Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-21-2013, 05:00 AM   #16
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
Planning a trip to Yellowstone for this fall and going through the same exact thought process. As others have noted best guess on a FF (if it ever happens) will be next spring. There may be a new APS-C camera before then but even that is just rumor.

I have decided to stick with the k-5 and work on getting the best glass I can for the trip. From what I have read Yellowstone is challenging because for many of the best shots you are either too close or too far away. I am trying to put together a 3 lens kit that I can carry easily in a sling bag. Currently that looks like a DA*60-250, DA*16-50 and an UWA to be determined.

I have money put aside for a new camera and if Pentax releases a new 24mp APS-C I will be strongly tempted but I have decided to put all FF thoughts on hold for at least a year.

Okay guys and gals, I decided to take one for the team!!!!!!! And no renumeration necessary if Pentax announces a new FF camera next week. I actually work for the great yellow god of photography (sadly a shell of it's former self) and they just announced that they are actually going to pay a bonus this year!! Shocked to be sure. Now I need your help in lieu of compensation. I need a good wide angle lens. I currently have an 18 to 28mm lens, but as we all know that converts to something like 27 to 42mm. What says the team? I am assuming something in the 10 to 20mm zoom range.

I have been to Yellowstone three times and have a ton of slides from the place form those visits. My array of lenses covered from 18mm to 400mm. I am taking those same lenses out west this time. Some may never be used, but that's okay. Take everything you can. The biggest problem with Yellowstone is time. I don't think that even two weeks is enough time to properly cover the park. It is a place to stop and observe. Quite the opposite of our rapid paced way of life. It is easy to spend several hours in just one of the geyser basins. I would also recommend Glacier National Park. It is impossible to take a bad photograph in that place.

04-21-2013, 05:30 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Pablom's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Jerusalem
Posts: 1,940
Get the camera, what are you, chicken?

04-21-2013, 06:31 AM   #18
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,877
I'm just throwing out some numbers here. All stats from Imagine Resources.

D7000

QuoteQuote:
We were able to eke out a bit more resolution (about 2,100 lines) in the horizontal direction with RAW files processed through Adobe Camera RAW, but not in the vertical direction.
K-5
QuoteQuote:
We were able to extract more resolution (to about 2,100 lines) with RAW files processed through Adobe Camera RAW, with complete extinction extended to around 3,200 lines.
D3200 (24 MP sensor.)

QuoteQuote:
Our laboratory resolution chart revealed sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,400 lines per picture height in the horizontal direction, and to about 2,500 lines in the vertical direction. Extinction of the pattern didn't occur until around 3,400 lines in both directions. We weren't able to do much better in terms of absolute resolution with raw files processed through Adobe Camera Raw, perhaps just slightly more in the horizontal direction (about 2,500 lines), though color moire and chromatic aberration was more evident.
Nikon D600
QuoteQuote:
Our laboratory resolution chart reveals sharp, distinct line patterns down to about 2,600 lines per picture height in the horizontal dirction, and about 2,700 lines in the vertical directions in JPEGs. Complete extinction of the pattern occurs between 3,600 and 3,800 lines.
SO the D7000 and K-5 would seem to be practically identical. The D3200 and D600 are respectively 24 Mp APS-c and 24 Mp FF.

The upgrade path to 24 Mp APS-c- includes more color moire and chromatic aberration.

SO what are the advantages of the two upgrades.

Lets say for arguments purposes, that for our prints we want 100 line per inch as defined by lw/ph. With a K-5 or D7000 we have 2100/ lw/ph so we could print to 21 inches comfortably.
With a 24 MP image we can theoretically print to 23 inches.

With a D600 FF we can comfortably print to 26 inches and those images will be razor sharp.

So in the end you have to ask if you want that extra capacity. What you pay for is larger file size and more color moire and chromatic aberration. Just going to the K-5 II gets you the color moire and chromatic aberration without a bit more resolution.

So, you have to ask, what is that worth to you.

For most images un-extinguished images will still look pretty realisitc so real world you can probably print to 30 inches with your K-5 or D7000. ANd if you're printing on canvas 30 inches is still excellent.

