Pentax Kr or not ???

lonoise · 04-17-2012, 01:44 AM

i played with levels a bit on one or two of them, but i think you'll like the jpegs straight out of the camera.
the one with the plastic mugs on the rack was straight from camera for example.

all done with kit lenses (18-55, 50-200)

Ben_Edict · 04-17-2012, 01:45 AM

Hi suoersta
I have been using the K-r for about a year now and haven't had any problems whatsoever. The camera is reliable, fast and quite more robust, than I expected, the build quality is beyond the typical beginners DSLR. The image quality is just great. You must be aware about the following facts:
- IQ is very dependent on the automatic processing the website applies, to which you upload (rescaling for instance)
- you can influence the appearance of the images, by choosing the matching presets. Fpr web applications, you should usually choose the sRGB colour space. Than you can experiment with different settings in the K-r (saturation, vividness, sharpness etc.) instead of the standard presets. Pentax always has a very natural look out of the box, but you can choose your own preferences.

Ben

suoersta · 04-17-2012, 04:54 AM

lonoise: If so, i can conclude that the color retention is quite nice, don't mind me asking, don't you feel that a few of them are little underexposed, did you do that on purpose ??

Ben_Edict: Hi Ben_Edict,Thanks very much for your comment. There's something i felt strange is that, i have seen plenty CANON and NIKON taken photos in Facebook. Canon seems to perform the best in terms of sharpness and color retention. Nikon seems to have faded in both color and sharpness. Probably this is just my observation but if its the fact then the variables seems goes to the cameras rather than the website right ?? (I have seen plenty of K5 in facebook too, it just perform so well but i have not seen much Kr that's why i need some help here)

speedtrap63 · 04-17-2012, 08:57 AM

I've had my K-r since last summer and it is my first Dslr also. I couldn't recommend it highly enough after using it. I did a ton of research and no other entry level camera comes close to it's features and build quality. Even the kit glass is more than decent.

In the 9 months I've had it, I haven't had any of the hardware issues you mentioned or any others for that matter.

I can't speak to facebook quality of the photos, but I believe the other guys are right, that IQ is more Facebook dependent, than camera dependent.

Na Horuk · 04-17-2012, 11:00 AM

Just buy a big broken camera that looks good and a point and shoot. Then take pictures with the point and shoot, upload them to fb, and let people assume you use the big massive wow camera. That way you get the cred of being a pro and save a lot of money. And you can always claim the pictures look much better in full resolution without facebook messing it up.

loco · 04-17-2012, 11:24 AM

I don't understand why you are so interested in pictures with no PP. PP is a part of photography. The Facebook IQ issue is totally FB dependent. Has nothing to do with which camera you use. They compress all pictures and they end up looking softer. I have never noticed much of a problem with colors on FB, though.

I have had my K-r since March 2011 and am overjoyed with it. It was my first DSLR and I have really enjoyed learning photography with this camera.

Just in case you are interested in an FB photos that have been post processed, here's my photo fan page:
https://www.facebook.com/LocosPhotos

Good luck with your choice!

Philoslothical · 04-17-2012, 11:31 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by loco

I have never noticed much of a problem with colors on FB, though.

Some sites, like imgur.com strip all the metadata from images in addition to recompressing them at a lower quality. This strips EXIF, and also colour profiles. If the jpeg is saved using AdobeRGB it will look washed out in Firefox and possibly other browsers when that profile is removed.

Easy way around this: Shoot or save your jpegs with sRGB if you are going to upload them to crappy sites that butcher the files. The camera offers both, and so should whatever editor one uses to process them.

loco · 04-17-2012, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Philoslothical

Some sites, like imgur.com strip all the metadata from images in addition to recompressing them at a lower quality. This strips EXIF, and also colour profiles. If the jpeg is saved using AdobeRGB it will look washed out in Firefox and possibly other browsers when that profile is removed.

Easy way around this: Shoot or save your jpegs with sRGB if you are going to upload them to crappy sites that butcher the files. The camera offers both, and so should whatever editor one uses to process them.

Thanks! I didn't know that. I guess the reason I have never had that issue is I always used sRGB. Good info, appreciate it!

Philoslothical · 04-17-2012, 11:55 AM

@loco - Anytime. I found this out shortly after getting my K-r last year, trying to use imgur for posting stuff on reddit.

It's one of the reasons I use my own site and hosting for all my images. That, and I don't like the idea of granting rights to them in exchange for temporary hosting of them.

lonoise · 04-17-2012, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by suoersta

lonoise: If so, i can conclude that the color retention is quite nice, don't mind me asking, don't you feel that a few of them are little underexposed, did you do that on purpose ??

