Brief info about K-5 and KR

ogl · 08-24-2010, 02:54 AM

one can do so much and no more

sveinmb · 08-24-2010, 03:08 AM

I never knew my K-7 was that bad

Agnostic · 08-24-2010, 03:15 AM

Originally posted by sveinmb

I never knew my K-7 was that bad

It's not bad. It's just not the most suitable for some specific purposes like photos with a subject matter that requires a larger dynamic range and good noiseless shadow detail like landscape photography, or more specifically b&w landscape photography.

Mohawk · 08-24-2010, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Agnostic

It's not bad. It's just not the most suitable for some specific purposes like photos with a subject matter that requires a larger dynamic range and good noiseless shadow detail like landscape photography, or more specifically b&w landscape photography.

That's what the 645D is aimed at.

(Yes I'm sill saving up for mine)

Agnostic · 08-24-2010, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by Mohawk

That's what the 645D is aimed at.

(Yes I'm sill saving up for mine)

Pity I can't afford one. From the samples I have seen that is one amazing camera. Shadow detail is great and nearly noiseless even at 1600 iso.
Guess I'll be shooting with my Rolleicord Vb 6x6 and Fuji G690BL 6x9 a while longer. (Until I win a prize in the lottery that is...)

**Rondec** · 08-24-2010, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by 24X36NOW

A viewfinder that doesn't suck; better image quality; wide angles that actually look like wide angles, instead of being rendered ordinary by the "crop factor."

Let's turn the issue around - would you be happy carrying a 35mm format camera and a bunch of 645 lenses to mount on it?! That's basically what long-time Pentax shooters are being asked to settle for with APS-C and 35mm lenses. It's a stop-gap format whose reason for existence has passed (i.e., FF sensors USED TO be extremely costly, but the cost now allows reasonably priced FF dSLRs to be made, hence the APS-Compromise has lost its "raison d'etre.")

This is a silly analogy. Currently, most of the new lenses that Pentax sells are APS-C specific. Just because there are still some older full frame lenses out there doesn't mean that Pentax is asking you to shoot with "huge lenses on a small camera." In fact, the DA zooms, the DA limiteds and most of the DA * zooms are APS-C specific, meaning that they are smaller lenses and that the over all package is smaller.

As to wide angles, there are both a DA 14 and DA 15 out there as well as (now) a Sigma 8 to 16mm. How wide did you shoot on film? Certainly not wider than 12mm. I won't argue with you about viewfinders (although you can still put lousy ones on a full frame camera), depth of field, or high iso, but the rest of the points are wasted air.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-24-2010, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Agnostic

It's not bad. It's just not the most suitable for some specific purposes like photos with a subject matter that requires a larger dynamic range and good noiseless shadow detail like landscape photography, or more specifically b&w landscape photography.

Huh?? The K-7 has fantastic dynamic range (that is not to say that something even better do not exist!); in fact, that's the reason I'm using it instead of film. In landscapes I have a hard time finding any scene that have larger dynamic range than the sensor can capture; even when shooting straight into the sun.
The image below is impossible to shoot on any film due to the scenes high contrast. It is fully possible on the K-7. I haven't even tweaked it in Photoshop (yet)!

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 08-24-2010 at 04:32 AM.

Pablom · 08-24-2010, 04:40 AM

beautiful capture Pål

AGWoodard · 08-24-2010, 05:15 AM

Quote:

In landscapes I have a hard time finding any scene that have larger dynamic range than the sensor can capture; even when shooting straight into the sun.

Are you saying that with the K7 we no longer need HDR or Grad ND's? Fill Flash? PP? The K7 has made these techniques and tools obsolete?

The K7 if a fine camera in many respects, but it certainly is not the Holy Grail of DSLR's. It's wonderful that you are completely satisfied with it, but, what you wrote is a little hard to swallow for someone who shoots a lot of landscapes.

blende8 · 08-24-2010, 05:19 AM

It is difficult to imagine that the above image is ooC.
But perhaps light is like that in Norway?
Can you say a bit more about the image, Pål? Settings etc.

n93i · 08-24-2010, 05:25 AM

A top lcd on the KR might make me think about upgrading my K-x.

And if it'll stay just as small! I normally just use the screen when I feel the need to check if I got the focus right, so having a top lcd to view for changing settings will take it easy on the battery (when trying to save on battery life --like times I think I'll shoot more than 400 shots-- I always adjust settings by peeking through the OV

) Just my thoughts on the rumors!

philippe · 08-24-2010, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by Agnostic

It's not bad. It's just not the most suitable for some specific purposes like photos with a subject matter that requires a larger dynamic range and good noiseless shadow detail like landscape photography, or more specifically b&w landscape photography.

