[JayR]

Tilt Shift lenses are manual focus.

Ah yep, but I meant the adaptors for my Pentax lenses!
I could more easily consider keeping my Pentax lenses (and Pentax bodies) if there was a reasonable way of using the Pentax lenses on the Sony A7r with autofocus!

Hell, I'd probably just get the A7r body, the Canon 17 & 24 TSE and then look at the K3 finally!

My kingdom for an autofocus Pentax lens adapter for the A7!
Sadly, even the metabones adapter for the Canon lenses seems to focus SUPER slow.

I also do a bit of model photography and some back ups for weddings, so I cant just have manual focus...

[GeneV]

So how do you know this? Please share with me your experience using both camera systems?
Thanks

M

Things like that are pretty hard to "prove" on a BB, but it is my impression as well. I have been the primary photographer for several indoor events where others who helped shot Canon, and I ended up putting the photos together to look consistent. The Canon photos seemed to require more PP to get color right under artificial lights. Pentax shots were more often dead on reproducing a neutral. YMMV.

Barring a Pentax FF in the very near future, my most likely FF will be a Sony as well. I have enjoyed my Pentax lenses on the A6000, and it would be fun to resurrect my fairly numerous older full frame lenses on a body like the A7 II with internal image stabilization. I would not consider changing to another DSLR.

If one really needs serious tilting and shifting, one may be using the wrong tool with a DSLR. Nothing out there I've used comes close to even the simplest field camera. However, getting a ML camera like the A7 means you can use any tilt or shift lens for DSLR from any maker, and do so with little loss of convenience that is not lost by using a tilt shift lens to begin with.

[Racerdew]

This is an old article on the subject of AWB and other comparisons with the Pentax K7 N D90 and Canon 550d. A friend of mine in the forum has a K3 and Sony, and Canon. His opinion is that in Tungsten light the k3 has much better AWB compared to his other cameras.


Nikon D90, Canon EOS 550D & Pentax K7 Comparison Test Digital SLR Review

---------- Post added 01-26-15 at 11:59 PM ----------

Take a look at this chart comparing cameras for noise.


JPEG signal to noise ratio







The Pentax SLR does very well in this chart, beating all of the other cameras on test quite comfortably throughout the sensitivity range. The other three cameras are fairly closely matched, and are the nearest competitors to the K-3.
Raw signal to noise ratio







The K-3 also does a good job for raw format files (after conversion to TIFF). It starts off at roughly the same point as the other cameras on test, before beating them from ISO 200 - 3200, where it is overtaken slightly by the Sony Alpha 77 and the Nikon D7100.
JPEG dynamic range







In terms of dynamic range, we have another impressive performance for JPEG files. At the very lowest sensitivities (ISO 100 - 200), it is beaten by the Nikon D7100, but after that, the K-3 beats all of the other cameras in test. This is borne out by the bright and punchy images that the K-3 is capable of producing.
Raw dynamic range







Unsurprisingly, the K-3 also puts in a good performance when looking at raw format (after conversion to TIFF) files. Here again it is matched very closely with the Nikon D7100 and the Sony A77 at ISO 100, but from here onwards it beats all of the cameras in the test until it reaches ISO 12800, where the Nikon D7100 takes over, slightly.
Pentax K-3 review: Noise and dynamic range | Digital SLRs/Hybrids Review | TechRadar


---------- Post added 01-27-15 at 12:08 AM ----------

here is another ISO comparison with the K 5 and the A 77.


ISO Torture Test: Sony A77 vs Pentax K-5 - The Phoblographer

[fuzzyfelt30]

Yeah I saw the thing about pentax sensor shifting, but I gather the effect is pretty small compared with a dedicated shift lens?
OK to explain my situation a bit better:

Example 1 - problem with a narrow street + tall building + UWA = converging verticals; not ok for client


So take several images with same exposure, to later be stitched together;



and



And then manipulate the converging parallel lines with software to get something like this;


Problem is, once you start needing to manipulate it so heavily with software, the pixels being so heavily 'stretched' at the top end up meaning that its a combination of soft with multiplied artifacts.
I'm not expecting to be able to get it all in one shot with the 17mm TSE either, but doing a lot more optically should help.

Unless I'm really over looking something??
And again, was I right understanding that there no Autofocus adapter for Pentax lenses on the Sony A7???

A quick skew and you have a more natural effect.....but as has been said, you are doing yourself no favours with the capabilities of a K7. It will soon be 4 generations out of date!!

[JayR]

A quick skew and you have a more natural effect.....but as has been said, you are doing yourself no favours with the capabilities of a K7. It will soon be 4 generations out of date!!

This is ALREADY after a massive skew! Normally the verticals would be parallel - as it is, at full size the pixels at the top are amazingly sloppy and soft.

Given most of this kind of work is at iso100, the K7's noise hasnt been as issue!

