Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-02-2015, 01:06 PM   #31
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,772
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
like normhead and Monochrome, I don't like measurements from the light meter of my K-3 because they are subject to errors due the temperature variations, humidity of air, battery voltage and manufacturing process uncertainty etc. So, (measurements are rubbish , we should not consider them) I do light metering with my eyes and determine exposure time, f stop and iso by subjective guessing.
And you know what? It works!
If there's one thing I miss from the old days.. I used to be able to do that. I had a Pentax SV and a Lunasix 3 light meter, and I did everything manually, until one day I forgot the light meter. I discovered I'd been doing it for so long, I didn't need the light meter. I'd read the light by eye and dialed in the exposure, so I'm totally on board with you can learn to read light accurately by eye. Not only that, when you do it by eye, you don't get fooled by bright and dark areas like a light meter sometimes does.

Oh and this was in the days when there was no chimping, I had to get home and process before i found out if i had anything.

Of course in those days ISO wasn't alterable so more simple calculations.

QuoteQuote:
due the temperature variations, humidity of air, battery voltage and manufacturing process uncertainty etc. So, (measurements are rubbish , we should not consider them) I do light metering with my eyes and determine exposure time, f stop and iso
And don't forget reciprocity failure. These tests are going to be so complicated, I just upped my grant request from 1 million to 5 million.


Last edited by normhead; 03-04-2015 at 08:16 AM.
03-02-2015, 01:18 PM   #32
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,494
All of which says to me, at a price point in a sensor / camera body cycle, almost every camera is pretty much as good as the other camera, and that's probably true for lenses, too. (maybe somewhat less so for lenses since lens designs have a longer replacement cycle). So essentially, use what you like and can afford - but get out and use it!!
03-02-2015, 01:20 PM   #33
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,772
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
All of which says to me, at a price point in a sensor / camera body cycle, almost every camera is pretty much as good as the other camera, and that's probably true for lenses, too. (maybe somewhat less so for lenses since lens designs have a longer replacement cycle). So essentially, use what you like and can afford - but get out and use it!!
I like the way you think....

Just from my observations, there is so little difference between 16MP camera and a 24 Mp camera, a 24 Mp camera and a 36 Mp camera, a 36 MP camera and a 51 Mp camera, a kit lens and a DA* or limited, maybe if you get a great image, it might be a teeny tiny little bit better because you had the optimum lens for the image... but liking what you own and using it to shoot as much as you can is better than all the time you can spend discussing these things on the forum. I'd go so far as to say, if you're not browsing at work or physically disabled, you're wasting your time here.

I'm just so old, I'm getting to be physically disabled.

And 24 MP to 36 MP, is not going to impress as much as a lot of people think it will.

645z for the keeners, 645D for the hobbyists, everyone else go home and live with what you've got... just my opinion.

Last edited by normhead; 03-02-2015 at 01:27 PM.
03-02-2015, 02:28 PM   #34
Lens Buying Addict
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,494
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
but liking what you own and using it to shoot as much as you can is better than all the time you can spend discussing these things on the forum
The difference between a Honda Accord, Chevy Impala, Volkswagen Passat, Ford Taurus and whatever Chrysler, Toyota and Nissan offer in the 4-door invisible Dad car space is really negligible at a price. The difference is what unique combination of features they add and subtract to distinguish themselves from one another. Figure out what you can afford, buy what you like for the money - but enjoy driving the car and quit wishing it was the other one.*

Enthusiast cameras - maybe the analogy should be Acura, Infiniti, BMW and Lexus but the point is the same.

*Subarus are different.

*** They all go from zero > Speed Limit faster than I'm comfortable accelerating anyway, so what's the point of spending $15,000 more for unused potential? A 6-cyl. Accord EX-L is $33,000. I can buy the FF and the three new * zooms (what - you didn't know there are three?) with the savings from the Acura and have $$ left over for a new computer, printer, monitor, scanner and external hard drives.

