...@gate.net wrote: fisheye lenses designed for full frame become bastards on aps digital. jco Have you tried it? I disagree. You still get fisheye lines, but only the center crop from it, so it isn't as noticable as if they extend to the edges, as in a full frame. The effect is subtle, but can be quite pleasing: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4249410738/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4248660978/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelsmithy/4248010833/ I sold mine, but it is one of those lenses I plan to own again, even for use on APS-C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera that can only be used with old or third-party glass. Cheers, Dave On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:54 am, John sesso...@earthlink.net wrote: Yes, all very interesting. But it still doesn't answer the primary question. What is the likelihood Ricoh-Pentax is going to build a camera around this sensor? On 9/12/2014 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) II. With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable advancement. III. As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature of the pixels). Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence (eventually) cheaper. But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. (see I. above). [Nerd ON] IV. Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, while the absolute increase is. I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a good measure: 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately -16.5C to -15.5C. So, it obviously depends on the scale! Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K - 275 K, respectively. 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are considering. For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter either... E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets affected by this change. 3. Stan, with respect to your home-economy example. You are right, except for those cases, where there is an offset of fixed costs. E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000/mo. The reason is that the effective increase in the income that available for things other then the housing would be 50% (from 1000-800=200), and a comparable relative increase for the second person would be smaller (from 3000-800=2200 to 2500 is less than 15%). Effect of the lenses becoming the bottle-neck of the performance is similar to the fixed-cost offset described above. All these examples are just to support the point that one cannot just blindly use relative increase (percentage or factor) in all cases. [Nerd OFF] Thu Sep 11 09:45:58 EDT 2014 Darren Addy wrote: I'm not denying that there is an
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
No point? The A7 did pretty well. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 3:25 AM, David Mann dmann...@gmail.com wrote: It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera that can only be used with old or third-party glass. Cheers, Dave On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:54 am, John sesso...@earthlink.net wrote: Yes, all very interesting. But it still doesn't answer the primary question. What is the likelihood Ricoh-Pentax is going to build a camera around this sensor? On 9/12/2014 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) II. With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable advancement. III. As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature of the pixels). Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence (eventually) cheaper. But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. (see I. above). [Nerd ON] IV. Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, while the absolute increase is. I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a good measure: 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately -16.5C to -15.5C. So, it obviously depends on the scale! Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K - 275 K, respectively. 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are considering. For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter either... E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets affected by this change. 3. Stan, with respect to your home-economy example. You are right, except for those cases, where there is an offset of fixed costs. E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000/mo. The reason is that the effective increase in the income that available for things other then the housing would be 50% (from 1000-800=200), and a comparable relative increase for the second person would be smaller (from 3000-800=2200 to 2500 is less than 15%). Effect of the lenses becoming the bottle-neck of the performance is similar to the fixed-cost offset described above. All these examples are just to support the point that one cannot just blindly use relative increase (percentage or factor) in all cases. [Nerd OFF] Thu
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote: i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at close range. i would actually bet. I suspect that it would be possible to come up with use cases where you could tell the difference. They would be pathological corner cases, such as where an image is just over the edge of moire at 36mp and just under the edge of moire at 48mp. Fifty percent more pixels mean 12.2% better linear resolution. I think that is a discernible difference. That is also about the same difference as there is between the K-5 and the K-3, and people do seem to be able to tell those apart. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
The difference between the K-3 and K-5 IIs is there and easy to see. The difference between the K-5 IIs and the old K-5 was pretty easy for me to see as well. A 2x3 meter print would be a rather large enlargement for anything, film or digital, and I can tell you that I know I would be able to see a difference if the lens used was out-resolving the sensor in both cases. Even if it really wasn't, the center should at least be sharper in the higher pixel density image. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote: i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at close range. i would actually bet. I suspect that it would be possible to come up with use cases where you could tell the difference. They would be pathological corner cases, such as where an image is just over the edge of moire at 36mp and just under the edge of moire at 48mp. Fifty percent more pixels mean 12.2% better linear resolution. I think that is a discernible difference. That is also about the same difference as there is between the K-5 and the K-3, and people do seem to be able to tell those apart. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Can someone cross post this video or at least let me know the thread that it was in so I can scan for it? :) On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR pdml...@komkon.org wrote: I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) II. With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable advancement. III. As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature of the pixels). Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence (eventually) cheaper. But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. (see I. above). [Nerd ON] IV. Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, while the absolute increase is. I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a good measure: 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately -16.5C to -15.5C. So, it obviously depends on the scale! Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K - 275 K, respectively. 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are considering. For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter either... E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets affected by this change. 3. Stan, with respect to your home-economy example. You are right, except for those cases, where there is an offset of fixed costs. E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000/mo. The reason is that the effective increase in the income that available for things other then the housing would be 50% (from 1000-800=200), and a comparable relative increase for the second person would be smaller (from 3000-800=2200 to 2500 is less than 15%). Effect of the lenses becoming the bottle-neck of the performance is similar to the fixed-cost offset described above. All these examples are just to support the point that one cannot just blindly use relative increase (percentage or factor) in all cases. [Nerd OFF] Thu Sep 11 09:45:58 EDT 2014 Darren Addy wrote: I'm not denying that there is an appropriate place to use percentages. It is especially useful in apples to apples comparisons. I'm just saying that comparing APS-C to full frame AND to a completely different era is apples to oranges, in my book. To go back to Mark's numbers, he's saying a 27% increase is insignificant except from a marketing standpoint. The new
