[benjikan]

By the way you can watch a film from the 3rd Festival of Fashion Photography in Cannes when I was still sponsored by Canon. I was chosen as photographer of the year in France. I am a Canadian residing in Paris. I am now sponsored officially by Pentax as of a week ago.

You can download in HD the Cannes Festival of Fashion here. I am interviewed as well as others. Just click on the bottom of the page "Telecharge" and it will take you to another page which will say "Télécharger le film du troisième festival" and choose Haut Debit...

Festival de la photo de mode

Regards
Benjamin Kanarek
Olaphoto.com : zoom sur Benjamin Kanarek

[Marc Langille]

By the way you can watch a film from the 3rd Festival of Fashion Photography in Cannes when I was still sponsored by Canon. I was chosen as photographer of the year in France. I am a Canadian residing in Paris. I am now sponsored officially by Pentax as of a week ago.

You can download in HD the Cannes Festival of Fashion here. I am interviewed as well as others. Just click on the bottom of the page "Telecharge" and it will take you to another page which will say "Télécharger le film du troisième festival" and choose Haut Debit...

Festival de la photo de mode

Regards
Benjamin Kanarek
Olaphoto.com : zoom sur Benjamin Kanarek

I've already downloaded and watched the video. Kudos for the recognition!

My French is a rusty from living here in Arkansas, but it was nice to hear it spoken again. I need to make a trip to see my relatives in France!

My understanding of the fashion industry is that it's a difficult area to work in - an old school friend from Ottawa went on to model in Milan for several years, (plus a TV show) so I've heard/seen from her.

Curious: I am sure some things cannot be discussed, but are you able to share the basic details on how the switch to Pentax came about?

Regards,
Marc

[benjikan]

As you know I was sponsored by Canon here in France. When I heard about the K10D, I was very curious. I had used the Pentax 6x7's and 645's for years. During the Festival of Fashion I was approached by Nikon and Pentax but they were warded off by the head of Canon...Of course jokingly done! I was sponsoring Fuji for their film only when I was shooting film that is. Well about a month ago I made a call to Pentax and with the utmost discretion said " I like your K10D and the up and coming 645D" They asked what my intentions were. I said I don't know as yet. I got a call a week later to ask if I would consider changing camps. After several calls I decided to jump on the wagon. I am presently using two K10D's two grips and five of their lenses and will get the 16-50 2.8 and 50-135 2.8 in March.

The K10D will loose her virginity shortly, as in two weeks I'll do my first published fashion shoot with it for "Issue One" magazine UK.

It's a good tool. I only shoot between 100-400 iso as a rule, so you can understand that it was a no brainer.

By the way I studied architecture at Carleton University in Ottawa . Frigging cold in the winter. I was born in Toronto..

Ben
Olaphoto.com : zoom sur Benjamin Kanarek

[WMBP]

The K10D will loose her virginity shortly, as in two weeks I'll do my first published fashion shoot with it for "Issue One" magazine UK.

Any chance that will be online, or is that a magazine that I might purchase here in Texas somewhere? I have gone through the galleries on your web site and your photos are very striking - although the models are a little scary. :-)

Anyway, I'd love to see more!

It's a good tool. I only shoot between 100-400 iso as a rule, so you can understand that it was a no brainer.

Ben, do you know why the K10D goes down to ISO 100 but the K100D only goes down to 200? I sometimes get the impression that ISO on digital SLRs is not at all absolute - in other words, I suspect that the K10D's 100 might = the K100D's 200. Yes no maybe?

Will

[benjikan]

In current tests of the K10D, it was shown to be spot on i.e. 100 iso was 100 iso etc. I personally find that it underexposes about a third to half stop. I do however shoot in "M" mode in the studio so I will judge the results of what 100 iso represents for me and adjust my exposure accordingly.

Ben
:: Pressbook.com - Benjamin Kanarek ::

[NaClH2O]

Hi Will,
I think I can answer this one. As I understand it (and the more technically minded ppl correct me if I'm wrong) the "native" resolution of the 6MP sensor in the K100D is 200 iso. The K10D, having a 10 MP sensor, it's "native" resolution is different, in this case being 100 ISO.

NaCl(but it's been a very long time since I studied engineering!)H2O

[WMBP]

Hi Will,
I think I can answer this one. As I understand it (and the more technically minded ppl correct me if I'm wrong) the "native" resolution of the 6MP sensor in the K100D is 200 iso. The K10D, having a 10 MP sensor, it's "native" resolution is different, in this case being 100 ISO.

Thanks, but I don't understand. My Canon S3 IS was a 6.something MP camera, too but it had an ISO range from 80-800, if I recall correctly. I don't think of the ISO as having to do with "resolution". I think of it as having to do with sensitivity to light. Now I could understand it if we put it this way, "The sensor used in the K100D has a maximum sensitivity that has been gauged as equivalent to ISO 200," in other words, that's the best the poor thing can do. I suspect that's it. But if that's the case AND if the K100D's ISO 200 = "true" ISO 200 (say, as represented by the sensitivity of the K10D), then it really WOULD suggest that the K100D is inferior to the K10D in that important respect, as the capability to shoot at a lower ISO is almost as good a thing as having a lens with a wider maximum aperture. Would not make me unhappy with my K100D in the least. I'm just curious about these things. Wish someone I knew had a K10D that I could borrow for some tests....

