 |
 | Search this Thread |
| 10-13-2008, 08:01 AM | #181 |
| Guest |  Originally posted by philmorley  so this the dr of jpgs? how do you find out for raw? |
| 10-13-2008, 12:54 PM | #182 |
| Originally posted by Samsungian I'm not a fan of 21mp size of 5D MarkII. But when you drill down into the raw specs you see you have three choices: 21mp, 10mp and 6mp. I'm curious how the image quality is at 10mp and 6mp raw settings as I really like my images from 12mp full frame 5D. I wonder if Digic IV will show superiority to 12mp Digic II or just be a tad bit better or a wash or worse? Or maybe 6mp raw setting will compare favorably to old 12mp digic II? I tried to handle a MarkII yesterday assuming the local proshop would have it. Canon is overwhelmed by demand for this $2700 overdue 5D upgrade. Might not be till Thanksgiving before I get to put my cf card in it a my L series glass on it for hands on comparision. If I love it, I won't buy it for a year unless dollar deflation causes the issue price to increase. Canon's pretty good at announcing price increases a couple weeks ahead of time so I'll see. I'd rather wait for 20% off instead of 10% increases. Sounds like you’re having a blast with your new camera, and that is the way it should be. Photography is what it is all about, spending time complaining and being dissatisfied is simply not worth it, for something over a camera brand. There are many lenses from Canon that I would like to use or see in my Pentax mount. And there are other things from Nikon that I find fascinating. But Pentax has served my needs, and I like the opportunities it gives. Originally posted by Tom Lusk Is there not a double standard here? Those that are consistently pro-everything-pentax are never required to show photos. Those that question any product or marketing decision seem to draw the "let's see your photos so that we can judge whether you're worth listening to" comments. Rice has provided links to some of his photos - at least twice that I recall. Some were of a Japanese musical performance, that I thought were quite good - but, because they were produced by RH, they drew negative comments by some who could probably do no better. I don't blame him for ignoring calls to link to more photos. Why should he? Why should 24x36Now? On a related note, on DPR I asked Roland Mabo to post a link to his PPG gallery, as SURELY, someone as outspoken as he is about the razor-sharp lenses he owns (never has seen a Pentax lens that wasn't absolutely perfect, if you can believe that) and who knows everything Pentax has ever done and will do, has produced some real masterpieces. There are others, mainly on DPR, that are as vocal as Roland, but they tend to use "screen names", making it hard to decide whether they, too, are worth listening to. Turnabout is fair play - no? A fair question I guess. I entered DPR when I was considering a DSLR. I read the user statistics, and many were very happy with their camera. I check the forums for the great photography displayed, which I find inspirational and can learn from; and I love to see travel threads and mountaineering / caving, etc. When I see e.g. the great pictures from Lance, I ask how he did it, and what works. I see the equipment people use, so I get an idea of how an ideal kit for me could look like. I also pick up advise from technical discussions, and have learned a lot on how my camera performs and the many features that it has. And then I read on how to get the most of the camera; and in which conditions a DSLR will function best. To start out with, you don’t know who the trolls are, or who the regulars are which play with open cards. If somebody is running in to start a debate with controversial claims, I check out their track record. If they go by an anonymous name, have not disclosed e-mail address, do not provide any link to their photo sites, and never contribute in that. Then usually the alarm clocks go off. There are many that I get advise from in forums. I’ll try and divide it up, for overview : - There are many great users, from which I have seldom seen photos. But when I read up on what GordonBGood comes in with, it is obvious that he is very knowledgeable in his field. I have never seen photos from Rob / Distudio, but he has a big collection of Pentax glass, which enables him to give a lot of input to the rest of us, (he talked about going for the Nikon D3, don’t know if he has yet). Herb Chong may seem critical, but he has a lot of tele Pentax glass, and I just put it down to his New Yorker attitude, and have learned from his posts and photos as well. - The there are those that I may disagree with at first. But then I see their portfolio, which may be very impressive, and I give their views a second chance, and read more from them. - I