Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-08-2013, 06:03 PM   #706
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,494
QuoteOriginally posted by areidjr Quote
I'd be more than happy with the features of the K-5II (or basic K5 with AF improvements) with a full frame sensor from the D600. I know I don't need more functionality than exists in K5. I don't think it would be that hard to accomplish. It would need a new housing and if SR is a real technical problem, drop it in the first model. Just do something and let us FF buyers know it's coming and when so we don't jump ship.

That is essentially what I'm asking for too. However, after lugging around a D600 w/grip and 80-200mm f2.8, I can say this... I love my compact K5 kit. The D600 just isn't comfy, which is why I love my K5, its a smaller camera, but has a more solid feel. i think combining the two cameras would be amazing, and would be an instant buy for me.

At then end of the day there are two cameras I want from Pentax.

The aformentioned combo K5/D600, more AF for the AF freaks, and maybe add the modular components of the LX (viewscreens and focus screens...theres a unique selling system point).

and an updated ASP-C. 24mp K5, I'm happy with the IIs AF system, but I know others will cry if it's not upgraded.

One thing I sorely miss... the LED light meters of the old film cameras... I don't know why, but I love them... and I want them back!

I'd buy both cameras and starve my wife for a month or two if needed to do it.

04-08-2013, 06:05 PM   #707
raz
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Timisoara, Romania
Posts: 249
The jerkiness is noticeable especially when a video is very SHARP and with high shutter speed. That's why you don't see it so well on SD footage or blurred HD footage. That jerkiness is not the camera's fault, is about the shutter speed and how motion blurry you want to have your subject or video, how fast do you pan and so on. In this case they were trying to show how crazy sharp a footage can be from a small camera. And the video is at least 25fps but I think when you compress it to youtube it screws the framerate or something. I think GH2 is also capable of 60p via the hack (not 100% sure)


And I think the video is already here on DSLR, it will not go away. A lot of people are using it, so why not have something good instead of something mediocre ? The new hardware, and processing power is up to the job...
04-08-2013, 06:49 PM   #708
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
That is essentially what I'm asking for too. However, after lugging around a D600 w/grip and 80-200mm f2.8
Personally I don't feel like a F/2.8 FF is a fair comparison to anything Pentax offers.
04-08-2013, 06:53 PM   #709
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
Again, if I were after pro video, 60fps in a compact camera wouldn't be enough.
So when you talk about mediocrity in video, you're talking about every photographic product currently existing since excellent video is only in the top line of dedicated digital video recorders, and perfection is an elusive ideal.

What is 'enough' for most people on a stills camera is the ability to record full HD with smooth frame-to-frame transition and good DR. This can be possible with dSLRs, compacts and bridge cameras. The K-5 successor, I would hope, would have the option of at least 30fps and completely silent live SR.

04-08-2013, 07:29 PM   #710
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,494
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Personally I don't feel like a F/2.8 FF is a fair comparison to anything Pentax offers.

Personally I like my photos to be in focus and have a deeper depth of field. So to me 2.8 of kind of a max for me when it cones to ff.

I'd rather take the extra lift from a 1.8 Pentax lens with more focus depth than the ultra shallow in only getting one eyelash in focus of a 1.8 ff
04-08-2013, 08:55 PM   #711
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
Personally I like my photos to be in focus and have a deeper depth of field. So to me 2.8 of kind of a max for me when it cones to ff.
Fair enough? Personally F/4 is fine for most purposes for me on FF.



QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
I'd rather take the extra lift from a 1.8 Pentax lens with more focus depth than the ultra shallow in only getting one eyelash in focus of a 1.8 ff
I just stop down on FF when I want deeper DOF. There's no problem. When I want shallower DOF I leave it more open. When I'm shooting at infinity it makes no differecne, of course, and I leave it open to get a better image.
04-08-2013, 09:39 PM   #712
Pentaxian
Wired's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Edmonton, AB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,494
QuoteOriginally posted by ElJamoquio Quote
Fair enough? Personally F/4 is fine for most purposes for me on FF.





I just stop down on FF when I want deeper DOF. There's no problem. When I want shallower DOF I leave it more open. When I'm shooting at infinity it makes no differecne, of course, and I leave it open to get a better image.
sorry, not lift, light. I do a lot of low light. 1.8 on APSC gives me the same exposure as 1.8 on FF, but I get more in focus on APS-C
04-08-2013, 09:56 PM   #713
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,892
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
sorry, not lift, light. I do a lot of low light. 1.8 on APSC gives me the same exposure as 1.8 on FF, but I get more in focus on APS-C
If DOF is critical, I go down a stop, and still have 1.5x better resolution with FF, and a larger, brighter viewfinder.

