[awscreo]

Ah, you must be talking to someone who doesn’t have a problem, and therefore no problem could possibly exist. When I was a teenager, I was blessed with a clear complexion, therefore no one had acne.

Thing is, seems everyone that is arguing with me actually agrees that issue is not imaginary, they even provide solutions. I'm not even sure why they're arguing with me, I think they don't like that I mentioned the issue at all. Apparently if the door falls off on your car, but you can fix it with some duct tape, it's your fault if you're not willing to use duct tape and are not happy that the door fell of in the first place..

[Wheatfield]

I'm sorry, I get heated and baited, it's my weakness and I suffer greatly due to loss of valuable time arguing with people like you over essentially nothing. But I just can't let go when people accuse me of nonsense.

If you feel you are being baited, then put the person doing the baiting in ignore. The software on this forum is very very good at ignore. Once you put a person on ignore you’ll not see their posts or their quoted replies. Trust me, it’s good for the blood pressure. There is one person on this forum who delights in baiting people. I no longer see his screeds and I am a much happier member.

[awscreo]

I guess, I should have used for a camera that came with unicorns... what's wrong with that sentiment?
As I said, we aren't sure another K-1 wouldn't solve your problem.

I've printed up to 20x60" for one of the clients, but I used a file that I merged from 3 pixel shift frames. Image looked good. You wouldn't suggest that an image printed that large with shutter shock would look equally as good right?



I'm suggesting that maybe three merged shutter shocked frames might be as good, I don't know. That's why I asked. You aren't assuming there would be difference without actually having done it are you?

But if you answer the resolution question I asked, I'll be able to make a better guess. IN my experience people can't even tell the difference between images with less than 200 lw/ph difference, at that resolution differences the the distance of the camera from the focal plane will make more difference than the difference in images, even pixel peeping. So I would consider a difference of 200 lw/ph irrelevant. Just trying to get a handle on this.

I even see a difference between files take with PS and non-PS printed to 16x20". And I definitely see the different between files printed from my old 16mp Olympus. I've also printed from crops, and yes, I do see the difference. I'm positive I will see a difference from a non-PS file that was affected by shutter shock.

---------- Post added 04-23-19 at 01:18 PM ----------

If you feel you are being baited, then put the person doing the baiting in ignore. The software on this forum is very very good at ignore. Once you put a person on ignore you’ll not see their posts or their quoted replies. Trust me, it’s good for the blood pressure. There is one person on this forum who delights in baiting people. I no longer see his screeds and I am a much happier member.

I kind of wish I did that yesterday. Especially when the same user that accused me of lying started replying to me again. Oh well, at this point I'm kind of interested what their point is in general.

---------- Post added 04-23-19 at 01:25 PM ----------

Trying to emulate shutter shock was one of the least gratifying things I've done in a while.

And as it turns out it's pretty much irrelevant to my photgraphy. I had to do things I don't normally do just to try and find it. During my tests my sharpest images was at 1/15s, suggesting shutter shock was a thing. But the images I got a 1/160 were acceptable.

If this image is unacceptable to you, maybe you need to worry about shutter shock. If it meets your needs, don't give it a second thought. Until someone comes up with a scenario that I care about, and my largest prints are 42x30, shutter shiock is controlled well enough that it's not something i want to spend time thinking about. By the way, my image at 1/125 and 1/200 were both quite sharp. I'm guessing this is a camera by camera issue and that the existence and range vary camera by camera.

This according to the wisdom is a shutter shocked image, yet the detail is impressive. It's not a contrasty as some of the sequence I took, but still well within acceptable standards. And I was shooting in variable lifght so even that's not a 100% given. By the way, don't even try the "at that size thing, it's pixel peeper, click on the image and in flickr you can see it 1:1.


I'd like to see an example that shows me exactly what the shutter shock you've detected affects real images, not test charts.

That shutter shock might exist, it probably does, and it's probably always existed, but that it's significant to your real world images, that hasn't been established, and is probably a matter more related to personal standards of acceptability than any hard line in the sand.