read from the Pro’s at DPr, as they know what to demand from a camera. And from their picture taking, I can see that they know their stuff, and I see what I can learn. *Isteve, Richardday, JFDavis, Ben / LuzArt, Brett St. Pierre, and others, have been very helpful in explaining issues, which I found hard to understand, so I often read what they talk about in the forum. Of cause I also came about RH. I din’t know who the person was, but read some on his blog, and his postings in forums. Quickly I realized that much made no sense, other info was conflicting, and it was clear that he was one of the persons that are warned about, when spending time in online places : The Two Kinds of Photographers He has helped in explaining a difference between a Samsung model and a Pentax one; and I'm thankful for that. But I can’t remember seeing the photos that you talk about, (wouldn’t mind to), but only saw some at a Canon forum where he was informed how he had dust-spots in the photos and a tilted horizon. You don’t have to spend much time in his site, to see that he only picks the negative things from Interviews, it is not far from being liable in a judicial way against a brand. But of cause big companys don’t care to waste time on such unfortunate people. There are just some people that do not play with their cards open. Trolling is a issue that one learns about on the Internet where people feel it is their free right, to spew negativity about among others. Even the level-headed Klaus from PhotoZone, was telling RH that his way of scale attitude was so easy to spot, and that he really should try to work on it. RH was being agreeable about minor negatives that Klaus was mentioning about Pentax, but then disputing when Klaus was saying something positive. Another character, Anastigmat tried to state how one would make a big mistake going for Nikon crop DSLRs compared to Canon FF. This was at a time where the Pro wildlife shooter Frantz Lanting, (if not top in the world then in top 10), was writing his name in neon as an all time great. So if Anastigmat had a big portfolio in wildlife, then maybe I had taken him seriously. But it was obvious that he had no knowledge when it came to that field. Therefore, when in doubt, it is often a help to see the portfolio from users, when you don’t know their history. I often go by the work of the Pro’s, see what they do and what their opinion is on various matters. Generally the ones that yell the most, wouldn’t need it, if they were right. I post pictures if I think it will be of interest to others, or need help in getting better. One user whom I had never seen photos from, but who seemed very knowledgeable, I ask for some help in editing and he really improved a photo I had. This comes down to the helpful attitude among some Pentax users, were we get to know each other even if it is just over the net. Personally I think that Roland has been very helpful, and I’ve been able to use a lot of his information. But everybody is of cause free to figure out whose opinions they value. I don’t mind that some people would like a FF. But as some endlessly state the same things in every thread, it tends to act more like spamming. Last edited by Jonson PL; 10-13-2008 at 01:05 PM. | |
| 10-13-2008, 01:04 PM | #183 |
| Originally posted by Gruoso Before being sunk in critics I just wanted to add something to a post that I read before about why would somebody want to move to FF if it is not able to get the most of a K20D. The answer is exactly in the question. A FF will make you easier to take some pictures that you simply cant do with a K20d without HDR and a lot of post-processing. This is an example of what I am talking about. This is taken with a K100d on a heavily clouded morning. I underexposed the shoot trying to keep the sky of blowing without success. I would say that a FF would have helped me on that. And before starting saying that good photog wake up at 4:30AM to take advantage of the light I will tell you that not all the people enjoy extreme stoicism. And I know, not all the people has 3000usd to spare in a FF pentax body. But those that have it you can bet that they will not buy a Pentax FF camera anytime soon. For sure a Pro calibre camera, in the thousands of dollar range, can help out with things that simpler cams would not be able to manage. I fear though that a D3, 1D Mark III; would be lost on me, as I simply wouldn’t understand all the options. I would probably mess things up for myself  Originally posted by philmorley personally if pentax made an equivalent to the a900 I'd preorder, but in regards to your image. looking at dynamic range on dpr (so maybe I reading things wrong and doing something stupid  but the k20d outperforms most of ff's at iso100 Camera (ISO 100) Shadow range Highlight range Usable range Pentax K20D -5.8 EV 3.2 EV 9.0 EV Canon EOS 450D -5.1 EV 3.6 EV 8.7 EV Sony DSLR-A700 (ISO 200) -4.9 EV 3.9 EV 8.8 EV Olympus E-3 -5.8 EV 3.0 EV 8.8 EV Pentax K10D -4.5 EV 2.8 EV 7.3 EV Nikon D700 (ISO 200) -4.4 EV 3.4 EV 7.8 EV Sony DSLR-A900 (ISO 200) -5.1 EV 4.2 EV 9.4 EV Canon EOS 5D (ISO 100) -4.7 EV 3.5 EV 8.2 EV Nikon D300 (ISO 200) -4.7 EV 4.1 EV 8.8 EV Nikon D3 (ISO 200) -4.7 EV 3.9 EV 8.6 EV Originally posted by Gruoso I even like the fact that the camera is probably one of the ugliest-looking ever designed. I am just on a perpetual syndrom of greener grass on the other side of the fence and later awarement of appreciation of what I get. | |