90+ % of my low light stuff is 30+ feet away, though, and I'm shooting at focal lengths below 100mm, so in reality DOF isn't that super critical for me.

04-08-2013, 10:27 PM   #714
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
1.8 on APSC gives me the same exposure as 1.8 on FF, but I get more in focus on APS-C
I'm sure you know it's merely a crop effect of APS-C and not some inherent ability to get any increase in DoF. With the same sensor properties, a FF sensor just produces a larger image compared with an APS-C sensor.




courtesy of Mark David

The apparent increase in DoF is merely a factor of image resizing, but for all intensive purposes, f/1.8 is f/1.8 and produces the same DoF on whatever format given the same focal length and subject-to-camera distance.

The advantage comes when you have the same aperture in an equivalent FoV between APS-C and FF. Clearly, this means more expensive and perhaps even larger/heavier lenses, but Pentax have the FA Limiteds, which would just shine on FF.


courtesy of Alireza202, Flickr
04-08-2013, 11:06 PM - 2 Likes   #715
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,678
Furthermore, there are these informative yet easy to read articles that help shed more light on the topic of FF vs APS-C:

To Full-Frame or Not To Full Frame?

The bottom line
A full-frame camera is more satisfying to shoot and, when handled right, produces even better image quality than an APS-C camera. Whether these advantages outweigh the negatives, especially when considering the much higher cost of both the camera body and the better glass it needs to feed it, is a different question. For some people, the expense and inconvenience of a Hasselblad is worth the improvement in image quality and the satisfaction of using an enormous viewfinder and a camera system engineered to incredible levels of precision. For most, it's not. Unfortunately, a 35 mm based digital SLR isn't a Hasselblad, but in terms of image quality, shooting satisfaction, and to a degree price, it stands in the same relationship to APS-C digital as medium-format stands to 35 mm film. Like 35 mm film, APS-C digital is significantly more convenient, easier to shoot, and less expensive than full-frame digital. So, if you're standing on the fence and wondering what it is you're missing out on, the answer for most people would be "a luxury." Full-frame is in no sense of the word a necessity for the vast majority of purposes and photographers, and the ones who really do require it won't need to read this piece of pontification to know that they do. But if you can afford it and are prepared to go the extra mile when it comes to shooting technique and choice of glass, it is immensely satisfying. It would take a lot to tempt me back to APS-C.

Mark David | APS-C vs full frame
Mark David | Pixel density
Mark David | Megapixels — how many is enough?
04-08-2013, 11:09 PM   #716
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,509
QuoteOriginally posted by raz Quote
I don't know why are you mentioning the macbook retina, that is just a term is nothing "special".
Just so you know I'm looking at this at a high-resolution display. My 15" MacBook display is larger at close viewing distance than my 40" TV at normal viewing distance.

QuoteQuote:
So as to be on topic, Pentax desperately need to do the fallowing to not lag behind in video category :
Let's agree that there's much room for improvement. But when you say "lag behind" - are there really any other "dslr type" cameras than the GH2/GH3 that don't "lag behind"?
04-08-2013, 11:18 PM   #717
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kaunas
Posts: 1,452
QuoteOriginally posted by Apapukas Quote
Unless you are shooting from a tripod, what is the point of turning SR off? I see SR as an advantage, not disadvantage. What am I missing?
  • It takes time for SR to stabilise
  • In my experience quite often, even when stabilised, SR was introducing blur with fast shutter speeds

Therefore I was switching SR on only when I really needed it.
04-09-2013, 12:18 AM   #718
Veteran Member
anthony mazzeri's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 312
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
Furthermore, there are these informative yet easy to read articles that help shed more light on the topic of FF vs APS-C:

To Full-Frame or Not To Full Frame?

The bottom line
A full-frame camera is more satisfying to shoot and, when handled right, produces even better image quality than an APS-C camera. Whether these advantages outweigh the negatives, especially when considering the much higher cost of both the camera body and the better glass it needs to feed it, is a different question. For some people, the expense and inconvenience of a Hasselblad is worth the improvement in image quality and the satisfaction of using an enormous viewfinder and a camera system engineered to incredible levels of precision. For most, it's not. Unfortunately, a 35 mm based digital SLR isn't a Hasselblad, but in terms of image quality, shooting satisfaction, and to a degree price, it stands in the same relationship to APS-C digital as medium-format stands to 35 mm film. Like 35 mm film, APS-C digital is significantly more convenient, easier to shoot, and less expensive than full-frame digital. So, if you're standing on the fence and wondering what it is you're missing out on, the answer for most people would be "a luxury." Full-frame is in no sense of the word a necessity for the vast majority of purposes and photographers, and the ones who really do require it won't need to read this piece of pontification to know that they do. But if you can afford it and are prepared to go the extra mile when it comes to shooting technique and choice of glass, it is immensely satisfying. It would take a lot to tempt me back to APS-C.
I'm not a pro, so coming from the Nikon side of things my low-budget foray into full frame digital was to buy an old Kodak SLR/n last year. For a camera released in early 2004 it obviously has a limited ISO range compared to more newer cameras, but otherwise it is beyond doubt the best digital camera I have ever owned when it comes to image quality and keepers.

