Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-04-2011, 07:10 AM   #16
Veteran Member
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,666
QuoteOriginally posted by Fontan Quote
Is SDXC faster than SDHC? Here we go again. I am into beating a dead horse. I know I know.
It's a little more complex. SDHC though theoretically capable of 2TB was limited to 32GB because it relied on SD 2.0 (fat32). originally SDXC relied currently on SD 3.0 also Fat 32 so still limited but a faster transfer rate. When SD4.0 was implemented then there the limit of @TB was realized and also a massive speed jump as well from 832 mb/s to 2.4GB/s which will be useful given the additional storage capacity when transferring to your computer (if your reader is compliant of course)
On the 645D I would assume given the file size it would also have it's uses. On the K5 it should theoretically allow the buffer to clear faster allowing more shots in high speed mode, something Compact Flash users already enjoy, so useful for the Sports photographers but not so much if you shoot landscapes

03-04-2011, 11:40 AM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pugetopolis
Posts: 11,008
To me this article is just history repeating itself. Turn back the clock to those comparing MF and 135 format film. Duh, MF yields better IQ but at the expense of other things you may need in a camera. Not much different today except the gap between those "other things" is narrowing.
03-10-2011, 09:33 PM   #18
Senior Member
opfor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 276
You have to remember that this was the same site that had to take down it's original K-5 review after a few days because of the contracted reviewer getting things wrong.
You will have a hard time finding anyone saying much of anything 'good' about Pentax on the site.
Just the way it is. They have a lot of fanboys and they play to their audience.
03-21-2011, 10:29 PM   #19
Forum Member
chicagonature's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Posts: 96
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
they are, but the small preview jpeg file embedded in the raw header still uses these parameters, and when you review files on your cameras LCD this jpeg file is what you are looking at - it would take too long for a camera to provide real time review of the actual raw data, I haven't seen a single camera that possesses that kind of processing power. Though when you load the files into any raw converter these image settings are promptly ignored.
Gurtch & Digitalis,

Regaring RAW files, the RAW data is never changed, but the in-camera settings are supposed to be applied. It's just that your software can't decode it.

For instance, when I shoot with my Nikon and open it in Nikon's dreadfully slow Capture NX software, it definitely applies those in-camera settings to the RAW file. If I open the same RAW file in Photoshop ACR, forget it. It can't figure out the metadata because Nikon has encoded it and they don't tell anyone how to decode it. Right now, I'm looking at the same RAW file that came straight out of the camera in both programs and the colors are very different.

Capture NX knows the settings that were set inside the camera, including saturation, etc. When I go into the software it actually says that my in-camera settings for, say, saturation is set to "Neutral." But, it does not change the raw data. It simply applies, for instance, a saturation function to the raw data and displays those saturation values, creating an alternate interpretation of tof the image. However, it never actually changes the raw data. That cannot be changed. When you save the NEF (Nikon's RAW file) in Capture NX, it doesn't create and xmp sidecar like ACR and many other programs do. It simply changes those values in the special Nikon metadata that's encoded in the NEF file. And, if you open it up in ACR, it doesn't recognize the changes I just did in Capture NX because ACR can't decode it. So, ACR just starts the NEF file from scratch with virtually no metadata that you applied in-camera or that was applied in Capture NX and resaved. I love Capture NX's chromatic abberation removal. It's automatic and non-linear--a thousand times better than ACR. I'd love to use Capture NX to just remove the CA, save the NEF, and then use ACR for the rest. But, the CA that Capture NX applies is not understood by ACR. So, I just use ACR all the time.

Bottom line: The reason you aren't seeing those in-camera functions being applied to your RAW files is because your software has no clue how to decode it.

