Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-10-2015, 03:05 AM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,406
A sensor shining is a sign of a bad anti-reflective coating, and can cause all sorts of flare issues. I'm disappointed

P.S. I fully understand that you cannot say more, and it's probably for the best. But... you can type, right? Right?

08-10-2015, 03:19 AM   #32
Senior Member
gorme's Avatar

Join Date: May 2014
Location: Galway - Ireland
Posts: 212
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
A sensor shining is a sign of a bad anti-reflective coating, and can cause all sorts of flare issues. I'm disappointed

P.S. I fully understand that you cannot say more, and it's probably for the best. But... you can type, right? Right?
Typing is also not possible here, sorry
But good news are ahead !
08-10-2015, 03:45 AM   #33
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
QuoteOriginally posted by clockworkrat Quote
How does the LX100 compare to the RX100? Is there a noticeable improvement in image quality?
In regards to the sensors, DxO got it about right. They are fairly similar overall, but the RX100 provides more detail at lower ISO's due to the increased MP, and the LX100 produces cleaner pictures at higher ISO's thanks to the larger sensor.

But on the more general question of image quality, I much prefer the LX100. The larger sensor allows for more shallow depth of field, to get closer to that DSLR look, and the lens is much faster (f/1.7-2.8 vs f/1.8-4.9). It maintains a large aperture, even at full telephoto, which further increases the noise advantage of the LX100, since you can stay at lower ISO's.

Since I like to shoot portraits, I spend a lot of time at full telephoto. So with the RX100-II, the lens would close down to f/4.9, killing the shallow DOF and requiring a higher ISO. It has also been demonstrated that the lens on the LX100 renders OOF areas much nicer in many instances. It just seems to be a higher-quality lens overall.

When used indoors, the RX-100 was frustrating for me because of the smaller aperture. And the fact that it was not very good at focusing in low-light made it even worse. I ended up mostly using it for video. The video quality of the RX100 series is outstanding, so it makes a great camcorder that can fit in a pocket. With the LX100, I'm shooting pictures again.

It should be noted that with version III of the RX100, Sony gave it a faster lens. But I never used the III, so I can't really compare it.
08-10-2015, 04:10 AM - 1 Like   #34
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by FantasticMrFox Quote
It will be very interesting to see its performance against the new Sony 42 MP FF sensor.
The Sony 42MP is beaten by the D810 according to preliminary testing I see floating around. Also, the 645Z will have the D810 as its peer. At ISO 50 measured, not that easy to beat even with the slightly larger sensor.

QuoteOriginally posted by bibz Quote
Pixelshift results would have been interesting.
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
If we think that DxO algorithms are based on standard bayer matrix and do not support X-trans sensor for example, it seems only logical that they can't analyse pixel shift performance.
Pixelshift is a variant of image stacking with computable effect on sensor scores. It effectively multiplies base iso by 1/#frames and therefore, pushes DR and Dxomarks.

However, it is no sensor score and must be excluded from the official list of scores. Dxo somewhat break their own rule for their own DxO ONE camera which is sad.

As for color technologies deviating from Bayer, DxO testing doesn't rely on it except for its color scores. DxO never published how to extract luminosity data from raw files exactly. But they don't do demosaicing which is part of the reason why their results are this precise.

The effect of pixel shifting on rsolution would have to become new camera/lens combination result entries. I doubt DxO has the resources to do that, esp. as they would have to add feature "Pentax Pixelshift version 1" into their own raw converter.


Last edited by falconeye; 08-10-2015 at 04:20 AM.
08-10-2015, 05:05 AM   #35
Veteran Member
clockworkrat's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Black Isle, Scotland
Posts: 405
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
In regards to the sensors, DxO got it about right. They are fairly similar overall, but the RX100 provides more detail at lower ISO's due to the increased MP, and the LX100 produces cleaner pictures at higher ISO's thanks to the larger sensor.
Does this also translate into cleaner shadows?
08-10-2015, 05:14 AM   #36
Loyal Site Supporter
Mikesul's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 2,472
QuoteOriginally posted by gorme Quote
You should have more info about it soon, the sensor really shines (cannot say more, sorry guys)
Ah, so it IS a BSI!
08-10-2015, 05:55 AM   #37
Site Supporter
Zygonyx's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ile de France
Posts: 2,951
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Pixelshift is a variant of image stacking with computable effect on sensor scores. It effectively multiplies base iso by 1/#frames and therefore, pushes DR and Dxomarks.

However, it is no sensor score and must be excluded from the official list of scores. Dxo somewhat break their own rule for their own DxO ONE camera which is sad.

As for color technologies deviating from Bayer, DxO testing doesn't rely on it except for its color scores. DxO never published how to extract luminosity data from raw files exactly. But they don't do demosaicing which is part of the reason why their results are this precise.

The effect of pixel shifting on rsolution would have to become new camera/lens combination result entries. I doubt DxO has the resources to do that, esp. as they would have to add feature "Pentax Pixelshift version 1" into their own raw converter.
Exactly, plus if Pentax don't give them the "raw codec" for the pixel-shift implementation (and i bet such a thing is not on any Ricoh agenda, because reserved for Silkypix contract) , finding the correct way to get intended results out of the K-3 II raw files would be like finding a needle in a bale of straw for DxO

Last edited by Zygonyx; 08-10-2015 at 06:02 AM.
08-10-2015, 06:30 AM   #38
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
QuoteOriginally posted by clockworkrat Quote
Does this also translate into cleaner shadows?
My impression is that it does, but I would have to go through my images and find similar pictures shot in similar circumstances to compare directly.

I actually ended up not using my RX100 very often for pictures due to my frustration with the small aperture and the dismal low-light focusing. My old Olympus XZ-1 focused with ease in conditions that challenged my RX100 (and my RX1, while I owned it). If I wanted nice photos, I still went for my DSLR. With my LX100, I'm happy to use it for casual photo duties.