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
The real question here IMO, is how often one would really need to print 2x3 meters? So far I haven't seen a real need to upgrade from K-5 (the original). In fact I am very much satisfied by 12mp of Ricoh GXR-M. That said, the fact the tech is constantly moving forward is a great thing. Sent with AquaMail for Android http://www.aqua-mail.com On September 13, 2014 2:41:57 PM Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: The difference between the K-3 and K-5 IIs is there and easy to see. The difference between the K-5 IIs and the old K-5 was pretty easy for me to see as well. A 2x3 meter print would be a rather large enlargement for anything, film or digital, and I can tell you that I know I would be able to see a difference if the lens used was out-resolving the sensor in both cases. Even if it really wasn't, the center should at least be sharper in the higher pixel density image. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote: i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at close range. i would actually bet. I suspect that it would be possible to come up with use cases where you could tell the difference. They would be pathological corner cases, such as where an image is just over the edge of moire at 36mp and just under the edge of moire at 48mp. Fifty percent more pixels mean 12.2% better linear resolution. I think that is a discernible difference. That is also about the same difference as there is between the K-5 and the K-3, and people do seem to be able to tell those apart. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Slim to none. At least in the immediate future. Sony would take priority of production and then Nikon would surely have first dibs. That Nikon beat Sony to the punch on 36mp is interesting because Sony could have surely kept that chip to themselves and been the first with the A7r. I get the feeling that Sony is making a LOT more money off of sensor production than actual cameras right now and that isn't such a bad thing. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:54 PM, John sesso...@earthlink.net wrote: Yes, all very interesting. But it still doesn't answer the primary question. What is the likelihood Ricoh-Pentax is going to build a camera around this sensor? On 9/12/2014 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) II. With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable advancement. III. As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature of the pixels). Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence (eventually) cheaper. But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. (see I. above). [Nerd ON] IV. Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, while the absolute increase is. I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a good measure: 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately -16.5C to -15.5C. So, it obviously depends on the scale! Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K - 275 K, respectively. 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are considering. For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter either... E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets affected by this change. 3. Stan, with respect to your home-economy example. You are right, except for those cases, where there is an offset of fixed costs. E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000/mo. The reason is that the effective increase in the income that available for things other then the housing would be 50% (from 1000-800=200), and a comparable relative increase for the second person would be smaller (from 3000-800=2200 to 2500 is less than 15%). Effect of the lenses becoming the bottle-neck of the performance is similar to the fixed-cost offset described above. All these examples are just to support the point that
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
If you can offer that capability to clients with your files that makes you more competitive. This is why most pros have moved on to FF. The K-5 was a great camera, but still not as good in terms of resolving power as say a 5dmk2. I think the K-5 IIs is actually pretty damned close and the K-3 possibly better with the right lens. For a lot of what I want from photography a 645Z would make perfect sense. Except the cost that is. :) In theory a camera like that should be able to pay for itself fairly quickly though. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
So, yesterday I learned that Pentax now has some ambassadors that are sponsored in Europe. One of them joined my group on facebook. I asked him to bark up the pipeline for more ambassadors, especially in the United States. He is also claiming that Ricoh is still indeed working on a full frame and that he wouldn't have switched to pentax if he didn't think they were serious. He's holding his cards pretty close. We already know that Ricoh had a FF in development. Where the progress of development stands is anyone's guess right now. More than a few have assumed the project is stillborn. Building a whole new system takes time. Years in fact. The Fuji X-Pro wasn't just cooked up over night. I wouldn't expect anything earth shattering at photokina to be honest. Ricoh seems more content just letting new products come out as they are ready and now has a pattern of leaking info and pictures well before release. The K-S1 was in the hands of a lot of reporters before launch. This really isn't the Hoya Pentax we knew. I love how people are bashing the k-s1 (which under the hood is a pretty advanced camera) and yet forget that pentax still makes the k-3. one of the best cameras on the planet. I'm pretty sure good things are coming. If you look at Ricoh they have made some of the most forward looking and different cameras over the years. The GR is a triumph of technology and design with a long heritage. The GRX was pretty unique and novel and the M mount module was kind of genius as Boris can attest to. Really if ricoh just made a universal mount mirrorless camera it would be pretty cool IMO. They could make something like the A7 really shine. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: If you can offer that capability to clients with your files that makes you more competitive. This is why most pros have moved on to FF. The K-5 was a great camera, but still not as good in terms of resolving power as say a 5dmk2. I think the K-5 IIs is actually pretty damned close and the K-3 possibly better with the right lens. For a lot of what I want from photography a 645Z would make perfect sense. Except the cost that is. :) In theory a camera like that should be able to pay for itself fairly quickly though. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I have only one thing to say to that, 645d, 645z... Alrighty, I have two things to say to that. On 9/13/2014 3:25 AM, David Mann wrote: It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera that can only be used with old or third-party glass. Cheers, Dave On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:54 am, John sesso...@earthlink.net wrote: Yes, all very interesting. But it still doesn't answer the primary question. What is the likelihood Ricoh-Pentax is going to build a camera around this sensor? On 9/12/2014 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) II. With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable advancement. III. As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature of the pixels). Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence (eventually) cheaper. But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. (see I. above). [Nerd ON] IV. Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, while the absolute increase is. I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a good measure: 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately -16.5C to -15.5C. So, it obviously depends on the scale! Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K - 275 K, respectively. 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are considering. For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter either... E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets affected by this change. 3. Stan, with respect to your home-economy example. You are right, except for those cases, where there is an offset of fixed costs. E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000/mo. The reason is that the effective increase in the income that available for things other then the housing would be 50% (from 1000-800=200), and a comparable relative increase for the second person would be smaller (from 3000-800=2200 to 2500 is less than 15%). Effect of the lenses becoming the bottle-neck of the performance is similar to the fixed-cost offset described above. All these examples are just to support the point that one cannot just blindly use relative increase (percentage or factor) in all cases. [Nerd OFF] Thu Sep 11 09:45:58 EDT 2014 Darren Addy wrote: I'm not
