Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-22-2016, 02:13 AM   #151
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 257
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Thanks for the put-down.

My point was merely that both iso 64 and pixel shift are limited in usefulness in that best results will come using a tripod. For many people, hand holding is what they rely on and if that is the case, then both of these features will have limited value, as iso 64 is going to be limited to very good light.

Once you decide you will use a tripod, you can shoot whatever iso you want or as many exposures as you want and combine them in post. That said, I do think the pixel shift feels like an easier way to get better image quality, but I will see when I get a K-1. I guess my hope wasn't for "super-resolution," but for improvement in color depth and dynamic range, that can aid ultimately in improved image processing afterwards.
Use of iso 64 is limited to bright light scenarios, but depending on your use, these can still be many. Even at f11, a typical bright daylight shot with a 28mm lens will be perfectly hand holdable at 1/100-1/150 s.
And certainly portraits in sunlight with 50/2 or 85/1.4 can benefit considerably from the extra highlight headroom at a true iso 64.
I.m.o. even if these are not your typical use for a ff camera, at least for professionals these advantages should be equally important, or even more important, than performance at very high iso settings, and the Nikon D810 is certainly a camera aimed at professionals.
Pixel shift is a great innovation, but it can not replace or make redundant a true iso 50 or 64.
The odd thing is: when people were speculating on the K1, even years ago, iso 50 was often on the wishlist. Now it seems the wish to beat the Nikons has moved up the priority list....

Chris

03-22-2016, 02:50 AM - 1 Like   #152
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,258
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
Use of iso 64 is limited to bright light scenarios, but depending on your use, these can still be many. Even at f11, a typical bright daylight shot with a 28mm lens will be perfectly hand holdable at 1/100-1/150 s.
And certainly portraits in sunlight with 50/2 or 85/1.4 can benefit considerably from the extra highlight headroom at a true iso 64.
I.m.o. even if these are not your typical use for a ff camera, at least for professionals these advantages should be equally important, or even more important, than performance at very high iso settings, and the Nikon D810 is certainly a camera aimed at professionals.
Pixel shift is a great innovation, but it can not replace or make redundant a true iso 50 or 64.
The odd thing is: when people were speculating on the K1, even years ago, iso 50 was often on the wishlist. Now it seems the wish to beat the Nikons has moved up the priority list....

Chris
You are right. But do you know how often I shoot high dynamic range landscape images in great light? Not very often. If I am shooting at high noon, odds are that I don't really care about dynamic range. I just haven't seen situations where you need to pump up the dynamic range on a portrait shot in decent light. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I think the biggest thing that the extra low iso would help (other than tripod work) is essentially boosting flash sync speed.

As to the whole "extra dynamic range" argument, I don't really buy that it is even visible. The D800e and the D810 have both been measured by DXO Mark and at iso 100, both have a dynamic range of 14.3 EV. At iso 64 the D810 has 14.7 EV. The total scores for the D800e and D810 are 96 and 97 respectively (differences of less than 5 are unlikely to show up in real world situations). I can't remember the last situation where having an extra .4 EV of dynamic range would have put my photo over the top.

My guess is that the K-1 will have similar performance to the D800e and that's probably good enough for me -- both in low and high iso situations.
03-22-2016, 04:17 AM   #153
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 257
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
You are right. But do you know how often I shoot high dynamic range landscape images in great light? Not very often. If I am shooting at high noon, odds are that I don't really care about dynamic range. I just haven't seen situations where you need to pump up the dynamic range on a portrait shot in decent light. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I think the biggest thing that the extra low iso would help (other than tripod work) is essentially boosting flash sync speed.

As to the whole "extra dynamic range" argument, I don't really buy that it is even visible. The D800e and the D810 have both been measured by DXO Mark and at iso 100, both have a dynamic range of 14.3 EV. At iso 64 the D810 has 14.7 EV. The total scores for the D800e and D810 are 96 and 97 respectively (differences of less than 5 are unlikely to show up in real world situations). I can't remember the last situation where having an extra .4 EV of dynamic range would have put my photo over the top.