Thanks,

Will

---

Last edited by WMBP; 01-27-2007 at 10:29 AM. Reason: Corrected misspelling

[benjikan]

Thanks, but I don't understand. My Canon S3 IS was a 6.something MP camera, too but it had an ISO range from 80-800, if I recall correctly. I don't think of the ISO as having to do with "resolution". I think of it as having to do with sensitivity to light. Now I could understand it if we put it this way, "The sensor used in the K100D has a maximum sensitivity that has been gauged as equivalent to ISO 200," in other words, that's the best the poor thing can do. I suspect that's it. But if that's the case AND if the K100D's ISO 200 = "true" ISO 200 (say, as represented by the sensitivity of the K10D), then it really WOULD suggest that the K100D is inferior to the K10D in that important respect, as the capability to shoot at a lower ISO is almost as good a thing as having a lens with a wider maximum aperture. Would not make me unhappy with my K100D in the least. I'm just curious about these things. Wish someone I knew had a K10D that I could borrow for some tests....

Thanks,

Will

Come to Paris, France and I will lend you one of mine...for about 3 mintes that is..LOL

Best Wishes
Ben


http://www.lumas.com/?id=719&type=0&wid=884&artist=616

[rfortson]

Thanks, but I don't understand. My Canon S3 IS was a 6.something MP camera, too but it had an ISO range from 80-800, if I recall correctly. I don't think of the ISO as having to do with "resolution". I think of it as having to do with sensitivity to light. Now I could understand it if we put it this way, "The sensor used in the K100D has a maximum sensitivity that has been gauged as equivalent to ISO 200," in other words, that's the best the poor thing can do. I suspect that's it. But if that's the case AND if the K100D's ISO 200 = "true" ISO 200 (say, as represented by the sensitivity of the K10D), then it really WOULD suggest that the K100D is inferior to the K10D in that important respect, as the capability to shoot at a lower ISO is almost as good a thing as having a lens with a wider maximum aperture. Would not make me unhappy with my K100D in the least. I'm just curious about these things. Wish someone I knew had a K10D that I could borrow for some tests....

Thanks,

Will

The CCD in a P&S is much different (smaller) than a CCD in a dSLR. It has nothing to do with megapixels. Salty was correct. A CCD has a native ISO range and the 10MP CCDs just have a different range. It's an effect of cramming more pixels onto the same size CCD. The K100D and K10D have the same size CCD - and APS-C sized sensor. Canon dSLRs are slightly different because they use a CMOS sensor and it's slightly smaller (crop factor is 1.6 for Canon vs. 1.5 for everyone else).

The (much) smaller CCD in P&S cameras are more susceptible to noise due to trying to cram more pixels (photo receptor sites) onto the same area. In order to make sense of the increasingly small electrical signal from each pixel, the signal has to be amplified, which also amplifies electrical noise. It can be filtered out electronically inside the circuitry but there's a limit to what can be done.

[WMBP]

The CCD in a P&S is much different (smaller) than a CCD in a dSLR. It has nothing to do with megapixels. Salty was correct. A CCD has a native ISO range and the 10MP CCDs just have a different range. It's an effect of cramming more pixels onto the same size CCD. The K100D and K10D have the same size CCD - and APS-C sized sensor. Canon dSLRs are slightly different because they use a CMOS sensor and it's slightly smaller (crop factor is 1.6 for Canon vs. 1.5 for everyone else).

Russ,

I'm getting more confused.

My question was not about the difference between compact cameras and the digital SLRs. I originally asked, why does the K100D only go down to ISO 200, while the K10D can go to ISO 100? The answer Salty gave was that it had to do with "resolution." As I said already, if you want to say that different sensors simply have different maximum speeds, I can buy that explanation. But that doesn't seem to be what you're saying. You speak about the K100D and the K10D have the same "size" CCD. If it has "nothing to do with megapixels" (as you say) and it's just a matter of size, then shouldn't the K10D and the K100D have the same ISO range? But you know that they don't and you seem to explain that by pointing out that the K10D crams more megapixels into a sensor the same size. So apparently it DOES have a great deal to do with megapixels after all. But I must say that the number of pixels crammed into the same space doesn't seem to me to make that much difference to the sensitivity of any individual pixel to light. A "beam" of light is spectacularly smaller than any pixel. If it's a matter of how quickly the camera's brain can process that info, then it's not a matter of pixels per square inch on the sensor and more a matter of the speed of the processor in the camera. I could understand that, too. But I do not think you are saying that.

Not trying to be argumentative. I'm just curious about it. It sounds as if I raised a more difficult question than I realized. I've got books here. I will eventually sort it out. THanks,

Will

[slip]

which part of canada?

cheers


randy

[benjikan]

which part of canada?

cheers


randy

I was born in Toronto..

Ben

http://www.olaphoto.com/zoom/benjamin-kanarek.php

[davemdsn]

I am very much looking forward to seeing the shots you will be doing with the K10D. I did a calendar last year with my *istD that came out well, I thought. Looking forward to working with the K10 this year myself.

*istD with DA16-45 f4