Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-11-2016, 10:30 AM   #46
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,723
QuoteOriginally posted by Oricman Quote
The sensor in the K30 should give improved results over a 1/2.3" point-and-shoot, but the wonky exposure and poor sharpness make me want to chuck the K30 in a lake.
Have you used a 1/2.3" point-and-shoot camera in parallel with your K-30?? {take picture with one, then with the other}
I would be shocked if you could find any 1/2.3" camera that comes anywhere close to the K-30 if you're using both of them correctly.
Two years ago my pocketable camera was a Canon Elph, which happens to be a 1/2.3" point-and-shoot camera.
My Pentax Q-7 works much better than the Canon Elph did.
My Pentax K-30 works somewhat better than the Pentax Q-7 does.

07-12-2016, 02:51 AM   #47
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 110
Yes I've used them side by side which is how I can see the K30 isn't working for me.

Landscape aren't too much of a test for a camera and they aren't as bad as other shots, but there seems to be a tendency to underexpose in bright sun. The landscape shots are reasonable enough for me to hang on to the camera and give it a chance with the Sigma lens.

I'm sure a photography course would improve things but I have used Minolta SLR cameras in the past and have been using digital cameras on manual settings for a good number of years. Furthermore I can get sharp(er) images with the 55-300 zoom than DA or DAL kit lens - or the Sigma.
I've recently discovered the Sigma doesn't focus in Live View under about 20 feet. Such things are issues with the camera rather than my inability. Coupled with this issue of dark screens I don't think I can take all the blame Clackers. I have experienced a couple of dark screens. And I've had the camera seize up/ crash. Several times. It's not just me.

Attached is a landscape typically underexposed.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-30  Photo 
07-12-2016, 03:13 AM   #48
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,606
You need to do post processing. The sigma not focussing in live view is a lens problem.
07-12-2016, 07:30 AM   #49
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,723
QuoteOriginally posted by Oricman Quote
Yes I've used them side by side which is how I can see the K30 isn't working for me.
If you used a K-30 and a 1/2.3" point-and-shoot camera side by side, then you would see that the K-30 is much better.
A 1/2.3" point-and-shoot camera comes nowhere close to the K-30 in DR.
If you would put a typical Caucasian person in the foreground of the picture you just showed us, you could never get his/her features to show and get the landscape detail to show in the same picture, because of how Caucasian skin "glows" under sun light. Most 1/2.3" point-and-shoot cameras produce 8-bit JPEG images only, so you don't even have the option of going back to your computer and fixing things, because the detail is lost forever. I notice from the EXIF, that you had an exposure compensation of 0.70; you could adjust that to get the images lighter if you wanted that, but at some point you would lose the nice-looking clouds; as D1N0 commented, a better solution would be to adjust levels in PP to lighten the earth while keeping the nice sky {getting both Straight-Out-Of-Camera is asking too much of any camera, and I really doubt if the limited DR of a 1/2.3" sensor would do it for you; more likely it would turn the sheep and the clouds into white blobs}

The image you showed here was taken with an f-stop of f/7.1. At that kind of f-stop I don't know how you could have much of anything out-of-focus, because a DOF calculator shows that a focal length of 17mm {taken from your EXIF} and f-stop of 7.1, means that if you had focused at 7', everything beyond 3.5' would be in focus; in fact, as I have already commented here, two weeks ago, when we were touring Quebec, I discovered that my K-30 was in MF mode, but looking through my pictures later, I could not determine when that happened because all of my pictures were sharp, demonstrating again that it is really really difficult to get out-of-focus pictures when you are using a smallish aperture.

07-12-2016, 05:02 PM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,692
QuoteOriginally posted by Oricman Quote

Attached is a landscape typically underexposed.

Well, Oricman, here's the histogram showing it's not.


There is good spread, and the none of the channels are clipped at the left other than a touch of blue (which is probably some of the pixels in the shade of the centre-most hill).


Did you know all cameras try to capture the RAW file to render an 18% grey? That means in a bright scene like in the snow, a camera will deliberately darken the file (whites will become greys) and a dark scene will deliberately overexpose (blacks become greys).