03-04-2015, 08:01 AM   #35
Site Supporter
micromacro's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,938
QuoteOriginally posted by brewmaster15 Quote
Seems our Pentax sensors didnt come up high on this listing..
Just how accurate do you guys think these reviews are?
Canon EOS 100D -63
Pentax K-5 IIs-82

Probably an accurate rating. At least when I forget it's Canon and shoot with ISO800, later in lightroom I always regret it. Not even near to K5iis ISO800. Not talking about bigger numbers.
03-04-2015, 08:20 AM   #36
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,772
And the really funny thing about that, is, when I was sitting at a booth beside one of my canon shooting buddies, comparing prints, those wonky number differences made no noticeable difference to the output. When we had comparable images, the best composition was the best picture. I doubt anyone could have guessed which camera had more dynamic range, or best low light performance from looking a the images.

This is largely peripheral information.

The goal is not to shoot the highest resolution with the most dynamic range and best low light capability, no one cares about that stuff.

The goal is to take the most evocative image.

Don't lose sight of that when considering the numbers. The only question is "can I get done what I need to do with this camera." DxO score of 94 to compared 82, you have to ask, is that meaningful.. we were pretty confident you could tell 5 points difference apart when the points were in the low 80s. Now that they are in the high 90s is there a law of diminishing returns happening?

Last edited by normhead; 03-04-2015 at 08:25 AM.
03-08-2015, 09:00 AM   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,553
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I like the way you think....

Just from my observations, there is so little difference between 16MP camera and a 24 Mp camera, a 24 Mp camera and a 36 Mp camera, a 36 MP camera and a 51 Mp camera, a kit lens and a DA* or limited, maybe if you get a great image, it might be a teeny tiny little bit better because you had the optimum lens for the image... but liking what you own and using it to shoot as much as you can is better than all the time you can spend discussing these things on the forum. I'd go so far as to say, if you're not browsing at work or physically disabled, you're wasting your time here.

I'm just so old, I'm getting to be physically disabled.

And 24 MP to 36 MP, is not going to impress as much as a lot of people think it will.

645z for the keeners, 645D for the hobbyists, everyone else go home and live with what you've got... just my opinion.
If you really believed what you are saying you would not have your current gear.

If I don't mess up, you have a K3 (when from your explanation a K30 would do or maybe even a K10D) with a 18-135 (well this one make sense) and a 60-250 (definitely a high end lense) and you would not think of maybe buying a DA*200 for the light gathering of the f/2.8 (as you could just bump the isos).

You now that light gathering is important, you know that being able to crop more is important, you now that higher iso bring higher noise level (and different camera have different level of noise) and you know that high end lenses give better image overall.

I agree the difference is often more subtle than one might think but it is here... And sometime much more visible than one might think (like having an f/2 prime sharp wide open for a portrait indoors instead a 18-55 kit lense).

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-08-2015 at 09:19 AM.
03-08-2015, 09:10 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,553
QuoteOriginally posted by brewmaster15 Quote
I havent any experience with the k5s..I went from k20d to k3... for me the k3 is an amazing piece of photographic magic though.

I guess whats "misleading " about these tests are they arent weighted for things like sensor size and type. They may use the same parameters to test them all but it seems like they should do some sort of standardization like express the "ratings" as ratio to sensor size or some other value. But when you go to their webpage and scroll down their initial listing...its misleading.. ..biased in a sense not by their data...but by their presentation of it.Probably not explaining this well...I used to do alot of biotect experiments..but its comparing the horse power of an 8 cyl engine to a 6 cyl in tests and then saying the best acceleration rating goes to the 8 cyl engine ...true,until you standardize for factors like the number of cylinders and mass of the car.

At least thats my initial takehome on it..
This make no sense. When I buy a car for speed and power I don't care what the internals I want the result. if it need a v8 for it, then so bit it. That the result that count.

So here bigger sensors tend to have better dynamic range, more color deph and lower noise. The numbers reflect that. What count is the result and the knowledge to interpret them.

You may not need more than 10-12EV of dynamic range for most shoot or that much color deph. You might most of the time shoot in good light and don't care of high iso performance. Then you don't need the best sensor out there. Maybe you could take that to benefit and buy something cheaper/smaller overall.

Need to get the ultimate quality? Want the subtleties of large format cameras (in general) ? Well that digital back and MF bodies or film scan. Not APSC or even full frame.

We shoudn't have to fake number of the best camera/sensor out here to make the average joe fill better about it. First there the marketing department that want him to spend his money for the latest model. Second we could hope like most understand they don't need the most powerfull car that they could understand they don't need the most capable camera.

