Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-26-2016, 07:45 AM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,424
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
Please elucidate!
I wouldn't assume that subject movement had no impact on that particular image, just because on other images the subject seemed reasonably still.

As for the other images, perhaps there's some back focus - the label on the engine seems quite sharp (not on all of them, though...).

07-27-2016, 04:53 AM   #32
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 444
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
(Note that all 73 new images in that whole thread were uploaded without downsizing. Hence 1 sensor-pixel = 1 screen-pixel).

I just did some sums. The wingspan of the Boeing Stearman is 981 centimeters. Therefore the pixel-pitch of the K-1 corresponds to about 1.5 centimeters at that distance. I believe the diagonal bracing cables (not the vertical struts) are less than this, perhaps more like 1 centimeter. (Anyone?)

Furthermore, they are metallic, and tend to take on the colour of their surroundings. Here, the sky. So these cables are sub-pixel-pitch and largely sky-blue. I think it is interesting that they are still just about visible in the uploaded photos. Somehow the combination of the 150-450mm lens at f/5.6, K-1 sensor, SR, my panning, Lightroom's raw conversion, and the sharpening I applied, has kept/made them just about visible in the uploaded photos.

I don't what sort of detail could be obtained in theory. But surely it isn't much more than this? Can anyone here say what should be expected?
As far as I'm concern, something went wrong. Either the problems you had on your shoulder had an impact to final images, either the technique you used, either the post processing was "aggressive"... I don't know what happened because I wasn't there. But take a look at an image I took with K-3 II and DA35mm f2.4 in a hot day. Settings were: 1/5000s, f4, ISO 200 + a massive crop in Lightroom. And yet, I do not have the grain in the sky, nor the lack of details you have in this image.

screenshot windows 7

See below my final image on which I already applied a 50-60% crop.

uploading pictures"]uploading pictures[/URL]
07-27-2016, 05:01 AM   #33
Senior Member
Medex's Avatar

Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 189
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
Quick question:
994 shots, did you have to change battery for that or was that on one charge?
It is possible to make 1000 shots with 1 battery with K-1. But sometimes I wonder when I shot just about 600-700 before the battery is empty
07-27-2016, 09:25 AM - 1 Like   #34
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
As far as I'm concern, something went wrong. Either the problems you had on your shoulder had an impact to final images, either the technique you used, either the post processing was "aggressive"... I don't know what happened because I wasn't there. But take a look at an image I took with K-3 II and DA35mm f2.4 in a hot day. Settings were: 1/5000s, f4, ISO 200 + a massive crop in Lightroom. And yet, I do not have the grain in the sky, nor the lack of details you have in this image.
As I said, I was panning against the movement of that plane. Subject-movement was inevitable when using 1/2000. If you want to pixel-peep, look at the plane I was panning with: the left-to-right plane.

Note the other things I said: I was using the lens at f/5.6, hence stopped down just 2/3-stop; and because I hadn't panned well, the center AF point I was using for focusing was on the sky in most of those "cross" photos.

Yes, I used (very) aggressive post-processing (in Lightroom). For all photos to be shown in DPReview, I use a Develop preset intended to make a typical photo look good in the gallery obtained when clicking on an image in the post. (Have a look). Not to look good when viewing at the original (non-downsized) uploaded size. Don't compare my 1:1 photos with any downsized, hence not 1:1, image. (I'm not sure whether your photos are 1:1).

When I have a serious purpose for my images, such as competitions or international salons, I always use both Lightroom and Photoshop, using 2 or 3 phase sharpening. And I check them by test-printing at A3+ on glossy paper. I don't use a generic aggressive Lightroom preset for them!

As I said: "I think they were doomed not be of competitions quality! I posted them to illustrate that even with the relatively low burst rate of the K-1, it is possible to get several frames with both planes in. (Somewhat to my surprise). Now I've got to get the details right!"

07-27-2016, 10:49 AM   #35
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
See below my final image on which I already applied a 50-60% crop.

uploading pictures"]uploading pictures[/URL]
On my screen, that photo is about 583 x 880 pixels.