SO the question becomes would you upgrade from 16 MP to 24 MP in APs-c to get an extra 2 inches of print size given that you will have more problems with color moire and chromatic aberration and may never realize the theoretical advantage.

Would you upgrade to a 24 Mp FF, to get an additional 5 inches in print size...21 inches to 25 inches.

My question would be, it you're not using the capacity you have in APS-c, why would you consider upgrading.


The best answer I've heard from many FF owners is, "because I can".

From where I see, before I "upgrade to a 50% larger file format (24 Mp) I need to see a little bit more than what's currently being offered. The advantages are debatable, it's not all positive, where as the negatives, larger file sizes and slower processing times in PP, are not.

Personally, I think I'll be sticking with my K-5 for quite a while. IN a year or two when I next consider an upgrade, I'll look at what's available... but I know pros still shooting with D700s (12 MP).
It's quite possible there will be many people who will never want to upgrade, for whom 16 MP is already more than enough. Again personally I can't speculate on what might happen next time around, but right now, I've looked at a lot of options and I'm happy with a K-5, at least for now.
04-21-2013, 06:10 PM   #19
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,772
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
My question would be, it you're not using the capacity you have in APS-c, why would you consider upgrading.
All good arguments and admirably researched. I really cannot argue with any of that. I do have a reason for looking at a larger image size though. One of the stock agencies I sell through requires a minimum file size defined as an "un-compressed file of at least 24mb). That is correct 'mb' not 'mp'. Files from the k-x if cropped at all will not pass. Files from the k-5 if cropped will get rejected occasionally even though I am careful to limit cropping. Also, they display to buyers the "maximum file size" and my file sizes are significantly smaller than other contributors which puts me at a disadvantage. I think it is mostly perception because as you so well argued there is no need for those sizes but if a buyer is trying to pick between image A and image B and A is twice the size I think it is often a deciding factor.

That is not to say that I disagree with you, I don't. I'm just pointing out that in my specific case there would be an advantage for a bigger image size. Whether the camera is APS-C or FF is a completely different thing. I have not shot film since the 1980's so I don't have the FF angle of view fresh in my mind. In fact shifting to FF would likely take getting used to as all of my recent experience is with APS-C so I am not 100% sold on FF. I just want the best Pentax I can get for what I do.

04-21-2013, 09:00 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
I have decided to stick with the k-5 and work on getting the best glass I can for the trip. From what I have read Yellowstone is challenging because for many of the best shots you are either too close or too far away. I am trying to put together a 3 lens kit that I can carry easily in a sling bag. Currently that looks like a DA*60-250, DA*16-50 and an UWA to be determined.
I think you'll find the Sigma 8-16 is the best bet here. Certainly the sharpness is tremendous for such a lens. I'm very impressed with mine, even though I almost exclusively buy Pentax glass.
04-22-2013, 02:34 PM - 2 Likes   #21
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
Original Poster
Okay I did it. I ordered the camera yesterday and just because I am a nice guy I decided to take another hit for the team too. I ordered a Pentax lens to go with it. Now we should see the price dropping on them soon too. Based upon reviews I decided on the Pentax 12 - 24mm F4 wide angle lens. It's scarey because in over 40 years of photography I have never used an auto focus lens on an SLR.

Ordered from B&H. The first thing I ever purchased from them was a Tamron 300mm F2.8 lens back in 1991 in preparation for our monster vacation out west. 4 kids, wife and myself in our Aerostar van pulling a Jayco popup tent trailer, Almost 5 weeks on the road and 9,100 miles driving. Surprisingly enough no children were abandoned on the roadside during the course of the trip. It got to the point where they would ask "How far today?" I would say 250 miles and they would say. "That's not too bad." Western NY to northern California. 19 states, 19 National Parks and Monuments and various state parks along the way.

We had never heard ot Srurgis, South Dakota until we rolled into town in the middle of bike week. Scared the crap out of me when we first arrived, but the bikers were great and the boys had a riot with the bikers. They were great to them letting them climb all over their bikes. One guy even said that he didn't care if they scratched the paint as it would give him an excuse to repaint it.

