Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-11-2011, 01:59 PM   #166
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,603
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
Change that to "I think film teaches you to think DIFFERENTLY." and I agree. And regarding "Spray and pray", I think you're right. I see lots more DSLR users on "high speed continuous" than I ever did in film. That was one way to spot pros and wealthy enthusiasts - motor drives I thought my T90 was ROCKIN at 5fps (4.7, but hey), and you prefocus on the crack in the runway, and wind film during the time the model is passing that point. Six frames a model, six models per roll, and two bodies so you didn't miss one while changing out film.

I think that people who are driven to learn the art and technique can do so regardless of the system they start with. People who aren't so driven won't learn if you make 'em use a Westin meter and a Spotmatic with Panatomic X. Limitations are valuable when we *choose them ourselves*... I love to take an afternoon and go out with just one prime lens. Great stuff. But it's most useful when you pay attention and understand why you're doing what you're doing.

Maybe we start giving our students 512 MB SD cards for their assignment...
In college 3 of us rented a 4x5 field camera and carried it all over town. 1 with a monster metal tripod, 1 with the camera in a hard case and 1 with all the extra equipment. We had 3 days to create a portfolio and there was a partial scholarship on the line. It was pretty competitive and with all 3 of us traveling and working together it was a challenge to make your work stand out against the other two. There were no wasted shots. We had 10 sheets of film each and all 10 had to be in the portfolio.

There is no doubt that I am biased when thinking about the best way to learn. There are a lot of things I never would have really understood if I had started with a K-5. Maybe it is not about thinking MORE or Differently.... IT is just about thinking period.

05-11-2011, 02:01 PM   #167
Pentaxian
liukaitc's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,005
I was kind in your situation. I finally keep kx and bought 16-50 and 50-135.
I think the camera will always update but lens not that often, or maybe never.
05-11-2011, 02:07 PM   #168
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
In college 3 of us rented a 4x5 field camera and carried it all over town. 1 with a monster metal tripod, 1 with the camera in a hard case and 1 with all the extra equipment. We had 3 days to create a portfolio and there was a partial scholarship on the line. It was pretty competitive and with all 3 of us traveling and working together it was a challenge to make your work stand out against the other two. There were no wasted shots. We had 10 sheets of film each and all 10 had to be in the portfolio.

There is no doubt that I am biased when thinking about the best way to learn. There are a lot of things I never would have really understood if I had started with a K-5. Maybe it is not about thinking MORE or Differently.... IT is just about thinking period.
Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm focusing on all the 'film' stuff I have to fight when shooting digital and not paying attention to the things I learned that way. There was no option then, it was film or nothing. I fell in love with digital the first time I saw it in action though. I've always been a computer geek, starting in 1972 at nine years of age with the 8080a, so when I was assisting pros around town here, I got invited (and paid) to help set up a huge 4x5 Diconix scanning back with associated 256 MB Mac and SCSI RAID array. I saw that thing in action, in the late 80s or early 90s, and I knew film's days were numbered. But I spent many years, from... say, 1975 to 1995 ... shooting and learning with film. So maybe I'm not crediting that education with enough value because I'm fighting some of those lessons on a daily basis. (mostly the inverse exposure - expose for the highlights now, not the shadows )
05-11-2011, 02:12 PM   #169
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by liukaitc Quote
I was kind in your situation. I finally keep kx and bought 16-50 and 50-135.
I think the camera will always update but lens not that often, or maybe never.
While this is true, I don't think you ever have "enough" lenses. Ref "LBA". Look at all the people in this forum that have lists in their sigs that are fifteen, twenty lenses long; They still talk about the lenses they're looking for or considering buying.

My contention isn't that one should disregard glass. It was that "good glass" is available for far less than the cameras, and the 'best quality' is a min/max between body and glass because the body is, literally, the 'film'. I've said it several times, but I'll say it again - the K-5+DA 35 AL is more than a match for the K-7 + DA 35 LTD, regardless of the price difference in the lenses, and the resulting combo is more flexible.

05-11-2011, 04:20 PM   #170
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,065
QuoteOriginally posted by yusuf Quote
No way in my experience, k-x dynamic range is much better, even at ISO 200, k-x pics looks better than k-7
Interesting statement.
DXO says the K7 sensor is virtually identical to the Kx sensor in terms of colour depth (22.6 bits for K7, 22.8 bits for Kx) and while the Kx has almost 2 stops more dynamic range, the 10.6 stops of the K7 is deep enough for virtually any photographable scene.
05-11-2011, 04:26 PM   #171
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,065
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
And yet, one of the arguments current film ... "supporters"? "zealots"? ... use against digital photography is the dynamic range of negative film - which, when properly executed, according to Kodak, can approach 19 stops, or five more than the K-5.