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I had an image from the K20D displayed on the side of a bus, at 6+ feet by 4+ feet. You couldn't tell if it was shot with a APS-C FF or medium format digital. Up close it was a half tone image with approximately 5/8 inch dots, pretty much billboard stuff. If that's how it's processed it really doesn't matter how many MP over 14 you have, get close enough and the image falls apart. On 9/13/2014 7:53 AM, Zos Xavius wrote: If you can offer that capability to clients with your files that makes you more competitive. This is why most pros have moved on to FF. The K-5 was a great camera, but still not as good in terms of resolving power as say a 5dmk2. I think the K-5 IIs is actually pretty damned close and the K-3 possibly better with the right lens. For a lot of what I want from photography a 645Z would make perfect sense. Except the cost that is. :) In theory a camera like that should be able to pay for itself fairly quickly though. -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Zos Xavius wrote: I think optics, as has always been the case, will be the limiting factor for most people. You're looking a couple inches to the wrong side of the sensor for the limiting factor for most people. Or a couple of feet for folks who think you should hold a camera at arms length. The cost and complexity of lenses required to meet the resolution demands of modern digital sensors is fairly staggering. Look at the hideous complexity of the sigma 18-35/1.8. I was hoping the birthday fairy would buy me one of those, but it didn't seem to get the memo. Arguing which sensor size is best makes about as much sense as arguing whether a sports car is better than a pickup truck or station wagon. Each one has its advantages whether performance in certain conditions, convenience or cost. There's a good argument that the best sensor size for most people is something on the order of 8mm. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
A quick search at BH Photo will show you just how much brand new glass you can buy -- if you have the moola -- for the 645D and Z. Medium format Pentax is well supported. FF? Not so much. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I have only one thing to say to that, 645d, 645z... Alrighty, I have two things to say to that. On 9/13/2014 3:25 AM, David Mann wrote: It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera that can only be used with old or third-party glass. Cheers, Dave On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:54 am, John sesso...@earthlink.net wrote: Yes, all very interesting. But it still doesn't answer the primary question. What is the likelihood Ricoh-Pentax is going to build a camera around this sensor? On 9/12/2014 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) II. With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable advancement. III. As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature of the pixels). Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence (eventually) cheaper. But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. (see I. above). [Nerd ON] IV. Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, while the absolute increase is. I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a good measure: 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately -16.5C to -15.5C. So, it obviously depends on the scale! Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K - 275 K, respectively. 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are considering. For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter either... E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets affected by this change. 3. Stan, with respect to your home-economy example. You are right, except for those cases, where there is an offset of fixed costs. E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000/mo. The reason is that the effective increase in the income that available for things other then the housing would be 50% (from 1000-800=200), and a comparable relative increase for the second person would be smaller (from
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
FF? Not so much. Which was a good reason not to get rid of your older pre digital Pentax lenses. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor A quick search at BH Photo will show you just how much brand new glass you can buy -- if you have the moola -- for the 645D and Z. Medium format Pentax is well supported. FF? Not so much. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I have only one thing to say to that, 645d, 645z... Alrighty, I have two things to say to that. On 9/13/2014 3:25 AM, David Mann wrote: It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera that can only be used with old or third-party glass. Cheers, Dave On Sep 13, 2014, at 5:54 am, John sesso...@earthlink.net wrote: Yes, all very interesting. But it still doesn't answer the primary question. What is the likelihood Ricoh-Pentax is going to build a camera around this sensor? On 9/12/2014 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) II. With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable advancement. III. As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature of the pixels). Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence (eventually) cheaper. But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. (see I. above). [Nerd ON] IV. Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, while the absolute increase is. I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a good measure: 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately -16.5C to -15.5C. So, it obviously depends on the scale! Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K - 275 K, respectively. 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are considering. For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter either... E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets affected by this change. 3. Stan, with respect to your home-economy example. You are right, except for those cases, where there is an offset of fixed costs. E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I'm only interested in a system that I can buy currently. I'm not interested in old used pre-digital lenses off fleaBay. I started my Pentax APS-C collection from scratch save for a single S-M-C Takumar 50mm 1.4 that I kept from film days. While it's nice, it isn't a patch on my DA* 55/1.4 SDM so I don't use it. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: FF? Not so much. Which was a good reason not to get rid of your older pre digital Pentax lenses. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor A quick search at BH Photo will show you just how much brand new glass you can buy -- if you have the moola -- for the 645D and Z. Medium format Pentax is well supported. FF? Not so much. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I have only one thing to say to that, 645d, 645z... Alrighty, I have two things to say to that. On 9/13/2014 3:25 AM, David Mann wrote: It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera that can only be used with old or third-party glass. Cheers, Dave -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I'm not in a buy situation as I've kept all my pre digital lenses and continue to use them on my digitals. I didn't see a reason to sell just because I was into digital. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor I'm only interested in a system that I can buy currently. I'm not interested in old used pre-digital lenses off fleaBay. I started my Pentax APS-C collection from scratch save for a single S-M-C Takumar 50mm 1.4 that I kept from film days. While it's nice, it isn't a patch on my DA* 55/1.4 SDM so I don't use it. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: FF? Not so much. Which was a good reason not to get rid of your older pre digital Pentax lenses. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor A quick search at BH Photo will show you just how much brand new glass you can buy -- if you have the moola -- for the 645D and Z. Medium format Pentax is well supported. FF? Not so much. On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I have only one thing to say to that, 645d, 645z... Alrighty, I have two things to say to that. On 9/13/2014 3:25 AM, David Mann wrote: It would come down to lens support. Do Pentax currently manufacture a reasonable range of full-frame lenses? There's no point making a new camera that can only be used with old or third-party glass. Cheers, Dave -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 13/09/2014 9:46 PM, Ken Waller wrote: I'm not in a buy situation as I've kept all my pre digital lenses and continue to use them on my digitals. I didn't see a reason to sell just because I was into digital. Did you find that all of a sudden some lenses that you were meh about suddenly came to life? I always found the 77 to be a tad short for pretty much anything, but on the digital format it is lovely. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I certainly never saw the 1.5 factor as being a negative for the type of photography I do, although I hardly ever use my 17-28mmf3.5 SMC F fisheye on digital. Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor On 13/09/2014 9:46 PM, Ken Waller wrote: I'm not in a buy situation as I've kept all my pre digital lenses and continue to use them on my digitals. I didn't see a reason to sell just because I was into digital. Did you find that all of a sudden some lenses that you were meh about suddenly came to life? I always found the 77 to be a tad short for pretty much anything, but on the digital format it is lovely. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 13/09/2014 10:40 PM, Ken Waller wrote: I certainly never saw the 1.5 factor as being a negative for the type of photography I do, although I hardly ever use my 17-28mmf3.5 SMC F fisheye on digital. You do more telephoto than wide, don't you? bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
If dxomark is correct, the sigma 18-35 is the highest resolving zoom period and yeah its probably out-resolving the k-3, at least in the center. It is true that you want the sensor to out-resolve the lens in an ideal situation. Consider that with a bayer pattern you are losing resolution due to the CFA anyways. All those issues associated with bayer (moire,etc) go away as the density increases. Photosites are like buckets though. The smaller they are, the less rain they collect. DR is hurt and so is sensitivity. I think sensor technology has some ways to go on sensitivity, so I'm pretty sure they can keep making the photosites smaller as they remove more of the crap that is sitting on top of them without too much detrimental effect. Look at what the A7S is capable of with a 12mp sensor produced with modern sensor technology compared to say a D700. The current sony exmor sensors are not using the full area of the photosite that is possible for instance. Sony has a new BSI sensor for camera phones that pretty much utilizes the full photosite. It will be interesting to see when that scales up to much larger chips. The future is bright indeed. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:32 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Actually resolution unlike sharpness can be objectively measured. On 9/11/2014 1:26 PM, Jack Davis wrote: It's obviously all about marketing. Lens resolution is elusive and unique to each sample, therefore is as high as it's owner decides. IOW, they will find what they're looking for. Camera handling notwithstanding(???) Jack - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com To: PDML pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46:50 AM Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote: And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a significant step. Since the current 36-megapixel camersa already out-resolve most available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or no improvement in image quality. As John says, whether it's successful marketing or not is what counts. -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I think optics, as has always been the case, will be the limiting factor for most people. The cost and complexity of lenses required to meet the resolution demands of modern digital sensors is fairly staggering. Look at the hideous complexity of the sigma 18-35/1.8. Look at how huge the Otus 85mm is. And its cost. That's MF glass territory. This is why MF will win out in the end once again IMO for people looking for resolution because it has more possibilities. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: If dxomark is correct, the sigma 18-35 is the highest resolving zoom period and yeah its probably out-resolving the k-3, at least in the center. It is true that you want the sensor to out-resolve the lens in an ideal situation. Consider that with a bayer pattern you are losing resolution due to the CFA anyways. All those issues associated with bayer (moire,etc) go away as the density increases. Photosites are like buckets though. The smaller they are, the less rain they collect. DR is hurt and so is sensitivity. I think sensor technology has some ways to go on sensitivity, so I'm pretty sure they can keep making the photosites smaller as they remove more of the crap that is sitting on top of them without too much detrimental effect. Look at what the A7S is capable of with a 12mp sensor produced with modern sensor technology compared to say a D700. The current sony exmor sensors are not using the full area of the photosite that is possible for instance. Sony has a new BSI sensor for camera phones that pretty much utilizes the full photosite. It will be interesting to see when that scales up to much larger chips. The future is bright indeed. On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:32 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: Actually resolution unlike sharpness can be objectively measured. On 9/11/2014 1:26 PM, Jack Davis wrote: It's obviously all about marketing. Lens resolution is elusive and unique to each sample, therefore is as high as it's owner decides. IOW, they will find what they're looking for. Camera handling notwithstanding(???) Jack - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com To: PDML pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46:50 AM Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote: And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a significant step. Since the current 36-megapixel camersa already out-resolve most available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or no improvement in image quality. As John says, whether it's successful marketing or not is what counts. -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