You use the Exposure Compensation dial on your K-30 or Canon or Nikon or whatever to take that into account.


But you know, I actually like the rich sky you got in this picture, and if you lifted the overall exposure, you could lose it and it would become bland.


See my following post for what you can do back at home.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by clackers; 07-12-2016 at 05:11 PM.
07-12-2016, 05:08 PM   #51
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,692
Is this more what you wanted?


I just lifted the shadows in post, plus a touch of boost in the whites.


Nothing clever, just global rather than local adjustments. Yours would look better because (hopefully) you shoot in RAW rather than JPG and have more latitude for pushing things up and down before the quality deteriorates. You could also raise the shadows only in the ground, so that the sky retains all that drama you got.
Attached Images
 
07-13-2016, 03:36 AM   #52
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 110
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Well, Oricman, here's the histogram showing it's not.


There is good spread, and the none of the channels are clipped at the left other than a touch of blue (which is probably some of the pixels in the shade of the centre-most hill).


Did you know all cameras try to capture the RAW file to render an 18% grey? That means in a bright scene like in the snow, a camera will deliberately darken the file (whites will become greys) and a dark scene will deliberately overexpose (blacks become greys).


You use the Exposure Compensation dial on your K-30 or Canon or Nikon or whatever to take that into account.


But you know, I actually like the rich sky you got in this picture, and if you lifted the overall exposure, you could lose it and it would become bland.


See my following post for what you can do back at home.
That looks a bit brighter but to me the greens now look unnaturally green. That's the sort of problem I get with Raw processing - trying to balance whilst keeping it looking natural.

Yes to turning the exposure up. If you look at the exif you'll see I've turned it up 0.7 already. If I turn it up a full stop then some shots start to look bleached.

I didn't know about the 18% grey - that probably explains why my winter shots in the snow were coming out dull.
07-13-2016, 04:48 AM   #53
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 110
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
If you used a K-30 and a 1/2.3" point-and-shoot camera side by side, then you would see that the K-30 is much better.
A 1/2.3" point-and-shoot camera comes nowhere close to the K-30 in DR.
It's not what I'm experiencing - but I do notice better handling in some areas. Skies can look a bit odd with the 1/2.3" Maybe it's the lens coatings(?) but it can have the appearance of using a filter and be a bit bleached out. The K30 tends to have better control of the skies with more colour.

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
If you would put a typical Caucasian person in the foreground of the picture you just showed us, you could never get his/her features to show and get the landscape detail to show in the same picture, because of how Caucasian skin "glows" under sun light. Most 1/2.3" point-and-shoot cameras produce 8-bit JPEG images only, so you don't even have the option of going back to your computer and fixing things, because the detail is lost forever.
I don't take many portraits - except some at concerts where they use artificial light. My shots compare well to professional ones except they have more sharpness and can handle darker situations better. I wanted a DSLR to give me less grainy images and more sharpness. The point and shoot tend to have good sharpness - partly with the wider depth of field. It's where I take closer shots that the lack of sharpness is particularly noticeable. I have taken many shots of flowers with only a few that are good. When the shots are good they can look superior to the point and shoot. But it will produce a decent result 95% of the time.

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I notice from the EXIF, that you had an exposure compensation of 0.70; you could adjust that to get the images lighter if you wanted that, but at some point you would lose the nice-looking clouds; as D1N0 commented, a better solution would be to adjust levels in PP to lighten the earth while keeping the nice sky {getting both Straight-Out-Of-Camera is asking too much of any camera, and I really doubt if the limited DR of a 1/2.3" sensor would do it for you; more likely it would turn the sheep and the clouds into white blobs}
The 1/2.3" can shoot in Raw but does a decent job with Jpeg. With the K30 there are a lot of shots that have to be processed to get am acceptable result. For example I took a shot of an interesting old tree with blue sky behind. The small camera produced a shot showing the bark of the tree. The K30 produced a silhouette. I could process the shot to show up the tree but it ended up looking a bit odd as I had to push the levels so much. The K30 certainly can have better quality but the basic output isn't always what I'd hope for. But I've had some shots that work well and look great.

