Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-17-2011, 12:40 PM   #16
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 672
A good range is definitely needed. The K5 is an amazing crop sensor that way (many others, for that matter). It's very handy if you're forced to underexpose due to conditions, and you can bring some back. For me, I'm shooting at higher ISOs than 400 95% of the time. The difference is negligible. But hopefully Pentax can grow off of this success.

04-17-2011, 01:13 PM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 573
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
All of a sudden DR range is less important....to Canon and Nikon shooters....isn't that amazing?
Nikon shooters have the D7000 which is virtually the same DR as the K5.

DR might become less important to some Pentaxians when the next generation of FF sensors hits too.

I'm no expert, are all of these shoot 5 ev stops underexposed and slide exposure examples actually showing DR? I thought DR was the difference between the darkest and the lightest thing displayed in a photo at one ev level. The amount you can push the K5 and D7000 files is pretty cool and handy. Definitely better than the 5D which bands when pushed.

In the Flickr example of the K5 vs 5d, Pentax K5 vs Canon 5D II - Collage 03 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! I see no difference in DR in the properly exposed shot for both camera. I see better resolution on the part of the 5D and colors I prefer on the K5, but DR seems a tossup.

So I guess my point is this if a camera offers better DR shouldn't a photo look different out of the camera with no exposure tweaking than a camera with less DR as is the case of the K5 vs 5D according to DxO. Or is it a matter of DR is good, but it takes a greater amount of DR difference between cameras before we readily see it in images straight out of the camera. I can tell the difference between film and digital easily, whereas the top digital DR capable vs a lesser DR capable digital doesn't seem that much.

Am I alone in thinking this?
04-17-2011, 01:24 PM   #18
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by aurele Quote
well, obviously the 5D offer more detaille, thank to the FF i guess ... However the K5 is doing very very well. Kind of good to know
Sure, to some extent. To have the same detail on an APS/C sensor, a lens has to do 150% of the linear resolution. However, that Zeiss should do it, I'd think. I know my 100mm f2.8 is sharp to the limits of resolution of the sensor, as is my 35mm F2. (at least beyond Nyquist). So I'm not sure what's going on with the detail in the K-5 images there.
04-17-2011, 01:26 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote

I used to think that it only appealed to landscape shooting, and that this was it came down too. However... I've recently learned that shadow recovery can be just as powerful an asset in portrait shooting also.
Not just shadow recovery, either. The dynamic range and the range of control you have over the image make a HUGE difference, IMO.

04-17-2011, 01:32 PM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 672
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
Sure, to some extent. To have the same detail on an APS/C sensor, a lens has to do 150% of the linear resolution. However, that Zeiss should do it, I'd think. I know my 100mm f2.8 is sharp to the limits of resolution of the sensor, as is my 35mm F2. (at least beyond Nyquist). So I'm not sure what's going on with the detail in the K-5 images there.
Zeiss and Zeiss Jena is not always comparable from what I've heard.
04-17-2011, 01:38 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by RyanW Quote
I'm no expert, are all of these shoot 5 ev stops underexposed and slide exposure examples actually showing DR?
Yes.

QuoteQuote:
I thought DR was the difference between the darkest and the lightest thing displayed in a photo at one ev level.
"Dynamic Range" can mean different things in different context. I can refer to the dynamic range of a jpg (which is lower) without referring to the dynamic range of the raw file it was developed from. I can talk about the dynamic range of a print (which is still lower) without talking about the dynamic range of the jpg it was printed from. In the K-5 sensor, we're talking about the range of information recorded at a given EV. This allows you to decide which information will end up in the jpg, or allow you to compress the dynamic range of the RAW file so it fits in the smaller dynamic range of the jpg; if you don't capture that information to begin with, you don't have that option later.


QuoteQuote:
So I guess my point is this if a camera offers better DR shouldn't a photo look different out of the camera with no exposure tweaking than a camera with less DR as is the case of the K5 vs 5D according to DxO. Or is it a matter of DR is good, but it takes a greater amount of DR difference between cameras before we readily see it in images straight out of the camera. I can tell the difference between film and digital easily, whereas the top digital DR capable vs a lesser DR capable digital doesn't seem that much.

Am I alone in thinking this?
If you calibrated your system to show the entire dynamic range of the K-5 images, and used *that calibration* to display the Canon raw files, you'd see a radical difference. Every camera has a profile that Adobe Camera Raw (and other converters) use to produce images we can view on the screen (if you looked at unprocessed images from a Bayer sensor, you'd be very confused); this tends to normalize their appearance somewhat. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the manufacturer doesn't know whether you're viewing the images on an old LCD with 80:1 contrast, or a new one with much higher contrast - the image you see on your screen is limited to the dynamic range of your monitor, is what I mean. So the end result is this: Unless you calibrate your system for ONE, then see the OTHER, you're not likely to notice a significant difference in the "OOC" images.
04-17-2011, 01:42 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Rory Quote
Zeiss and Zeiss Jena is not always comparable from what I've heard.
Yeah, you're right. I think the Jena may be lacking the T* coatings, IIRC. I was thinking immediately that he was using one of the ZK T* lenses. Good catch.
04-17-2011, 03:48 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Mar 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 214
Original Poster
I didn't do this comparison, I found it on Flickr. Either way, it's very impressive.