Some things learned:

1) You cannot take an photograph of a redwood tree that will ever match your first experience of seeing one.
2) Seeing Mt. St. Helen's was a humbling experience. An area the size of a county just completely obliterated.
3) It is impossible to take a bad photograph at Glacier National Park. Stunning place
4) You cannot "do" Yellowstone. I think that to properly see and experience the place you need at least three weeks to cover the whole park. Three main languages are spoken in Yellowstone: English, German and Japanese. Today I would probably add Chinese to that list. Never thought we would see pelicans in Yellowstone.
5) In 1991 we could live on the road for $500/week. For what that vacation cost me, we could have spent 4 whole days at Disney World.
6) The people who walked the Oregon Trail were tough. For them it was like a vacation as they didn't have to tend crops or work farms for a whole year. They would often take their time and take little side trips to look at cool things along the way, The death rate while in the trail was comparable to the death rate in cities in the US at the time. The trail was as wide as two miles in places as each wagon train needed fresh forage for their animals. The most common encounter with Indians was when they returned lost people to their wagon trains. As long as the settlers were just passing through they pretty much left them alone.
7) The USA is one amazing place to see.
04-23-2013, 08:05 AM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
TER-OR's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dundee, IL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,834
That reminds me of a road trip we took in I think 92 or 93, driving from Cincinnati to Toledo to pick up a friend and then driving to western Wisconsin to meet more friends. We didn't know it was the Harley Davidson anniversary and were dumbfounded by the number of motorcycles on the road. We hit Chicago at exactly the wrong time, and I'm surprised my knee and clutch both survived. Plenty of the bikers had just thrown in the towel and pulled into the accident investigation sites until the traffic cleared. We did the same, and exited somewhere for dinner.

I can attest the Sigma 8-16 is a great lens, I rented one and have considered selling the 10-17 fisheye and buying that as a replacement, but just have too much fun with a true fisheye... I think I'll rent a 12-24 or 10-20 sometime.
04-23-2013, 10:09 AM   #23
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,877
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
All good arguments and admirably researched. I really cannot argue with any of that. I do have a reason for looking at a larger image size though. One of the stock agencies I sell through requires a minimum file size defined as an "un-compressed file of at least 24mb). That is correct 'mb' not 'mp'. Files from the k-x if cropped at all will not pass. Files from the k-5 if cropped will get rejected occasionally even though I am careful to limit cropping. Also, they display to buyers the "maximum file size" and my file sizes are significantly smaller than other contributors which puts me at a disadvantage. I think it is mostly perception because as you so well argued there is no need for those sizes but if a buyer is trying to pick between image A and image B and A is twice the size I think it is often a deciding factor.

That is not to say that I disagree with you, I don't. I'm just pointing out that in my specific case there would be an advantage for a bigger image size. Whether the camera is APS-C or FF is a completely different thing. I have not shot film since the 1980's so I don't have the FF angle of view fresh in my mind. In fact shifting to FF would likely take getting used to as all of my recent experience is with APS-C so I am not 100% sold on FF. I just want the best Pentax I can get for what I do.
If someone wants to pay enough to pay for new gear, I've got my gear picked out....but, I'm not going to invest on the odd chance I might get it back, but then, I'm 65 years old, any investment has to pay itself off pretty quickly. Most of my childhood friends are dead. I'm not saying I'm in any imminent danger, just saying, 10 years to recuperate my investment probably isn't a realistic plan. As long as I can sell my some of my K-5 prints at the flee markets, I'm a happy dude.

04-23-2013, 01:07 PM   #24
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,192
Original Poster
normhead,

I'm 62 myself. These are the first new cameras I have purchased since early 1999. First new lens since 1993. It will be the only auto focus SLR lens I own. Probably splurging a bit too much, but I'm getting ready to "retire" in a year or so and need to get what I can now. This should be all I need for quite some time.
04-23-2013, 01:14 PM   #25
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
I have been using SLR's for over 40 years and got my first DSLR, a K5, in March of 2012. For me a big learning curve from film (which is still better than digital) but I got through it. In two months #4 son and myself are taking a drive from western NY to Las Vegas to visit #3 son, doughter in law and grandkids. After that heading up to Yellowstone before hitting some sights on the way home. Heading through the San Rafael Swell area of Utah on the way out.