My guess is that the K-1 will have similar performance to the D800e and that's probably good enough for me -- both in low and high iso situations.
.4 EV extra highlight headroom may not sound like a big deal, and it certainly won't prevent you from getting stellar results from the K1 raw files, although when shooting jpeg, the ability to dial in an extra stop of exposure and still have better highlight preservation can be very usefull.
When I use the Sony A7r (raw), I always have to mind the highlights, and in bright conditions in a scene where there are also strong shadows, I will always have to underexpose and lift in post. With the ability to lift shadows that this sensor has, that is not a problem. With a sensor like the one found in the Nikon D810, I would have to underexpose a stop less in bright, contrasty scenarios, and work on the raw files less to get the proper tonality.
I think people who deal a lot with landscapes or portraits in raw, shot in these circumstances, won't have a problem seeing the benefits of a large extra stop of highlight headroom. The advantages are undeniable.
However, the Pentax K1 has the standard Sony 36mp sensor, and this is still a great sensor. For someone who shot Olympus 4/3 in the past, this Sony sensor is still something of the holy grail that it was (together with the 16mp version) shortly after introduction years ago.

Chris
03-22-2016, 04:24 AM   #154
Senior Member
joergens.mi's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 259
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder;3579654The sensor is cut from the same wafer as the Nikon D810, but that doesn't mean it has the same micro lenses or color array. Ricoh says they made their own substrate for the sensor. What that means is beyond my limited knowledge of sensor production so it may just be marketing. It appear Ricoh has a very custom version of the D810 sensor.[COLOR=Red:
[/COLOR]
The sensor silicon chip must be mounted to a substrate - it can't stay alone,
On this substrate are the leads to transport the signals to the electronics and the landing pads for the gold bonds to the silicon.
The substrate is also needed to distribute and to lead of the heat from the sensor.
The quality of the substrate can make a big difference according to the noise - the way the landing pads are positioned, the ground connections in number an size.
When you are right, that Pentax had defined their own substrate that can make a difference in heat dissipation - heat dissipation is a principal problem for this sensors because they are mounted in the SR Unit with only small possibilities to transport the heat to the body and away from the sensor. (But Pentax solved this in a very good way with all cameras).

03-22-2016, 08:10 AM   #155
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,258
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
.4 EV extra highlight headroom may not sound like a big deal, and it certainly won't prevent you from getting stellar results from the K1 raw files, although when shooting jpeg, the ability to dial in an extra stop of exposure and still have better highlight preservation can be very usefull.
When I use the Sony A7r (raw), I always have to mind the highlights, and in bright conditions in a scene where there are also strong shadows, I will always have to underexpose and lift in post. With the ability to lift shadows that this sensor has, that is not a problem. With a sensor like the one found in the Nikon D810, I would have to underexpose a stop less in bright, contrasty scenarios, and work on the raw files less to get the proper tonality.
I think people who deal a lot with landscapes or portraits in raw, shot in these circumstances, won't have a problem seeing the benefits of a large extra stop of highlight headroom. The advantages are undeniable.
However, the Pentax K1 has the standard Sony 36mp sensor, and this is still a great sensor. For someone who shot Olympus 4/3 in the past, this Sony sensor is still something of the holy grail that it was (together with the 16mp version) shortly after introduction years ago.

Chris
You are confusing me a little. So the benefit of this is so you can shoot jpegs better? And when did 0.4 EV turn into a whole stop?

I think having ISO 64 would be handy in a couple of situations -- flash in bright light and landscapes on a tripod. I still doubt that there is a real world difference between 14.7 EV and 14.3 EV of dynamic range. I understand it is the Internet and it is our place to magnify the tiniest differences, but these still feel fairly small.
03-22-2016, 08:52 AM   #156
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
My point was merely that both iso 64 and pixel shift are limited in usefulness in that best results will come using a tripod.
ISO 64 (or ISO 50 as it actually is measured as) is perfectly usable handhold. Even Kodachrome 25 was in the days of film

And the question about the actual benefit of it is theoretical.

What Nikon tried with the D810 (after having observed that the D800E made a dent into the medium format market) was to improve on one aspect where medium format has an advantage, even with CCD: cleaner images at base ISO. Actually, that's more a question of SNR than dynamic range.

Therefore, Nikon ordered a special sensor from Sony with a higher full well capacity to better match the quality of a medium format camera at base ISO. Such as used in the studio, fashion, landscape or architecture. And called it D810.