The longest dynamic range scenes I've ever photographed was a creosote preserved retaining wall at a sodium sulphate mine.
The black timbers in shadow were a full 14 stops darker than the sunlit salt pile.
IIRC, I rated Ilford FP4 at around ISO 12 and gave N-4 development.
Most of the time, the dynamic range of landscape scenes is much shorter, generally 7 or perhaps a bit more stops, which renders most of the dynamic range arguments moot.
It's nice to have a long DR sensor, but most of the time, it's bragging rights not useful technology that is being bought.
05-11-2011, 04:47 PM   #172
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
The longest dynamic range scenes I've ever photographed was a creosote preserved retaining wall at a sodium sulphate mine.
The black timbers in shadow were a full 14 stops darker than the sunlit salt pile.
IIRC, I rated Ilford FP4 at around ISO 12 and gave N-4 development.
Most of the time, the dynamic range of landscape scenes is much shorter, generally 7 or perhaps a bit more stops, which renders most of the dynamic range arguments moot.
It's nice to have a long DR sensor, but most of the time, it's bragging rights not useful technology that is being bought.
It's one thing to say that many - even most - scenes do not require more than seven or eight stops; it's another entirely to suggest that it's not relevant or represents only 'bragging rights'. The dynamic range of the K-5 makes a real-world difference in high-contrast photographs compared to the k-7 and the K20D (virtually identical sensors). The high-iso performance is a direct consequence of the dynamic range. What you're saying is "it's not useful to *me*", which is not the same thing as rendering it moot.
05-11-2011, 05:09 PM   #173
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,065
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
It's one thing to say that many - even most - scenes do not require more than seven or eight stops; it's another entirely to suggest that it's not relevant or represents only 'bragging rights'. The dynamic range of the K-5 makes a real-world difference in high-contrast photographs compared to the k-7 and the K20D (virtually identical sensors). The high-iso performance is a direct consequence of the dynamic range. What you're saying is "it's not useful to *me*", which is not the same thing as rendering it moot.
No, what I'm saying is that most of the time, a capture medium longer than 7-10 stops is not going to add anything significant.
If all a person does is photograph back lit subjects, then sure, 14 stops or more DR is great, but I think it's safe to say that very few of us do that.

05-11-2011, 05:14 PM   #174
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
No, what I'm saying is that most of the time, a capture medium longer than 7-10 stops is not going to add anything significant.
If all a person does is photograph back lit subjects, then sure, 14 stops or more DR is great, but I think it's safe to say that very few of us do that.
The 14 stops of range is the *reason* you can push the shadows of the K-5 the way you can. In digital cameras, as you approach the bottom of the "pile of stops", you lose detail because each stop gets fewer bits.

It's not a matter of opinion or bragging rights that the K-5 allows one to push shadows considerably further without breaking up into low-contrast noise or chroma noise. That's useful, unless you only shoot softbox-illuminated studio shots on cloudy days.
05-11-2011, 05:38 PM   #175
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,644
I mostly shot slides. I wonder what the DR was? Certainly less than film.
05-11-2011, 05:38 PM   #176
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I mostly shot slides. I wonder what the DR was? Certainly less than film.
I've read Ektachrome was around 7.5-8 stops.
05-11-2011, 07:13 PM   #177
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,644
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I don't have access to my laptop right now, but I believe I have some AF tests done by a French magazine that showed that AF with the K-5 was equal to or slightly better than the D7000. I'll try to post it later.
I found some time to look at a few interesting results. It seems the K-5 beats the D7000 and is pretty competitive with the 60D, but falls behind the D300S and especially 7D.

K-5: 14 hits on an approaching vehicle, .31m to nail focus on an approaching runner
60D 14 hits .29m
D90: 10 hits, .38m
K-r: 9 hits, .19m
D7000: 15 hits, .47m
D300S: 21 hits .28m
7D: 22 hits .13m
5D Mk II: 11 hits, .22m
K-7: 6 hits, .14m
D3S: 28 hits, .16m
550D: 11 hits, .30
K-x: 7 hits, .1m
K20D 6 hits, .12m

Note that the number of hits has a lot to do with frames/sec. The distance measure shows how quickly the camera focusses. Results are from Laboratoire Fnac (don't know much about it, I downloaded it from a post on DPR).
05-11-2011, 10:47 PM   #178
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I found some time to look at a few interesting results. It seems the K-5 beats the D7000 and is pretty competitive with the 60D, but falls behind the D300S and especially 7D.