For some reason I do like underexposed photos =) personal preference.
Works fine for me, as often it's easier to pull the details out from the shadows.

suoersta · 04-17-2012, 01:47 PM

@loco the reason i asked about whether is it PP or not is because i want to know how well is the color and sharpness originally from SOOC posted on facebook as i don't think i have time to PP each and every single photo that i have taken. Anyway those photos of yours perform very well, did you do anything on the color intensity ?

loco · 04-17-2012, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by suoersta

@loco the reason i asked about whether is it PP or not is because i want to know how well is the color and sharpness originally from SOOC posted on facebook as i don't think i have time to PP each and every single photo that i have taken. Anyway those photos of yours perform very well, did you do anything on the color intensity ?

Thanks, suoersta. Thing is, it depends on the settings that each individual picks for their jpg's. So even if an image is "straight out of the camera" it may not look just like an image you'd get straight out of the camera if you choose different settings.

In some of the photos I actually turned down the color saturation. It really depends on the colors and the lenses used. Some lenses are just very colorful, like the DA 15 Limited. Others, like the kit lens, need some help with saturation. I'm glad you like the pics.

suoersta · 04-17-2012, 07:37 PM

But i guess you must be using 55-300 for those wildlife photos right ?? the color intensity are so nice ...that is what i am worried of when posted in fb. I mean normally when the photos posted on fb their color tends to fade away. Did you increase the color intensity of the wildlife album?

loco · 04-18-2012, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by suoersta

But i guess you must be using 55-300 for those wildlife photos right ?? the color intensity are so nice ...that is what i am worried of when posted in fb. I mean normally when the photos posted on fb their color tends to fade away. Did you increase the color intensity of the wildlife album?

The close-up shots were taken with the Panagor macro lens (except the praying mantis). I increased the contrast because that lens is not very contrasty, however, I didn't mess with the color on those except for desaturating the pink azalea a bit in one shot.

The other shots were taken with the 55-300 and FA77 (swan). I don't recall messing with the color on those.

04-17-2012, 01:47 PM	#26
suoersta Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 26 Original Poster	@loco the reason i asked about whether is it PP or not is because i want to know how well is the color and sharpness originally from SOOC posted on facebook as i don't think i have time to PP each and every single photo that i have taken. Anyway those photos of yours perform very well, did you do anything on the color intensity ? Last edited by suoersta; 04-17-2012 at 01:54 PM.

04-17-2012, 01:44 AM	#16
lonoise New Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 21	i played with levels a bit on one or two of them, but i think you'll like the jpegs straight out of the camera. the one with the plastic mugs on the rack was straight from camera for example. all done with kit lenses (18-55, 50-200)

04-17-2012, 01:45 AM	#17
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Hi suoersta I have been using the K-r for about a year now and haven't had any problems whatsoever. The camera is reliable, fast and quite more robust, than I expected, the build quality is beyond the typical beginners DSLR. The image quality is just great. You must be aware about the following facts: - IQ is very dependent on the automatic processing the website applies, to which you upload (rescaling for instance) - you can influence the appearance of the images, by choosing the matching presets. Fpr web applications, you should usually choose the sRGB colour space. Than you can experiment with different settings in the K-r (saturation, vividness, sharpness etc.) instead of the standard presets. Pentax always has a very natural look out of the box, but you can choose your own preferences. Ben

04-17-2012, 04:54 AM	#18
suoersta Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 26 Original Poster	lonoise: If so, i can conclude that the color retention is quite nice, don't mind me asking, don't you feel that a few of them are little underexposed, did you do that on purpose ?? Ben_Edict: Hi Ben_Edict,Thanks very much for your comment. There's something i felt strange is that, i have seen plenty CANON and NIKON taken photos in Facebook. Canon seems to perform the best in terms of sharpness and color retention. Nikon seems to have faded in both color and sharpness. Probably this is just my observation but if its the fact then the variables seems goes to the cameras rather than the website right ?? (I have seen plenty of K5 in facebook too, it just perform so well but i have not seen much Kr that's why i need some help here)

04-17-2012, 08:57 AM	#19
speedtrap63 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Connecticut Posts: 33	I've had my K-r since last summer and it is my first Dslr also. I couldn't recommend it highly enough after using it. I did a ton of research and no other entry level camera comes close to it's features and build quality. Even the kit glass is more than decent. In the 9 months I've had it, I haven't had any of the hardware issues you mentioned or any others for that matter. I can't speak to facebook quality of the photos, but I believe the other guys are right, that IQ is more Facebook dependent, than camera dependent.

