[Nicolas06]

Reading your general rhetoric (= smartphones are more than enough + shooting FA limited primes = contradiction), I was just wondering if you are more interesting in arguing than actually taking photographs.

That funny I am all contradiction when I say most are just using smartphones to take photos (who can deny that?) and that myself I shoot K3 + FAltd. Yeah.

You know I take photos, you say I don't, so you just do it for pure rhetorics...

Just for what? Complain that a picture example is too old for you? I didn't hear you said it didn't illustrate the point.

[asahi man]

Pixel/Sensor size matters
My customers and sports friends identify even my facebook photos as the new camera photos cause of the more and higher clarity
ISO 1600 is crystal clear now,like ISO 400 of my photos before the K-1.
What better could be happened,as customers and friends told you that the quality is going up much?
Even my photos with the preseries camera and preseries firmware,I got a quality like never before with a Pentax K,only my 645 Z pictures...OK...but what is this for fat and expensive camera?

[biz-engineer]

I long ignored how much talented I was until I got a K1, because, since I carry the K1 around everyone think I'm a pro and asking for a business card and how much I charge. I just have to say a price and cash in the money. When I add the grip on the K1 and a DFA70-200 or DFA150-450, I can't walk un-noticed, I make shadow on D810s and 5Ds owners and I can rival the D5 and 1Dx in size. When I arrive in a group of photog my K1 impose himself as the Alpha male of the DSLR group.

[thibs]

I hope to be on the top of that list. I don't miss any of the idiots that ignore me


(if you can read this and feel insulted you forgot to put me on that list ......... )

You're on the list but it doesn't mean I never read you. And why the hell should I feel insulted?

As I said we're always the idiot (or whatever word you may want to put here) of someone else. And it probably is better that way, btw.

[falconeye]

My point is that the workflow becomes easier and quicker when every pixel has accurate colour and intensity values without having to do Bayer transform approximations.

That's true in theory, false in practice.

That's because the "workflow" has to deal with 4x the data and has to guess which pixels did change.

The immense success of the Bayer pattern has to do with its efficient "workflow", needing much less original data for the same perceived image quality.

The real merit of pixel-shift is an absolute better image quality at the pixel-level than a single capture with a Bayer filter could provide. For me, it may mean more fun at post-processing at 100% view.

[thibs]

That's true in theory, false in practice.

That's because the "workflow" has to deal with 4x the data and has to guess which pixels did change.

The immense success of the Bayer pattern has to do with its efficient "workflow", needing much less original data for the same perceived image quality.

The real merit of pixel-shift is an absolute better image quality at the pixel-level than a single capture with a Bayer filter could provide. For me, it may mean more fun at post-processing at 100% view.

I think workflow is a very badly chosen word, IMO. In our current processing power, the Bayer pattern compared to a shift pattern should a detail.

I do not understand how an 'OK accommodation' (and reasonable, really) has to take the precedence over a full information way of doing things... Except accommodation based on processing power. But are those still relevant? I don't think so.

You used to be aimed at best possible scenarioes and it seems you drifted to easier scenario. What happened to you?

[Zygonyx]

I must have forgotten that, don't hesitate to show me... I must have some memory issues

here it is :

"That may sound stupid, but that a reason for me to not buy that K1. "


Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/325411-pentax-k-1-continuo...#ixzz4F2oQpo1x

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 07-21-2016 at 06:43 AM.

[Nicolas06]

Zygonyx why are you unable to quote/read the complete message?

You said: "Best of all, Nicolas wrote somewhere he wasn't interested in K-1 anymore because of weak AF performance in the wake of DPR's highly reliable bike-test. "

The post:

Completely ignoring the dpreview review and only looking at the schema and your explanation, this AF design is a huge issue for me.
[...]
Overall APSC bodies are much better for that as well as mirorless bodies.

That may sound stupid, but that a reason for me to not buy that K1.

I am the guy that is arguing, but many here change things to their liking so they can go after the others...

[biz-engineer]

Sometimes is not good to be right when people like to be right. So if you are right they dont like you, but if you are wrong they like you, or if you let it go they also like. The answer is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_OK_%E2%80%93_You%27re_OK#The_Parent.2C_A...P-A-C.29_model

[Zygonyx]

Sorry for having somehow modified your prose nicolas.
Basically, i meant that despite your stated position, you carry on arguing the way others have described.
For the rest, i have since a long time ignored too long arguing posts.
I prefer short and informative content : no time to loose / better take pictures.
And in that respect, i only advice you to try K-1 by yourself...
It might stop some of your arguments.