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
The image you showed here was taken with an f-stop of f/7.1. At that kind of f-stop I don't know how you could have much of anything out-of-focus, because a DOF calculator shows that a focal length of 17mm {taken from your EXIF} and f-stop of 7.1, means that if you had focused at 7', everything beyond 3.5' would be in focus; in fact, as I have already commented here, two weeks ago, when we were touring Quebec, I discovered that my K-30 was in MF mode, but looking through my pictures later, I could not determine when that happened because all of my pictures were sharp, demonstrating again that it is really really difficult to get out-of-focus pictures when you are using a smallish aperture.
I normally shoot at f8 with the camera on aperture priority so I can adjust it up when I shoot things that are nearer. The sharpness issue tend to be when things are nearer. The darkness of shots is what I get with landscapes. I think I took that shot on P setting to see how it came out. It looks to me much darker than in real life.
Closer shots often aren't sharp. (See below).
I know I can improve things with processing - I've been shooting in Raw+ for a while but trying to improve bad shots is only partially successful. If the shots are good to begin with they don't need so much work processing, and maybe the jpeg output has a good enough balance so I've gone back to shooting in Jpeg and doing a Raw shot in if I think processing will help. But basically I don't trust the K30. Maybe my lenses aren't good - it's all second hand equipment - but the output is somewhat erratic.

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-30  Photo 
07-13-2016, 05:05 AM   #54
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,606
This picture is sharp (besides the parts that are out of focus). It's the lighting conditions that give you very low contrast making it seem bland. Stopping down to F8 doesn't do it much good, apart from wider DOF and also the background could be better by taking a lower point of view. (Wet pants, I know )
07-13-2016, 02:19 PM   #55
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 110
I don't think it is sharp. I've several pictures of daffodils in different lighting conditions and none look sharp. I have taken other pictures of flowers that have turned out much better, so I know it can be better than this. But so many of my close-up shots are lacking. I've had better sharpness with the 55-300 zoom. so I'm thinking there is a lens issue - but then again I've got some sharp images with the 17-70, so it's very frustrating. I'm not sure whether to send the lens back to Sigma. I could try a USB block but if the lens has an issue that might not fix it. If the camera is to blame then fixing the lens won't sort it.

I dunno. Clackers says the dark images aren't underexposed and you're saying my soft images are sharp. K30 for sale. No issues!!!
07-13-2016, 05:17 PM   #56
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,692
QuoteOriginally posted by Oricman Quote
That looks a bit brighter but to me the greens now look unnaturally green. That's the sort of problem I get with Raw processing - trying to balance whilst keeping it looking natural.

So take charge ... you're the photographer! Desaturate that area with local adjustments in PP or alter their colours channel by channel until you're happy.


Landscape and astro photographers will frequently take one shot exposed for the land and another for the sky, blending them in Photoshop to get the best of both.


I really think you need an education.

QuoteOriginally posted by Oricman Quote
I didn't know about the 18% grey

Glad to be of help - it's the advantage of asking here, or taking a class. Otherwise, you could wander around taking pics for years and not know that.


Take charge of exposure - you know better than any camera what you want.
07-14-2016, 05:18 AM   #57
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 110
I've tried several Raw editing programs but they don't fix out of focus shots. Or the dark frame issue. No amount of education will fix actual problems with the camera - or lens. I've already discovered one lens was faulty. Another works but tends to have soft focus to one side. The Sigma seems to have issues as it won't focus close up in live view - I'm considering sending it back to Sigma. So all in all, I'm not sure how much the equipment is to blame and how much it could be me. Considering I can use a Canon DSLR without too many problems I'm not accepting it is all user error. Sure, there's a lot to learn - but I can take good pictures with other cameras.

I've taken consecutive shots of the same subject with the same settings and one has come out looking overexposed and the next looks a bit too dark. I just can't trust this camera. With other cameras I can adjust the settings and have an idea what its going to do.

