[hoanpham]

By the way, I'm not supporting the "slightly cheaper and slightly better" strategy. I doubt that "slightly" could make a good enough USP

+1
At least equals nikon D800 spec, and not significant more expensive?

[Kunzite]

I don't think they really have to match or outdo the D800, on every feature. We'll see, and I'd say a certain rumored camera will give us a pretty good indication about what we can expect.

[ElJamoquio]

That has essentially died with sensor improvements

Hmmm, I was shooting an aquarium yesterday at 1/40th and ISO3200, which looks like crappola on the K-5 to my eyes.

[Clavius]

Hmmm, I was shooting an aquarium yesterday at 1/40th and ISO3200, which looks like crappola on the K-5 to my eyes.

ISO3200 = crappy IQ. Even on the very good K-5 Sony sensor. In my experience, a full frame sensor will nog fix that. A fast lens that is good wide open however will. Oh wait, Pentax doesn't do fast lenses either anymore, because of the modern high ISO capabilities...

[ElJamoquio]

ISO3200 = crappy IQ. Even on the very good K-5 Sony sensor. In my experience, a full frame sensor will nog fix that. A fast lens that is good wide open however will. Oh wait, Pentax doesn't do fast lenses either anymore, because of the modern high ISO capabilities...

ISO3200 is indeed crappy IQ.

Unfortunately, at 100mm, the fastest lens I have is 2.8.

At FF, 155mm, the fastest lens I have is 2.8.

As DOF was fine either way I'd have shot the FF at F/2.8 and ISO3200. ISO3200 on a FF sensor is approx. the same as ISO1300 or so on an APS-C. ISO1600 is not perfect of course but is OK for small prints IMO. ISO3200 is only good for the web in my view.

[ChristianRock]

Whatever happened to flash photography?... two good flashes are the reason I am not selling my K20D just yet. ISO 400 is my top ISO usually...

FOV is the reason I'd want FF, but now that I'm into film photography, I've got FF

[ElJamoquio]

Whatever happened to flash photography?... two good flashes are the reason I am not selling my K20D just yet. ISO 400 is my top ISO usually...

FOV is the reason I'd want FF, but now that I'm into film photography, I've got FF

Correct positioning of flash can make a lot of pictures better. Not every picture can have flash, though, and it seems to be going away due to better high-ISO performance.

[rawr]

ISO3200 is indeed crappy IQ.

?? I don't know what you are doing, but ISO 3200 usually looks pretty good to me on the K-5. Even printed A4. Obviously not viewed 100% on the monitor though, but any other usage can give good results.

[bossa]

You can bet there will be "rumors" saying the FF will cost $1500. It happened with the D600, it will happen with the Pentax; and when the camera would be announced for $2500 or whatever, the damage will already be done.
But, who knows, next year there are two major shows, perfect occasions to display prototypes and even announce real products.

They do that to get possible buyers to emotionally commit which then becomes a battle for the user to try and win when the price is higher. The strategy must work.

[bossa]

The only way to achieve similarly shallow depth of field is to change the composition of the picture. If you back up and use a longer lens you will get less apparent depth-of-field. This is not possible in all situations. Similarly the only way to replicate the natural field-of-view is a telecompressor. It also provides an absolute advantage in megapixel counts, but more importantly it avoids the very low diffraction limits that are coming with the increased megapixel counts on modern crop sensors.

I find that when so-called "equivalent" lenses have a closer MFD they take the APS-C format into yet another interesting area. A 55mm f/1.4 lens on APS-C (with an MFD of 45cm) has a very narrow DOF compared to a 85mm f/1.4 on FF (with an MFD of 1.3m) when used at their MFD. This obviously changes the composition possibilities but that's a fair way to see it because they are actually different and deserve to be viewed based on what they are and not what they aren't.


Judging APS-C on a set of criteria that doesn't apply to it is just wanting what it isn't and not seeing it for what it is.


PS: Judging APS-C on how well it matches FF is disingenuous and doesn't take into account where it actually performs better. Closer MFD for equivalent lenses, better DOF (more) for macro and cheaper telephotos.

[ElJamoquio]

?? I don't know what you are doing, but ISO 3200 usually looks pretty good to me on the K-5. Even printed A4. Obviously not viewed 100% on the monitor though, but any other usage can give good results.

I respect your opinion but disagree. I think ISo3200 looks noticeably inferior to lower ISO's, for instance, in how vivid colors are and how sharp the image is (or how noise free it is, if you don't take out the noise), on 8x12 (about A4).

Right now I like printing at 10x15 (A3ish) or 12x18, and I'm not going to try that at ISO3200, or even ISO1600. It's OK at ISO400.

I was sorting pictures last year - admittedly pixel peeping a bit (but for a big print, 24x36) - and I couldn't figure out why half the pics were good and half were noticeably inferior.

The ISO100 pics were good, the ISO200 weren't.

[rawr]

how vivid colors are and how sharp the image is

All this is true. As the ISO ramps, the DR falls away, of course. DxO rate the K-5 optimum image quality ceiling at ISO 1200, and it's clear that progressively from there things will degrade.

I guess it is just a matter of taste and usage scenarios - gallery quality fine art prints of landscape scenes, or A4 or A3 prints of wild musicians at rock and roll gigs. Noise, grain and lower DR hardly matter for the latter, but they matter a lot for the former.

It's surprising (and rewarding sometimes) that as long as an image is in-focus sharp and/or has some strong feature elements to draw the eye, it can survive the perceptual journey to even the highest ISO very well. The viewer often simply won't notice or care about any technical defects, as long as they see a message or find something that engages the eye. Hence Lomography, Instagram etc.

[Aristophanes]

Personally I am quite sensitive to chroma noise (speckes).

I find it most intrusive on red and brown tints, towards that end of the spectrum. Less so on the greens and blues. The darker the worse, so yellows usually get off OK.

Point is, it depends on the scene to some extent. The darker, natural hues I can tolerate up to IS) 800 (K-30 Sony sensor) quite easily. But above that, things start to look distracting and less smooth.

But for the greens and blues, as long as they aren't super dark, I see some ISO 3200's where it's no problem.

So the degradation falls proportionate to the colour balance in the scene. for the most part, fairer skin tones tones are almost always OK up to ISO 1600 in my indoor shoots, which si where I usually have to crank up the ISO anyway.

[ElJamoquio]

For me, 800 is hit or miss for printable. 1600 is 'sometimes'. I've never had what I consider a 'good' shot at 3200.

I agree that it's a bit scene-specific. I also agree with rawr when he says the viewer won't notice or care.

However, *I* care. I think most of us are too critical on the technical aspect of the photo and I am no exception.

[rawr]

Aside from simply maintaining high personal standards, I think if you are shooting stock, for example, or most commercial photography (real estate, weddings, advertising etc) technical aspects including noise levels/DR etc should worry you. (Fashion maybe not so much - witness the success of Terry Richardson).