subject:"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  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 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" 
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" 
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

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  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

2014-09-14 Thread Ken Waller


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" 

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" 
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

2014-09-14 Thread Darren Addy

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM, JC OConnell  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

2014-09-14 Thread Darren Addy

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  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" 
> 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


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" 
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

2014-09-14 Thread Ken Waller


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" 

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

2014-09-14 Thread Toralf Lund

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.

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

2014-09-14 Thread Larry Colen

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.

Nyquist rate times the bayer pattern.

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

2014-09-14 Thread Toralf Lund


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  
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

2014-09-14 Thread Igor PDML-StR

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 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

2014-09-13 Thread Bill


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

2014-09-13 Thread Ken Waller

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" 

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

2014-09-13 Thread Bill


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

2014-09-13 Thread Ken Waller

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" 

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  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" 


Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor


A quick search at B&H 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 


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

2014-09-13 Thread Bruce Walker

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  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" 
> Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
>
>> A quick search at B&H 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 
>> 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

2014-09-13 Thread Ken Waller


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" 

Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor



A quick search at B&H 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  
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  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

Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor

2014-09-13 Thread Bruce Walker

A quick search at B&H 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  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  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

Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor

2014-09-13 Thread Larry Colen




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

2014-09-13 Thread P.J. Alling

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

2014-09-13 Thread P.J. Alling


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  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 ther

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  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

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

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  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%).
>>
>> Eff

Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor

2014-09-13 Thread Boris Liberman

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  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  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

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  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

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  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

2014-09-13 Thread Larry Colen




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

No point? The A7 did pretty well.

On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 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  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 bec

Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor

2014-09-13 Thread David Mann

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  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
>> bli

Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor

2014-09-12 Thread John


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

2014-09-12 Thread Igor PDML-StR




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

2014-09-12 Thread John


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  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

2014-09-12 Thread Zos Xavius

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  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  
> 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" 
>>> To: "PDML" 
>>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46:50 AM
>>> Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
>>>
>>> Jack Davis  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

2014-09-12 Thread Zos Xavius

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  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" 
>> To: "PDML" 
>> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor
>>
>> Jack Davis  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

2014-09-11 Thread P.J. Alling


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" 
To: "PDML" 
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46:50 AM
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor

Jack Davis  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

2014-09-11 Thread Rob Studdert

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  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

2014-09-11 Thread Stan Halpin



Sent from my iPad

> On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:11 PM, Bob W-PDML  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 11 Sep 2014, at 14:36, "Stanley Halpin"  
>> 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

2014-09-11 Thread steve harley


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

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  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

2014-09-11 Thread steve harley


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

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

2014-09-11 Thread Bob W-PDML


> On 11 Sep 2014, at 14:36, "Stanley Halpin"  
> 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

2014-09-11 Thread JC OConnell

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
 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.

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

2014-09-11 Thread steve harley


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

2014-09-11 Thread John


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

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
 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.
>
> 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

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.

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

2014-09-11 Thread Jack Davis

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" 
To: "PDML" 
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:46:50 AM
Subject: Re: "100% reliable rumor" 46MP Sony FF Sensor

Jack Davis  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

2014-09-11 Thread Bill


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

2014-09-11 Thread Luka Knezevic-Strika

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  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  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

2014-09-11 Thread P.J. Alling

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  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

2014-09-11 Thread P.J. Alling

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

2014-09-11 Thread Collin Brendemuehl

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

Jack Davis  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

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
 wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Darren Addy  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

2014-09-11 Thread Stanley Halpin

On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Darren Addy  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

2014-09-11 Thread Jack Davis

And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a 
significant step.

Jack

- Original Message -
From: "John" 
To: "PDML" 
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

2014-09-11 Thread John


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

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
 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