Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-16-2009, 01:08 PM   #91
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,055
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Therefore, your theory survives a first plausibility check
Thanks mate!

12-17-2009, 06:07 AM   #92
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,110
Take identical shots from a K10d, a K20D, a K-7, and a K-x and compare to any other cropped sensor camera on the market, with comparable lenses and I bet your eye ball would never be able to tell which was which. In real life shooting, comparisons like DXO mean very little (any?)


On another note, put any body/lens in incapable hands and you'll forever make excuses and look for reasons about why your photos aren't all that great.

abilities versus equipment....focus on the first one and the second one wont make the "statistics-ad nauseum " very much relevant.

Jason
12-17-2009, 06:23 AM   #93
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Nass's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The British Isles
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,245
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I've already thought about creating an alternative robust score function and publish an alternative DxOmark figure based on their curves...
That would be good - you seem to have a better grasp of these technical things than most, and you're objective.

Still, sadly another confirmation about the K-7 performance (lack of)
12-17-2009, 10:53 AM   #94
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by Nass Quote
That would be good - you seem to have a better grasp of these technical things than most, and you're objective.

Still, sadly another confirmation about the K-7 performance (lack of)
Glass half full or half empty................

12-17-2009, 12:01 PM   #95
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,271
I think he is referring to K7 *sensor* performance. It is the only supposed deficiency I have read about.
12-17-2009, 12:55 PM   #96
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by jbinpg Quote
I think he is referring to K7 *sensor* performance. It is the only supposed deficiency I have read about.
I know and I believe that the sensor may have 1 stop less DR in the shadows as some other brands... but... I fail to see this as more than just growing pains and part of getting this caliber camera at this price. Personally if they would have thrown out video in favor of improvements in DR it would be better FOR ME... but on looking at a few (well one) RAW file from here:
Pentax K-7 Photos | PhotographyBLOG
I find the noise issue a non-issue...... FOR ME... and hate when issues take on the air if CRITICAL when in reality they seem not to be.
As to noise at high iso, your already truncating dynamic range so I prefer to keep as close to base iso anyways...

ORIGINAL

Just food for thought....
As for this who cares which one is better (there all junk) at 9-10 EV's underexposed, or even 5 for that matter:
http://falklumo.smugmug.com/Photography/Technology/Lumolabs-D700-K-x-D5000/C...1_CppDm-XL.jpg
http://falklumo.smugmug.com/Photography/Technology/Lumolabs-D700-K-x-D5000/1...391_CppDm-A-LB

Last edited by jeffkrol; 12-17-2009 at 01:02 PM.
12-17-2009, 02:05 PM   #97
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,055
QuoteOriginally posted by Jasvox Quote
Take identical shots from a K10d, a K20D, a K-7, and a K-x and compare to any other cropped sensor camera on the market, with comparable lenses and I bet your eye ball would never be able to tell which was which.
I wouldn't be so sure. If the scene is demanding then one should see differences in the noise performance (definitely if we take a high-ISO shot). Also differences in sharpness and colour balance should be discernible.

QuoteOriginally posted by Jasvox Quote
abilities versus equipment....
Sure, if I could trade in more "capable hands" for a lesser camera body, I'd do it. In other words, yes, the photographer is more important but for any given photographer, better equipment will yield better images / more opportunities.

Also, there is a time to take pictures and a time to think about equipment. There is no need to justify one self spending the later.

Last edited by Class A; 12-17-2009 at 02:52 PM.
12-17-2009, 02:24 PM   #98
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote


Sure, if I could trade in more "capable hands" for a lesser camera body, I'd do it. In other words, yes, the photographer is more important but for any given photographer, better equipment will yield better images / more opportunity.
IMO this is a common mistake. John Doe thinks so and this is why they buy supposedly better cameras (read: Canon crap). This is IMO completely false, a bad photographer is a bad one, whatever camera he/she uses. Even an MF Hasselblad will not take good pictures if there's a bad photog using it.

12-17-2009, 02:51 PM   #99
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,055
QuoteOriginally posted by thibs Quote
This is IMO completely false, a bad photographer is a bad one, whatever camera he/she uses. Even an MF Hasselblad will not take good pictures if there's a bad photog using it.
I never made the statement you are criticising. And my name is not Joe Doe, BTW.

Why do you assume that the photog in question is bad? Let's assume a very good one: Will he be able to make great images with a P&S? Yes, absolutely. Will he be able to make even better images with a camera that has better noise performance and offers more DOF options (larger sensor & more lens choices)? Yes, of course.

Obviously a good camera will not improve the content of the images (as in subject choice, composition, etc.) of any photog (good or bad). But it will allow more options (ways to express oneself) and technically the IQ of the images will be better.

Last edited by Class A; 12-18-2009 at 06:07 AM.
12-20-2009, 07:33 PM   #100
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,596
Hello again Pentaxians!

Someone just PM'd me with questions regarding an image several posts back and so I thought I would take the time to clear-up a few things.