That's why it irritates people. Even if you're right, even if there is shutter shock, it's well enough dampened most people don't care. One really picky person going on about their personal standards of acceptability.

I generally toss 50% to 90% of my images. Of my 650 keepers in my current library 150 are in the range 1/100-1/200. I see no evidence shutter shock has ruined a single image, so I'm putting it out of my mind, now and forever, and I'm betting I won't suffer for that. If you want to obsess on it and bring it up in every thread fine. But I personally am not willing to spend a single dime on improving shutter shock. It's within acceptable standards on my camera for my standards. I don't work around it and it doesn't cost me images.

I prefer to think about things that actually make a difference.

btw just saw this image on a normal sized monitor (yesterday was all from my phone), and I definitely see that image is not as sharp as it can be. I don't even have to open it in Flickr and zoom in. Could it be the eye-sight difference? Hope you don't take it personally, but I'm obviously younger than you Norm.

[biz-engineer]

Originally, I had planned to sell the K1. But then I exported RAW to JPEG with 36Mp, 24Mp etc... both with mechanical shutter and EFCS, and compared images side by side to see if I could tell a difference. I couldn't tell any difference between 24MP JPEGs with or without EFCS, and a 24M JPEG from the K1 still resolves more than a 24M JPEG from a D750 (comparison from images downloaded from imaging-resources test images). Given how much is the price of a K1 now, I just keep using my K1 even if I also have a K1 II. There is also lens CA, sharpness fall off in the corners, and print sizes, which all together make pixel discussion meaningless. If someone really need that much resolution, then why not use a medium format camera? But the truth is, most people complain is like blowing hot air if they never print really large, most people don't. A professional landscape photographer making large print will not waste time discussing pixel sharpness, he'll get a 645D or 645z and get the big prints that he's after.

[reh321]

Originally, I had planned to sell the K1. But then I exported RAW to JPEG with 36Mp, 24Mp etc... both with mechanical shutter and EFCS, and compared images side by side to see if I could tell a difference. I couldn't tell any difference between 24MP JPEGs with or without EFCS, and a 24M JPEG from the K1 still resolves more than a 24M JPEG from a D750 (comparison from images downloaded from imaging-resources test images). Given how much is the price of a K1 now, I just keep using my K1 even if I also have a K1 II.

Did you do the MS vs ES, 36mp vs 24mp comparisons for the K-1ii also?

[repaap]

The K3 was pretty bad for mirror/ shutter induced vibration. The K1 is far, far better. Some of this may be due to the larger sensor requiring less enlargement and the fact the K1 sensor is fairly low resolution. Also, the extra weight of the K1 will have a damping effect.
Shutter shock is something that I have seen in every Pentax camera that has a vertical shutter from the Super Program to the K3. The K1 is the first Pentax I have had that seems not prone to this.
Sometimes I wish they would put a horizontal shutter in a camera. They seemed less problematic in this regard. Unfortunately people want a higher sync speed than is possible with a two curtain horizontal run shutter.

---------- Post added 04-23-19 at 11:02 AM ----------



Ah, you must be talking to someone who doesn’t have a problem, and therefore no problem could possibly exist. When I was a teenager, I was blessed with a clear complexion, therefore no one had acne.

Yes, but I ment that there is nothing different from normal shuttershock coming from a camera that has mirror going up’n down. Even shutter courtain can affect this. One way to go around it is to use ES, proper technique, and pray. Problem would be this so called grey zone of 1/25-1/100 with 28-105+K-1. Where it is prone for unexpected shake. But yea. All in all(I have not experienced it) I think that it is not something to worry about. If one does, just get a camera with out mirrorbox or live with it

[reh321]

The K3 was pretty bad for mirror/ shutter induced vibration. The K1 is far, far better. Some of this may be due to the larger sensor requiring less enlargement and the fact the K1 sensor is fairly low resolution. Also, the extra weight of the K1 will have a damping effect.
Shutter shock is something that I have seen in every Pentax camera that has a vertical shutter from the Super Program to the K3.

At what shutter speeds did you notice shutter shock on the Super Program?