AND ... it's available in Pentax mount. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/product/18-35mm-f18-dc-hsm-a I like the video too. On 9/12/2014 12:47 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: I'm seeing pretty impressive results from the K3 coupled with the Sigma 18-35/1.8 in studio. Editing shots from a session last week from a pretty loosely shot group portrait of 11 I found some moire in a small headpiece of fine netting. I'm not sure if the lens is out-resolving the sensor but it's probably close. Suffice to say it's impressive, it's always nice to have more data to work with but I'm not sure that it's of practical benefit. On 12 September 2014 08:14, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: steve harley wrote: on 2014-09-11 1:22 Larry Colen wrote P.J. Alling wrote: 46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of physics. That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3. did the math — K-3 has significantly higher pixel density, so it would be the one pushing the ragged edge … megapixels per square millimeter: 46 mp / 864 sq mm = 0.054 (that's only 54,000 pixels per square millimeter) vs 24 mp / 367 sq mm = 0.065 I really like the idea of judging sensors by pixel density rather than simple pixel count – this puts APS-C and FF sensors on equal footing. By most reports, the 36-megapixel cameras are pushing the ragged edge, so the 24MP APS-C cameras are over it (as would the 46MP sensor). At this point they really seem to be pushing pixel density to the point of uselessness. Filling up hard drives with bigger files that carry no image benefit. It's all marketing. But if it works, more power to 'em. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) II. With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable advancement. III. As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature of the pixels). Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence (eventually) cheaper. But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. (see I. above). [Nerd ON] IV. Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, while the absolute increase is. I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a good measure: 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately -16.5C to -15.5C. So, it obviously depends on the scale! Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K - 275 K, respectively. 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are considering. For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter either... E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets affected by this change. 3. Stan, with respect to your home-economy example. You are right, except for those cases, where there is an offset of fixed costs. E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000/mo. The reason is that the effective increase in the income that available for things other then the housing would be 50% (from 1000-800=200), and a comparable relative increase for the second person would be smaller (from 3000-800=2200 to 2500 is less than 15%). Effect of the lenses becoming the bottle-neck of the performance is similar to the fixed-cost offset described above. All these examples are just to support the point that one cannot just blindly use relative increase (percentage or factor) in all cases. [Nerd OFF] Thu Sep 11 09:45:58 EDT 2014 Darren Addy wrote: I'm not denying that there is an appropriate place to use percentages. It is especially useful in apples to apples comparisons. I'm just saying that comparing APS-C to full frame AND to a completely different era is apples to oranges, in my book. To go back to Mark's numbers, he's saying a 27% increase is insignificant except from a marketing standpoint. The new K-S1 is a 25% increase in megapixels over the past several years' 16MP models. Even ignoring the other technology improvements along the way, I think that 25% is a pretty significant increase. I can make is sound smaller by
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Yes, all very interesting. But it still doesn't answer the primary question. What is the likelihood Ricoh-Pentax is going to build a camera around this sensor? On 9/12/2014 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I. First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving lenses, one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the pixelated media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if the sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens. (The guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago in a different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP. In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses. (Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?) II. With respect to the increase in the sensor's MPs in question, - if we are talking about the technology advancement, - what is relevant is increase in the density of the pixels. Indeed, the density increased by a factor of 1.13 (=Sqrt(1.28)). What is true, is that the higher the starting density is, the harder it is to enhance it further. This applies to the recording media density (as in HDDs), as well as the sensors. So, from the SENSOR technology point of view, this is a valuable advancement. III. As for practical advantage of having such a sensor in the camera, - besides the possible one mentioned in I. above, - there might be some others. Just one example is the possible improvement in the optical stabilization (again due to discrete nature of the pixels). Also, ultimately, the availability of cameras with the high-resolution sensors can boost the efforts of producing (and even mass-producing) higher-resolution lenses, which make the more easily available and hence (eventually) cheaper. But I think the practical advantage (in terms of quality of the photos) of going from 5 to 7.8 MP is higher than that of going from 36 MP to 46 MP. (see I. above). [Nerd ON] IV. Sometimes percentage of the increase might not be a good measure, while the absolute increase is. I just wanted to give a few clear examples where the percentage is not a good measure: 1. A temperature increase of, say, 2 degrees F (1 degree C). Does it matter if it from 2 F to 4 F or from 34 F to 36 F? The corresponding percentages would be 100% and ~6%. And, of course, in Celcius, the equivalent would be ... well... 100% in the second place (from 1C to 2C), but I am not even sure what to say about the first case, when it is from approximately -16.5C to -15.5C. So, it obviously depends on the scale! Well, I agree, this example is not directly applicable to sensors, whose dimensions are using the absolute scale. And to make the comparison, I should've used the absolute temperature scale (Kelvin). In Kelvin, the changes would be from about 256.5 K to 257.5 K, and 274 K - 275 K, respectively. 2. Relevance of the change also depends on the effect that we are considering. For many physics processes that rely on the behavior of electrons, the relevant measure would be the relative change (on the absolute scale, in Kelvin). For many biological processes, the direct percentage change probably would not be a good measure. The absolute change wouldn't matter either... E.g. a change of a human body temperature from 37C (98.6F) to 38C (100.4) is unpleasant, but the same absolute change from 40C (104F) to 41C (105.8) (which would be smaller in percentage) can be lethal ou. So, this shows the relevance of the change to the process that gets affected by this change. 3. Stan, with respect to your home-economy example. You are right, except for those cases, where there is an offset of fixed costs. E.g. if the bare minimum cost of housing is, say $800 a month. Then for somebody earning $1000 a month, an extra $100 is more valuable then $300 for somebody who is earning $3000/mo. The reason is that the effective increase in the income that available for things other then the housing would be 50% (from 1000-800=200), and a comparable relative increase for the second person would be smaller (from 3000-800=2200 to 2500 is less than 15%). Effect of the lenses becoming the bottle-neck of the performance is similar to the fixed-cost offset described above. All these examples are just to support the point that one cannot just blindly use relative increase (percentage or factor) in all cases. [Nerd OFF] Thu Sep 11 09:45:58 EDT 2014 Darren Addy wrote: I'm not denying that there is an appropriate place to use percentages. It is especially useful in apples to apples comparisons. I'm just saying that comparing APS-C to full frame AND to a completely different era is apples to oranges, in my book. To go back to Mark's numbers, he's saying a 27% increase is insignificant except from a marketing standpoint. The new K-S1 is a 25% increase in megapixels over the past several
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
P.J. Alling wrote: 46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of physics. That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Comapred to the current 36-megapixel full-frame sensor, a 46 megapixel sensor represents in increase by a factor of about 1.27. So if you had an old 6-megapixel ist-D it would be equivalent to upgrading to a 7.6-megapixel camera. In other words, it's a silly marketing game. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
