[Aristophanes]

I thought you also shot medium format film? (Or am I thinking of someone else?)

The little D700 shouldn't be a problem.

I used to have a Mamiya 645 system with lenses from 35 to 300mm.

But I sold it 6 months ago because in 3 years I only shot 3 rolls and local processing went bye-bye.

The D700 was a big lug. It felt right shooting with it, but awful just carrying it around. Now I use the Peak Design strap system with my K-x and K-30 plus the Limited and they just slide into any old backpack.

I've had my eye on a Mamiya 6 <groan>

The squeeze is on

[Rondec]

You wouldn't have gotten better DR results from the K-5 there. K5 has more DR at base ISO, up to about ISO 200 when they about even out, and D700 pulls ahead by ISO 400. Regarding noise, the D700 has about a stop on the K-5.

.

I don't see it Jay. Looking at the dynamic range curves for the K5 and D700 on DXO Mark, they are exactly on top of each other. The only difference per DXO Mark is that Nikon slightly overstates their iso (at iso 1600, sensor measurement was iso 1277). Anyway, I doubt you could tell a difference in dynamic range between the two sensors between iso 400 and 6400.

[filorp]

I doubt you could tell a difference in dynamic range between the two sensors between iso 400 and 6400

Yes Rondec you could, very easily unfortunately - compared to d700 everything above iso1600 looks like taken from cheap compact camera, and there is no colours any more nor dynamic range at k5....

[snake]

Yes Rondec you could, very easily unfortunately - compared to d700 everything above iso1600 looks like taken from cheap compact camera, and there is no colours any more nor dynamic range at k5....

I shoot often with my k-5 at ISO 6400 (and typically push in PP to about 8000 equivalent), and while DR does reduce (a normal thing at high ISO levels), I find it far from your characterization.

Many examples of color and good DR at those levels in my blog.

[rawr]

shoot often with my k-5 at ISO 6400 (and typically push in PP to about 8000 equivalent), and while DR does reduce (a normal thing at high ISO levels), I find it far from your characterization

Same here. Shot well (especially no motion blur or missed focus) and processed in something like Lightroom (which works very well with K-5 RAW's), I could shoot all night at ISO 6400, with output that might typically look like this:


Guitar duo
Tamron 28-75, 1/100 ƒ/3.2 ISO 6400 55 mm


Guitar and drums
FA 50, 1/100 ƒ/1.6 ISO 6400 50 mm

6400 ISO on the K-5 is not perfect, but it can be perfectly usable.

[normhead]

There's a difference between knowing what the numbers are, and understanding the difference they make to how your photos look.

[johnmflores]

Another thing to watch - lower-end aps-c DSLR sales in light of 2014 and 2015 MILC and fixed-lens-large-sensor mirrorless offerings. Welcome to the squeeze.

The squeeze is on

People have been predicting the demise of APS-C for years, yet here they still are taking the lion's share of the market year after year.

[Rondec]

Yes Rondec you could, very easily unfortunately - compared to d700 everything above iso1600 looks like taken from cheap compact camera, and there is no colours any more nor dynamic range at k5....

You are probably mixing up dynamic range with SNR/noise. Per DXO Mark, the K5 II measures 8.38 EV of dynamic range at iso 6400 and the D700 measures 8.42. There is no way that you could see the difference with regard to dynamic range between those, although certainly the K5 image would have a stop more of noise.

[Aristophanes]

People have been predicting the demise of APS-C for years, yet here they still are taking the lion's share of the market year after year.

Mmmm....

I don't think anyone is predicting the end of APS-C, just that it moved down the price ladder. A $45 sensor as the engine in a $1500 camera is not sustainable. These wholesale replacement scenarios are not really based on sound economics.

What is happening is that APS-C in a flagship DSLR form is under price pressure. Interestingly it is under less pressure from below than from FF above because at $45/sensor unit and that fact DSLR is a mature tech. The price impacts of the mirrorless m4/3 and 1" have been negligible. APS-C DSLR's can get quite inexpensive and compete vey well. It's the top-end that is in trouble in large part because the top-end is what drives the lucrative after-market sale of lenses and accessories the most. As APS-C up high margin way gives way to FF (and maybe even medium format of the Canon and Nikon rumours are true) then that creates issues for Pentax.

They could pull an Olympus and try and out out an APS-C EM-1 type body. It is doubtful that smaller sensors can sustain the revenues very long a the price curve drops against them. Non-sensor features do not appear to be a way to keep customers paying more. This is a major difference from the film era.

The entire dedicated camera market is now stalled or shrinking in sales, not in consumer usage. The market is now entering a phase of more replacement product that new customers, and they are replacing at a slower pace than before, probably going back to historical norms (about 8 year replacement cycles for flagships).

The upshot of all this is the excellent price/performance ratio for APS-C will benefit value customers. What do you bet the next GR will have superior features and a lower price tag?

[filorp]

There is no way that you could see the difference with regard to dynamic range between those

Yes you're right - there is no way if you take in the account only numbers denoting whole dynamic range, without taking into account the noise. But as such there is no way to convince me to rely on something like this in regards to choosing the camera.

[Rondec]

Yes you're right - there is no way if you take in the account only numbers denoting whole dynamic range, without taking into account the noise. But as such there is no way to convince me to rely on something like this in regards to choosing the camera.

Well, both need to be taken into account. However, my experience is that if the dynamic range is there, you can clean up noise after the fact. The K7 sensor was three stops worse with regard to dynamic range, even though it was a lot closer to the K5 with regard to SNR, but it was pretty bleak above iso 800 in my experience, even with noise reduction software.

[filorp]

Well, both need to be taken into account. However, my experience is that if the dynamic range is there, you can clean up noise after the fact. The K7 sensor was three stops worse with regard to dynamic range, even though it was a lot closer to the K5 with regard to SNR, but it was pretty bleak above iso 800 in my experience, even with noise reduction software.

According to some other researches (falc lumo could elaborate more) with snr=0.1 the difference betw d700 and k5 is in the range 2-2.5x more dynamic for d700, if you don't take into acc snr, the dynamics of those cameras roughly equals. You know what happens to the image if you apply noise reduction.... ? The more reduction the more reduction in image quality....

[Rondec]

According to some other researches (falc lumo could elaborate more) with snr=0.1 the difference betw d700 and k5 is in the range 2-2.5x more dynamic for d700, if you don't take into acc snr, the dynamics of those cameras roughly equals. You know what happens to the image if you apply noise reduction.... ? The more reduction the more reduction in image quality....

DXO Mark explains their measurements and Falk Lumo agrees with them. This is their comparison article at the time of the K5 sensor evaluation: DxOMark - DxOMark review for the Pentax K5

[filorp]

DXO Mark explains their measurements and Falk Lumo agrees with them

Nobody said they are wrong.... It just doesn't take into account other factors. I have had both cameras side by side and if i had to take the picture inside dim church the choice is very simple.... I can't be bothered to check what's the difference betw snr=18% and snr=1.0.... have no idea....

[rawr]

my experience is that if the dynamic range is there, you can clean up noise after the fact.

Even better, if the DR is there, you can under-expose quite safely and effectively well under ISO 6400, and bring up the shadows or midtones after the fact (if necessary) with only a modest impact on visible noise.

Obviously the D700 is going to be better than the K-5 maybe in a dim church, but it won't be a slam dunk, especially if you stick a fast 1.4 or 1.8 prime on the K-5 and shoot it well.