[biz-engineer]

I even see a difference between files take with PS and non-PS printed to 16x20".

Here you exaggerate a quite a bit :-). I have two 20"x 30" prints in front of me, one with the K3 and one with the K5, and there is no way I can see a pixel or difference in sharpness even looking as close as a I can. In order to see a different I need to look at the prints with a magnifying glass. To be able to a difference on 16x20 between 36Mp and 36Mp PS, you must have a super human eye sight!

btw just saw this image on a normal sized monitor (yesterday was all from my phone), and I definitely see that image is not as sharp as it can be.

Monitor is at best 4K. You could downsize and sharpen. But at this point , I start laughing as I feel like you've probably started to joke with us

[Racer X 69]

Ah yes

I would love to read all the screaming around here should Ricoh release another update to the K-1 before a new APS-C body

I think we'd need a couple of paramedics on site

Perhaps this is why Adam is adding moderators.

[normhead]

btw just saw this image on a normal sized monitor (yesterday was all from my phone), and I definitely see that image is not as sharp as it can be. I don't even have to open it in Flickr and zoom in. Could it be the eye-sight difference? Hope you don't take it personally, but I'm obviously younger than you Norm.

Ha ha, after I had my cataract surgery i was suprised how much noise there was in some of my images... but the world is different now.

Here's where you and I differ, I don't think an image has to be absolutely sharp to be enjoyable, it just has to be a decent rendering of the subject. There is no information I know of that links resolution to image enjoyment. You are working in a whole different kind of photography than I am. The good news for you is Gursky makes a fortune with high res images. The bad news is, it's pretty much a niche market and you can do just as well with lower res images. And you'd have to be awfully good to compete with Gursky. The question isn't is it the sharpest it can be, the question is does the resolution suit the subject. The question isn't "could it be sharper" the question is "would it look better sharper." On that we do have some information, and most of it points to most people who don't know the difference are as likely to pick a lower res image (within reason) to a higher res image. In the context of techniques to achieve super hi res images, I can see shutter shock as being extremely relevant. In the context of what actual people find pleasing to look at in their personal photography, it's relevance is undetermined, and any evidence I've seen suggest absolute sharpness is not really all that relevant.

But when you're making millions and I'm still selling an image every year or two, feel free to rub it in my face.

Of course, I'll be asking to borrow money from you if you do that.

Even if it turns out my images were substantially worse, there are still it's of people with bad eyesight to sell to.

[awscreo]

Originally, I had planned to sell the K1. But then I exported RAW to JPEG with 36Mp, 24Mp etc... both with mechanical shutter and EFCS, and compared images side by side to see if I could tell a difference. I couldn't tell any difference between 24MP JPEGs with or without EFCS, and a 24M JPEG from the K1 still resolves more than a 24M JPEG from a D750 (comparison from images downloaded from imaging-resources test images). Given how much is the price of a K1 now, I just keep using my K1 even if I also have a K1 II. There is also lens CA, sharpness fall off in the corners, and print sizes, which all together make pixel discussion meaningless. If someone really need that much resolution, then why not use a medium format camera? But the truth is, most people complain is like blowing hot air if they never print really large, most people don't. A professional landscape photographer making large print will not waste time discussing pixel sharpness, he'll get a 645D or 645z and get the big prints that he's after.

This makes no sense. You're settling with an inferior image quality when you know there's more there. I can't afford a medium format camera, and I wanted a full frame camera, hope that's enough reasoning for you. I do print large, maybe not always 20x60 or above, but I would like to have an ability to go there if I need to, so I'm not most people in this particular case. In any case - it's really not your place to tell me what I should buy and how to use my gear, can we agree on that?

[biz-engineer]

Did you do the MS vs ES, 36mp vs 24mp comparisons for the K-1ii also?

With the K1 II, I took two shots at 50mm 1/50th with the DFA28-105, I saw no difference, and I closed the topic for myself. I turned the page on this. There are other things having much much more impact on an image.
My problem currently if that I realized I spend way to much time on equipment , forum, and way not enough time outdoor on good photo locations. What happens is when we focus only on one thing, it prevent to balance with other aspects of a discipline. Pure sharpness isn't what makes or break an image, there are even photographs that are blurred on purpose. We need to take a look at photography with a holistic approach, camera gear is only a small part of the equation.