That's a funny way of looking at it. First of all, almost all change is incremental, but that doesn't mean it is insignifcant. If reducing things to percentage increase was a valid way of comparing things, then someone who went from bench pressing 460 lbs from 360 lbs shouldn't be any prouder of the accomplishment than someone who went from 60 lbs to 76 lbs. It's just a funny way to make comparisons, unless you are trying to purposely minimize accomplishment. I don't know a lot about sensor manufacturing (particularly Sony's way) but I don't think it is a stretch to say that sensors with smaller photosites are more challenging to manufacture than those with larger photosites. I haven't checked Larry's math, but it wouldn't surprise me if Sony first perfected their technique on an APS-C sized sensor before applying that same process to a larger sized sensor. I also don't think it is a stretch to say that once they have conquered that they might consider trying it on a medium format sensor. (Anybody do that math on what that might be?) All of that output required an imaging engine that can handle it, but we've seen that the latest can handle the 51MP filesizes of the 645z, so is should n't be surprising to see the smaller (than medium format) sensor sizes pushing the envelope to fill that range. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Comapred to the current 36-megapixel full-frame sensor, a 46 megapixel sensor represents in increase by a factor of about 1.27. So if you had an old 6-megapixel ist-D it would be equivalent to upgrading to a 7.6-megapixel camera. In other words, it's a silly marketing game. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 9/11/2014 6:33 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Comapred to the current 36-megapixel full-frame sensor, a 46 megapixel sensor represents in increase by a factor of about 1.27. So if you had an old 6-megapixel ist-D it would be equivalent to upgrading to a 7.6-megapixel camera. In other words, it's a silly marketing game. ... unless it's a *successful* marketing game, then it's not silly. -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a significant step. Jack - Original Message - From: John sesso...@earthlink.net To: PDML pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 6:07:45 AM Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor On 9/11/2014 6:33 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Comapred to the current 36-megapixel full-frame sensor, a 46 megapixel sensor represents in increase by a factor of about 1.27. So if you had an old 6-megapixel ist-D it would be equivalent to upgrading to a 7.6-megapixel camera. In other words, it's a silly marketing game. ... unless it's a *successful* marketing game, then it's not silly. -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: That's a funny way of looking at it. First of all, almost all change is incremental, but that doesn't mean it is insignifcant. If reducing things to percentage increase was a valid way of comparing things, then someone who went from bench pressing 460 lbs from 360 lbs shouldn't be any prouder of the accomplishment than someone who went from 60 lbs to 76 lbs. It's just a funny way to make comparisons, unless you are trying to purposely minimize accomplishment. I’ll leave aside Mark’s point, I don’t know enough to agree or disagree. But Darren, your notion of percentages as a bad thing is just wrong. Lets say I earn $100 an hour. Then I get a $100 raise, am now earning $200 an hour. You are earning $1000 an hour, and then you also get a $100 raise. So you are at $1100 an hour. We both get an added $100 an hour, but my increase was 100%, yours was only 10%. Don’t you think that percentages better reflect the perceived value in this case? Ask the buyer of a new $20,000 car how important a $2000 discount would be. Ask the buyer of a new $100,000 car how important a $2000 discount would be. There is a long history of trying to use numbers in various forms to represent perceived value of one sort or another. Most systems fall apart because our underlying value systems are not linear and cannot be fairly represented with a simple linear scale. Percentages do a pretty good job capturing some of that underlying non-linearity and I think Mark’s usage helps to provide a valid alternative perspective on this breaking news”. Log scales can be another useful tool… stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I'm not denying that there is an appropriate place to use percentages. It is especially useful in apples to apples comparisons. I'm just saying that comparing APS-C to full frame AND to a completely different era is apples to oranges, in my book. To go back to Mark's numbers, he's saying a 27% increase is insignificant except from a marketing standpoint. The new K-S1 is a 25% increase in megapixels over the past several years' 16MP models. Even ignoring the other technology improvements along the way, I think that 25% is a pretty significant increase. I can make is sound smaller by terming it a 1.25 factor if I want to minimize it. Feel free to disagree, but that's my opinion. I think that we may just be spoiled by seeing the flagship go up 50% from 16MP to 24MP. That's partly due to the disruption caused by no (really) new DSLR models during the Hoya to Ricoh transition. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Stanley Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: That's a funny way of looking at it. First of all, almost all change is incremental, but that doesn't mean it is insignifcant. If reducing things to percentage increase was a valid way of comparing things, then someone who went from bench pressing 460 lbs from 360 lbs shouldn't be any prouder of the accomplishment than someone who went from 60 lbs to 76 lbs. It's just a funny way to make comparisons, unless you are trying to purposely minimize accomplishment. I’ll leave aside Mark’s point, I don’t know enough to agree or disagree. But Darren, your notion of percentages as a bad thing is just wrong. Lets say I earn $100 an hour. Then I get a $100 raise, am now earning $200 an hour. You are earning $1000 an hour, and then you also get a $100 raise. So you are at $1100 an hour. We both get an added $100 an hour, but my increase was 100%, yours was only 10%. Don’t you think that percentages better reflect the perceived value in this case? Ask the buyer of a new $20,000 car how important a $2000 discount would be. Ask the buyer of a new $100,000 car how important a $2000 discount would be. There is a long history of trying to use numbers in various forms to represent perceived value of one sort or another. Most systems fall apart because our underlying value systems are not linear and cannot be fairly represented with a simple linear scale. Percentages do a pretty good job capturing some of that underlying non-linearity and I think Mark’s usage helps to provide a valid alternative perspective on this breaking news”. Log scales can be another useful tool… stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote: And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a significant step. Since the current 36-megapixel camersa already out-resolve most available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or no improvement in image quality. As John says, whether it's successful marketing or not is what counts. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
mark roberts wrote: Since the current 36-megapixel cameras already out-resolve most available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or no improvement in image quality. Of course you won't notice the difference on the web or 4x6 print. But remember way back when *all* our films had more resolving power than any of our lenses yet we sought finer-grained films. Why? Because they directly affect the result. To revisit an old analogy, it's like listening to brass on CD v LP. It's harsh on CD and clear on an old LP. The timbre, the nuances, are all clarified with greater detail. The CD satisfies most people. Same goes for a denser sensor. Better edge clarity, richer colors ... everything improves. Now, it may be at 92% - 95% top of the curve that makes no diff to the amateur. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