No.1 - I am a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due. And most all my image submissions are labeled with the original shooters information. However, in this case, I didn't have anything to go on other than a photo and a name so I placed it under the image as [i]by - mviktor[i/] which is the name of the person who took the shot.

Having said this... seeing as there were questions following the image(PP etc.) I did some more digging and found the original thread from which I saw the image for the first time as well(seen here), and I think there is a bit more information on the image.

Also.. the original shooter's profile can be found here(in case you had more questions. If memory serves me right, he was very happy to talk about his setup and workflow.

So, what better way to help celebrate than to throw a few more on the tarmac?


Photo by - mviktor


Photo by - mviktor


Photo by - mviktor

PS. Reference tag updated, to help avoid any further confusion
12-20-2009, 07:38 PM   #101
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,596
For my own two cents, I'd like to add a few criticisms

The second shot doesn't work much for me, the DOF is a little awkward.
The third shot is very very nice(composition), but the highlight on the right side of the comes at the expense of the contrast of her hair color. I could just as well find the natural tone to be to harsh, but... this is what I get from the image.

Of course, it's always so easy to criticize other peoples work
12-20-2009, 07:47 PM   #102
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
For my own two cents, I'd like to add a few criticisms

The second shot doesn't work much for me, the DOF is a little awkward.
The third shot is very very nice(composition), but the highlight on the right side of the comes at the expense of the contrast of her hair color. I could just as well find the natural tone to be to harsh, but... this is what I get from the image.

Of course, it's always so easy to criticize other peoples work
of course it is.
12-31-2009, 02:47 AM   #103
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Someone just PM'd me with questions regarding an image several posts back and so I thought I would take the time to clear-up a few things.

No.1 - I am a firm believer in giving credit where credit is due. And most all my image submissions are labeled with the original shooters information. However, in this case, I didn't have anything to go on other than a photo and a name so I placed it under the image as [i]by - mviktor[i/] which is the name of the person who took the shot.
I actually thought the first image you posted was your own, or one taken by your wife. Didnít notice any link or reference tag, but maybe you edited it in.



QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
For my own two cents, I'd like to add a few criticisms
The second shot doesn't work much for me, the DOF is a little awkward.
Yes, in the second image, the focus was missed. I would assume he wanted the eyes in sharper focus, and not the nose.
I prefer the first image you posted.

If thin DoF is what is wanted, it is often possible to use a macro lens.
But often I find that it appears people have read that extremely thin DoF is essential in portraits. So they often mess it up with distracting OOF areas, but I guess that is what happens when you get expensive cameras in the hands of us amateurs

I think Eric from this forum is doing some good fashion / portrait photography :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/775884-post1.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/776875-post1.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/79980-people-first-shoot-agancy.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/70424-images-huyen.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/70847-more-studio-shoots-tina.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/51489-skin-perfect.html
Iím pretty certain he would get the same high quality with the K7.

But of cause with Portrait/fashion work, it is often in the eyes of the beholder, what sort of style one likes
12-31-2009, 09:40 AM   #104
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
I sense a dash of Gaussian blur...
01-06-2010, 10:02 AM   #105
Veteran Member
Jasvox's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,110
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I wouldn't be so sure. If the scene is demanding then one should see differences in the noise performance (definitely if we take a high-ISO shot). Also differences in sharpness and colour balance should be discernible.


Sure, if I could trade in more "capable hands" for a lesser camera body, I'd do it. In other words, yes, the photographer is more important but for any given photographer, better equipment will yield better images / more opportunities.

Also, there is a time to take pictures and a time to think about equipment. There is no need to justify one self spending the later.
Pity is, there are far too many people who blame the equipment for their own shortcomings. The K20, Kx or the K-7 are very capable cameras in the right hands when actually SHOOTING...and in shooting I mean, real world shots, scenes and composed photographs, not some crappy comparison shots of some thrown together sample fodder at 15 different iso settings that mean very little other than to serve one's own fetish of noise comparisons.
If you cant make great photos with either of these three models, you need to go on to stamp collecting, toy trains, etc. It doesn't matter how sharp, clear, noise free, etc etc etc each body is in your dreams, you still cant make God appear in the photo when you spend all your time comparing minutiae instead of getting out and actually COMPOSING. How many great photographers are/were known from their portfolio of test shots?

There are those who can, and there are those who cant and usually blame the equipment.

Jason
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!
a500, benchmarks for k-7, color, depth, dxomark, iso, k-7, low-light, pentax news, pentax rumors, range
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DxOMark rates Pentax K-r lexurian Pentax News and Rumors 72 11-09-2010 04:05 PM
DXOMark evaluates the 645D rawr Pentax News and Rumors 30 11-08-2010 02:59 PM
Pentax Kx Now on dxoMark taurus9 Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 03-10-2010 02:28 PM
(dxomark) K20D and K7. Reportage Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 01-13-2010 05:06 AM
DxOMark Sensor ranks yakiniku Photographic Technique 7 01-16-2009 11:01 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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