[chaza01]

In short, do you reckon you could squeeze these images of out of a KR? I have never seen anything as good from a KR before... (I know the Kr just has an updated version of the same sensor but...)
Burrard-Lucas Blog

[luftfluss]

In short, do you reckon you could squeeze these images of out of a KR? I have never seen anything as good from a KR before... (I know the Kr just has an updated version of the same sensor but...)
Burrard-Lucas Blog

Wonderful photos.

Why wouldn't you be able to take these with a K-r? Or a K100D, or a Nikon D40? Especially since these are web-sized, flaws and shortcomings are easier to hide.

Edit: also, the photos you linked to were taken with a Canon 5D, Nikon D700, Nikon D3s, Nikon D90, Canon 40D, Nikon D300.

[JinDesu]

Are we supposed to look at the D90 shots specifically?

And the short answer is: yes.

[adpo]

given the right lenses, tripod, technique, preparation, etc, it should be perfectly do-able with the k-r, especially given that the sensor performance between the k-r and the d90 are quite similar.

remember, its the photographer that makes the image, not the gear

[Pablom]

very nice photos. all of which have very little to do with the camera that was used.

[luftfluss]

I'm going to paint with a really broad brush here, by which I mean this is a very generalized statement and not in anyway true nearly 100% of the time.

Whew, now that that's out of the way...

Often, when we see fantastic images taken with a very expensive camera and lens, we forget that not only does the photographer have the great gear, but also the vision and opportunity. And, he/she has spent a long time learning and working and growing and refining the creative and technical aspects of his/her craft, including post-processing. These are people who are so into every aspect of their craft that they are willing (and able!) to buy great equipment, but to think that their great equipment defines them - or their photography - is a fallacy.

[Rondec]

The camera is one of the least important parts of the equation. The bigger things are seeing light, composing a great photo, using stabilization (a tripod) and basically following the same recipe that photographers since long before Ansel Adams have been using. It often means getting up really early and getting that perfect light.

I remember when the Kx and K7 were both released. There were concurrent threads: post your best K7 photos and post your best kx photos. The kx definitely had the better sensor, but the photos in the K7 thread were significantly better. The people who owned K7 just were more likely to invest in better glass and had better ideas of what made good photos.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 04-03-2012 at 03:43 AM.

[normhead]

Pictures taken with a K-x

If you own a K-r shoot with it. If you own a d90 shoot with it. No one really cares about this comparison. Niether camera is a top of the line model. The chance of any one owning both of them is probably pretty slim. People who own that type of camera usually don't own two cameras made by different companies. Most of those owning both those cameras probably aren't shooting with the best lesnes.

But I'm curious, what's your interest in this comparison? If you're trying to decide which to buy, that might be a better question to ask. But even then, the question should be, will it make a difference to you? I'm guessing it won't. If you had the knowledge to produce any of the images on that page, you wouldn't be asking the question.

If you're looking for some images though, if you're looking for a cheaper kind of camera would be a Nikon d90 match, hoe about a K20D? Have a look, see what you think. You can pick up a K20D for $350- $500 or under, it's more MP than a K90 and there have been lots of great images produced with it.

K20D pictures.

Just remember, just because some guy can take images like that, doesn't mean you can.

[doz3r!]

kr all day every day !!!

[pxpaulx]

Nice and thorough reverse-flaming everyone!

Remind me also that next time I'm out and have an amazing meal to compliment the chef on their amazing stove It is the person behind the camera that captures the image, not the gear!

[Basset]

Here's a link to a Flickr K-r group. There are over 17,000 imagesso you can see for yourself what the camera can do with a variety of lenses, skill sets, etc.

[chaza01]

Yer, I know you're all correct.

[lonoise]

look at these photos:
The stunning pictures of sleeping insects covered in early morning dew | Mail Online

and that's a bridge camera without tripod and using in-built flash.

so yeah, if you can't shoot good pictures, don't blame it on equipment. just practise more.

[chaza01]

I realize that, but by the logic employed by most in reply, I fail to grasp the actual advantage of higher end models... At the end of the day, a sensor with more DR, better high iso performance, tonal range etc will produce a 'better' image if taken of the same thing. But then I guess u can work around limitations of the camera by using HDR (mildly, ie multiple exposure of say + or - 1 stop), using a tripod and shooting at a lower ISO (though that can change effect achieved, which may not be a good thing...) But yeah, I know the arguments. I wrongly thought the images on the website were from a d90, that struck me as odd as photographers taking such images are usually serious enough about their work to go full frame (not that the d90 is a bad camera, but aps-c < FF, always). So, in summary, a good photographer can WORK AROUND any limitations of equipment to get the same, or at least similar results to using higher spec, more expensive tools.