Ever heard about Exposure Blending? It's the most wonderful marvel in digital photography! It was THE reason why I finally dropped analogue photography, except for B&W, but a lot can be done for that on digital too, alas not all.
And I find the K20 is rather good for landscapes, and if the K7 is close to — if not better than — the K20, then…

pcarfan · 08-24-2010, 05:48 AM

DPR data

Useable DR:

K-7 8.6
7D 8.3
300s 8.4
50D 8.3

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page17.asp

Boris · 08-24-2010, 05:57 AM

Fascinating. It is also not difficult to see that K-7 has less headway in bright areas and its DR is actually deeper (for lack of better term) in dark areas. This can account for perceived lack of DR by many users. It seems to me that these days it is quite popular to have very contrasty images. Then, whatever advantages K-7 has in shades is not used, but the fact that its DR is lower in bright areas can be disappointing. As usual, it seems that one has to learn one's tools so as to be able to extract maximum from them.

RMabo · 08-24-2010, 06:00 AM

I believe that what confuses persons is the following - taken from the link provided above "The Pentax K-7 measures the highest overall dynamic range but at 2.9 EV delivers almost half a stop less highlight range than the EOS 7D, with little rolloff and therefore harsh clipping."

This means that K-7 has the highest overall dynamic range, but this range gives more details in the shadows than in the higlights compared to the competition. This is simply how the K-7 is adjusted. Differently tweaked, the K-7 could move up the dynamic range to give more headroom in the highlight at the expense of the shadows.
It is simply a choice made by the designers to have more range in the shadows than in the highlights.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
More info on new K7	rburgoss	Pentax News and Rumors	30	05-03-2009 01:24 PM
PZ-1 help or info please	woof	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	9	10-25-2008 02:08 PM
any info?	gokenin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	12-23-2007 05:25 PM
any info?	gokenin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	12-03-2007 08:37 PM
Help info need	stickman	Site Suggestions and Help	5	03-26-2007 08:17 PM

08-24-2010, 02:54 AM	#271
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382 Original Poster	one can do so much and no more

08-24-2010, 03:08 AM	#272
sveinmb Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 127	I never knew my K-7 was that bad

08-24-2010, 03:15 AM	#273
Agnostic Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 414	Originally posted by sveinmb I never knew my K-7 was that bad It's not bad. It's just not the most suitable for some specific purposes like photos with a subject matter that requires a larger dynamic range and good noiseless shadow detail like landscape photography, or more specifically b&w landscape photography.

08-24-2010, 03:34 AM	#274
Mohawk Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 109	Originally posted by Agnostic It's not bad. It's just not the most suitable for some specific purposes like photos with a subject matter that requires a larger dynamic range and good noiseless shadow detail like landscape photography, or more specifically b&w landscape photography. That's what the 645D is aimed at. (Yes I'm sill saving up for mine)

08-24-2010, 03:45 AM	#275
Agnostic Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 414	Originally posted by Mohawk That's what the 645D is aimed at. (Yes I'm sill saving up for mine) Pity I can't afford one. From the samples I have seen that is one amazing camera. Shadow detail is great and nearly noiseless even at 1600 iso. Guess I'll be shooting with my Rolleicord Vb 6x6 and Fuji G690BL 6x9 a while longer. (Until I win a prize in the lottery that is...)

08-24-2010, 03:46 AM	#276
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Originally posted by 24X36NOW A viewfinder that doesn't suck; better image quality; wide angles that actually look like wide angles, instead of being rendered ordinary by the "crop factor." Let's turn the issue around - would you be happy carrying a 35mm format camera and a bunch of 645 lenses to mount on it?! That's basically what long-time Pentax shooters are being asked to settle for with APS-C and 35mm lenses. It's a stop-gap format whose reason for existence has passed (i.e., FF sensors USED TO be extremely costly, but the cost now allows reasonably priced FF dSLRs to be made, hence the APS-Compromise has lost its "raison d'etre.") This is a silly analogy. Currently, most of the new lenses that Pentax sells are APS-C specific. Just because there are still some older full frame lenses out there doesn't mean that Pentax is asking you to shoot with "huge lenses on a small camera." In fact, the DA zooms, the DA limiteds and most of the DA * zooms are APS-C specific, meaning that they are smaller lenses and that the over all package is smaller. As to wide angles, there are both a DA 14 and DA 15 out there as well as (now) a Sigma 8 to 16mm. How wide did you shoot on film? Certainly not wider than 12mm. I won't argue with you about viewfinders (although you can still put lousy ones on a full frame camera), depth of field, or high iso, but the rest of the points are wasted air.