| 10-13-2008, 01:30 PM | #184 |
| Guest | Originally posted by Jonson PL I’m not sure I understand this info ? Regarding to your nice cathegorization do you apply that measure to people that complains only or you also apply it to people that defend the system? I think that this was the question that Tom was pointing out. I am sure that you do but many other people doesnt. RH receive non-stop bashing for being hypercritical with Pentax while the people that does the same on the other side of the equation are regarded as knowledgeable and wise even when they dont show their work neither. Or even worst, when they use their profiency in taking pics to take advantage or create false expectations about a product that they are interesting in selling. In my case, I dont care if RH is right or not, or Roland and isteve are right or now. Actually I find that RH and roland hardly disrespect anyone. I just think that it is unfair the treatment that RH receives even if I dont agree with many of his affirmations. |
| 10-13-2008, 04:53 PM | #185 |
| Originally posted by Gruoso It is representing stops (EV) of DR. THe first value is the DR in shadows, the second the DR in highlights and the last value is the sum of both (total DR). The second value corresponds to the amount of light above which highlights are no longer discriminated. Above this value everything looks the same bright white. The DR (dynamic range) is the difference (not sum) between these two values, indicating how large the range is within which shades are resolved. Last edited by Class A; 10-13-2008 at 04:54 PM. Reason: typo | |
| 10-13-2008, 05:40 PM | #186 |
| Originally posted by Tom Lusk "Tis *steve!  One of those DPR people I was just talking about! | |
| 10-13-2008, 06:12 PM | #187 |
| Guest | Originally posted by Class A Small correction: The first value corresponds amount of light below which no discrimination in shadows occurs. Below this value everything drowns in black. The second value corresponds to the amount of light above which highlights are no longer discriminated. Above this value everything looks the same bright white. The DR (dynamic range) is the difference (not sum) between these two values, indicating how large the range is within which shades are resolved. |
| 10-13-2008, 11:28 PM | #188 |
| 10-14-2008, 08:46 AM | #189 |
| Originally posted by thibs I do not think the "show us pics" attitude is anything contructive. Of course if RH (sorry RH, that's for the example only, no bashing swanted here) says there's noise pattern everywere but can't even post a picture showing there's then what credibility to put in such statements? If people prefer to analyze technical data instead of actually taking photos that's their prerogative, however if you're going to start up a blog that does nothing but gripe about certain technical aspects of a system then I really do think you should have mastered that system and have the pics to prove it if you want to be taken seriously. It's kind of like a mechanic setting up a blog about racing, yet has never actually driven a race. I personally prefer advice from people that have been there and done that, not those that sit on the sideline and hypothesize. The bottom line is 99% of this technical talk, while fun, is pretty much pointless. If a K20D/D300/50D can't capture the image you want then it's time to look at the photographer, not the camera. Before buying a $3000 camera to "improve" your photos you'd get far better gains by joining a local photography club for free and learn what others know. Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 10-14-2008 at 08:50 AM. Reason: typo | |
| 10-14-2008, 08:57 AM | #190 |
