What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
Phil A Martin
Phil A Martin Veteran Member • Posts: 6,349
Re: What happened to the FA 21 Limited?

James O'Neill wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

James O'Neill wrote:

There are 3 groups of possible customer. Existing K1 users. Non-FF K-mount users moving up to FF. Outside of K1 and K3-iii owners there is a choice go stay APS-C or go FF, and the K3-iii offers better high ISO, better AF, better wifi, and faster FPS in a more portable package without needing to the change any lenses. The K1 offers a tilting screen, built in GPS and the last word in image quality - though this is more in theory than leaping out of the prints.

Have you compared prints between the K1ii and the K3iii and if so, at what size?

I don't have a K3-iii

So you mean you don't have a K1ii, only a K1?

so I can't take two identical pictures to compare but...

However if put my DFA* 85 on the K1 and take a shot, and then swap the body to the K3-iii , and take another shot, it's sensor is 2/3 the width and 2/3 the height so 4/9ths of the area I've thrown away 56% of the image. If I replace the lens with one of a similar quality which gets me roughly the original angle of view, say the DFA* 50, the crop sensor camera is still digitizing less information using fewer pixels.
The laws of physics are ever-so-straight forward Or so you'd think.

I've got a K5-iiS and a K1, I previously had the original K5, the K7, K10D and *ist-D, and an Optio 430-RS, plus a canon compact I used to use for diving and various mobile phone cameras. It's a challenge to tell the pictures apart under normal viewing conditions. A3 prints from the *ist-D hold their own.

I put the parts of a panorama I shot on the K1 through adobe's super-res function, and you could zoom in on the screen and see stuff which was impossible to make out before. Since my roll paper is 210mm wide (A4 size even though my printer will take A3) I printed the Pano at 800mmx210mm even with a jewellers eyeglass I couldn't see detail in the enhanced print which was visible in the unenhanced pictures. I could have halved the resolution and got the same print.

So the bottom line is the K5 has better quality images than most of us will ever need the K3-iii is better, and the K1 even better still. The bit I underlined is because beyond some threshold, it gets harder and harder to see. The reason to get a new camera isn't better digitization of the image (unless you shoot at very high ISO) but because all the stuff the camera does helps you to get shots you wouldn't have tried to get before (or would have usually failed)

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow