[Fogel70]

Have you seen the Nikon D5 specks..20 mp and iso sensitivity highest ISO 102400. Extended sensitivity is highest in Hi5 ISO 3280000 PLS Pentax..

That's is about the same ISO range as on 645z, It will be interesting to see how D5 compare in noise performance with 645z.
And how much difference it will be in price.

Edit: Now I see the highest ISO on D5 is 3.2 million, And the D500 with APS-C sensor has highest ISO of 1.6 million.
I wonder if these ISO ranges will fit inside of dxomark graphs.

---

Last edited by Fogel70; 01-05-2016 at 01:25 PM.

[Nicolas06]

That's is about the same ISO range as on 645z, It will be interesting to see how D5 compare in noise performance with 645z.
And how much difference it will be in price.

The iso range is just a setting in the camera firmware it has nothing to do with the actual camera performance

[Erictator]

Please, it has GOT to be spring SOMEWHERE!? No?!


E.

[Simen1]

Edit: Now I see the highest ISO on D5 is 3.2 million, And the D500 with APS-C sensor has highest ISO of 1.6 million.
I wonder if these ISO ranges will fit inside of dxomark graphs.

Probably not. It would score below zero on both DR, SNR and colour separation.

[indy]

The problem is that a APS-C sensor might be to small to capture that, and the crop sensor in 645Z might be to small too!
We really need the 100MP FF medium format sensor in a 645 ASAP.

Maybe they can put K1 on hold, and focus on FF 645 instead.

Phase One and Sony just released such a beast! Pentax is late to the party again. They are doomed.

[Rondec]

I don't understand all the angst. There will continue to be places for crop cameras and for full frame cameras and even for medium frame cameras for the forseeable future. Every camera is a compromise and what a photographer ends up with depends greatly on his/her budget, as well as size and various specifications that are needed for his/her purposes.

My dream camera would be a 645z with the 28-45, but honestly, I don't have that kind of money to spend on a hobby. If someone wants a smaller camera for less money, they could easily choose micro four thirds as having good enough image quality, smaller form factor and better video.

There is no wrong answer. Equivalence will tell you roughly how these cameras measure up against each other, although it will not let you decide for another photographer which factors are most important for them.

[WillWeaverRVA]

All I'll say is Ricoh missed a golden opportunity to announce something, given that Nikon announced two long-awaited models (particularly the D500).

[Kunzite]

A golden opportunity to have their announcement(s) completely shadowed by Nikon?

[discharged]

...
But this is what the Full Frame guys want to do. You want to talk about your best images. They want to talk about low light images. What are you going to do? IN most cases your best images are not low light images.

Who are these mystical "full frame guys"? And why do they want to talk about low light images? I am myself one of those contemplating a change to the upcoming full frame. Now let me tell you my reasoning. I've been away shooting birds alot with friends that have nikons or Canons Full-frame cameras. And befoore we even start with the other stuff, they have been impressed at the image quality I manage to get from my Pentax camera and mostly vintage lenses, so no worries there.

But here they sit with zooms at 400 to 500mm at F5.6 and me with a 300mm at F4 one stop of light in my favor, and since I have a cropped sensor my sensor covers roughly the same area. So that one stop of light. it should give me better images, right? weeeeell... When it comes to dynamic range they have one stop on me. their cameras at ISO200 are as good as mine at ISO100. And then we have the question of noise. their noise at ISO400 is about the same as my noise on ISO100, thats two full stops and that ratio also continues at higher ISO values, so ISO800 on mine is comparable to ISO3200 on theirs.

What this means for me is that that even though my lens lets in more light I am forced to to use the same shutter speed to be able to capture images with the same dynamic range or even worse, if I want the same amount of noise I will need a full stop extra on the shutter speed and that is with a "better" lens, atleast one that lets in more light.

So, you see, when I talk about ISO... It is a whole lot more than just being able to take pictures in low light. (who the f**k cares about that except wedding photographers and a few other weirdos...) for me it is about freezing action, allowing larger depth of view. Or simply in the end giving you a better chance to get a better image. You do not have to agree, not by any means, but I wanted you to know why ISO performance is important to me, the two stops I can gain with lower noise, it might be the difference between a blurred out bird at 1/160 and a crisp and sharp shot at 1/640.

Well, you can start by finding an appropriate, popular subject, like Kim Kardashian's butt Compose carefully before taking the shot!

And on a lighter note, we all know FF are better at landscape...

[apete]

All I'll say is Ricoh missed a golden opportunity to announce something, given that Nikon announced two long-awaited models (particularly the D500).

Pentax stuff is definitely longer-awaited...

[clackers]

And on a lighter note, we all know FF are better at landscape...

(Laughs).

Expect first her lawyers on the phone, then 'Rolling Stone' wanting you to do that shoot. Go for an ND filter, there'll be a lot of bling.

[mee]

If we stop it, then this silly argument stops. But on the other hand if it is stopped another thread will be made. But on the other hand another thread may not have a discussion as silly as this, but...

Yes.

The issue is the same personality that wants to show people to the door still thinks they were in the right for exclaiming such. No apology, no statement of I was wrong, just 'I had my say.' So nothing really changes.. it is bound to crop up again. I know this is true since this same personality told me to do the exact, same thing a couple of months ago when I mentioned Nikon in a favorable light here. So there is a pattern of aggressive behavior on their part.

I think, in light of this, perhaps the best option is to simply ignore them and let them simmer in their own bitterness when they get that way... because the hand slappy dustup action is bound to come back eventually since they see no wrong done.

[One3rdEV]

Kenspo- just wanted to say that I really appreciate you putting the time & effort in to make the comments back at #312.

[Nicolas06]

Who are these mystical "full frame guys"? And why do they want to talk about low light images? I am myself one of those contemplating a change to the upcoming full frame. Now let me tell you my reasoning. I've been away shooting birds alot with friends that have nikons or Canons Full-frame cameras. And befoore we even start with the other stuff, they have been impressed at the image quality I manage to get from my Pentax camera and mostly vintage lenses, so no worries there.

But here they sit with zooms at 400 to 500mm at F5.6 and me with a 300mm at F4 one stop of light in my favor, and since I have a cropped sensor my sensor covers roughly the same area. So that one stop of light. it should give me better images, right? weeeeell... When it comes to dynamic range they have one stop on me. their cameras at ISO200 are as good as mine at ISO100. And then we have the question of noise. their noise at ISO400 is about the same as my noise on ISO100, thats two full stops and that ratio also continues at higher ISO values, so ISO800 on mine is comparable to ISO3200 on theirs.

What this means for me is that that even though my lens lets in more light I am forced to to use the same shutter speed to be able to capture images with the same dynamic range or even worse, if I want the same amount of noise I will need a full stop extra on the shutter speed and that is with a "better" lens, atleast one that lets in more light.

Man, 300mm f/4 iso X is equivalent to 450mm f/6 iso X*2.3 to be exact. So you 300mm f/4 shoot at iso 800 match what they get at 450mm f/6 iso 1840. The difference is 1.1 stops not 2 stops.

To approximate, yes your 300mm @f/4 and their 450mm f5.6 at same iso and same shutter speed will give comparable results. I don't get your issue here, was to be expected.

Now if you want to get somep play, get a 600mm f/4 or even one of theses f/5.6 zooms and you'll see the difference in all of this comes much more from the lens than from the camera.

The key thing is that you can manage to get the sames pictures with a K30 and a DA*300 as they can with a D600 + 150-500 so you spend half the money and lift half the weight. That's already quite a thing I would say.

[Dan Rentea]

To approximate, yes your 300mm @f/4 and their 450mm f5.6 at same iso and same shutter speed will give comparable results. I don't get your issue here, was to be expected.

So, you're saying I can get comparable results if I use 300mm @f/4 with Pentax vs. 450mm on a full frame camera @f5.6, with the same shutter speed and the same ISO (let's say ISO 800)?

The key thing is that you can manage to get the sames pictures with a K30 and a DA*300 as they can with a D600 + 150-500 so you spend half the money and lift half the weight. That's already quite a thing I would say.

Are you joking, right? Or do you refer strictly to the fact that you get pretty much the same focal distance with 300mm on K-30 as you get with a full frame at 450mm?

I must do another tests because I must do something wrong since my pictures do not match at all with the settings you recommended.

P.S. I don't know why my text is bolded since I didn't touch the Bold button.