Many people lament how FF cannot touch the image quality of, e.g., a 645Z. And that's true to some extent, because of less clean images at base iso. Therefore, I have a low tolerance for the same people now proclaiming ISO 64 is an unimportant detail. It's either one or the other.

Having said this, it is true also that Nikon was unfortunate with the actual product delivered by Sony: at ISO 100, it performs a little less well than the D800 and at ISO 64, it doesn't exploit the full potential.

But that doesn't mean that the move by Nikon to provide a sensor with a larger full well capacity shouldn't be appreciated. It still is what makes the D810 a preferred camera in the studio.

OTOH, Pentax with having only ony FF camera would probably be ill advised to purchase a more expensive sensor just for a niche market: the K-1 competes against D610, D750, Df, D800/E, D810 (on the Nikon side), not just D810.
03-22-2016, 09:30 AM   #157
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,258
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
ISO 64 (or ISO 50 as it actually is measured as) is perfectly usable handhold. Even Kodachrome 25 was in the days of film

And the question about the actual benefit of it is theoretical.

What Nikon tried with the D810 (after having observed that the D800E made a dent into the medium format market) was to improve on one aspect where medium format has an advantage, even with CCD: cleaner images at base ISO. Actually, that's more a question of SNR than dynamic range.

Therefore, Nikon ordered a special sensor from Sony with a higher full well capacity to better match the quality of a medium format camera at base ISO. Such as used in the studio, fashion, landscape or architecture. And called it D810.

Many people lament how FF cannot touch the image quality of, e.g., a 645Z. And that's true to some extent, because of less clean images at base iso. Therefore, I have a low tolerance for the same people now proclaiming ISO 64 is an unimportant detail. It's either one or the other.

Having said this, it is true also that Nikon was unfortunate with the actual product delivered by Sony: at ISO 100, it performs a little less well than the D800 and at ISO 64, it doesn't exploit the full potential.

But that doesn't mean that the move by Nikon to provide a sensor with a larger full well capacity shouldn't be appreciated. It still is what makes the D810 a preferred camera in the studio.

OTOH, Pentax with having only ony FF camera would probably be ill advised to purchase a more expensive sensor just for a niche market: the K-1 competes against D610, D750, Df, D800/E, D810 (on the Nikon side), not just D810.
I guess I will say again that the extra dynamic range is significantly less useful to me (in general) when the light is good enough to hand hold at iso 64 than it would be at times when the light isn't as good.

Anyway, I think I've said enough about it. There is a place in the market place for all of the cameras you mentioned, including the 645z and the biggest selling point to me for the D810 isn't the presence of iso 64, it is the significantly more complete lens portfolio that Nikon offers. I suppose it is up to each photographer what they want to get.
03-22-2016, 09:48 AM   #158
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,434
I'm pretty sure it's the signal-to-noise ratio that excites me about a base 64 (or 50) iso. On sensors with this capability, I've found that I can underexpose by almost a full stop and then push everything and I don't have as much problems in shadows as I do with base 100 sensors.

For lack of knowledge of the real technical term, I've called it burning in an image. It's really handy for blues, and I think it has helped control overexposure issues on reds. Given I shoot a lot of water based landscapes and sunsets, I think it would have been a great addition to the K-1.

With a better signal to noise ratio, I swear I have more working room for my black/white points.

03-22-2016, 10:25 AM   #159
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by nomadkng Quote
I'm pretty sure it's the signal-to-noise ratio that excites me about a base 64 (or 50) iso. On sensors with this capability, I've found that I can underexpose by almost a full stop and then push everything ...
Called ISO invariance or isoless.
-1EV exp. comp. is my default setting too.

A true isoless sensor will be iso invariant and will have infinite full well capacity (zero base iso). With a true isoless sensor, one chooses exposure time and aperture based on artistic expression and required image quality without a chance to ever over or underexpose an image.

I am still trying to figure out what the perfect user ergonomics should look like with an isoless camera.
03-22-2016, 02:08 PM   #160
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,280
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I don't see anymore posts by bizengineer.

But normally, when a sensor is reused by another brand, the Bayer filter is altered to meet the color calibration standards of that other brand. I assume the same has happened here.