I can't explain why. Could be the Kodak full frame sensor itself, which are reknowned and in the Leicas too (who now have to source a new supplier), but I've been thinking maybe the pixel-density - 14MP spread over a 24 x 36mm sensor compared to say 16MP on half the sensor-area in a Nikon D7000 or Pentax K-5. So it's not as sharply detailed as even a Sony RX100 compact at 20MP, but wow the images it produces are just so much nicer. For want of a better description, it's almost photo versus digital image if that makes sense.

I don't know how that actually translates into the new whopping megapixel full frame cameras like the D800. But they're basically just 2 x D7000 sensors in size and pixel density (shooting in DX crop-mode is literally shooting with a D7000 sensor), so I think for me the Kodak would still be better considering I would say even half a Kodak SLR/n image is way better than a full D7000 image anyhow.

Anyway, I still marvel at how good this old camera still is every time I use it, and that I am essentially using what sold as a multi-thousand dollars top-tier professional camera not long ago to now take snapshots. So much so I can't see myself ever buying another APSC DSLR ever again. Nor anyone else for that matter if full frame ever becomes affordable to all. Anyone who wants to shoot APSC or has non full-frame lenses can just shoot in crop mode as they've always been able to do on Nikons so I can't see why any APSC shooter would lament the move to full frame providing the best of both worlds.
04-09-2013, 01:57 AM   #719
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,556
QuoteOriginally posted by raz Quote
RonHendriks1966, on that link the actual video sharpness is 525/500 which is pretty bad. I'm not trying to bash your camera but these companies are mocking us with the video mode. I tell you, even a new phone has almost the same video resolution if not better with the crappy sensor and crappy plastic lens...so the bottleneck is the read out from the sensors...

"Sharpness takes a hit during video, even though this is a Full HD 1080p device. The camera was able to resolve 525 lw/ph horizontally and 500 vertically. Pretty average. More on how CamcorderInfo tests video sharpness.
With only 60 lux of ambient illumination, video sharpness is a tiny bit worse. This time, the sensor achieved 500 lw/ph horizontally and only 475 vertically."
Maybe I have the problem less since I keep close to my subject.

It's in Dutch, so Iook into this to make it with subtitles over the coming week.

Interview with K-01 and FA31mm, also used for the sideshot where the shot behind the goal is made with K-01 and DA10-17mm @10mm.
04-09-2013, 03:02 AM   #720
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,528
QuoteOriginally posted by Wired Quote
I'd rather take the extra lift from a 1.8 Pentax lens with more focus depth than the ultra shallow in only getting one eyelash in focus of a 1.8 ff
I don't like using the Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH at f/0.95 - the viewfinder on my Leica M9 doesn't have high enough magnification* to really focus that lens with 100% accuracy, I usually stop the noctilux down to f/1.2 - because the resolution is superior to any f/1.2 SLR lens.

* which is a rather pathetic 0.68X, the funny thing is my 50 year old Leica M3 is by far the best for focusing fast and long lenses accurately, at 0.92X the RF magnification is the highest of any Leica M camera body. Another reason why the Leica M3 has such a good viewfinder is that it uses a gold beamsplitter - as opposed to platinised or aluminized ones used in more current bodies. The use of gold introduces a blue cast to the main RF image contrasted with a yellow RF patch - this increases contrast and makes things clearer. It is true that later M cameras had viewfinders that are brighter, but they don't have the same "snap" that the M3 has.
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!
pentax cameras, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Minikina 2013 vsl 01/02.06.2013 in Wiesbaden veraikon General Talk 9 05-27-2013 10:37 AM
Weekly Challenge POTW #251 27 Jan 2013 through 10 Feb 2013 Dr Orloff Weekly Photo Challenges 54 02-10-2013 11:59 AM
Weekly Challenge POTW #250 20 Jan 2013 through 3 Feb 2013 Douge Weekly Photo Challenges 43 02-03-2013 09:45 PM
PENTAX Introduces New K-5 II & K-5 IIs DSLR Cameras Versatile cameras feature newly d Adam Homepage & Official Pentax News 18 09-13-2012 07:14 AM
NEW Pentax Lens Roadmap 2012/2013 oddesy Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 331 04-07-2012 02:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:44 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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