Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-09-2012, 12:17 AM   #76
Veteran Member
bossa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 4,546
QuoteOriginally posted by cali92rs Quote
LOL...must be nice to have the money to even consider both the 800E and a possible K-5 successor!

By the way, how is the 800E working for you? Obviously, the IQ is otherworldly, but how is the handling and AF?
My Nikon had to go away for almost 3 weeks to get the focus calibrated as it was all over the place. I had blamed the lenses originally until I got the camera back.

Focus seems pretty ok but not all that much better than a K-5 to be frank. It has a few other AUTO modes which are cool if you need them but as I mainly shoot inanimate objects they're unappreciated to this point. The Nikon has way more AF points though and that is better for accuracy and manual selection. The VF is bigger and brighter too, allowing reasonably manual focusing with faster lenses unlike the K-5. I have been fooling around all afternoon with the 31LTD up against the Sigma 50 on the D800E trying to get some perspective.

PS: I'm not loaded.. I have a lot of stuff I can sell to finance a K-5 replacement if I want it.

08-09-2012, 06:33 AM   #77
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 571
QuoteOriginally posted by bossa Quote
Focus seems pretty ok but not all that much better than a K-5 to be frank.
I have not seen many other people mention this, so maybe it is just me, but I found the AF on D700 to be better than the D800. The D700 seemed a a little more decisive, and slightly quicker to lock in AF.C.
08-09-2012, 11:23 AM   #78
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Long reach - wildlife?
Q+FA*80-200 at f4 (1100mm equivalent); On FF or APS-C; it would need at least a crazy expensive 400/5.6 and crop from there.
That's a seriously beautiful image

However, I recognize a flaw in reasoning if I see it

To create the same quality 800px wide image from say, a DA*300 (on full frame or APS-C, assuming 5m pixels and assuming you need to downsample 4 pixels into 1 for the quality), you'll only need to crop a sensor area 8mm wide. Which turns a 300mm into 1350mm, even better than your 1100mm above (even 200mm would probably suffice).

So, I am sorry to say but your point is void.
08-09-2012, 11:36 AM   #79
Veteran Member
sb in ak's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Homer, AK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 571
QuoteOriginally posted by LamyTax Quote
As "good" as the "EOS Mark 2"? Do you mean the 5DII? That would be terrible. The AF is just bad, and so are the FPS
The 5DII is a stellar camera but it's not geared toward sports. If you're not shooting sports, you'll find that the centerpoint AF and the FPS are plenty fast. The IQ is stellar as long as you're not lifting shadows. Hardly terrible, and a pretty good price these days compared to the other FF offerings. It will undoubtedly be replaced later this year, probably by a budget FF with a lesser body IMO.

08-09-2012, 11:40 AM   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 376
QuoteOriginally posted by sb in ak Quote
The 5DII is a stellar camera but it's not geared toward sports. If you're not shooting sports, you'll find that the centerpoint AF and the FPS are plenty fast. The IQ is stellar as long as you're not lifting shadows. Hardly terrible, and a pretty good price these days compared to the other FF offerings. It will undoubtedly be replaced later this year, probably by a budget FF with a lesser body IMO.
So your point is, Pentax should have a K5-successor that's pretty much like the K20D but with a higher resolution sensor? (oh, and video, of course).
08-09-2012, 12:22 PM   #81
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,675
QuoteOriginally posted by robgo2 Quote
I hope that you realize that your shooting needs are hardly representative. Perhaps about 95% of shooters don't require such high ISOs, except on the rarest of occasions.

Rob
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Actually, I would disagree. I know a couple of professionals who rarely go below 1600. Sports and news tog's push shutter speeds as high as they can. I know a guy who works with a couple of zoo's/wildlife refuges and guides in Africa part of the year who always shoots at 1600 or higher on Canon 1DIVs (loves APS-H). The cleaner the high ISO the better. News togs and people who do surveillance work wont be happy until their cameras have night vision.
Well I know a number of professionals who rarely go above 400 . You'll always find people with different experiences online. I don't shoot surveillance, but I'd like a camera one day that has 1600 or 3200 ISO look as clean and detailed as 100. What I'd like even more than rediculous unusable high ISO capability is low ISO capability. Speeds of 80, 64, 50, 25 and even down to 6 (like the LX) would be much more useful to me than a messy ISO 1,000,000.

