Pentax FF Dead, Maybe

My original EI2000 2.25MP would print at A4 (21.5 x 15)mm 300dpi no bother viewed from the right distance. Approx 2 to 3 feet. So where vaards gets his 18MP for 10x15 (post card size) from I don't know.
CHEERS Vic

Unit confusion alert!

How about.....

"We're Rubbish at Listening!" .....

for starters

Perhaps they could just slightly modify one
already in use







-

--

He probably meant 10 by 15 inches, just a slip of the keyboard.

I think that I can hear the rustling of the contract being drawn up already Algi

What we really need is ff to become cheap enough for the average enthusiast to buy. It would have to be small enough and with a supply of reasonable lenses. The price would come down the more they sold so moving from apsc to ff would be a natural progression - ff would become the 'norm' for us.

I don't see why. A 300mm lens in APC is exactly the same lens as in FF.
It only seems to be a 450mm lens in APC , because the APC sensor registers only the centre part pf the image
If you crop your 300mm FF Picture to APC size your back to 450mm.
You can do this in the camera or in software.
However If you like wide angle shots, then the FF has the instant advantage. A 15mm lens on APC does show you less than on FF.
I think, people are being brainwashed by manufacturers who are pushing smaller than FF formats.

Any complaint about FF is completely absurd. FF is always better than APC or similar.

This is like saying in the film camera days, 35mm is better than 6 x 9 or half or full plate. The larger size is always better.
The same goes for digital.
No question.

Regards, Horst

There are many questions and ifs and buts about it though. The first one is defining what we mean by "better".

For example, the crop factor means APS-C is better than FF for sports and nature shots. Our long lenses are even longer and if that's what we want, then APS-C is better.

Our cameras are more compact than FF, so for travel it could be argued that APS-C is better.

As for film, 35mm is much better than 6x9cm or half or full plate. More compact, more manageable, more versatile, faster to use, the list goes on.

Larger is not always better.

I think these days for many jobs 300dpi may be more than needed. I've read that 240 is commonly used, even as low as 180 can be fine for certain situations. I guess at greater viewing distances you may get away with less as the eye can't resolve the detail anyway.

My FOTO.com big posters are obviously upscaled by some method, but because you stand back to see them you probably don't need all that high a dpi figure. Take a look at some billboard posters which look stunning from a distance - when you get up close they are made up of great big dots which look terrible.

In relation to the FF issue, and the decision for people - its not a straight megapixel equation really - megapixels on the sensor is supposed to relate directly to maximum output size. But you can get 24mp on an APS-C and the same on a FF - people will still say the FF is 'better quality'. What I think needs to be more clearly defined is what precisely these 'better qualities' consist of.

[quote:3496ace15f="Horst"]I can buy an argument that FF should provide better dynamic range and noise performance unless the pixel count goes to absurd levels, offers a nicer viewfinder and provides better control over depth of field.

But I can't agree larger size is always better. Read the number of posts by people who buy larger cameras with their larger lenses and then end up barely using them because they're too big to lug around, and it then becomes clear that FF cameras are compromises just like any other.

You go for the best mix of price, quality, size and features that suits you best. And for many people, it is not automatically correct the FF is always going to be better.

My eyes can clearly see the difference between 150ppi and 300ppi on a 6"x4" print. That's image resolution you're confusing ppi and dpi Nigel.

dpi refers to the printer resolution, how many dots of ink in an inch. Normally my printer prints at 2880dpi, but the original image is still 300ppi.

He was right then !!!

Luckily I don't do any of my own printing

Is it not true though that for many applications 300ppi would not be needed?

72ppi for projection and monitor (maybe 96ppi),300ppi for printing and publications such as books and magazines.

However, check the requirements from wherever you are sending the images to, as these may differ for optimum results.

don't be embarrassed about not doing your own printing, through decades of bitter experience I have realised its much cheaper and better to have experts do it

I think still for ultimate portability a 35mm system with, let's say a Super A and 50mm M lens, is the most fun to have as it's just great really! Well, that's my idea of fun, but I have odd ideas......

I like Pentax APSC, they have the size right I think. A k5 is not actually that much bigger than a CSC with a standard lens.