I also knew that in actuality there was no practical difference between d90 and kr when it came to image quality, and that the images on the website were from other cameras, after realizing this I tried to delete the thread, thought I had deleted it, but evidently failed.

Moreover, the inclusion of the phrase 'not really' on the thread title did, I think, point out that I was not serious about the comparison, but just interested why I hadn't come across photos like that from a kr...of course its because photographers of that caliber use higher-end tools.

And I am well aware of the 'it's the photographer not the tools' lecture that has come my way just from saying ' do you reckon you could squeeze these images of out of a KR?', because the answer to that is 'no' if using identical settings to the photographer, but yes if you can work around limitations of smaller sensor etc and have the creative imagination to frame similarly awe-inspiring shots.

And I am not 'blaming equipment' for the sake of it.

@Rondec hit the nail on the head.

[ccd333]

Whereas I agree with the general theme of it being about the photographer and not the tool......and that we often put way too much stock in the differences between cameras.....I also think it's easy to go too far the other way as well.

Of course the tool is important. If you do any job, you want the right tool. And a good photo is a marriage of a photographer's understanding of the things mentioned before about composition, utilizing light, etc. But, it's also about an understanding of what tool you are using to achieve the results you need. There might be workarounds to compensate.....and one can still take a great photo within a certain framework of features and quality of the camera......but there is also something to be said for having certain advantages. Even if it doesn't make it impossible to shoot a particular scene with a lesser camera, it might make it difficult to achieve the same result. If that weren't true, why don't we all go buy the cheapest point and shoot, do all the workarounds, and see if it stacks up accordingly with varying degrees improvement with sensors, features, lenses, etc.? That's why they make better cameras/lenses to help make someone who understands all the other things necessary to make a good photo.....to achieve an even better result.

For example, I couldn't even begin to take the kinds of shots of my son playing soccer that I wanted to take with my older model *istDL.....with the lenses I had at my disposal (Pentax kit lenses, cheaper third party stuff). But was able to when I got the K-r. Same lenses, but with the huge improvement with high ISO noise I was able to crank up the ISO to still be able to freeze the action in lower light. And not just the high ISO, but the big difference in auto focus speed and accuracy.....as well as the 6 fps for capturing a nice sequence of shots together. The K-r allowed me to capture the shots I wanted just by virtue of upgrading cameras....or, if you will.....the tool. Even if I had bought a more expensive 2.8 lens so that I could keep the ISO lower....I would have still struggled to get certain shots because of in camera differences with auto focus and overall response. The K5 would have done even better I am sure.

This is just one example. There are other things like dynamic range (and the accompanying highlight and shadow correction options), as the OP pointed out, that for me have made a big difference in capturing landscape shots with various light challenges. Even if you use filters and/or post processing to help mitigate those differences (workarounds), there is a substantial amount of time and effort to utilize those things properly......and they still can't always produce consistent results in the same way as just having that extra range built into the camera.

So when it was stated that if you can't take good pictures....don't blame it on the equipment....that is only true up to a point. In the example I mentioned, the equipment is what made it work for me. And somebody mentioned stabilization and used tripod as a good example. I agree. However, using a tripod isn't very practical for shooting soccer. Though I did it and did get some good shots, having image stabilization in the camera allowed me to use a monopod which is much easier to use. Again, a benefit of the tool.

My point is simple. The most important part of taking good pictures is indeed knowing all of the other elements beyond what a camera does or doesn't do. That is not what I'm questioning. But don't sell short the benefits of using a tool that has upgraded features. Even if it's just to make things that were possible.....but cumbersome before......and make them much easier (think of a hammer vs a nail gun. ) and allow more time to do other things (whether it's taking more shots or doing something completely unrelated to photography).

Finally, I would also disagree with the comment about nobody caring about the comparison of the two cameras. I do. I like comparing features. I like seeing the distinctions and which "tool" might be best suited for my needs. I recognize that there are a lot of similarities between cameras made in the same era, but there are still enough nuances that are different. Weather sealing for example. That's also a big part of the tool. There might be workarounds for that too.....but if you were wanting/needing to take photos in different kinds of weather conditions, it would be nice to not have to worry about it.