Macro Reproduction Ratios on APSC.


Algernon

Link Posted 06/04/2016 - 09:52
What will be the difference then between a K-1 shot and a K-5 shot pixel peeped?

Answer: They will be identical

I'm the original pixel peeper from the film era I used to use a powerful microfiche magnifier/viewer to look at negatives. There used to be a lot of detail that was too fine to ever show up on a print and 35mm showed far superior detail to my 6x7 cameras at peep level....... but when printed the 35mm was very poor in comparison and had a stop less of tone on the Ansel Adams Zone Scale

--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

Darkmunk

Link Posted 06/04/2016 - 10:13
Quote:
Answer: They will be identical

Exactly. They have the same pitch, so the display of the object will be the same. How it fills the frame will be different.
If you can fill the frame of a large sensor, then you are definitley onto a winner, with creamy tones and just pure scale!
But, the bottom line: I shoot small macro (5mm) on my K5, not the 645.
Facebook Page
Plymouth Photographer

Algernon

Link Posted 06/04/2016 - 10:41
That's why bellows for Hasselblads weren't very popular.

From a results POV a lot of keen macro enthusiasts would want to see stacked shots before deciding on how good a lens/system performs.

Moire is also a big concern on the eyes of flies etc.

--
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi
Last Edited by Algernon on 06/04/2016 - 10:45

Daronl

Link Posted 07/04/2016 - 10:51
Common misconception; Surely, all that changes on a APS C is an image that is cropped in comparison to the same image on a full frame which will be exactly the same except the field of view covers a largerarea (FF).

Consider the following: If you mount a 100 mm lens on an FF and a tripod and photograph a fixed object at a fixed length then you put the same lens on an APSc body on the same tripod, shooting the same object at the same shooting distance nothing; is magnified it is just that the cropped sensor has a narrower field of view.

The restricted field of view simply crops out the background but the subject's actual image size on both sensors is the same.

A test I have carried out: Put an FF lens on an FF camera and take a photo of a "brick in a wall" then switch to crop mode and do it again and there should be no difference in the size of the brick on the sensor or the quality if you check the image on actual pixel view in Photoshop.

It is a fact that the FF image takes in a bigger area of brickwork then the cropped sensor but on the sensor the bricks are the same size (in pixels)

When you get your hands on the K1 FF you can carry out that test easily by placing the camera, lens and Tripod at a fixed distance and taking the image in FF then cropped mode: Inspection at actual pixel size in PS will demonstrate that the bricks are the same size on both (same pixel area)

A 1:1 macro lens will put a 1/2" insect on any sensor (cropped or full frame ) at 1/2" ie; actual size

So if you are predominantly a wildlife photographer (like me) which invariably results in a high percentage of images being cropped, then unless you can fill the FF Sensor with the subject , and remember the limitation here is how close you can get to the subject (nothing to do with the lens you use) then you might as well use a APSc

If you recall an article linked on PU some time ago ( Is Pentax the new Superhero) where a K3 II APSC was tested against a Nikon D810 (FF); the conclusions from the reviewer was the K3II was as good if not better from an IQ point of view than the D810.

The fact is, if the pixel (photo-site) has a fixed "diameter" so if you crop the sensor you don't change the pixel size so the quality remains the same.

As I said above: If you crop a FF image in post processing you might as well have used a APSc image because the camera does it for you.
Daronl
Last Edited by Daronl on 07/04/2016 - 11:02
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.