K-5: 14 hits on an approaching vehicle, .31m to nail focus on an approaching runner
60D 14 hits .29m
D90: 10 hits, .38m
K-r: 9 hits, .19m
D7000: 15 hits, .47m
D300S: 21 hits .28m
7D: 22 hits .13m
5D Mk II: 11 hits, .22m
K-7: 6 hits, .14m
D3S: 28 hits, .16m
550D: 11 hits, .30
K-x: 7 hits, .1m
K20D 6 hits, .12m

Note that the number of hits has a lot to do with frames/sec. The distance measure shows how quickly the camera focusses. Results are from Laboratoire Fnac (don't know much about it, I downloaded it from a post on DPR).
Thanks for the info, audiobomber. I suspected it would shake out something like that. All the reviews say it has "adequate" AF, significantly improved. There are a lot of dogs in this hunt, and Pentax seems right in the thick of things, behind the forerunners; I'm not at all certain why people insist that Pentax AF is "terrible". Sure, it could be better, but "suck" is comparative.
05-11-2011, 11:18 PM   #179
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by jlaubza Quote
There are a lot of limited experience users writing into this thread.

Some facts: KX images are better than K7 images for dynamic range and noise signature.

Fact: camera settings and the amount of available light will create the illusion of better dynamic range and relatively good iso at 1600 on the K7. The purpose of high iso is to take pix in low light conditions, not normal light conditions and when this is done, the KX is always better than the K7 for noise signature.

Fact: at normal screen viewing, a K7 image at 400 iso looks as good as a KX image at 400 iso, so if you restrict yourself to low iso settings, the K7 is a great camera.

Fact: the K7 has better features than the KX - what do you want out of your pix? Better noise signature and better dynamic range or crappy IQ taken with a camera with loads of features that mean squat for the quality of image you get out of the camera?

More facts: a good noise reduction program will turn a horribly noisy K7 image into an acceptable medium sized print. Case in point - I tested DxO inbuilt noise reduction on a sample K7 raw image taken at 3200 (almost the worst case scenario for the K7) and it cleaned up beautifully without much of the plastic smearing of details effect.

Conclusion: without a doubt, the KX does better images than the K7 at all settings. The K7 has more bells and whistles - how much do those matter when you are looking at a very grainy, rough edged image at 1600 iso?

But if you have a K7, all is not lost - try the free trial of DxO and see how brilliant it is at sorting out the noise on yur K7 images - as a bonus, it will sharpen your images as well provided you use a lens that they have built into their lens modules.
fact: the OP's needs are more towards the bells and whistles features, better High ISO (above 1600) is only a secondary to him and is the only thing that the k-x is good at. otherwise, why would he choose the K-7 over his k-x?

fact: the K-7 images would suck even at base ISO if the person does not know how to use the camera's real potential or simply say doesn't know how to work the lens. let's not be fooled easily into believing that a certain camera has a perceived huge advantage because the user is pampered into doing less work or hasn't learn how to expose properly and come up with crappy photos. in the film era, this would be simply as shooting a very underexposed scene where there is no way of retrieving the image nicely. and you blame the camera for your own shortcomings. it's the same analogy with regards to using the K-7 as well.

Yes, the k-x has better HIGH ISO performance (above 1600). in fact, it is the only real advantage it had over the K-7 (disregarding or negating DR advantage by using ETTR on the K-7). aside from the k-x High-ISO, the K-7 is the better camera overall.

take note: the K-7 has more MP resolution. at equal size (10MP), the High ISO advantage that the k-x would shrink considerably and the difference would not be that far-off from each other.
05-12-2011, 11:21 PM   #180
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: kobe/japan
Posts: 510
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
fact: the OP's needs are more towards the bells and whistles features, better High ISO (above 1600) is only a secondary to him and is the only thing that the k-x is good at. otherwise, why would he choose the K-7 over his k-x?

fact: the K-7 images would suck even at base ISO if the person does not know how to use the camera's real potential or simply say doesn't know how to work the lens. let's not be fooled easily into believing that a certain camera has a perceived huge advantage because the user is pampered into doing less work or hasn't learn how to expose properly and come up with crappy photos. in the film era, this would be simply as shooting a very underexposed scene where there is no way of retrieving the image nicely. and you blame the camera for your own shortcomings. it's the same analogy with regards to using the K-7 as well.

Yes, the k-x has better HIGH ISO performance (above 1600). in fact, it is the only real advantage it had over the K-7 (disregarding or negating DR advantage by using ETTR on the K-7). aside from the k-x High-ISO, the K-7 is the better camera overall.

take note: the K-7 has more MP resolution. at equal size (10MP), the High ISO advantage that the k-x would shrink considerably and the difference would not be that far-off from each other.

by the same logic if high isos are so outdated, noone would be buying nikon d3s, if someone has to listen to you, he shall line up to buy k7.

you see people are not stupid if they pay so highly for high iso that you say are not important.
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, dslr, f2.8, iso, k5, k7, kx, lens, lenses, photography, portraits, sigma
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Thought experiment with depth of field...want to help? arpaagent Photographic Technique 9 09-18-2009 07:08 AM
a thought benjikan General Talk 3 07-01-2009 12:23 AM
Just a worrying thought Torphoto Photographic Technique 10 06-03-2009 02:46 AM
Wow! I thought I had bought a good camera system racinsince55 General Talk 11 06-13-2008 04:19 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:14 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