04-17-2011, 04:07 PM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,773
I'm just a Squirrel shooter, when you guys "go technical" I get lost pretty fast, but I know what I see, and the K5 has better DR than its predecessors, and processing is much more effective and faster. The ability to do masking and work specific areas of a photo is also a big boost in recovering shadows that might previously have been lost.
I don't mean to infer that other brands are lacking in their abilities, but it is certainly not hurting my feelings that Pentax is right up there with the top of the pack in the K5. Shooting with it is less a trick and more a joy with much more predictable results than I have been accustomed to. I suspect that the better exposure system is also a big factor in the better performance? I haven't heard much about this specifically, but I have certainly noticed it in my shooting habits.
Best Regards!
04-17-2011, 08:35 PM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,511
QuoteOriginally posted by Big G Quote
These deliberate underexposure / shadow push shots are woefully tiresome. Yes the sensor's DR is great, but it's getting silly now.
You obviously dont know what that can mean for your photography in the real world.
04-17-2011, 08:49 PM   #26
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chicago
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 672
QuoteOriginally posted by WerTicus Quote
You obviously dont know what that can mean for your photography in the real world.
If you're "oopsing" so bad in the real world, you're underexposing by three or more stops, it's best to put the camera down and go back to the drawing board.

It's an amazing sensor. It has amazing capabilities. Use it to it's potential, not as a crutch.
04-17-2011, 09:00 PM   #27
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,496
QuoteOriginally posted by Rory Quote
If you're "oopsing" so bad in the real world, you're underexposing by three or more stops, it's best to put the camera down and go back to the drawing board.

It's an amazing sensor. It has amazing capabilities. Use it to it's potential, not as a crutch.
This is a very narrow view of the potential challenges that come with "real world" photography - whatever the term "real world" means in this case.

Whatever the case, here are a few simple real-world conditions that call for extended DR and/or exposing to the left.

1. Shooting indoors with daylight windows.
2. Sunsets and other high intensity scenes.
3. Sunny day catch-light scenes(sun rays etc).

All of which have nothing whatsoever to do with being a poor photographer or proper exposure when you think about it.
04-17-2011, 09:03 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Rory Quote
If you're "oopsing" so bad in the real world, you're underexposing by three or more stops, it's best to put the camera down and go back to the drawing board.

It's an amazing sensor. It has amazing capabilities. Use it to it's potential, not as a crutch.
It has nothing to do with "oopsing". It has to do with things like... I can shoot a bird in 3/4 full sunlight and use the "fill light" to bring out detail without fighting with a contrast flash or settling for noisy or pitch-black shadows. I can shoot a black cat on a white sheet and see detail in both - easily. I can shoot a cityscape and bring detail out of the shadows that few other cameras can provide.

It's absolutely true there are "workarounds" for such things, but every advancement since the daguerreotype can be described that way.

And certainly it can fix "oopses", too. Maybe you don't have 'em, but most of us humans do.
04-18-2011, 12:18 AM   #29
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Rory Quote
Zeiss and Zeiss Jena is not always comparable from what I've heard.
Yes, Zeiss Jena was the East German line - IIRC the differences in IQ could be significant. But this particular model may be quite good, nevertheless.

Note that MF accuracy may have been less than optimal - something that is hard to achieve on the K-5, especially without using LiveView (my K-5's viewfinder focus is not very accurate).
04-18-2011, 03:26 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,956
QuoteOriginally posted by Rory Quote
If you're "oopsing" so bad in the real world, you're underexposing by three or more stops, it's best to put the camera down and go back to the drawing board.

It's an amazing sensor. It has amazing capabilities. Use it to it's potential, not as a crutch.
Who is underexposing by three stops? All it takes a little underexposure at iso 1600/3200 for most camera sensors to start falling apart. As others have said, there are plenty of situations where this can happen, particularly with strong light sources directly behind the subject.

The same things can be done with the other cameras that have this sensor -- for instance the D7000. It doesn't change the fact that it is pretty cool to have that option.
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!
5d, camera, dslr, ii, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Did I go insane or is this reasonable? Chaos_Realm Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 21 04-20-2011 12:54 PM
K-5... Wow wow wow wow wow!! Hugely impressive. 65535 Pentax K-5 85 11-08-2010 08:45 PM
INSANE! alaskaguy Post Your Photos! 6 03-10-2010 06:37 PM
Help me! I'm going insane SylBer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 41 01-29-2010 07:28 AM
Absolutely Insane Bluebird navcom Post Your Photos! 11 06-18-2009 09:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:23 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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