04-17-2012, 11:00 AM	#20
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Just buy a big broken camera that looks good and a point and shoot. Then take pictures with the point and shoot, upload them to fb, and let people assume you use the big massive wow camera. That way you get the cred of being a pro and save a lot of money. And you can always claim the pictures look much better in full resolution without facebook messing it up.

04-17-2012, 11:24 AM	#21
loco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,846	I don't understand why you are so interested in pictures with no PP. PP is a part of photography. The Facebook IQ issue is totally FB dependent. Has nothing to do with which camera you use. They compress all pictures and they end up looking softer. I have never noticed much of a problem with colors on FB, though. I have had my K-r since March 2011 and am overjoyed with it. It was my first DSLR and I have really enjoyed learning photography with this camera. Just in case you are interested in an FB photos that have been post processed, here's my photo fan page: https://www.facebook.com/LocosPhotos Good luck with your choice!

04-17-2012, 11:31 AM - 1 Like	#22
Philoslothical Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,889	Originally posted by loco I have never noticed much of a problem with colors on FB, though. Some sites, like imgur.com strip all the metadata from images in addition to recompressing them at a lower quality. This strips EXIF, and also colour profiles. If the jpeg is saved using AdobeRGB it will look washed out in Firefox and possibly other browsers when that profile is removed. Easy way around this: Shoot or save your jpegs with sRGB if you are going to upload them to crappy sites that butcher the files. The camera offers both, and so should whatever editor one uses to process them.

04-17-2012, 11:51 AM	#23
loco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,846	Originally posted by Philoslothical Some sites, like imgur.com strip all the metadata from images in addition to recompressing them at a lower quality. This strips EXIF, and also colour profiles. If the jpeg is saved using AdobeRGB it will look washed out in Firefox and possibly other browsers when that profile is removed. Easy way around this: Shoot or save your jpegs with sRGB if you are going to upload them to crappy sites that butcher the files. The camera offers both, and so should whatever editor one uses to process them. Thanks! I didn't know that. I guess the reason I have never had that issue is I always used sRGB. Good info, appreciate it!

04-17-2012, 11:55 AM	#24
Philoslothical Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 1,889	@loco - Anytime. I found this out shortly after getting my K-r last year, trying to use imgur for posting stuff on reddit. It's one of the reasons I use my own site and hosting for all my images. That, and I don't like the idea of granting rights to them in exchange for temporary hosting of them.

04-17-2012, 12:44 PM	#25
lonoise New Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 21	Originally posted by suoersta lonoise: If so, i can conclude that the color retention is quite nice, don't mind me asking, don't you feel that a few of them are little underexposed, did you do that on purpose ?? For some reason I do like underexposed photos =) personal preference. Works fine for me, as often it's easier to pull the details out from the shadows.

04-17-2012, 04:41 PM	#27
loco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,846	Originally posted by suoersta @loco the reason i asked about whether is it PP or not is because i want to know how well is the color and sharpness originally from SOOC posted on facebook as i don't think i have time to PP each and every single photo that i have taken. Anyway those photos of yours perform very well, did you do anything on the color intensity ? Thanks, suoersta. Thing is, it depends on the settings that each individual picks for their jpg's. So even if an image is "straight out of the camera" it may not look just like an image you'd get straight out of the camera if you choose different settings. In some of the photos I actually turned down the color saturation. It really depends on the colors and the lenses used. Some lenses are just very colorful, like the DA 15 Limited. Others, like the kit lens, need some help with saturation. I'm glad you like the pics.

04-17-2012, 07:37 PM	#28
suoersta Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 26 Original Poster	But i guess you must be using 55-300 for those wildlife photos right ?? the color intensity are so nice ...that is what i am worried of when posted in fb. I mean normally when the photos posted on fb their color tends to fade away. Did you increase the color intensity of the wildlife album?

04-18-2012, 05:55 AM	#29
loco Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,846	Originally posted by suoersta But i guess you must be using 55-300 for those wildlife photos right ?? the color intensity are so nice ...that is what i am worried of when posted in fb. I mean normally when the photos posted on fb their color tends to fade away. Did you increase the color intensity of the wildlife album? The close-up shots were taken with the Panagor macro lens (except the praying mantis). I increased the contrast because that lens is not very contrasty, however, I didn't mess with the color on those except for desaturating the pink azalea a bit in one shot. The other shots were taken with the 55-300 and FA77 (swan). I don't recall messing with the color on those.