[Nicolas06]

Sorry for having somehow modified your prose nicolas.
Basically, i meant that despite your stated position, you carry on arguing the way others have described.
For the rest, i have since a long time ignored too long arguing posts.
I prefer short and informative content : no time to loose / better take pictures.
And in that respect, i only advice you to try K-1 by yourself...
It might stop some of your arguments.

Sure but again, as to many that have tried... I think K1 fantastic piece of gear. maybe the best for some use (outdoor/landscape use) but this doesn't mean I would enjoy it. I don't feel I need that many megapixels, I don't feel enough need of high iso performance and I an somewhat sensitive to the size of the package.

Basically either I give up quality go m4/3 or something like that, either I updgrade FF to get something bigger and higher quality or I stay where I am, because it is not that bad, all the contrary. I have all the time to wait for potentially improved WA prime and if I was to upgrade, an FF mirorless that would be half the size of K1.

Even if I wanted K1, I'd wait 2 years so it would cost more like 1000€ than 2000 and the missing less like a 24mm prime would be available.

But this is not because I do not plan for K1 that I think it bad, useless, not worth it in general or on the contrary the best ever. It is great camera. Best at some thing, good at other things... And counter productive for some needs (for example lightweight setup). That's just how it is.

[falconeye]

I think workflow is a very badly chosen word, IMO. [...]
You used to be aimed at best possible scenarioes and it seems you drifted to easier scenario. What happened to you?

Actually, I am always in favour of "the best possible".

I only answered to a post which introduced "workflow" into the discussion. And information theory tells us that workflow (data efficiency) is the biggest argument in favor of Bayer, not against it. I only wanted to explain that simple fact.

Of course, I would prefer full color information at every pixel. Unfortunately, such technology does not exist yet. Foveon has noise, pixel shift has temporal blur.

And between 4x resolution and full color information, I choose 4x resolution.

[biz-engineer]

And between 4x resolution and full color information, I choose 4x resolution.

No sure if 4x the resolution is better than 1x true color, simply due to the limited bandwidth of the optics in front of the sensor. However, for a given sensor resolution such as 36Mp of the K1 (or D810), pixels shift is cheap to implement, and brings slightly better sharpness and color, at the expense of requiring a steady image. What users are complaining about is the processing of raw files with third party software. Since the K1 already includes in camera processing of pixel shifted images with or without motion correction when JPEG is chosen, if I was Ricoh, I'd simply output a raw file option instead of a JPEG, problem solved.

[Nicolas06]

No sure if 4x the resolution is better than 1x true color, simply due to the limited bandwidth of the optics in front of the sensor. However, for a given sensor resolution such as 36Mp of the K1 (or D810), pixels shift is cheap to implement, and brings slightly better sharpness and color, at the expense of requiring a steady image. What users are complaining about is the processing of raw files with third party software. Since the K1 already includes in camera processing of pixel shifted images with or without motion correction when JPEG is chosen, if I was Ricoh, I'd simply output a raw file option instead of a JPEG, problem solved.

I agree that Pentax could provide the option to export as an already demoised 16bit DNG or tiff so that you don't need any special software to work with it. Like they could use the HDR format used by several HDR tools with 32bit per pixel as an option when shooting in body HDR...

That should be easy, but I never heard of a camera manufacturer having such options?

To me that could be just an option menu:
- when shooting HDR save as either: JPEG / RAW / JPEG + RAW / 32 bit HDR
- when shooting pixel shift save as either: JPEG / PEF RAW / DNG RAW, 16 bit already demoised DNG, 16 bit tiff.

Once they provide 16 bit raw as standard, tiff but also 32 bit HDR, they can also extend pixel shift for more shots to increase futher the dynamic range. 16 shots would provide better color information, more sharpness but also 2EV of dynamic range... Maybe combine pixel shift and HDR in an automated shoot, so you would a 32bit file, with 20+ EV dynamic range and pixel shift sharpness...

They have at least to ensure lightroom provide support of their output. i think that's the enabler and that's why bayer has still a better workflow: it is standard an work everywhere. To promote pixel shift and alike, you need to change that.

Pentax would not be alone. There EXR from Fuji or foveon from Sigma. Bayer being the norm and raw being the norm for advanced post processing mean you can't have anything but a standard sensor with standard bayer system if you want full support for tooling. You can't say have a custom primary color filter, or shift the colors pattern, or use different technology. This draw us back ;(

[HopelessTogger]

What I'm after the most is automatic in-camera focus stacking in RAW, more than anything. Love macro, hate macro rails.

Olympus do this in the EM-1, it was introduced in a firmware update, although I believe it's semi-automatic and JPEG only.