Assume it is from a crop to 40% of the original K-3II sensor width and height. So without cropping the full image, if posted, would be about 1457 x 2200 on the screen. In other words, your image has been downsized by a factor of more than 2.7 (in each direction).

Unless I have made an error in these sums, you are comparing your image that has been downsized by a factor of 2.72 with my image that is shown 1:1, without any downsizing. Downsizing increases apparent sharpness and reduces apparent noise, of course.

So downsize my photo by a factor of 2.72, (to about 36.57%), and then compare your photo with mine. That would be a more valid comparison.

Compare like with like. And remember that I was panning against that plane, and anyway the camera was focusing on the sky!
07-27-2016, 01:57 PM   #36
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 444
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
On my screen, that photo is about 583 x 880 pixels.

Assume it is from a crop to 40% of the original K-3II sensor width and height. So without cropping the full image, if posted, would be about 1457 x 2200 on the screen. In other words, your image has been downsized by a factor of more than 2.7 (in each direction).

Unless I have made an error in these sums, you are comparing your image that has been downsized by a factor of 2.72 with my image that is shown 1:1, without any downsizing. Downsizing increases apparent sharpness and reduces apparent noise, of course.

So downsize my photo by a factor of 2.72, (to about 36.57%), and then compare your photo with mine. That would be a more valid comparison.

Compare like with like. And remember that I was panning against that plane, and anyway the camera was focusing on the sky!
If I only find the raw files, you would probably understand better what I'm trying to say. I only took a few images on that day because it's was mission imposible to shoot an air show with a 35mm lens and this makes the search for raw files on my hard drives harder (I must have coupled them with other images).

Even if I don't find them, on Saturday there is a big air show here, in Bucharest and I will go and take some images because I'm quite intrigued about these images you posted on DPreview. Maybe the aggressive sharpness applied "killed" the images for me...I don't know.
07-28-2016, 01:11 AM   #37
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
If I only find the raw files, you would probably understand better what I'm trying to say.....

Even if I don't find them, on Saturday there is a big air show here, in Bucharest and I will go and take some images because I'm quite intrigued about these images you posted on DPreview. Maybe the aggressive sharpness applied "killed" the images for me...I don't know.
You don't need your raw files to do a valid "like for like" comparison. Identify the amount that you downsized your images to make your JPEGs, then downsize my original images by the same amount. For example, if you downsized yours to 40% of the raw original, downsize mine to 40% of the original. (You easily get my originals from the DPReview post).

You will find that mine become much sharper and far less noisy. Which is presumably what happened to yours. (Remember to examine the plane travelling left-to-right, not the one travelling right-to-left. The latter has significant subject-movement, because I was panning left-to-right and using 1/2000th second, which couldn't freeze it).
07-28-2016, 02:13 AM   #38
Pentaxian
Dan Rentea's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bucharest
Posts: 444
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
You don't need your raw files to do a valid "like for like" comparison. Identify the amount that you downsized your images to make your JPEGs, then downsize my original images by the same amount. For example, if you downsized yours to 40% of the raw original, downsize mine to 40% of the original. (You easily get my originals from the DPReview post).

You will find that mine become much sharper and far less noisy. Which is presumably what happened to yours. (Remember to examine the plane travelling left-to-right, not the one travelling right-to-left. The latter has significant subject-movement, because I was panning left-to-right and using 1/2000th second, which couldn't freeze it).
Your image is below. It was downsized to 2048px on the long edge. You can download it.

https://postimg.org/image/l4ujr12t3/

My image is below. It was downsized to 2048px on the long edge after it was cropped in Lightroom when it was edited. I don't know were is the raw file to be more accurate in the comparison. I will compare you images with the ones I'm going to take this saturday in order to have a deeper understanding about air show photography. But there is to much noise in your images at low ISO, and this could be due to the sharpening applied in post processing.

https://postimg.org/image/9nprki91t/

Anyway, for the planes with propeller you need a shutter speed between 1/250s and 1/500s. At 1/2000s the propeller will freeze and it looks like the plane is not flying.


