Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-18-2011, 10:02 AM   #46
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
I don't think it is fair to blame the camera body though, when all it is doing is showing up technical weaknesses in other parts of the optical system.
This is dubious. My FA43 just begs to be stopped down to at least f/2.2. But this is not so with the FA*85. One of the reasons it commands a good price is its ability to deliver acceptable sharpness even wide open.

The shot of your dog is exactly what the FA43 wide open on the K-5 will look like, based on my own experience as well. While not unbearable, the softness is apparent (By the way, this doesn't stop the FA43 from being a great lens).

If the FA43 were on the K200D or K-x, the softness wouldn't be improved much. But as we have seen, with the FA*85 or Sigma 85, it is. That's because in the case of the 85s, even wide open, the lens isn't the limiting factor.

04-18-2011, 10:13 AM   #47
Forum Member
LeChuck's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tucson, AZ
Photos: Albums
Posts: 94
It is most likely that on a sensor of the resolution found in the K5, the lens *becomes* the limiting factor, and even more so wide open. You can't expect lenses to continue to resolve more and more details to match newer, higher resolution sensors.

In addition, if you read reviews, you will see that camera makers often use a more conservative approach with image processing on their higher end cameras, which will often appear "softer" before post-processing, but can take a lot more post-processing than images from lower-end cameras. After that...you takes your choice...

Too much pixel-peeping isn't good for you
04-18-2011, 12:31 PM   #48
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,452
My FA43 is quite sharp at f/1.9, DSims...
04-18-2011, 12:44 PM   #49
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Interesting.... Do you work in RAW or JPG?

The reason I ask is mainly where I work in RAW exclusively and I can say without a doubt that the K-5 produces consistently better files. However... they are not the same systems either, and I've found that tapping into that extra power does not equate an automatic go as one may expect upon changing systems...
I use RAW 90% of the time. I just processed these in ACDSee Pro 4 last night (since I am testing it) and performed optimal sharpening on both images. The results were the same - it did not boost either image. SR is a possible culprit, even though it's supposed to be better on the K-5. It could be turned off sometimes if that proves to be the case. But using a tripod is often impossible or impractical, like in a dynamic portrait shoot such as Outsider is doing.

04-18-2011, 10:02 PM   #50
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
My FA43 is quite sharp at f/1.9, DSims...
The FA43 has a noticeable improvement in IQ when stopped down slightly. I'm not comparing it to other lenses so much as comparing it to itself. I'd be willing to be that yours shows a significant improvement when stopped down as well. As you've no-doubt noticed your FA31 and FA77 are not this way - wide open is nearly as good as stopped down by 2/3 stop.

My FA43 seems to be a good, representative copy. Many others have reported similar experiences.
04-18-2011, 10:10 PM   #51
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
All my FA limiteds are also sharp wide open. The FA 43 is no exception.
But realistically I don't often need that kind of aperture and so stopping down is a depth-of-field necessity for me rather than a sharpness issue.
04-18-2011, 10:14 PM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,452
Oh, I definitely agree that it's sharper at f/2.2, but it's objectively already quite sharp at f/1.9.

An example at f/1.9:



At f/2:



At f/2.2:

04-18-2011, 10:41 PM   #53
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
Oh, I definitely agree that it's sharper at f/2.2, but it's objectively already quite sharp at f/1.9.
So I think we actually agree on this. What I forgot to add was that I wouldn't shoot my FA43 faster than f/2.2 without a really good reason. (This is because I'd know I could've got an image that met my standards (it's not only sharpness that looks better to me) merely by slightly stopping down the shot).

I guess it's a little like the FA35/2 I had - some people were happy using it wide open, but the image degraded too much for me faster than f/2.5. I doubt our copies were significantly different - I think we just had different standards for how the images should look.

All your shots are really nice, by the way. But if I had taken the f/2 shot I'd be saying to myself "I really like that shot - I only wish I'd stopped down a little to better show that great rendering I love in the FA43!" (assuming the shooting conditions would have allowed me to do so by making other adjustments, such as the ISO). Because let's face it - few if any lenses can match the image (foreground especially) of an FA43 when well stopped down!

04-18-2011, 11:48 PM   #54
Site Supporter




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,913
QuoteOriginally posted by dgaies Quote
I don't know, the skin looks a bit plasticky in that shot
That's only bad makeup !

Last edited by Schraubstock; 04-19-2011 at 12:11 AM.
04-19-2011, 07:50 AM   #55
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: La Crescenta, CA
Posts: 7,452
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
So I think we actually agree on this. What I forgot to add was that I wouldn't shoot my FA43 faster than f/2.2 without a really good reason. (This is because I'd know I could've got an image that met my standards (it's not only sharpness that looks better to me) merely by slightly stopping down the shot).

I guess it's a little like the FA35/2 I had - some people were happy using it wide open, but the image degraded too much for me faster than f/2.5. I doubt our copies were significantly different - I think we just had different standards for how the images should look.

All your shots are really nice, by the way. But if I had taken the f/2 shot I'd be saying to myself "I really like that shot - I only wish I'd stopped down a little to better show that great rendering I love in the FA43!" (assuming the shooting conditions would have allowed me to do so by making other adjustments, such as the ISO). Because let's face it - few if any lenses can match the image (foreground especially) of an FA43 when well stopped down!
Fair enough. The f/2 shot was taken in a moving car, so I needed pretty much as fast a shutter speed as I could get.
04-19-2011, 08:41 AM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
outsider:
You might just be seeing the effects of more megapixels. I noticed this when I went from the K10D to K20D as well, though that also had the effect from a stronger AA filter. Pixel Peeped K10D shots were sharper than the K20D.

Are you reducing MP from the K-5 to match your K-x when doing comparisons?
04-19-2011, 10:16 AM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by LeChuck Quote
Too much pixel-peeping isn't good for you
Actually, more than anything else, it's the K-5 that's "inspired" me to not pixel peep too much (which is a good thing).
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, contrast, dslr, eye, images, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k-x, k5, pentax k-5, settings
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
damaged files? what is wrong with my images? pete_pf Pentax DSLR Discussion 63 10-27-2011 01:14 PM
RAW DNG Shots with Wrong White Balance Settings nstocke Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 8 09-10-2010 02:36 AM
upload raw images WTurnerphotography Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 03-19-2010 11:25 AM
RAW duplicate images - saving as RAW files jpzk Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 17 02-15-2010 07:01 PM
DxO doesn't correct images/ Am I doing sth. wrong? Egg Salad Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 9 01-28-2010 05:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:12 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top