08-10-2015, 06:50 AM   #39
Veteran Member
clockworkrat's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Black Isle, Scotland
Posts: 405
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
My impression is that it does, but I would have to go through my images and find similar pictures shot in similar circumstances to compare directly.

I actually ended up not using my RX100 very often for pictures due to my frustration with the small aperture and the dismal low-light focusing. My old Olympus XZ-1 focused with ease in conditions that challenged my RX100 (and my RX1, while I owned it). If I wanted nice photos, I still went for my DSLR. With my LX100, I'm happy to use it for casual photo duties.
That's a bit of a shame. On my last holiday in France, whilst my RX100 was obviously overshadowed by my K30 most of the time, on the occasion that I wanted something smaller to carry around I found the RX100's images pretty impressive. It was pretty fun to use in dim light at the short end with the aperture around F2.2 as well.

The newer RX100s and the LX100 both seem to make the same adaptation to their lenses in trading reach for a more stable aperture.
08-10-2015, 06:57 AM   #40
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Blue Ridge Escarpment, North Carolina, US
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,282
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
My impression is that it does, but I would have to go through my images and find similar pictures shot in similar circumstances to compare directly.

I actually ended up not using my RX100 very often for pictures due to my frustration with the small aperture and the dismal low-light focusing. My old Olympus XZ-1 focused with ease in conditions that challenged my RX100 (and my RX1, while I owned it). If I wanted nice photos, I still went for my DSLR. With my LX100, I'm happy to use it for casual photo duties.
Hard to beat that Sigma 50-150 for (low light) portraits on virtually any of the K's 1,3,5,7 Edgar.
08-10-2015, 07:19 AM   #41
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,529
QuoteOriginally posted by Edgar_in_Indy Quote
In regards to the sensors, DxO got it about right. They are fairly similar overall, but the RX100 provides more detail at lower ISO's due to the increased MP, and the LX100 produces cleaner pictures at higher ISO's thanks to the larger sensor.

But on the more general question of image quality, I much prefer the LX100. The larger sensor allows for more shallow depth of field, to get closer to that DSLR look, and the lens is much faster (f/1.7-2.8 vs f/1.8-4.9). It maintains a large aperture, even at full telephoto, which further increases the noise advantage of the LX100, since you can stay at lower ISO's.

Since I like to shoot portraits, I spend a lot of time at full telephoto. So with the RX100-II, the lens would close down to f/4.9, killing the shallow DOF and requiring a higher ISO. It has also been demonstrated that the lens on the LX100 renders OOF areas much nicer in many instances. It just seems to be a higher-quality lens overall.

When used indoors, the RX-100 was frustrating for me because of the smaller aperture. And the fact that it was not very good at focusing in low-light made it even worse. I ended up mostly using it for video. The video quality of the RX100 series is outstanding, so it makes a great camcorder that can fit in a pocket. With the LX100, I'm shooting pictures again.

It should be noted that with version III of the RX100, Sony gave it a faster lens. But I never used the III, so I can't really compare it.
I taken a look at the LX100, my only concern with it really was the 12MP "only" with '24-70' only for range look like a bit short to me. Do you feel being restricted to 70mm is ok? Also does the quality allow to crop to say 6MP to match 100mm equivalent framing?
08-10-2015, 08:19 AM   #42
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
I taken a look at the LX100, my only concern with it really was the 12MP "only" with '24-70' only for range look like a bit short to me. Do you feel being restricted to 70mm is ok? Also does the quality allow to crop to say 6MP to match 100mm equivalent framing?
I wouldn't mind if the lens was a bit longer, but I realize that they can only do so much in a small package. I think the image quality is good enough to stand up to some cropping, as long as the ISO isn't too high.

On my K-30, I've gotten used to underexposing in order to save the highlights, and then brightening it back up in ACR. Because of how amazing the sensor is in the K-30/K-5, you still end up with fairly clean images. With my LX100, I try to expose properly since the RAW files are not as flexible as the K-30's. If you underexpose very much and then brighten it back up, you will see some noise. But to keep things in perspective, it's better than anything that isn't a DSLR or doesn't have a large lens attached.

All in all, I've been very impressed with what the LX100 offers in such a compact package. It's not as small as the RX100, but it does some things that the RX100 cannot do. For some, the RX100 makes more sense, for others the LX100 is the better camera.
08-10-2015, 08:22 AM   #43
Veteran Member
clockworkrat's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Black Isle, Scotland
Posts: 405
I'd imagine correct exposure would be a bit easier with an EVF displaying clipping warnings and a histogram.
08-10-2015, 12:55 PM   #44
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,159
I'll take my GR though..
08-10-2015, 01:10 PM   #45
Pentaxian
Edgar_in_Indy's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Indiana, USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,554
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
I'll take my GR though..
I've been very tempted by the GR in the past, and could see myself owning one if the right deal comes along. If I could just get the LX100's lens on the GR's sensor, without it being any larger...
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!
aps-c, body, cameras, canon, crop, dxo, dxomark, ff, ii, k-3, k-3ii, lr, marks, mask, motion, nikon, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, pixel, results, score, sensor, sensors, shift, tests, thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How do you see the K-3ii vs K-5iis? Conqueror Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 01-27-2016 07:12 AM
K-3II First Impressions cali92rs Pentax K-3 9 07-17-2015 05:05 AM
Firmware the same for K-3 & K-3II? glee46 Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 07-05-2015 06:02 PM
K-3 (not K-3II) future availability & price guesses Lititz Pentax K-3 11 07-05-2015 10:36 AM
New K-3ii vict Pentax K-3 8 05-22-2015 01:05 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:07 PM. | 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