[awscreo]

Ha ha, after I had my cataract surgery i was suprised how much noise there was in some of my images... but the world is different now.

Her's where you and I differ, I don't think an image has to be absolutely sharp to be enjoyable, it just has to be a decent rendering of the subject. There is no information I know of that links resolution to image enjoyment. You are working in a whole different kind of photography than Cam. The good news for you is Gursky makes fortune with high res images. The bad news is, it's pretty much a niche market and you can do just as well with lower res images. And you'd have to be awfully good to compete with Gursky. The question isn't is it the sharpest it can be, the question is does the resolution suit the subject. The question isn't "could it be sharper" the question is "would it look better sharper." On that we do have some information, and most of it points to most people who don't know the difference are as likely to pick a lower res image (within reason) to a higher res image. In the context of techniques to achieve super hi res images, I can see shutter shock as being extremely relevant. In the context of what actual people find pleasing to look at in their personal photography, it's relevance is undetermined.

I think you misunderstand my intent with photography) I do not market and compete with anyone, I am a hobbyist and I try to make images that I love. If someone else loves them, that's awesome, I'm happy to create something other people like. But I like my images to be sharp, unless I specifically don't want them to be, I can always blur them in post, but sharpening an unsharp images creates artifacts and is no pleasing to me personally. Photography is as personal as it gets, right now we're basically arguing Beatles vs Stones (or whatever analogy works for you best, you get my point).

---------- Post added 04-23-19 at 01:49 PM ----------

Monitor is at best 4K. You could downsize and sharpen. But at this point , I start laughing as I feel like you've probably started to joke with us

Please go and see the image I'm talking about, if you can't see that it's not sharp, you might have an issue with your sight.

Here you exaggerate a quite a bit :-). I have two 20"x 30" prints in front of me, one with the K3 and one with the K5, and there is no way I can see a pixel or difference in sharpness even looking as close as a I can. In order to see a different I need to look at the prints with a magnifying glass. To be able to a difference on 16x20 between 36Mp and 36Mp PS, you must have a super human eye sight!

What can I tell you, once again you're accusing me of lying. I have no further interest in talking to you.

[biz-engineer]

it's really not your place to tell me what I should buy and how to use my gear, can we agree on that?

By definition, happiness is the difference between what we expect and what we get. If your criteria of satisfaction is, let say 35Mpixels, below 35Mpixel you won't be happy; then there is not enough sharpness margin to make you happy most of the time with a K1 (it will sometimes give you only 33Mpixels, you won't be happy, because you are happy at 35Mp or more). If what makes you happy is 35Mpixel, get a 50Mp camera so that you get most of the time more than 35Mpixels. You could take an example with cars: if you are happy driving at 100Mph, don't buy a car with spec that says that the maximum speed is 105Mph before the engine melt down. Take some margin. Get a GFX50R, shoot 51Mp, downsize it to 35Mp and be happy every time.

---------- Post added 23-04-19 at 19:56 ----------

What can I tell you, once again you're accusing me of lying. I have no further interest in talking to you.

No. You certainly are lucky to have better eyes than mine.

[normhead]

What can I tell you, once again you're accusing me of lying. I have no further interest in talking to you.

The only blind testing I've seen comes to similar conclusions. One guy did blind testing with 72 DPI, 100 Dpi and 150 dpi and the results in a blind trial of the students in his photography class came up pretty close to random... one person said "I like some parts of this image, I like some parts of that one" and couldn't even choose.

I'm sure you've seen this.
WHo took the world's most expensive photograph? - PentaxForums.com

It's not so much about "lying" as in a difference in perspective.

You're settling with an inferior image quality when you know there's more there.

That where we differ. IQ is not dependant on resolution, the fact that there might be more there is only relevant if what's there is relevant to the composition. The accurate reproduction of irrelevant to the composition detail is distracting, not an improvement.