08-24-2010, 04:19 AM	#277
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Agnostic It's not bad. It's just not the most suitable for some specific purposes like photos with a subject matter that requires a larger dynamic range and good noiseless shadow detail like landscape photography, or more specifically b&w landscape photography. Huh?? The K-7 has fantastic dynamic range (that is not to say that something even better do not exist!); in fact, that's the reason I'm using it instead of film. In landscapes I have a hard time finding any scene that have larger dynamic range than the sensor can capture; even when shooting straight into the sun. The image below is impossible to shoot on any film due to the scenes high contrast. It is fully possible on the K-7. I haven't even tweaked it in Photoshop (yet)! Last edited by Pål Jensen; 08-24-2010 at 04:32 AM.

08-24-2010, 04:40 AM	#278
Pablom Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Usa Posts: 1,940	beautiful capture Pål

08-24-2010, 05:15 AM	#279
AGWoodard Banned Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New Hampshire/Vermont Posts: 118	Quote: In landscapes I have a hard time finding any scene that have larger dynamic range than the sensor can capture; even when shooting straight into the sun. Are you saying that with the K7 we no longer need HDR or Grad ND's? Fill Flash? PP? The K7 has made these techniques and tools obsolete? The K7 if a fine camera in many respects, but it certainly is not the Holy Grail of DSLR's. It's wonderful that you are completely satisfied with it, but, what you wrote is a little hard to swallow for someone who shoots a lot of landscapes.

08-24-2010, 05:19 AM	#280
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	It is difficult to imagine that the above image is ooC. But perhaps light is like that in Norway? Can you say a bit more about the image, Pål? Settings etc.

08-24-2010, 05:25 AM	#281
n93i Inactive Account Join Date: May 2010 Location: NCR Posts: 4	A top lcd on the KR might make me think about upgrading my K-x. And if it'll stay just as small! I normally just use the screen when I feel the need to check if I got the focus right, so having a top lcd to view for changing settings will take it easy on the battery (when trying to save on battery life --like times I think I'll shoot more than 400 shots-- I always adjust settings by peeking through the OV ) Just my thoughts on the rumors!

08-24-2010, 05:32 AM	#282
philippe Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Flanders Fields Posts: 463	Originally posted by Agnostic It's not bad. It's just not the most suitable for some specific purposes like photos with a subject matter that requires a larger dynamic range and good noiseless shadow detail like landscape photography, or more specifically b&w landscape photography. Ever heard about Exposure Blending? It's the most wonderful marvel in digital photography! It was THE reason why I finally dropped analogue photography, except for B&W, but a lot can be done for that on digital too, alas not all. And I find the K20 is rather good for landscapes, and if the K7 is close to — if not better than — the K20, then…

08-24-2010, 05:48 AM	#283
pcarfan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Dayton, Ohio Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,978	DPR data Useable DR: K-7 8.6 7D 8.3 300s 8.4 50D 8.3 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page17.asp

08-24-2010, 05:57 AM	#284
Boris Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Israel Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 932	Fascinating. It is also not difficult to see that K-7 has less headway in bright areas and its DR is actually deeper (for lack of better term) in dark areas. This can account for perceived lack of DR by many users. It seems to me that these days it is quite popular to have very contrasty images. Then, whatever advantages K-7 has in shades is not used, but the fact that its DR is lower in bright areas can be disappointing. As usual, it seems that one has to learn one's tools so as to be able to extract maximum from them.

08-24-2010, 06:00 AM	#285
RMabo Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 845	I believe that what confuses persons is the following - taken from the link provided above "The Pentax K-7 measures the highest overall dynamic range but at 2.9 EV delivers almost half a stop less highlight range than the EOS 7D, with little rolloff and therefore harsh clipping." This means that K-7 has the highest overall dynamic range, but this range gives more details in the shadows than in the higlights compared to the competition. This is simply how the K-7 is adjusted. Differently tweaked, the K-7 could move up the dynamic range to give more headroom in the highlight at the expense of the shadows. It is simply a choice made by the designers to have more range in the shadows than in the highlights.