Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-21-2016, 02:55 PM   #16
Pentaxian
ChristianRock's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Marietta, GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Nickrs Quote
30 seconds with Lightroom or Aftershot Pro could adjust the image to your preference.
Well that's kind of like every time I tell my wife, "I'll be done with this in a minute" and it takes 2 hours

The point is, both have their place, but CCDs still have their magic, at least in the opinion of some of us.

SquirrelMafia - UsedPhotoPro.com has a couple K10D cameras... KEH usually has them too, and usually for a great price, but they're out right now. As you probably know, the A200 and the K10D have the same sensor.

06-21-2016, 03:01 PM - 1 Like   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
paulh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: DFW Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,427
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
SquirrelMafia - UsedPhotoPro.com has a couple K10D cameras... KEH usually has them too, and usually for a great price, but they're out right now.
There's a pretty nice low-count K10D in the PF Marketplace as well. I wouldn't mind grabbing it, but what would I do with two of them? Count me as another fan of the CCD-look.

Last edited by paulh; 06-21-2016 at 03:11 PM.
06-21-2016, 03:09 PM   #18
Site Supporter
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,723
QuoteOriginally posted by ChristianRock Quote
Well that's kind of like every time I tell my wife, "I'll be done with this in a minute" and it takes 2 hours .
Similarly, after 37 years of marriage my "five minute photo" stops are something we can both laugh about. Yes, sometimes things will go well and we'll be back on the road within five minutes, but other times it will take me thirty minutes to capture in my camera what I saw in my mind before we stopped.
06-21-2016, 03:30 PM   #19
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
A couple of months ago I did a quick, hand-held, completely non-scientific comparison between the 20MP CMOS in the K-S1 and the 10MP CCD in the Samsung GX-10 version of the K10D. Both shots are with the Super Takumar 20mm/4.5 at f/8 at 1/250 and ISO100. Straight raw to jpeg conversions with no post-processing trickery.
What program did you use for the conversion?

06-22-2016, 01:41 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 751
I used Camera Raw and each camera's embedded profile. White balance on both cameras was set manually to 5600K, because I wanted to see the differences in the actual sensor rendering rather than auto white balance differences. I then simply applied auto contrast to both shots and saved as jpegs, reduced to web size using bicubic (sharper) resampling.

As I said above, it was never intended to be a scientific test. I was just trying to satisfy my own curiosity about why I preferred the K10D clone GX-10 over the K-S1.
06-22-2016, 10:17 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Nickrs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: "The Green Desert"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 122
Along with my K3 and K50s I own an old K-r and I have noticed that the K-r's images tend to be more saturated (warmer?) than those of my later Ks, all my cameras have CMOS sensors. Surely the first aim of a sensor/camera designer/manufacturer is to create a device which captures an image which contains lots of information and renders it as close as possible to reality? I am confused by this concentration on the type of sensor, there are so many variables which affect the capture of an image (format, sensor, firmware, lens coatings, camera settings, ambient lighting, etc. etc.) and almost as many which affect the reproduction of an image (monitor type, graphics card, device type, model of printer, make of ink, type of photo-paper etc. etc.), I also wonder whether we all perceive colour differently with our MK1 eyeballs. I'm delighted that some people value the colour rendition of one model of camera over and another as it shows that we have options available to us as photographers but as for spending time fiddling with an image post shot, what takes so long? Yes you can spend hours adjusting white balance, colour balance, histograms, lens profiles, camera profiles, gama levels, etc. etc. but why would you because I don't? Changing something like the colour vibrancy or balance of an image takes seconds. Years ago I used to spend many happy hours in a darkroom with exciting chemicals, having fun and gaining experience and knowledge; these days I spend many happy hours in my study with exciting software having fun and gaining experience and knowledge, what intrigues me is the proportion of amateur photographers who don't bother. :-) The best analogy I can think of is that of a play, a well written script can be rendered tedious by a poor performance but also a dull play can be turned into a riveting portrayal by a talented cast. The captured image is just the start of an artistic process. :-)

Last edited by Nickrs; 06-23-2016 at 08:18 AM.
06-22-2016, 11:31 AM   #22
Site Supporter
Erikka's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Se
Photos: Albums
Posts: 323
Original Poster
wow guys, I love how my initial post spurned such an informative discussion, learned a lot
06-23-2016, 06:51 AM   #23
New Member




Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 18
QuoteOriginally posted by Nickrs Quote
Along with my K3 and K50s I own an old K-r and I have noticed that the K-r's images tend to be more saturated (warmer?) than those of my later Ks, all my cameras have CMOS sensors. Surely the first aim of a sensor/camera designer/manufacturer is to create a device which captures an image which contains lots of information and renders it as close as possible to reality? I am confused by this concentration on the type of sensor, there are so many variables which affect the capture of an image (format, sensor, firmware, lens coatings, camera settings, ambient lighting, etc. etc.) and almost as many which affect the reproduction of an image (monitor type, graphics card, device type, model of printer, make of ink, type of photo-paper etc. etc.), I also wonder whether we all perceive colour differently with our MK1 eyeballs. I'm delighted that some people value the colour rendition of one model of camera over and another as it shows that we have options available to us as photographers but as for spending time fiddling with an image post shot, what takes so long? Yes you can spend hours adjusting white balance, colour balance, histograms, lens profiles, camera profiles, gama levels, etc. etc. but why would you because I don't? Changing something like the colour vibrancy or balance of an image takes seconds. Years ago I used to spend many happy hours in a darkroom with exciting chemicals, having fun and gaining experience and knowledge; these days I spend many happy hours in my study with exciting software having fun and gaining experience and knowledge, what intrigues me is the proportion of amateur photographer who don't. :-) The best analogy I can think of is that of a play, a well written script can be rendered tedious by a poor performance but also a dull play can be turned into a riveting portrayal by a talented cast. The captured image is just the start of an artistic process. :-)
... these days I spend many happy hours in my study with exciting software having fun and gaining experience and knowledge... The captured image is just the start of an artistic process...
I have also realized that the captured image is the beginning of self discovery of our preferences, so unique to each one of us, the reason a .



