[falconeye]

I didn't mean to imply that it would be better than anything else.

I think we settled this now.

But others may think indeed that medium format combined with state of the art CMOS may break new grounds for low light.

Therefore, I think our little discussion was still worth it

[Class A]

I have not used X-Rite Color Checker but I have done extensive work adjusting the color levels in camera and, so far, the K5iis still lags in this area.

I have used the X-Rite Color Checker on both K100D and K-5 II.

I find the K100D colours more pleasing out of the box (with or without using the X-rite-generated profiles).

I also find the K-5 II colours hard to massage to something that looks more like the K100D.

There appears to be a fundamental difference to the K-5 II colours that not only makes them look different to begin with but also respond differently to adjustments like Lightroom white balance changes.

The K-5 II is a vast improvement over the K100D in almost all aspects, but I wish it had retained the same colour response.

[Class A]

Unfortunately, tools like the ColorChecker use preregistered ISO colors which means, they cannot be used to make K-5 colors look like K10D's

What do you mean by that?

Are you referring to the values of the colour patches on the Color Checker?

Note that the DNG Profile Editor allows you to take any arbitrary colour and transform it to another colour (within limits). You can also use any arbitrary image to apply the transformations too.

I tried emulating the K100D with the K-5 II by tweaking the automatic adjustments generated by the chart calibration. I've only had very moderate success so far (with limited time spend on the effort).

I noticed that the automatic chart calibration does not appear to be able to pick the correct source colours for the patches for transformation. In several cases, when I tweaked the source colour, any colour transformations had a much higher impact on the target patch compared to the initial source colour. This suggests to me that the initial source colour was only overlapping with the patch colour, not sitting at its centre. Perhaps Adobe optimised the source colour and/or their recognition for certain other camera brands.

Another reason for my moderate success is also probably that ideally the transformation should occur at the tri-stimulus level, instead of a post-twisting of individual islands of colour areas.

Summarising, I feel that even with the ability to generate and tweak your own profiles that the initial colour filter choices for the sensor still play a significant role.

P.S.: It could very well be that the K100D colours are less accurate compared to the K-5 II colours. I did not investigate that. First, I don't care that much about accuracy but how much I like it. Second, I don't care much about how it looks like without changes, but more about to what I can take it to and how long it takes me till I'm satisfied. With respect to the latter, the K-5 II has been slightly frustrating to me. Maybe I need to upgrade from LR 3.6, but Adobe has not impressed me with their recent LR developments.

[ElJamoquio]

Lightroom 4 definitely improved over 3... better noise reduction etc.

Don't recall the 'colors' changing though.

[gazonk]

But others may think indeed that medium format combined with state of the art CMOS may break new grounds for low light.

Therefore, I think our little discussion was still worth it

I agree (Until someone constructs an 85mm/1.4 for 645FF, that would be slightly better than 50mm/1.2 for 35FF )

I do think that it will break new ground for the 645D as an all round hand held camera, though, especially if they also manage to make it less bulky!

[ogl]

Phase One announces IQ250 50MP CMOS medium format back: Digital Photography Review

it's 44*33 mm sensor

[Ayoh]

Phase One IQ250 - 11 things to know - DT Blog

Sony sensor it is, which is surprising considering the low volume. Quite likely Pentax will be using CMOS too. Exciting change in the medium format market.

[Zygonyx]

Not sure Pentax will go for CMOS...
Wouldn't bet on it, as i don't really see that to be necessary.

And it would increase Ricoh's dependance on Sony as a sensor supplier...

Actually, a larger truesense made sensor would make much more sense...

[Pioneer]

Sheez, I swear that no one must shoot in daylight anymore. They wait until it is totally black and then try to shoot at ISO 6400 or some such thing.

For crying out loud folks, whatever happened to learning how to use flash? This high ISO thing has gotten worse than the megapickel race. I hope that Pentax exercises a little commonsense. The CCD sensor produces beautiful images without having to turn up the gain.

Even werewolves wait until the full moon is out!

[monochrome]

For crying out loud folks, whatever happened to learning how to use flash?

Flashes? Flashes?

We don't need no stinking flashes!!*




* Misquoted from Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

[tuco]

...
For crying out loud folks, whatever happened to learning how to use flash?

Higher ISO is often needed to get more shutter speeds for acton. Perhaps one day an indoor football game will see some MFD cameras on the sidelines, for example.

[eurostar]

Not sure Pentax will go for CMOS...
Wouldn't bet on it, as i don't really see that to be necessary.

It's more than a year that Pentax and Ricoh's people talk about how great would be a Pentax 645D with live view, I bet it's Sony CMOS and not Transcend CCD. Unless the larger 50 MP CCD could allow for a cheaper camera, while the 50 CMOS will get to the third iteration of the 645D, in a couple of years.

[ivanvernon]

So how many here would prefer a 645D II for about $10,000 or a full frame 36mp Pentax DSLR for about $2,300 with K mount to use with their full frame PK mount lenses ?

Why not have both?

[monochrome]

Why not have both?

Isn't that the Plan?

[jogiba]

Why not have both?

Wow, some deep pockets here !