Last edited by Dan Rentea; 07-28-2016 at 02:23 AM.
07-28-2016, 03:28 AM   #39
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by Dan Rentea Quote
Your image is below. It was downsized to 2048px on the long edge. You can download it.

https://postimg.org/image/l4ujr12t3/

My image is below. It was downsized to 2048px on the long edge after it was cropped in Lightroom when it was edited. I don't know were is the raw file to be more accurate in the comparison. I will compare you images with the ones I'm going to take this saturday in order to have a deeper understanding about air show photography. But there is to much noise in your images at low ISO, and this could be due to the sharpening applied in post processing.

https://postimg.org/image/9nprki91t/

Anyway, for the planes with propeller you need a shutter speed between 1/250s and 1/500s. At 1/2000s the propeller will freeze and it looks like the plane is not flying.
Thanks for showing the results. As I said, when downsized, sharpness increases and noise reduces. I note that in my image, the diagonal bracing of both planes is just visible. That bracing is about the same thickness (or less) as a single K-1 pixel at that distance.
(The K-1 sensor-pixel-pitch is about 1.5 centimeters at those planes).

As I said in the thread about the Farnborough Airshow:
"I've been struggling with an injured left arm since soon after I got my K-1. I can't lift the K-1 plus 150-450mm lens, with my left arm free, up to my eye. I have to brace my left elbow on my chest. This makes some photos impossible. (Airplanes right overhead). And makes my panning unreliable. So I'm sometimes using shutter speeds that I think are "artistically" too high, and sometimes losing the subject from the Center AF point".
Planes differ in the amount of propeller blur obtained at different shutter speeds. In general, (but not always), older planes tend to have slower moving propellers. And helicopters tend to need slower shutter speeds, the Chinook slowest of all.
07-28-2016, 12:43 PM   #40
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,937
Barry Pearson,
Just wondering what were the AF settings for the static lady's pictures?
Did you use focus/recompose technique?
07-28-2016, 02:28 PM   #41
Pentaxian
Barry Pearson's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Stockport
Posts: 870
QuoteOriginally posted by micromacro Quote
Barry Pearson,
Just wondering what were the AF settings for the static lady's pictures?
Did you use focus/recompose technique?
AF.S, (centre) Spot, single frame drive.

With the K-1, I normally don't use focus/recompose, and I didn't here. The center spot was normally on her face or close.

With the K-1, I don't use focus/recompose unless there are special circumstances. I don't attempt to frame tightly in the camera. I use center AF point focusing, take the shot ensuring I have everything in the frame I want, then crop in Lightroom. I'm taking advantage of having lots of good pixels, so I can throw lots of them away and still have enough left to print at (say) A3+. This especially applies to action, where focus/recompose is typically inappropriate.

I think every photo taken at Farnborough used only the center AF point with OVF viewing, or the center in Live View.
07-29-2016, 07:28 AM   #42
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,937
QuoteOriginally posted by Barry Pearson Quote
AF.S, (centre) Spot, single frame drive.
With the K-1, I normally don't use focus/recompose, and I didn't here. The center spot was normally on her face or close.
Seems like it was either error with your hands holding the camera, or the lens needs fine adjustment, I guess.
Anyway, it's very good series from the show, but I know that pain when focus could be better
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!
airshows, camera, details, dslr, focus, full frame, full-frame, hand, image, impressions, iso, k-1, k-1 first impressions, k1, lens, love, pentax, pentax k-1, photos, plane, sensor, test, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-1 Hands-on First Impressions PF Staff Homepage & Official Pentax News 3 03-18-2016 08:31 PM
dpreview first impressions of K-1 Newfie Pentax K-1 73 02-22-2016 08:28 AM
MX-1 in the Texas Hill Country - First Shots & First Impressions DDWD10 Pentax Compact Cameras 3 02-17-2014 07:12 AM
K-3 - my first impressions and shots mattb123 Pentax K-3 2 11-08-2013 02:58 PM
Misc First shots with my first film SLR, Pentax MX and M 50 1.7 LeDave Post Your Photos! 6 10-06-2012 05:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:08 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