That is true, but I think that about the K-3 sensor as well, and most users seem to think that the K-5 produces better image quality at high ISO than the K-3. What I'd hope for in the future, more than most anything else, would effectively be, a K-5III with an improved ~16mp, (OK Pentax will probably stuff a 20mp sensor into it's next mid level camera), sensor and many of the K-3 improvements, (I'd also like to see them leave out a few of those improvements too), That won't happen, but it should. Pentax even as a division of Ricoh doesn't have the resources to do what Sony has done with the a7 mirrorless, three cameras with three distinct characters based on three different sensors. Currently Pentax seems to be doing that with the K-5IIs and K-3 still being in the line, but that will last only as long as the remaining stocks of K-5IIs cameras last. It's place will likely be filled with an improved K-50 with a 20mp sensor or an upgraded K-s1 with an improved control interface and maybe a higher Pixel count. Pentax can't afford to maintain four distinct Camera bodies in it's line indefinably. On 9/11/2014 3:22 AM, Larry Colen wrote: P.J. Alling wrote: 46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of physics. That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3. -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I think that it might well be more than a 28% change in file size, but I'm not sure at this point, everything even raw files are subject to some kind of compression these days. On 9/11/2014 10:46 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote: And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a significant step. Since the current 36-megapixel camersa already out-resolve most available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or no improvement in image quality. As John says, whether it's successful marketing or not is what counts. -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at close range. i would actually bet. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:57 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote: I think that it might well be more than a 28% change in file size, but I'm not sure at this point, everything even raw files are subject to some kind of compression these days. On 9/11/2014 10:46 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote: And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a significant step. Since the current 36-megapixel camersa already out-resolve most available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or no improvement in image quality. As John says, whether it's successful marketing or not is what counts. -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 11/09/2014 10:46 AM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: mark roberts wrote: Since the current 36-megapixel cameras already out-resolve most available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or no improvement in image quality. Of course you won't notice the difference on the web or 4x6 print. But remember way back when *all* our films had more resolving power than any of our lenses yet we sought finer-grained films. Why? Because they directly affect the result. To revisit an old analogy, it's like listening to brass on CD v LP. It's harsh on CD and clear on an old LP. The timbre, the nuances, are all clarified with greater detail. The CD satisfies most people. Same goes for a denser sensor. Better edge clarity, richer colors ... everything improves. Now, it may be at 92% - 95% top of the curve that makes no diff to the amateur. It's more likely that it will make no difference to the professional, but amateurs will debate it into the ground on various websites. Better specifications are all well and good, but if it doesn't translate into a meaningful quality increase, it's just numbers on paper. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
It's obviously all about marketing. Lens resolution is elusive and unique to each sample, therefore is as high as it's owner decides. IOW, they will find what they're looking for. Camera handling notwithstanding(???) Jack - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com To: PDML pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46:50 AM Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote: And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a significant step. Since the current 36-megapixel camersa already out-resolve most available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or no improvement in image quality. As John says, whether it's successful marketing or not is what counts. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Luka Knezevic-Strika lukastr...@gmail.com wrote: i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at close range. i would actually bet. And if the sensor's outresolving the lens, there won't BE any difference. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
You *want* your sensor to out-resolve the lens, people. Don't say it like it's a bad thing. I think that people are forgetting that if the sensor DOES NOT out-resolve the lens you theoretically have moire. This is why AA filters were necessary in the past, but as pixel pitch shrinks it becomes unnecessary. It is not that the problem of moire has disappeared, it is that the sensor over samples the image and eliminates most moire. This isn't a function of sensor size, but photosite size, which is why the Q can get away with no AA filter. This page is a nice demo (albeit at lower MP sizes than we are talking about): http://www.talkemount.com/showthread.php?t=387 You get the picture. (Also take note of his Conclusions) This example takes big jumps (1MP, 4MP, 16MP) so Luka's contention may be a good one. But put an 85mm Zeiss Otus at f/2.8 in front of the 36 MP and 46 MP sensor and I'd be interested in giving it a try. :) The point is that as sensors get better you have more headroom to improve you photography by *taking advantage* of better lenses. But there will probably be a point (particularly if you print large) at which you start to realize that some of your lenses are no longer passing muster. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Luka Knezevic-Strika lukastr...@gmail.com wrote: i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at close range. i would actually bet. And if the sensor's outresolving the lens, there won't BE any difference. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 9/10/2014 3:43 PM, Darren Addy wrote: and new line of Sony cameras using them in January? Reported... http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-no-other-new-camera-from-sony-at-photokina-sr5-new-generation-sensor-and-cameras-release-in-january/ This is of interest, of course, since Pentax uses Sony sensors. 46 MP is darn close to the 645z's 51MP, though the pixel pitch would be quite different between the two. Would be interesting to see what the performance difference between the two will be. I think it also goes without saying that Nikon will probably be using this sensor, once sufficient quanities are available. In any event. I'm sure that Sony is going to give themselves a good lead time in the market before making them available to others. Wonder what the diffraction limit will be on those cameras? Is there any indication whatsoever (reliable rumor or otherwise) that Ricoh-Pentax would be interested in building a DSLR around this sensor? I still *want* a full frame Pentax DSLR, but I'm no longer have any hope that it will happen within my lifetime. -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
on 2014-09-11 1:22 Larry Colen wrote P.J. Alling wrote: 46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of physics. That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3. did the math — K-3 has significantly higher pixel density, so it would be the one pushing the ragged edge … megapixels per square millimeter: 46 mp / 864 sq mm = 0.054 (that's only 54,000 pixels per square millimeter) vs 24 mp / 367 sq mm = 0.065 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