Many of the great photographers did all their carrier with ancient and not that capable cameras! It was about talent and experience, not just having the most expensive gear on the market.


Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-08-2015 at 09:16 AM.
03-08-2015, 09:24 AM   #39
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,772
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
If you really believed what you are saying you would not have your current gear.

If I don't mess up, you have a K3 (when from your explanation a K30 would do or maybe even a K10D) with a 18-135 (well this one make sense) and a 60-250 (definitely a high end lense) and you would not think of maybe buying a DA*200 for the light gathering of the f/2.8 (as you could get that from setting the K10D at 6400 isos instead of 3200).
Interesting you should mention that, I'm seriously thinking of taking my DA*18-135 as my keeper and getting a 200 ƒ2.8 to go along with it. It would save me half a pound in weight, and with the 1.4 an 1.7 TCs would actually be pretty flexible. Especially if I can add an F 135mm ƒ2.8.

As for the K-3 over the K30, I happily use my K-5 and K-01 for landscape, the reason I use the K-3 is for shots like this...



The extra magnification and detail makes the K-3 preferable to just about anything on the market right now, for this type of image. I have many images cropped to the size of a K-5 image, with the same resolution as if I'd have taken with a K-5 and a longer lens. If someone was shooting with a K-5 and a 300, I can probably get the same image with a K-3 and my 60-250, by cropping.

With something like a D610, you're not even in the same league, and your D810 is going to be about the same as your K-5 image.
03-08-2015, 11:18 AM   #40
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,553
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Interesting you should mention that, I'm seriously thinking of taking my DA*18-135 as my keeper and getting a 200 ƒ2.8 to go along with it. It would save me half a pound in weight, and with the 1.4 an 1.7 TCs would actually be pretty flexible. Especially if I can add an F 135mm ƒ2.8.

As for the K-3 over the K30, I happily use my K-5 and K-01 for landscape, the reason I use the K-3 is for shots like this...



The extra magnification and detail makes the K-3 preferable to just about anything on the market right now, for this type of image. I have many images cropped to the size of a K-5 image, with the same resolution as if I'd have taken with a K-5 and a longer lens. If someone was shooting with a K-5 and a 300, I can probably get the same image with a K-3 and my 60-250, by cropping.

With something like a D610, you're not even in the same league, and your D810 is going to be about the same as your K-5 image.
Yeah but if only extra reach was the objective, you could replace all the tele you have or plan to have with a 55-300 and get better magnification than your DA60-250 or a DA*200 + TC. As cropping is also magnifying noise you would not be that worse than using the 60-250 even through it is f/4 as light gathering is concerned.

I agree the DA*200 would bet faster at 200mm and with TC/crop still 1 stop faster than the 55-300.

Admitting you need a fast lense mean there after all reason to buy high end lenses.
Admitting you want a 24MP without low pass filter camera is also giving a reason to buy high end gear.
Admitting you need more light gathering mean you would find use or a better APSC sensor with better low light capabilities, if it was available.

And well if until know you used the 60-250 instead of a 55-300 is also maybe because there more to high end lenses than just magnification... Sharpness and overall rendering are as important. For me even with the K3, a 55-300 can't get the same amount of detail than a 60-250 can.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 03-08-2015 at 11:29 AM.
03-08-2015, 04:00 PM   #41
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,772
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Yeah but if only extra reach was the objective, you could replace all the tele you have or plan to have with a 55-300 and get better magnification than your DA60-250 or a DA*200 + TC. As cropping is also magnifying noise you would not be that worse than using the 60-250 even through it is f/4 as light gathering is concerned.

I agree the DA*200 would bet faster at 200mm and with TC/crop still 1 stop faster than the 55-300.

Admitting you need a fast lense mean there after all reason to buy high end lenses.
Admitting you want a 24MP without low pass filter camera is also giving a reason to buy high end gear.
Admitting you need more light gathering mean you would find use or a better APSC sensor with better low light capabilities, if it was available.

And well if until know you used the 60-250 instead of a 55-300 is also maybe because there more to high end lenses than just magnification... Sharpness and overall rendering are as important. For me even with the K3, a 55-300 can't get the same amount of detail than a 60-250 can.
The problem with the DA* 200, 2.8, it's an old design, and it has CA and fringes, so, it's actually worse then the DA* 60-250 @200mm, and it's pretty slow focusing, an older SDM type design... when your trying to take a plunge, it could do a lot more to help you out.

