Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-13-2011, 08:40 AM   #196
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,270
QuoteOriginally posted by Designosophy Quote
Fake HDR how-to in Photoshop:

5. Post on Flickr and get tons of comments on how amazing the photo is.
LMAO, could be a how to for getting in the explore interestingness stream

05-13-2011, 08:50 AM   #197
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg MB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 346
If Samsung sensor used in K-7 is bad, can we just pull it out and throw it to the can and replace it with Sony sensor? From this bad experience, I will never buy Samsung brand of camera. I don't know why no one is making camera sensors in North America.

Last edited by violini; 05-13-2011 at 09:10 AM.
05-13-2011, 09:19 AM   #198
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by violini Quote
If Samsung sensor used in K-7 is bad, can we just pull it out and throw it to the can and replace it with Sony sensor?
they simply can't as long as people are interested in buying it, in which case it still is. it's not really bad to be honest. it just appears bad because some people don't know how to work the camera or know it's limitations, by which the only limit is High ISO. for those who can't afford something like the K-5, the K-7 becomes a great cheap alternative. I think it is pretty obvious now that High ISO is pretty much overrated in terms of badly needing it. in the end, other aspects would become more of value rather than sensor alone. it's funny though that the market longevity of the K-7 (since 2 years ago) would outlive the NEX-5/NEX-3 (since last year) which have superior sensor, if one was to consider HIGH ISO functionality as the only primary importance or necessity. for me atleast, it is of secondary importance and not something that I would look for immediately on buying a camera.
05-13-2011, 09:30 AM   #199
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
although having High ISO capability does come in handy in situations, there is a lot of convincing to be done by which it is needed more than 10% of the time. if I were to select an image shot at ISO6400 and ISO 800 for picture quality, I would choose 800 and use the camera's DR potential. but hey, I like using strobes. the best image you can get (way ahead better than what High ISO could possibly give).
High ISO performance is *directly related to dynamic range*. Dynamic range is a function of high ISO performance, or vice versa, however you choose to view it. In a studio situation, I agree, there's little to recommend the K-5 except a small amount of extra megapickles. Outside the studio, it becomes a little more important. Perhaps you prefer blown out highlights or pitch black (or noisy) shadows outdoors; or perhaps you always shoot in situations where you can employ contrast control devices. That is not the case for many of us; I shoot in high contrast situations constantly, where with my K20D I have to decide exactly the conundrum above. The K-5 does not give me that ultimatum. I can have my highlights, and shadows too.

Furthermore, I really like images of my family shot in available light. With the K20D I could do it, but the result had to be converted to black and white to eliminate the nasty color noise. That's another thing the K-5 doesn't give me.

It's entirely reasonable (as you do in your last line) to say "In *my* typical shooting situation, I don't need high dynamic range or high ISO." It's *not* reasonable to say "Because *I* don't need high ISO or high dynamic range, then, therefore, they aren't really necessary for anyone."

05-13-2011, 09:34 AM   #200
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
aside from others have mentioned, it could be used for faster shutter speed when needed. rather than use HIGH-ISO, it would be better to push exposure a base ISO.
I thought DXO showed that it was beneficial to increase the ISO (on the K-5) up to 1600, and beyond that you're depending on numerical amplification.
05-13-2011, 09:44 AM   #201
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
I saw one claim of 10 stops for slides, but even that doesn't match the K-7. I hear people talk about how they can push so many stops with a K-x or K-5. I don't understand this method of photography where you have to process for basic exposure. They have a meter in the camera, Ev compensation, settings for spot, matrix and CW, an instantly available histogram; what's the justification for needing to push exposure 3-4 stops in p-p?
Let's clarify a few things... People sometimes DO this for bragging rights, but the REASON they can do is very salient. Dynamic range and high iso performance are directly related. You depend on dynamic range for detail in shadow areas. Because of the way digital sensors work, as you get lower in the shadows, you have fewer bits available for displaying detail, until the last stop only has one bit (two values) to display. If the K20D has 10 stops (I've seen this claim, but I think it's more like 8.5-9) of DR, you have actually got considerably less room than that for contrast control, because the last two stops look like ass, and break down in color noise and luminance noise.

So for contrast control, you've got about 7 stops on the K20D/K-7. With the K-5, you've got ~14 (where the last two look like ass due to luminance noise and color noise). Every stop further, you get better quality detail (because more bits are allocated to it). So if I pretend my K-5 is my K20d, and expose them for the ~8 stops and bump the contrast control ("fill light" in lightroom) slider, the K-5 image looks MUCH better. Not just a little bit. MUCH better.

So while there ARE people who will brag about the DR or High ISO performance of their cameras, the functions have a purpose, and, outside of studio situations, result in generally 'better' images ( unless you like black or noisy shadows, or blown highlights - which i'm willing to admit some people do ).