---------- Post added 15th Mar 2016 at 01:55 ----------


Adam, thanks for the clarification.

It already was obvious to me from the available info. But what official source can you cite for this info (to make this an actual fact)?
Dan Savoie

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

03-22-2016, 03:45 PM   #161
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 257
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
You are confusing me a little. So the benefit of this is so you can shoot jpegs better? And when did 0.4 EV turn into a whole stop?

I think having ISO 64 would be handy in a couple of situations -- flash in bright light and landscapes on a tripod. I still doubt that there is a real world difference between 14.7 EV and 14.3 EV of dynamic range. I understand it is the Internet and it is our place to magnify the tiniest differences, but these still feel fairly small.
You're right, I'm misusing terms here. I mean (an) exposure compensation (step) of .3 ev. A whole stop of 1EV is not very practical in estimating the proper lighting of an image.
I do not shoot jpeg myself, but there are different benefits to a lower base iso, and the ability to capture a wider dynamic range in one single shot without post processing will certainly have its uses.
For raw, as also mentioned in this thread, the very low noise at iso 64 (or 50), and the consequent smoothness of detail in a large resolution sensor, is a benefit.
It (iso 50) is something easily dismissed or declared obscure, but as I said: it was often on the wish list in the many discussions in the years preceding the release of the K1, often in relation to landscape shooting.
Dismissing the unique qualities of an iso 50 sensor is all the more tempting as there simply are no Pentax shooters that have ever shot a (FF) camera with this setting available, so you will have to head to the Nikon communities to read experiences with its benefits.
I agree with the general sentiment that Pentax made the right choice of sensor by adopting the standard Sony 36 mp sensor, certainly with their first FF body and the need for competitive pricing, but there remains room for a future model where Pentax can have its go at a true iso 50 sensor like Nikon did with the D810.

Chris

Last edited by Chris Mak; 03-23-2016 at 04:10 AM.
03-22-2016, 03:47 PM   #162
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Dan Savoie
Adam, thank you very much.
As a reminder to myself, this is a link to Dan: Pentax Q&A at WPPI 2016 - Trade Shows | PentaxForums.com

I guess this guy knows what he's talking about.
03-22-2016, 04:23 PM   #163
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,258
The last time I remember such angst was when the K3 sensor turned out not to have iso 80 and the dynamic range wasn't as good at base iso (the K5 was .6 EV better). People were very upset.

You know what? I own both cameras and the K3 is close enough that I don't notice the difference. If I am shooting a super high dynamic range image, I use a GND or use multiple exposures. There are just few situations where I could coax a good image out of a K5 II at iso 80 where I couldn't do the same with the K3 at iso 100.
03-22-2016, 07:45 PM   #164
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,280
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Adam, thank you very much.
As a reminder to myself, this is a link to Dan: Pentax Q&A at WPPI 2016 - Trade Shows | PentaxForums.com

I guess this guy knows what he's talking about.
He's one of the few people on this side of the pond who knows Pentax cameras from a technical side. Seems like most of the other reps are focus on marketing.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

03-22-2016, 07:55 PM   #165
Pentaxian
bobmaxja's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Laval, Quebec Canada
Posts: 1,736
Here Dan Savoie Photo Blog
PENTAX : PENTAX Photo Gallery artist page
Dan.Savoie - Photography - @pentapics Instagram profile | Iconosquare
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!
camera, cameras, chip, d800, dslr, firmware, full frame, full-frame, high-iso, iso, jpeg, k-1, k1, louis, nikon, pentax, pentax k-1, photo, rest, sensor, settings, sony, sr, yr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hands on with the Pentax K-1 Mousehill Pentax Full Frame 25 03-05-2016 01:03 PM
Details and Shots on the upcoming FF infinity Pentax Full Frame 45 12-01-2015 10:14 AM
DA 50mm 1.8 - Brief hands-on impressions and samples JPT Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 190 09-12-2014 10:17 AM
Pentax K-3 Hands-on and Sample Photos frank Pentax K-3 116 10-12-2013 03:57 AM
Hands-On Photos of the K-01 from Pentax Singapore User Group creampuff Pentax K-01 299 12-03-2012 08:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 PM. | 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