Now my dilemma. I have a craving for a K-5 IIs for outdoor and nature photograhy. But it may be that the much rumored full frame DSLR from Pentax in coming out soon. If it is and has no anti aliasing screen I would want that one instead. So do I wait for the possible full frame version or pull the trigger on the K-5 IIs? I already know that, with the luck I have had throughout my life, as soon as I get the K-5 IIs Pentax will announce the full frame version of their DSLR and the K-5 IIs will then drop $300 in price.

I would like to get the camera soon as I want to put it through it's paces before taking it on a long road trip. I would never take this trip without two DSLR's. In the world I operate in two is one and one is none. So do I take one for the team and get the K-5 IIs?
I think you can safely buy the K5IIs. The chance of Pentax marketing an FF any time soon is like winning the lottery twice while being struck by lightning and while being bitten by a shark. All simultaneously.
04-23-2013, 01:32 PM   #26
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,877
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I think you can safely buy the K5IIs. The chance of Pentax marketing an FF any time soon is like winning the lottery twice while being struck by lightning and while being bitten by a shark. All simultaneously.
Hey... same thing happened to me.
04-23-2013, 01:49 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Posts: 7,103
QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
...
One of the stock agencies I sell through requires a minimum file size defined as an "un-compressed file of at least 24mb). That is correct 'mb' not 'mp'.
...
How daft and sounds like an artificial limitation. But send them a 48bit color TIFF and pad the metadata area of the file with useless info to increase the file size even more.
04-23-2013, 05:16 PM   #28
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,772
QuoteOriginally posted by tuco Quote
How daft and sounds like an artificial limitation.
Quite correct. I imagine it is imposed to keep the 'riff raff' out. They also maintain a list of 'approved cameras' that used to be quite strict but it is now called the 'recommended camera' list and they do not seem to be as strict. And easy enough to up-sample to get something through but honestly it is not worth the time. I just shoot carefully and if they bounce something, move on and shoot something else.

I only mentioned it as an illustration of why a larger MP count could be useful. But it is not really a major issue.

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'm 65 years old, any investment has to pay itself off pretty quickly.
One of my best friends is approaching 90, he still works a full schedule and is sharper and more creative than I am. Up until maybe 5 years ago I would have said he was in better physical shape than me too, but he has slowed down a bit lately. So you've got a long way to go if you need the excuse for a new camera
04-23-2013, 06:43 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,893
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
So do I wait for the possible full frame version or pull the trigger on the K-5 IIs?
Rumors are now saying early 2014 for FF. That's a while. You could do a used K-5 now and a FF later.

The FF will have an awesome viewfinder. Figure out how much you'd want to spend on lenses. There will likely be a zoom lens for FF, which will be as fast as the primes are for Pentax's APS-C's, if you're interested.

Of course, you'll get ~50% better resolution as well, so you'll be able to print larger if that's something you want to do.
04-23-2013, 08:24 PM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,412
QuoteOriginally posted by snofox Quote
Buy today what you need for today. Tomorrow's camera never gets here.
Amen.
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, dslr, frame, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax, pentax k-5, son, trip
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do you take a pic like this? (How do I fix what I did?) mgvh Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 27 05-06-2013 07:58 PM
Question How do I find spam on the forum so that I can report it? bwDraco Site Suggestions and Help 5 04-16-2013 09:22 PM
Question How long does it take for a posted pic to show up on the forum? jpzk Site Suggestions and Help 3 03-09-2012 08:08 AM
Misc Some of the pictures, I think if one more time I can do it better. benny_h_z Post Your Photos! 4 10-26-2011 10:42 PM
Macro Taking one for the Forum Team charliezap Post Your Photos! 9 09-16-2011 02:59 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:22 AM. | 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