the sensor NEEDS to outresolve the lens significantly so that diagonal lines dont have any jaggies On 9/11/2014 2:09 PM, Darren Addy wrote: You *want* your sensor to out-resolve the lens, people. Don't say it like it's a bad thing. I think that people are forgetting that if the sensor DOES NOT out-resolve the lens you theoretically have moire. This is why AA filters were necessary in the past, but as pixel pitch shrinks it becomes unnecessary. It is not that the problem of moire has disappeared, it is that the sensor over samples the image and eliminates most moire. This isn't a function of sensor size, but photosite size, which is why the Q can get away with no AA filter. This page is a nice demo (albeit at lower MP sizes than we are talking about): http://www.talkemount.com/showthread.php?t=387 You get the picture. (Also take note of his Conclusions) This example takes big jumps (1MP, 4MP, 16MP) so Luka's contention may be a good one. But put an 85mm Zeiss Otus at f/2.8 in front of the 36 MP and 46 MP sensor and I'd be interested in giving it a try. :) The point is that as sensors get better you have more headroom to improve you photography by *taking advantage* of better lenses. But there will probably be a point (particularly if you print large) at which you start to realize that some of your lenses are no longer passing muster. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Luka Knezevic-Strika lukastr...@gmail.com wrote: i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at close range. i would actually bet. And if the sensor's outresolving the lens, there won't BE any difference. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 11 Sep 2014, at 14:36, Stanley Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: [...] Log scales can be another useful tool… My logs weigh more than your logs. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
steve harley wrote: on 2014-09-11 1:22 Larry Colen wrote P.J. Alling wrote: 46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of physics. That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3. did the math K-3 has significantly higher pixel density, so it would be the one pushing the ragged edge megapixels per square millimeter: 46 mp / 864 sq mm = 0.054 (that's only 54,000 pixels per square millimeter) vs 24 mp / 367 sq mm = 0.065 I really like the idea of judging sensors by pixel density rather than simple pixel count this puts APS-C and FF sensors on equal footing. By most reports, the 36-megapixel cameras are pushing the ragged edge, so the 24MP APS-C cameras are over it (as would the 46MP sensor). At this point they really seem to be pushing pixel density to the point of uselessness. Filling up hard drives with bigger files that carry no image benefit. It's all marketing. But if it works, more power to 'em. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
on 2014-09-11 15:12 JC OConnell wrote the sensor NEEDS to outresolve the lens significantly so that diagonal lines dont have any jaggies i'm not sure that's correct; a lens that underperforms the sensor should reduce moire, but a diagonal line projected very sharply onto a sensor should still pretty much anti-alias itself did anyone have problems with jaggies when using very sharp lenses on 8mp cameras? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I don't have any idea if John's point about diagonal lines is valid or not, but... did anyone have problems with jaggies when using very sharp lenses on 8mp cameras? ...i think that this question is irrelevant unless someone was answering the question with a camera that lacked an anti-alias filter. I doubt that there were any in 8MP days. On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:26 PM, steve harley p...@paper-ape.com wrote: on 2014-09-11 15:12 JC OConnell wrote the sensor NEEDS to outresolve the lens significantly so that diagonal lines dont have any jaggies i'm not sure that's correct; a lens that underperforms the sensor should reduce moire, but a diagonal line projected very sharply onto a sensor should still pretty much anti-alias itself did anyone have problems with jaggies when using very sharp lenses on 8mp cameras? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
on 2014-09-11 16:45 Darren Addy wrote did anyone have problems with jaggies when using very sharp lenses on 8mp cameras? ...i think that this question is irrelevant unless someone was answering the question with a camera that lacked an anti-alias filter. I doubt that there were any in 8MP days. more or less a hypothetical question however the use of anti-alias filters in the first place moots the premise — no matter how sharp the lens, an AA filter will make it under-resolve the sensor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Sent from my iPad On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:11 PM, Bob W-PDML p...@web-options.com wrote: On 11 Sep 2014, at 14:36, Stanley Halpin s...@stans-photography.info wrote: [...] Log scales can be another useful tool… My logs weigh more than your logs. B -- Ah, but my logs crackle and pop nicely when used to mull wine! stan PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
I'm seeing pretty impressive results from the K3 coupled with the Sigma 18-35/1.8 in studio. Editing shots from a session last week from a pretty loosely shot group portrait of 11 I found some moire in a small headpiece of fine netting. I'm not sure if the lens is out-resolving the sensor but it's probably close. Suffice to say it's impressive, it's always nice to have more data to work with but I'm not sure that it's of practical benefit. On 12 September 2014 08:14, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: steve harley wrote: on 2014-09-11 1:22 Larry Colen wrote P.J. Alling wrote: 46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of physics. That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3. did the math — K-3 has significantly higher pixel density, so it would be the one pushing the ragged edge … megapixels per square millimeter: 46 mp / 864 sq mm = 0.054 (that's only 54,000 pixels per square millimeter) vs 24 mp / 367 sq mm = 0.065 I really like the idea of judging sensors by pixel density rather than simple pixel count – this puts APS-C and FF sensors on equal footing. By most reports, the 36-megapixel cameras are pushing the ragged edge, so the 24MP APS-C cameras are over it (as would the 46MP sensor). At this point they really seem to be pushing pixel density to the point of uselessness. Filling up hard drives with bigger files that carry no image benefit. It's all marketing. But if it works, more power to 'em. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
Actually resolution unlike sharpness can be objectively measured. On 9/11/2014 1:26 PM, Jack Davis wrote: It's obviously all about marketing. Lens resolution is elusive and unique to each sample, therefore is as high as it's owner decides. IOW, they will find what they're looking for. Camera handling notwithstanding(???) Jack - Original Message - From: Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com To: PDML pdml@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46:50 AM Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote: And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a significant step. Since the current 36-megapixel camersa already out-resolve most available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or no improvement in image quality. As John says, whether it's successful marketing or not is what counts. -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
and new line of Sony cameras using them in January? Reported... http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-no-other-new-camera-from-sony-at-photokina-sr5-new-generation-sensor-and-cameras-release-in-january/ This is of interest, of course, since Pentax uses Sony sensors. 46 MP is darn close to the 645z's 51MP, though the pixel pitch would be quite different between the two. Would be interesting to see what the performance difference between the two will be. I think it also goes without saying that Nikon will probably be using this sensor, once sufficient quanities are available. In any event. I'm sure that Sony is going to give themselves a good lead time in the market before making them available to others. Wonder what the diffraction limit will be on those cameras? -- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of physics. On 9/10/2014 3:43 PM, Darren Addy wrote: and new line of Sony cameras using them in January? Reported... http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-no-other-new-camera-from-sony-at-photokina-sr5-new-generation-sensor-and-cameras-release-in-january/ This is of interest, of course, since Pentax uses Sony sensors. 46 MP is darn close to the 645z's 51MP, though the pixel pitch would be quite different between the two. Would be interesting to see what the performance difference between the two will be. I think it also goes without saying that Nikon will probably be using this sensor, once sufficient quanities are available. In any event. I'm sure that Sony is going to give themselves a good lead time in the market before making them available to others. Wonder what the diffraction limit will be on those cameras? -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