A professional, compact, WR Pentax FF with 21-24 MP, resulting in a very fast FPS rate, ISO 6 capability and the biggest FF VF sounds like a winner to me.
08-09-2012, 01:05 PM   #82
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,800
QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
Well I know a number of professionals who rarely go above 400 . You'll always find people with different experiences online. I don't shoot surveillance, but I'd like a camera one day that has 1600 or 3200 ISO look as clean and detailed as 100. What I'd like even more than rediculous unusable high ISO capability is low ISO capability. Speeds of 80, 64, 50, 25 and even down to 6 (like the LX) would be much more useful to me than a messy ISO 1,000,000.

A professional, compact, WR Pentax FF with 21-24 MP, resulting in a very fast FPS rate, ISO 6 capability and the biggest FF VF sounds like a winner to me.
I think you are assuming that as high ISO gets better that low ISO will get worse. Why do you think this? Is ISO 80 on the K-5 worse than on the K-7? Obviously not. As sensors improve it will improve at all ISOs. Improvements in sensor technology will improve it across the board since there really is no ISO setting for a sensor. It is all about processing.
08-09-2012, 01:10 PM   #83
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Italy -> Canada -> Belgium -> Switzerland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 233
QuoteOriginally posted by pinholecam Quote
Sometimes, pano stitch gets the landscape at far better resolution than 1 shot would from a camera.
Imageshack - imgp1062imgp1083and2mor.jpg
Hi pinholecam,

amazing shots! Where was this panorama taken?

08-09-2012, 01:19 PM   #84
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,675
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I think you are assuming that as high ISO gets better that low ISO will get worse. Why do you think this? Is ISO 80 on the K-5 worse than on the K-7? Obviously not. As sensors improve it will improve at all ISOs. Improvements in sensor technology will improve it across the board since there really is no ISO setting for a sensor. It is all about processing.
No, sorry you are missing my point. I agree with you as sensors improve so will all ISOs. However in the high-ISO race it would be smart for a company to say "look what we have, our new camera has ISO 6, 25, 50... settings." No other DSLR has that. Why are we worrying about ISO 52,000 when no one really uses that on a daily basis? If there are people who use it daily, then that's a small number. My point is a camera company can distinguish their camera from others if they implement a feature like that, and I for one, would find that feature more useful than an ISO setting of 100,000.
08-09-2012, 01:32 PM   #85
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by builttospill Quote
No, sorry you are missing my point. I agree with you as sensors improve so will all ISOs. However in the high-ISO race it would be smart for a company to say "look what we have, our new camera has ISO 6, 25, 50... settings." No other DSLR has that. Why are we worrying about ISO 52,000 when no one really uses that on a daily basis? If there are people who use it daily, then that's a small number. My point is a camera company can distinguish their camera from others if they implement a feature like that, and I for one, would find that feature more useful than an ISO setting of 100,000.
Well I would love to have a camera that offers iso-settings from iso 50 to iso 5000 and notting else. That would be great for 645Dii. In reality there is probably some limitation in the hardware from offering that?
08-09-2012, 01:32 PM   #86
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 376
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I think you are assuming that as high ISO gets better that low ISO will get worse. Why do you think this? Is ISO 80 on the K-5 worse than on the K-7? Obviously not. As sensors improve it will improve at all ISOs. Improvements in sensor technology will improve it across the board since there really is no ISO setting for a sensor. It is all about processing.
Really low ISO is useful for studio flash which sometimes blows out way too much power.
08-09-2012, 01:34 PM   #87
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by LamyTax Quote
Really low ISO is useful for studio flash which sometimes blows out way too much power.
how about that sunny day in the desert?
08-09-2012, 01:37 PM   #88
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 376
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
how about that sunny day in the desert?
That's where ND filters make much more sense, don't they .
08-09-2012, 01:47 PM   #89
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,800
QuoteOriginally posted by LamyTax Quote
Really low ISO is useful for studio flash which sometimes blows out way too much power.
Realize that ISO setting for digital is simply adjustments in amplification. Sensors don't have different ISO settings. As sensors become more efficient they will perform better at all ISO "settings".
08-09-2012, 01:56 PM   #90
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 376
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
Realize that ISO setting for digital is simply adjustments in amplification. Sensors don't have different ISO settings. As sensors become more efficient they will perform better at all ISO "settings".
Sure, but what do you do if you're already at 1/8000 and absolutely don't want to stop down anymore and don't want to use an ND?
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!
k5, model, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, replacement, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will there be a K-R replacement soon? redogman67 Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 09-25-2011 09:39 AM
K5 replacement warranty ivoire Pentax K-5 3 08-22-2011 12:15 PM
Replacement K-5. Mike.P Pentax K-5 36 04-03-2011 11:18 AM
Replacement for the K5 in the Spring? benjikan Pentax K-5 28 02-01-2011 08:31 AM
K-7 replacement/out of production? Vantage-Point Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 12-28-2010 08:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:02 PM. | 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