Mike

03-21-2011, 11:00 PM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by chicagonature Quote
The reason you aren't seeing those in-camera functions being applied to your RAW files is because your software has no clue how to decode it.
Then it's a good thing I don't really care about that in any case,the In camera controls of contrast,saturation and sharpness are crude things compared to what is possible in photoshop. I have had a lot of fun with my D3s but the same cannot be said for capture NX2, I don't know why Nikon bothers with it when adobe makes software does the same thing that is better at it.
03-22-2011, 10:44 AM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Beach Haven, NJ
Posts: 176
Do your RAW DNG files all look sort of "dull" before post? Mine do and I try to expose to the right, and bracket. After post, all is fine, but I usually must resort to splitting sky and forground on to their own layers, then applying levels to each separately, again with own layers. I will try to upload a RAW file converted to small JPG, with no post. Then I will upload the final result, the way I remember it (albeit I added the surfers). Appreciate any comments from you guys. I appreciate your time in helping a 74 yr old amateur.
Thanks Dave G
www.modernpictorials.com
PS: The images on the back of the camera when I play them back, all look great, as I remember them. Someone told me that if I used the Pentax software, it would recognize in camera settings, and apply during RAW conversion.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX 645D  Photo   
03-22-2011, 10:04 PM   #22
Forum Member
chicagonature's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Posts: 96
Gurtch,

A jpeg is created by applying the in-camera functions to the RAW file and you see the jpeg on the back of your camera. However, you RAW converter software (as I explained in detail in my last post) cannot read these specialized functions in the RAW file. So, it can only show you the RAW file without those functions applied. It's as simple as that.

03-26-2011, 11:11 AM   #23
Veteran Member
Chex's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,678
Amazing to see how poor the Canon's white balance performs. As well as how over-exposed most of the shots are, almost to the point of blowing the highlights. As for Pentax's under-exposure, I would rather tweak the underexposure than try to regain blown out highlights.
03-27-2011, 01:15 PM   #24
Senior Member
opfor's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 276
An example of confusing reviews. They have just posted their list of the top 10 cameras they have reviewed. K-5 comes in second and the K-r is third.
645D??????
I guess it's not as good as a K-r. Who knew.
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/top-10-best-dslrs-reviewed-by-ephotozine-15933

Last edited by opfor; 03-27-2011 at 01:17 PM. Reason: added link
04-24-2011, 04:51 AM   #25
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ita/swiss
Posts: 267
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I agree. The Pentax model of underexposing produces images that are much more usable, just as the same technique was needed back in emulsion days. The Canon images blow highlights and simply look more garish, though some of this is the increased contrast and pumped colours (neither of which look bad in their own right).

The 645 images shown definitely need some tweaking (as the writer says) and since this could be done in-camera it was not entirely fair to compare them side by side with the Canon. But this comes down to a consistent issue with review methodologies. Which is why manufacturers (though not Pentax) pump their images by default... they get better reviews that way.

I didn't think the review was that well written and in fact the language was rather biased. For example (from memory) the 645D only "claims" to be weather-resistant whereas the Canon "is" rugged. They managed to turn the fact that the Pentax is light and well built for its sensor size into an advantage for the Canon, instead of properly claiming it's an overweight brick.

Some 100% crops would have immediately revealed the significant superiority of the Pentax images, which is likely why they were not provided.

And so it goes.
True, I prefer pentax images.
A person, then you are free to modify it as desired, starting from a "zero", instead of starting from a photo already "pumped".
Underexposed photos, recover better than "pumped" or overexposed.
Photos of the 645 d, are grainy, true .... but were highly compressed, and should be evaluated the quality of the optics in the game.


W. Pentax!
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, medium format
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Head to head shoot out Pentax 645D vs. Canon 1Ds Mark III Mystic Pentax News and Rumors 26 11-04-2011 04:36 PM
Leica S2 versus Canon 1Ds Mark III Samsungian Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 10 02-24-2010 01:35 PM
The K20D is snapping at the heels of the Canon EOS 1DS MK II ebooks4pentax Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 04-04-2008 06:47 AM
Pentax k20 vs Nikon D3 vs Canon 1DS III images feronovak Pentax DSLR Discussion 1 02-15-2008 05:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:43 AM. | 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