| Originally posted by Art Vandelay II I probably went a bit too far when I insisted RH show us pics or shut up, but I can only take so much bitching. At some point I want to see real world examples where these "problems" have effected a photo. It's one thing to show lab test of noise or dynamic range issues, its another thing to actually go out and shoot and have these issues effect you. And I don't mean sample shots taken that you know will cause problems, I mean photos when you are trying your best to get the perfect shot and the camera flat out let you down. Even when these problems do arise, there is typically an easy work around either in the field or in post processing. Just look at lenses, now thanks to Lightroom/Photoshop you can get a $150 lens give $600 lens results. If people prefer to analyze technical data instead of actually taking photos that's their prerogative, however if you're going to start up a blog that does nothing but gripe about certain technical aspects of a system then I really do think you should have mastered that system and have the pics to prove it if you want to be taken seriously. It's kind of like a mechanic setting up a blog about racing, yet has never actually driven a race. I personally prefer advice from people that have been there and done that, not those that sit on the sideline and hypothesize. The bottom line is 99% of this technical talk, while fun, is pretty much pointless. If a K20D/D300/50D can't capture the image you want then it's time to look at the photographer, not the camera. Before buying a $3000 camera to "improve" your photos you'd get far better gains by joining a local photography club for free and learn what others know. But some others do think that if you do not post any pics you aren't entitled to have an opinion at all on this forum. This is what I find entirely stupid. | |
| 10-14-2008, 10:49 AM | #191 |
| Originally posted by Gruoso Regarding to your nice cathegorization do you apply that measure to people that complains only or you also apply it to people that defend the system? I think that this was the question that Tom was pointing out. I am sure that you do but many other people doesnt. RH receive non-stop bashing for being hypercritical with Pentax while the people that does the same on the other side of the equation are regarded as knowledgeable and wise even when they dont show their work neither. Or even worst, when they use their profiency in taking pics to take advantage or create false expectations about a product that they are interesting in selling. In my case, I dont care if RH is right or not, or Roland and isteve are right or now. Actually I find that RH and roland hardly disrespect anyone. I just think that it is unfair the treatment that RH receives even if I dont agree with many of his affirmations. I know that Tom has been somewhat critical of Roland before, and it is his right to make up his own view of people. I think Roland has been fairly spot on over the years, in predicaments about the industry and things to come, so for me he has been helpful, also on technical matters. (And like I said, RH was also helpful for me, in pointing out a difference between a Samsung and Pentax model that I had not noticed.) Of cause there are some who will be carried away in their praise of new products, maybe seeing some before they hit the shelves. I just take note and do the evaluation for myself, and if pictures are included, I can make up my own opinion. There are also different response methods, some complain in the forums, others do their thing directly to Pentax. If I was shown things before the product was to hit the market, you should probably subtract half of what I would say about it. I would get all stoked and fired up, and be less objective. There are some that show their work, but still are too lenient in their praise / evaluation of the Pentax system; I often just leave it be. Unless newbies are coming in, and could be mislead. If I know something is obviously wrong, then I go in, since this was a help when I was new, how many of the long time users set the things straight when e.g. trolls went in and tried to spread some FUD. But when people talk about IQ, and how the FF will be superior, then it peaks our curiosity, since it leaves the impression that the person must be on the brim of what crop sensor can do. Sounds for exiting stock photos. There were some things that I didn’t immediately agree with Sean Reid from http://www.reidreviews.com about in his evaluation of the K10, but reading his site and seeing his work, he is extremely knowledgeable; and I took note of his conclusions. Talking about pictures, here are some of mine that I posted on this site : https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/21485-snaps-italy-val-ga...