06-23-2016, 08:09 AM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,417
QuoteOriginally posted by Nickrs Quote
30 seconds with Lightroom or Aftershot Pro could adjust the image to your preference. I wonder which image is most colour accurate to life? Actually I wonder which eye is most colour accurate? I had cataract surgery a couple of years following a number of retinal detachments and now there are subtle differences in colour perception between my eyes, blues seen through my "bionic" eye seem to be slightly paler. :-)
After reading through this thread, I started playing with some of my old DNG files. I have owned a K10, K20, K5iis, K3 and now a K1. Even though I can't use identical images, I can use the same post processing in PS 5.5.

What I found after about a hour of playing around was that my original hypothesis seemed to be supported: Compared to K10 images, K20 images needed a lot of PP to meet my style requirements, particularly saturation and custom WB. This was my initial though after getting a K20, I was actually rather disappointed with it, despite the increase in MP.

But K10 images really could not compete with K5iis images. K5iis images have so much more headroom for post processing. The increase in DR, the extra color depth. Yes, I had to tweak the K5iis images a little to look like K10 images, but I found I preferred a different final result of K5iis images and K10 images had no chance of reaching that bar.

K10 images couldn't compete with K5iis results, and they didn't stand much of a chance against K3 images.

Interestingly enough, though, K1 images, to me, seem to have reacquired a lot of the K10 look but with 36 MP of resolution. When I started processing photos from the K1 I was really surprised by the results. Adjectives that you wouldn't normally apply to images came to mind. There is a sensuality to K1 images, my K3 shots just don't have, and can't even achieve. (I've already tried with a couple). My post processing has actually had to be toned down a bit or I end up with "overprocessed" looking results. Conversely I have ended up being more aggressive with my sharpening in several of my images, but that may be a response to other factors.

So maybe if you are pining for the old CCD look of the K10, the K1 might be your solution.
06-23-2016, 08:40 AM   #25
Site Supporter
Nickrs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: "The Green Desert"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 122
Very interesting.

QuoteOriginally posted by nomadkng Quote
After reading through this thread, I started playing with some of my old DNG files. I have owned a K10, K20, K5iis, K3 and now a K1. Even though I can't use identical images, I can use the same post processing in PS 5.5.

What I found after about a hour of playing around was that my original hypothesis seemed to be supported: Compared to K10 images, K20 images needed a lot of PP to meet my style requirements, particularly saturation and custom WB. This was my initial though after getting a K20, I was actually rather disappointed with it, despite the increase in MP.

But K10 images really could not compete with K5iis images. K5iis images have so much more headroom for post processing. The increase in DR, the extra color depth. Yes, I had to tweak the K5iis images a little to look like K10 images, but I found I preferred a different final result of K5iis images and K10 images had no chance of reaching that bar.

K10 images couldn't compete with K5iis results, and they didn't stand much of a chance against K3 images.

Interestingly enough, though, K1 images, to me, seem to have reacquired a lot of the K10 look but with 36 MP of resolution. When I started processing photos from the K1 I was really surprised by the results. Adjectives that you wouldn't normally apply to images came to mind. There is a sensuality to K1 images, my K3 shots just don't have, and can't even achieve. (I've already tried with a couple). My post processing has actually had to be toned down a bit or I end up with "overprocessed" looking results. Conversely I have ended up being more aggressive with my sharpening in several of my images, but that may be a response to other factors.

So maybe if you are pining for the old CCD look of the K10, the K1 might be your solution.
These are very interesting observations and have confirmed my decision to sell my house or a couple of family members to upgrade from a K3 to a K1.

The benefit of the newer cameras is that they capture a lot more information per exposure which enables the photographer to manipulate image in so many more ways to create their desired result. I took some photos of the Whirlpool Galaxy (M51) with my K3 last night and had an enjoyable couple of hours trying to create the clearest and most pleasing final image. I think it is a truism that the quality of the initial exposure is without a doubt still the most important single part of the image creation process.
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!
aps-c vs ccd, camera, ccd, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What do you think will happen to APS-C over the next 10 years? BigMackCam General Photography 111 03-20-2016 07:17 AM
FF vs APS-C - D810 vs K200D - $4K vs $200 wtlwdwgn General Photography 9 04-08-2015 11:11 AM
Noob question f2.0 for M4/3, APS-C and 35mm, What is the difference lightbulb Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 03-21-2012 08:24 AM
Comparing FF to APS-C: What difference does the bigger sensor make? dosdan Photography Articles 26 07-29-2011 02:53 PM
FA vs. F? What's the difference? PentaxForums-User Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 12-23-2009 08:37 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:13 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