[baro-nite]

Here's another idea, based on the assumption that most of your jobs are not this extreme as the example you've posted: Stick with the gear you have, and for jobs like this rent the Canon 17mm.

[mrNewt]

Yeah I saw the thing about pentax sensor shifting, but I gather the effect is pretty small compared with a dedicated shift lens?
OK to explain my situation a bit better:

Example 1 - problem with a narrow street + tall building + UWA = converging verticals; not ok for client


So take several images with same exposure, to later be stitched together;



and



And then manipulate the converging parallel lines with software to get something like this;


Problem is, once you start needing to manipulate it so heavily with software, the pixels being so heavily 'stretched' at the top end up meaning that its a combination of soft with multiplied artifacts.
I'm not expecting to be able to get it all in one shot with the 17mm TSE either, but doing a lot more optically should help.

Unless I'm really over looking something??
And again, was I right understanding that there no Autofocus adapter for Pentax lenses on the Sony A7???

I think you planned poorly when you did the pictures. The end result looks like a flat piece of cardboard - you should of included the sides of the building.

Another thing to keep in mind is that when you do image manipulation, you never scale up... you always try and scale down! And if you have to scale up, you try and minimize it as much as possible.

Stitching images together in this situation was the right approach, but you should of separated the building on the vertical on half.
So instead of 1 column of 3 stacked images, you have 2 columns, each with 3-4 images. This will give you an end image that is quite large and you will have more pixels to play with.

The angle however to begin with is quite bad. Even a tilt shift won't help much in this situation to be honest. You are too close and too low. Recomposing to have stitch-able images with a tilt-shift and make sure you get the same angle every time you move the camera will be a nightmare. You need to find a better angle - up on the building nearby or from a window of a close by building... you need to get higher.

---

Last edited by mrNewt; 01-27-2015 at 01:39 PM.

[hjoseph7]

Does this mean you are going to sell your Pentax equipment ?

[normhead]

OK, now the question becomes, for what size are you shooting this photo, what resolution do you need? At web size 1080 x 1080 there's nothing wrong with the images posted done with post processing. Unless you're doing something high enough resolution that the stretched pixels show why mess with a tilt shift? The problem fuzzy felt has with his image is, his shooting space is too tight and his shooting position is too low. Even with tilt shift, you are likely to be using correcting software in such situations. You'll get better images if you are blowing them up to 20x30 prints, but at web size, you're going through a lot to work for next to nothing.

The thing with tilts shift is, it's a process. Nothing like just snapping an image with your fixed lens. You will spend time fiddling. From my perspective, what you get from tilt shift, is worth it for landscape. I can sell those images for good money. Unless you're planning some kind of installation of tall buildings that will bring the big bucks, I'm not sure this is even a worthwhile endeavour. Only you know how much you're getting for these images, but fooling around with tilt shift is going to significantly reduce your hourly wage, unless you get an increase in what you're getting per picture.

A friend of mines father owned an add agency in Toronto. he once hired Richard Alvedon for a day... $2000 a day, no retakes. Good tilt-shift technicians don't come cheap.

If client asked me for tilt-shift images, I'd go with 5 times the cost, money up front, no retakes.I hope your clients understand, this kind of thing costs a lot more money. You have to get paid.

Or since what the client wants basically would possibly go against my artistic vision, offer them the option of your services for $150 an hour with equipment (3 hour minimum), and you'll take as long as they want to get it to look acceptable. Honestly, most clients may think they want tilt shift, but they won't pay for the extra time it takes. It comes down to you're going to get burned, or you they are going to spend a lot more than they want.

[fuzzyfelt30]

This is ALREADY after a massive skew! Normally the verticals would be parallel - as it is, at full size the pixels at the top are amazingly sloppy and soft.

Given most of this kind of work is at iso100, the K7's noise hasnt been as issue!

Surely standing at the bottom of the building, you aren't going to get parallel verticals anyway? If you did, would it look natural?

[normhead]

Surely standing at the bottom of the building, you aren't going to get parallel verticals anyway? If you did, would it look natural?

Absolutely not.... your eye would interpret that as the building being much wider at the top.

[fuzzyfelt30]

Absolutely not.... your eye would interpret that as the building being much wider at the top.

Exactly......and it was JayR's image, by the way, not mine!

[normhead]

Exactly......and it was JayR's image, by the way, not mine!

My apologies.....

[Blue]

While it only has shift, the Pentax K28mm Shift lens can be picked up used ~ $500 for a good unit.

[Rondec]

So how do you know this? Please share with me your experience using both camera systems?
Thanks

M

My wife shoots weddings and her second shooters shoot Canon - 5D MK II and 70D and she has had more difficulty with white balance with those cameras than with the K3. Not sure if that is an experience that you can extrapolate to anything else, but she would never buy a Canon based on this experience.