-de-fassa.html I’m unfortunately not very good at PP and don’t own PhotoShop, so I have no idea what people are talking about when they mention levels and curves. And here are some Tri-X work that I did for a friend : https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-film-slr-discussion/33341-fullfill...tml#post306322 Originally posted by thibs I think there's a major difference talking about technic and about photography. I do often take part in discussion on the technical side of things because I'm much interested in it. I did not ever post any photos here or at DPR. Does it mean I can't take part to technical discussion? That'd be very stupid but of course anybody can beleive so. However I will never act as if "I knew all" talking about photography, I feel I'm really not good enough, partly because of time constraints. I do not think the "show us pics" attitude is anything contructive. Of course if RH (sorry RH, that's for the example only, no bashing swanted here) says there's noise pattern everywere but can't even post a picture showing there's then what credibility to put in such statements? Which exactly why I refrain to critic pictures of others. Because I do not feel like I should. It doesn't stop me from debating technical aspects of cameras. I do not see why I should shit up in this area, may that please you guys, or not. If somebody is fair about what they can or can’t do, one generally knows that one can take their views at face value. This leaves a trustworthy idea of the person. Last edited by Jonson PL; 10-14-2008 at 11:09 AM. | |
| 10-14-2008, 08:40 PM | #192 |
| Some numbers for DR in RAW | |
| 10-15-2008, 04:24 PM | #193 |
| Originally posted by *isteve Um, why should any of us care what you want? | |
| 10-24-2008, 10:58 AM | #194 |
| Originally posted by Class A The FF sensor can afford the higher resolution without any drawbacks so denying it this advantage doesn't seem to be fair in a comparison. "Relatively high levels of noise at anything over ISO 400 (ISO 6400 is of very, very limited use)" And : "The biggest challenge to the Alpha 900 is probably the as yet untested Canon EOS 5D Mark II, which promises a similar resolution and a bag full of features (live view, video mode and so on) at a price that's around 10% lower. There's no doubt that existing Sony SLR and legacy Minolta film SLR users now have a fitting flagship model to salivate over and save up for, but in the face of such strong competitors the Alpha 900 may have a tough job persuading anyone to switch systems for it." Even the engineers of the new Eos 5D Mark II, have been disappointed that they were forced by the marketing people, to go for the easy MP thing : http://uk.news.yahoo.com/30/20080917/ttc-exclusive-canon-engineers-held-back-e870a33.html Tech Digest: EXCLUSIVE: Canon engineers held back by marketing department's "megapixel race" when instead, they could have focussed on other areas, like a sensor with vastly improved Dynamic Range, or other new aspect diglloyd Blog: September 2008 diglloyd Blog: October 2008 (I can really recommend this Lloyd Chambers site, his reviews are expensive, but he is very thorough and knowledgeable. It created quite a stir, when he left Nikon for Canon, to go FF. Here are some of his work : diglloyd: Eagles Galore | Bald Eagles from Homer Alaska As I recall, these are from his Nikon period, taken with the D2Xs) Originally posted by Class A Why would anyone go FF without increasing the resolution? Just for the sensitivity and DOF? Isn't one typical application of FF / MF landscape photography and very large prints? The latter do not make sense if you do not go beyond APS-C resolution. Originally posted by 24X36NOW There are plenty of people complaining about various aspects of the current crop of Pentax products, like autofocus speed, frame rates, and size/weight of equipment, and each of them wants something more/better from Pentax as well. | |
| 10-26-2008, 02:05 PM | #195 |
| Radials Originally posted by flyer Did you ever fly a plane with a radial engine? I used to fly a DHC Beaver, and after a flight, you're deaf for about an hour and a half due to the noise. I'll stick to my Cessna. Better for my sanity (and for the wallet: do you know how much fuel those radials burn?). And yes, the radials are a lot easier on the ears as a ground observer rather than from an open cockpit. I speak from experience as the former but not as the latter. I'm rather hoping for a ride in a '41 Stearman next year so maybe I will be able to amend this in another six months! | |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
| 645d, development, ff, pentax news, pentax rumors |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Pentax USA prez interview | henryp | Ask B&H Photo! | 2 | 10-14-2010 02:13 PM |
| Pentax interview with AP | Urmas R. | Pentax News and Rumors | 34 | 03-11-2009 06:53 PM |
| Japanese interview with Pentax/Hoya | MrApollinax | Pentax News and Rumors | 1 | 03-09-2009 06:47 AM |
| another pentax interview | philmorley | Pentax News and Rumors | 23 | 10-28-2008 04:22 AM |
| Interview with Pentax Japan | ckanthon | Pentax DSLR Discussion | 0 | 06-22-2008 12:45 PM |
