Images made with K20D - Page 3

jscoby05 · 01-14-2008, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by mattedm

Hmmm, the leaked pictures of K200 show a silver shutter release. I think you may of just spotted the UFO! Lends credence to the pics being taken by a K20d too.

Thanks for the humor. I was thinking of the GX20 when I said that. Don't I feel stupid...

mutley · 01-14-2008, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by feronovak

Exaclty same thing happened with k10d. early leak of k10d images, terrible VPN even with iso 800 ...

And, the K10D still has VPN.

After so many months of ignoring and not acknowledging the existence of VPN, Pentax makes another camera with VPN.

They, and the beta testers must really assume its no big deal as this was January 11 firmware, and introduction is Jan. 24.

Why can't they just understand what causes the banding, and not accept a design until its completely eliminated. Gordon B. Goode came up with some plausible ways to initially be sure there won't be VPN in the first place, without using firmware tweaks to overcome a design/hardware issue.

VPN should have been a given for the K20HD not to have. Color noise as well. Even the D300 & D3 have solved that issue at 6400 without additional in-camera noise reduction. Pentax knows this. Luminance noise at 6400 is not as big a deal, and is expected.

blwnhr · 01-14-2008, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by ricardobeat

And come on, if the K10D does 5fps they surely won't degrade it.

K10D only has 3fps.

feronovak · 01-14-2008, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by mutley

And, the K10D still has VPN.

After so many months of ignoring and not acknowledging the existence of VPN, Pentax makes another camera with VPN.

They, and the beta testers must really assume its no big deal as this was January 11 firmware, and introduction is Jan. 24.

Why can't they just understand what causes the banding, and not accept a design until its completely eliminated. Gordon B. Goode came up with some plausible ways to initially be sure there won't be VPN in the first place, without using firmware tweaks to overcome a design/hardware issue.

VPN should have been a given for the K20HD not to have.

Dont take me wrong but I dont have any problems with VPN:

1. I dont like shooting iso 1600
2. I am not pixel maniac

I have used k10d for various shootouts (weddings, company party, landscape) and I simply dont have that problem ... Is there is such VPN on k20d with iso 6400 I would consider it normal. Frankly I am more scared of buying 16-50mm and finding out that I bought lemon

Kro77 · 01-14-2008, 07:08 PM

Silly question, as this is more about those swanky pentax bags.. anyone think those will be coming out any time soon?

WendyB · 01-14-2008, 08:10 PM

Image Fingerprints do not reflect the beta, they reflect a Fingerprint stamp of a k100D

ogl · 01-14-2008, 08:28 PM

If it's true. Very interesting colors, a bit specific and it's CMOS of course

and good ISO6400.

But there is banding at the last photo -

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/4251/imgp0310gw3.jpg
What is ISO?

I think that it's jpeg out of camera. Very good DR. IMO.
But too small pictures.

**roentarre** · 01-14-2008, 08:35 PM

Really CMOS smoothed out texture and skin tone from the sample shots - no more film grain like appearance. But this is really not working in my favour as I prefer a pentax camera with its own unique image rendering instead of being too close to Canon quality.

The high ISO performance is a little scary to look at though.

Thanks for posting these shots hehe

*SCGushue* · 01-14-2008, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by mattdm

I'm going to be the first to say it, but please don't shoot me. The high-ISO pictures totally have clear vertical pattern noise. We're never going to hear the end of it on the forums.

I wouldn't be concerned about VPN yet. First, contrary to many opinions, it is in fact largely a result of under-exposure and little else. Not pretty... but can be generally beeliminated with spot on exposure.

I think overall that these images, probably unenhanced, show very good dynamic range. The skies are clearly NOT blown out and detail still seems to be rendered in the shadows. Typical of Pentax the images look about 1/2 to 1 stop underexposed. That said, high key sand will have a propensity for underexposing the image via meter bias.
Then again, the PROS there should have made said compensation on the fly

Color saturation and contrast is simply wonderful. What one should expect from DA* lenses. Yes?

Stephen

*SCGushue* · 01-14-2008, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by roentarre

Really CMOS smoothed out texture and skin tone from the sample shots - no more film grain like appearance. But this is really not working in my favour as I prefer a pentax camera with its own unique image rendering instead of being too close to Canon quality.

The high ISO performance is a little scary to look at though.

Thanks for posting these shots hehe

Hi James,

We really don't know how badly those grainy VPN iamges were underexposed.

Furthermore, we don't know if they were taken by some mystery modality that has yet to be explained.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but in Pentax's defense, only Pentax has the right words to say and they are not talking quite yet.

Take the pictures at face value but to judge them without EXIF really doesn't do anyone any favors.

Stephen

nosnoop · 01-14-2008, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by WendyB

Image Fingerprints do not reflect the beta, they reflect a Fingerprint stamp of a k100D

What does that mean? What is an image fingerprints? Do you mean you can identify the camera model from the image alone without the exif? Haven't heard of it before.

*skamaraju* · 01-14-2008, 09:17 PM

I think it is called 'Signature Image' too. Each Camera brand has one.

mattdm · 01-14-2008, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by SCGushue

I wouldn't be concerned about VPN yet. First, contrary to many opinions, it is in fact largely a result of under-exposure and little else. Not pretty... but can be generally beeliminated with spot on exposure.

As I've noted elsewhere, this makes it hard to take high ISO pictures with several stops of dynamic range, particularly where you need all the sensitivity you can get to get a naturally-light subject correctly exposed and there's even darker areas in the scene.

But again, I only have significant problems (noticeable without pixel-peeping) at ISO 1600 on the K10D -- even 1250 is much improved. If that holds true on the new camera but the practical limit is pushed up to ISO 5000, you sure won't hear me complaining.

ricardobeat · 01-14-2008, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by blwnhr

K10D only has 3fps.

Oops. Maybe I'm a bit dreamy?

I think I never paid too much attention to the specs.. the GX-10 fires way faster than the K100, considering the latter does 2.5 to 2.8 fps according to reviews, I thought it was around 5 fps. I'll try to measure it someday.

anyway those 3 fps are more than fast enough for me :]

**roentarre** · 01-14-2008, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by SCGushue

Hi James,

We really don't know how badly those grainy VPN iamges were underexposed. Furthermore, we don't know if they were taken by some mystery modality that has yet to be explained. A picture is worth a thousand words, but in Pentax's defense, only Pentax has the right words to say and they are not talking quite yet.

Take the pictures at face value but to judge them without EXIF really doesn't do anyone any favors.

Stephen

Yes, Stephen. You are right. It is not the end til the fat lady sings...

Just the overall look of the images are rather silky smooth with beautiful colour resembling a lot of my shots from canon ones ...

You are right about the sky not being blown out either. Maybe all the pentax lenses I have might do very well on the new sensor