Of the Raw programs I've been using Paint Shop Pro which has poor Raw editing. Aftershot pro 2 which is quite good but it produced grainy images. Adjusting noise and smoothing didn't stop it being excessively grainy. So then I tried Raw Therapee which is better but quite different controls to other programs - so I've resorted to a borrowed Lightroom which works very well but has many hidden functions. I'm working away at it but don't get pictures looking as I'd like them to and after spending hours editing often prefer the balance on the Jpeg. I've got some good results but my shots aren't going to be in art galleries. So for me a lot of time PP isn't what I want to doing. The better the pictures are to begin with the less time I would need on PP. If the pictures aren't sharp then it all feels a wasted effort.

I know about layering/ stacking and HDR. The night shots I was referring to probably wouldn't work due to cloud/sun movement .
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-30  Photo 
07-14-2016, 11:14 AM   #58
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,723
QuoteOriginally posted by Oricman Quote
I've tried several Raw editing programs but they don't fix out of focus shots. Or the dark frame issue. No amount of education will fix actual problems with the camera - or lens. I've already discovered one lens was faulty. Another works but tends to have soft focus to one side. The Sigma seems to have issues as it won't focus close up in live view - I'm considering sending it back to Sigma. So all in all, I'm not sure how much the equipment is to blame and how much it could be me. Considering I can use a Canon DSLR without too many problems I'm not accepting it is all user error. Sure, there's a lot to learn - but I can take good pictures with other cameras.

I've taken consecutive shots of the same subject with the same settings and one has come out looking overexposed and the next looks a bit too dark. I just can't trust this camera. With other cameras I can adjust the settings and have an idea what its going to do.
I'm sorry you feel that way. No one here is going to convince you otherwise, and as someone who left Canon and likes Pentax better, I certainly won't try. My experience with my K-30 is that if I think a image is too dark, I can change the settings a tad (*), and the image gets better ... or I can use gimp to make the corrections later, exactly as I did with my more expensive, but less reliable, Canon Rebel {not so much - not at all, in fact - with my Canon 1/2.3" Elph}

BTW - presumably you're unhappy with the most recent picture you posted. Other than the lens artifact on the right side of the picture, which I wouldn't bother to fix, I'd just read the image into PhotoShop or gimp and use the curves tool to lighten up the darker third / half of the pixels a tad, and then I'd be happy with that one also. But you get to do what you want to do.

I'm not sure why this discussion is going on and on, especially since it has nothing to do with the original subject of this thread {a particular hardware issue which your camera clearly does not have} nor with the subject of this area of the Forums {K-S1/S2}. If you're determine to be unhappy with Pentax, then please buy a new Canon Rebel and be happy, but I don't expect to spend any more time discussing your issues.


(*) much of photography involves evaluating light; much of the art is choosing the right angle at the right time of the right day. That is true whether you are using a Pentax or a Canon camera. This most recent example you gave us was looking into the light, which is much of the charm of the image. However, it is also much of the work of the image, since changing your angle just a tiny amount will make a radical difference in the light-meter reading; that would be true whether you are using a Pentax or a Canon camera.

Last edited by reh321; 07-14-2016 at 12:57 PM. Reason: added thought
07-15-2016, 04:53 AM   #59
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 110
I quite like the above picture. I should have cropped it a bit and maybe could have done other things to improve it but it looks pretty decent, I think. I have done some night time shots of auroras and they have turned out quite well too. So I have found some potential in the camera that has kept me using it.
More of my problems seem to come taking closer shots which the kit lenses are poor or incapable of. Even in reviews that compliment the kit lens they can comment on how soft the lens is at the extreme end of the zoom. That can be where I use the camera a lot and where it lets me down so I'm trying to use the worst area of the equipment and finding it hard work. People that use Pentax in the sweet spot don't have such problems.
If I could be confident that the camera was good I might go on to get a better lens. I've already got the 17-70 but it seems to have problems too. The recent correspondence from Sigma posted on here shows that the willingness to improve Pentax lenses isn't exactly a priority.
Researching lenses I've come across issues of softness and failing SDM. I was considering going for a 16-85 zoom until I saw one that had snapped in half on Ebay. I've now had 5 lenses and I'm still not sure if the focusing is working properly. Image stabilization doesn't seem to work and the advice is always to turn it off.

This thread has gone off at a tangent but it comes down to confidence in Pentax products. The dark frame issue is not good. I've had it happen a couple of times. The camera has locked up for no reason several times. SDM lens motors fail. I went for a Sigma version which doesn't seem right. I've tried to ask people if they can look at it for me and they offer to sell me the Sigma dock.
Zoom lenses being soft at the extreme ends of zoom and/or aperture isn't a problem particular to Pentax - but some of the other stuff doesn't fill me with confidence. Someone said if this was a car there'd be a recall.

I was blamed for user error when one of my lenses was faulty. It wouldn't focus. The replacement worked. That is faulty equipment. I'm now told my Sigma lens is also faulty. How much stuff am I expected to buy before I get equipment I can rely on?
07-16-2016, 04:53 PM   #60
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 54
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
If you used a K-30 and a 1/2.3" point-and-shoot camera side by side, then you would see that the K-30 is much better.
A 1/2.3" point-and-shoot camera comes nowhere close to the K-30 in DR.
If you would put a typical Caucasian person in the foreground of the picture you just showed us, you could never get his/her features to show and get the landscape detail to show in the same picture, because of how Caucasian skin "glows" under sun light. Most 1/2.3" point-and-shoot cameras produce 8-bit JPEG images only, so you don't even have the option of going back to your computer and fixing things, because the detail is lost forever. I notice from the EXIF, that you had an exposure compensation of 0.70; you could adjust that to get the images lighter if you wanted that, but at some point you would lose the nice-looking clouds; as D1N0 commented, a better solution would be to adjust levels in PP to lighten the earth while keeping the nice sky {getting both Straight-Out-Of-Camera is asking too much of any camera, and I really doubt if the limited DR of a 1/2.3" sensor would do it for you; more likely it would turn the sheep and the clouds into white blobs}

The image you showed here was taken with an f-stop of f/7.1. At that kind of f-stop I don't know how you could have much of anything out-of-focus, because a DOF calculator shows that a focal length of 17mm {taken from your EXIF} and f-stop of 7.1, means that if you had focused at 7', everything beyond 3.5' would be in focus; in fact, as I have already commented here, two weeks ago, when we were touring Quebec, I discovered that my K-30 was in MF mode, but looking through my pictures later, I could not determine when that happened because all of my pictures were sharp, demonstrating again that it is really really difficult to get out-of-focus pictures when you are using a smallish aperture.
"he image you showed here was taken with an f-stop of f/7.1. At that kind of f-stop I don't know how you could have much of anything out-of-focus, because a DOF calculator shows that a focal length of 17mm {taken from your EXIF} and f-stop of 7.1, means that if you had focused at 7', everything beyond 3.5' would be in focus; in fact, as I have already commented here, two weeks ago, when we were touring Quebec, I discovered that my K-30 was in MF mode, but looking through my pictures later, I could not determine when that happened because all of my pictures were sharp, demonstrating again that it is really really difficult to get out-of-focus pictures when you are using a smallish aperture."

Have you tried AF Fine Adjustment (Page 58 - User Manual). This function can save ao to 20 lenses (or values for zoom?)
Leo
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!
auto, black, camera, exposure, frames, input, iso, k-s1, k-s2, settings
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dark LiveView when using external flash in Manual (K-S2) tomas.paier Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 5 05-05-2016 04:32 AM
Astrotracer on K-S2 srdjanmax Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 13 04-11-2016 03:23 PM
K-S2 dead on arrival? BluesRunner Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 12 01-24-2016 10:58 AM
Dark strip moves across frames willskywalker93 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 26 11-02-2015 07:24 AM
K-S2 LCD Screen on/off wwortel Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 3 06-15-2015 11:32 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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