The problem with the 55-300 is, it's just shouldn't be in the same conversation with DA* lenses.
03-09-2015, 12:34 AM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,553
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
The problem with the 55-300 is, it's just shouldn't be in the same conversation with DA* lenses.
Like not all lenses are equals after all!

That's exactly I wanted you to point and admit.
03-09-2015, 03:00 AM   #43
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,957
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
And the really funny thing about that, is, when I was sitting at a booth beside one of my canon shooting buddies, comparing prints, those wonky number differences made no noticeable difference to the output. When we had comparable images, the best composition was the best picture. I doubt anyone could have guessed which camera had more dynamic range, or best low light performance from looking a the images.

This is largely peripheral information.

The goal is not to shoot the highest resolution with the most dynamic range and best low light capability, no one cares about that stuff.

The goal is to take the most evocative image.

Don't lose sight of that when considering the numbers. The only question is "can I get done what I need to do with this camera." DxO score of 94 to compared 82, you have to ask, is that meaningful.. we were pretty confident you could tell 5 points difference apart when the points were in the low 80s. Now that they are in the high 90s is there a law of diminishing returns happening?
It really depends on what you shoot and how much you post process. If you are doing portrait shoots with controlled lighting, then it really doesn't matter what camera you have. Dynamic range doesn't need to be high, it'll all be good.

My experience going from a K7 to a K5 was eye opening. There, you are talking about a sensor that got a high iso score of 536 and a max dynamic range of 10.6 and going to the K5 which killed it in those respects. And no, going to a K5 didn't improve my compositional skills are ability to see light. But, when it all worked out, I found that I could get photos that I wanted without messing with HDR and a lot of other tricks you had to do with earlier Pentax cameras.

I think shooting with not so good cameras made me a better shooter in the long run, because I am a lot more conscious of settings and a lot less likely to just think that I will "fix things in post."
03-09-2015, 07:01 AM   #44
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,772
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Like not all lenses are equals after all!

That's exactly I wanted you to point and admit.
pffft, what a joke....
show me where I said that...

But just to go with your example, you may not be able to see the difference between the 55-300 and DA8 60-250, or be able to tell the difference between images taken with them... I would expect when a TC is put on, you might start to see difference because with my lenses once the image is blown up 1.4 times you start to see aberrations, purple fringing etc. in the images taken straight up head to head, the cheaper lenses are quite good.. just my observation.

---------- Post added 03-09-15 at 10:29 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
It really depends on what you shoot and how much you post process. If you are doing portrait shoots with controlled lighting, then it really doesn't matter what camera you have. Dynamic range doesn't need to be high, it'll all be good.

My experience going from a K7 to a K5 was eye opening. There, you are talking about a sensor that got a high iso score of 536 and a max dynamic range of 10.6 and going to the K5 which killed it in those respects. And no, going to a K5 didn't improve my compositional skills are ability to see light. But, when it all worked out, I found that I could get photos that I wanted without messing with HDR and a lot of other tricks you had to do with earlier Pentax cameras.

I think shooting with not so good cameras made me a better shooter in the long run, because I am a lot more conscious of settings and a lot less likely to just think that I will "fix things in post."
We had to go to a second K-5 for sunsets. The K20D didn't have the Dynamic Range, and when it's that kind of difference 11EV Dynamic range compared to 14 is huge. What I got is shadow detail. The loss of 1EV going K-5 to K-3 isn't nearly as dramatic. But then 3 EV is 8 times the light sensitivity. A loss of one is half the sensitivity.

Last edited by normhead; 03-09-2015 at 07:21 AM.
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, cameras, dslr, dxomark, head, images, k-5, k5, lenses, loss, lot, pentax, photography, range, sensitivity, sensors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-30 Shutter Rating Vantage-Point Pentax K-30 & K-50 11 04-29-2014 02:14 PM
My Life with Pentax DSLR Sensors Stone G. Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 04-03-2014 04:47 AM
Do we really need bigger sensors? pentaxinator Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 06-20-2012 09:28 PM
Pentax lens rating on DxO stanic Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 48 08-11-2011 11:26 AM
Good used pentax with decent high iso rating heralu Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 01-18-2011 10:21 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:07 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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