Oh, and slide films ranged between 6 and 10 stops, if I remember correctly.
05-13-2011, 12:37 PM   #202
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
QuoteOriginally posted by violini Quote
If Samsung sensor used in K-7 is bad, can we just pull it out and throw it to the can and replace it with Sony sensor? From this bad experience, I will never buy Samsung brand of camera. I don't know why no one is making camera sensors in North America.
Saying the sensor is bad because its not that great high ISO wise is nuts, the camera has great color and detail, grain on it isnt even that bad, its film like, its nice in some instances.
05-13-2011, 01:03 PM   #203
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: adelaide
Photos: Albums
Posts: 89
QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
Well, I think the point is that the D3 is a camera with professional specifications
Yes, but the D3 was just chosen as an example to make a point re iso.

05-13-2011, 02:59 PM   #204
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by peasant Quote
Yes, but the D3 was just chosen as an example to make a point re iso.
the point regarding ISO became irrelevant when 2 different camera sensor and system for certain purpose and built were compared. if one was to make a comparison or point regarding High ISO functionality, it should be something on similar system. but for the sake of argument, even if the D3 has very good HIGH ISO capability, is that really the main reason why one would consider a D3? thereby suggesting that HIGH ISO in cheaper APS-C cameras not enough for people to consider them?

Last edited by Pentaxor; 05-13-2011 at 03:13 PM.
05-13-2011, 03:12 PM   #205
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
High ISO performance is *directly related to dynamic range*. Dynamic range is a function of high ISO performance, or vice versa, however you choose to view it. In a studio situation, I agree, there's little to recommend the K-5 except a small amount of extra megapickles. Outside the studio, it becomes a little more important. Perhaps you prefer blown out highlights or pitch black (or noisy) shadows outdoors; or perhaps you always shoot in situations where you can employ contrast control devices. That is not the case for many of us; I shoot in high contrast situations constantly, where with my K20D I have to decide exactly the conundrum above. The K-5 does not give me that ultimatum. I can have my highlights, and shadows too.

Furthermore, I really like images of my family shot in available light. With the K20D I could do it, but the result had to be converted to black and white to eliminate the nasty color noise. That's another thing the K-5 doesn't give me.

It's entirely reasonable (as you do in your last line) to say "In *my* typical shooting situation, I don't need high dynamic range or high ISO." It's *not* reasonable to say "Because *I* don't need high ISO or high dynamic range, then, therefore, they aren't really necessary for anyone."
regarding the discussion of shooting with available light, the question is, how many use or needed an ISO above 1600 in daylight? and how often under tungsten lighting? I understand your point with regards to your use and that is a valid point.

but what I meant regarding DR at certain ISO is, with regards to IQ. I'm sure that you are pretty aware as you increase sensitivity, IQ as well decreases and the potentiality of salvaging detail thru DR also decreases. that is why I said that I prefer a pushed or pulled exposure at low ISOs rather than bump up the ISO. this is more of equivalence on IQ rather than plain equivalence in exposure. using the high DR at base ISO can duplicate the exposure at HIGH ISO. but the question is, is the HIGH ISO image has the same quality of that of an image at low ISO? that was my point.
05-13-2011, 03:42 PM   #206
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg MB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 346
Pentax unwittingly chose the inferior samsung sensor for their flagship camera K-7. I think this is a product liability. Why don't K-7 owners get together to have a class action and sue Pentax for compensation or force Pentax to re-call to replace the sensor.

I thought I had enough this Pentax BS. This was the reason I bought D7000 instead of K-5.

Last edited by violini; 05-13-2011 at 04:05 PM.
05-13-2011, 05:03 PM   #207
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: adelaide
Photos: Albums
Posts: 89
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
the point regarding ISO
The point is that you own a K7 and are defending it's lack of what the K5 has come hell or high water,like the other K7 owners in this thread.Despite jstevewhite's(an others) best efforts people still won't accept that even though the models look the same they in fact different beasts.You might find that the "range" you can push and pull is greater on the K5 for instance,or maybe you won't have to push and pull at all.Ex K7 owner here.
05-13-2011, 05:33 PM   #208
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,054
QuoteOriginally posted by violini Quote
Pentax unwittingly chose the inferior samsung sensor for their flagship camera K-7. I think this is a product liability. Why don't K-7 owners get together to have a class action and sue Pentax for compensation or force Pentax to re-call to replace the sensor.

I thought I had enough this Pentax BS. This was the reason I bought D7000 instead of K-5.
I presume you're being ironic? The k5 sensor is demonstrably better, but the k7 sensor was certainly capable enough for when the camera was introduced. The k20 sensor was highly rated, so it must have made sense to stick with it for the k7.
05-13-2011, 05:35 PM   #209
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg MB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 346
By the way, I still have my K-7. After using Adam's settings, I found K-7's photos are quite usable to me up to ISO 3,200. How much push and pull you can do in K-5, ISO25,000? Perhaps only journalists in the war zone would use that?
05-13-2011, 05:47 PM   #210
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: adelaide
Photos: Albums
Posts: 89
QuoteOriginally posted by violini Quote
How much push and pull you can do in K-5, ISO25,000?
Heaps
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 01:31 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