The Six-Megapixel Club

Dartmoor Dave · 06-07-2019, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by st_tsourkan

Which sensor is used in K100D/110D/100D Super?
What is the difference between ICX413AQ and ICX453AQ (in terms of noise, dynamic range, colour depth etc.) Who knows?

Question Nr 2. istD (2003) and istDL2 (2005) uses the same sensor - ICX413AQ. Is there some difference at noise, dynamic range, colours etc between these two cameras?
In-camrea processing of RAW-data from sensor in 2003 and in 2005 may be other.

I think the K100D that I had back in 2012-13 gave a more saturated and contrasty look than I get now from the DL2. The DL2 seems to give a more naturalistic colour rendering that I actually prefer, and more of a feeling of three-dimensionality.

Of course, that could be down to different firmware processing rather than physical differences in the sensors. Or even down to the fact that I'm using a newer version of Camera Raw now.

**paulh** · 06-07-2019, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave

I think the K100D that I had back in 2012-13 gave a more saturated and contrasty look than I get now from the DL2

I'd always thought that the OOC jpegs from the K100D were punchier and more crisp than the ones from my *ist D. But I cannot tell much, if any difference from the processed RAW files.

Dartmoor Dave · 06-08-2019, 01:06 AM - **3 Likes**

This has got me thinking (which never turns out well). So I've gone back to a random K100D PEF file from 2012 and compared how I processed it then with how I'd do a basic PEF to JPEG conversion nowadays.

Here's what I did with it back in 2012:

And here's what I did with it this morning using the standard approach I apply nowadays:

So yes, the differences I mentioned in my post higher up on this page are probably down to changes in my approach to processing rather than sensor differences. And when I look at these two samples, I have to conclude that in many ways my processing has become much, much WORSE over the past 7 years.

I think I need to reconsider what I'm doing with my raw files. In particular, to remember that I DON'T always have to recover as much shadow detail as possible, and that actually leaving quite deep shadows in a photo looks good.

**goatsNdonkey** · 06-08-2019, 11:16 AM - **3 Likes**

Not to confuse the sensor color saturation issue. I've started to experiment with some shots using a Tiffen Warm Low Light Polarizing Filter, which I actually got to try on my Spiratone Ultratel f/8 500mm mirror lens, but here I am testing it out on my Rokinon (Samyang) f/2 16mm.

Camera: Pentax K110D.

Last edited by goatsNdonkey; 06-08-2019 at 11:27 AM.

Jan178 · 06-10-2019, 08:03 AM - **5 Likes**

Converted *ist DL, 720nm IR, 18-55 kit lens

[IMG]

[/IMG]

**goatsNdonkey** · 06-10-2019, 01:18 PM - **3 Likes**

Among my first shots with my new-to-me Phoenix/Consina AF f/3.5-4.5 19-35mm, using my trusty Pentax K110D:

at 19mm:

at 35mm:

While you may have heard of "eye-brow windows," the brick building's upper story has windows with eyebrows!

.

**goatsNdonkey** · 06-11-2019, 04:31 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by goatsNdonkey

Among my first shots with my new-to-me Phoenix/Consina AF f/3.5-4.5 19-35mm . . .
.

I meant to type "Phoenix/Cosina," not with two Ns in Cosina, consarnit!

ZombieArmy · 06-11-2019, 04:49 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave

So yes, the differences I mentioned in my post higher up on this page are probably down to changes in my approach to processing rather than sensor differences. And when I look at these two samples, I have to conclude that in many ways my processing has become much, much WORSE over the past 7 years.

I think I need to reconsider what I'm doing with my raw files. In particular, to remember that I DON'T always have to recover as much shadow detail as possible, and that actually leaving quite deep shadows in a photo looks good.

I think (as with everything) it depends on the shot. I don't think either processing looks bad per se but the deeper shadows with that shot makes it a tad more dramatic. But sometimes a lack of contrast can be just what a photo needs.

**paulh** · 06-11-2019, 05:30 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by ZombieArmy

I think (as with everything) it depends on the shot. I don't think either processing looks bad per se but the deeper shadows with that shot makes it a tad more dramatic. But sometimes a lack of contrast can be just what a photo needs.

My thoughts exactly ^^

**Merv-O** · 06-13-2019, 04:18 PM - **2 Likes**

New York, New York....Downtown Manhattan w/ Pentax 100D & DMC 50-200mm--5/11/2013....still looks good.

**paulh** · 06-16-2019, 11:29 AM - **1 Like**

Just another bulldozer portrait - Tamron Adaptall-2 02B on *ist D:

**goatsNdonkey** · 06-16-2019, 03:23 PM - **1 Like**

Elderberry bushes in flower along fenceline.

Bower/Samyang f/3.5 8mm + Pentax K110D

(cross-posted)

**paulh** · 06-18-2019, 11:30 PM - **3 Likes**

Willow in the water - Super Tak 28/3.5 on *ist D:

**paulh** · 06-23-2019, 09:35 PM - **2 Likes**

Older home in the historical district of Grapevine TX. I believe it's slated for restoration soon. F35-70 on *ist D:

Jan178 · 06-25-2019, 11:12 AM - **1 Like**

Converted *ist DL, 850nm IR, 18-55 kit lens

[IMG]

[/IMG]

x-posted

06-08-2019, 01:06 AM - 3 Likes	#828
Dartmoor Dave Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Dartmoor, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,890	This has got me thinking (which never turns out well). So I've gone back to a random K100D PEF file from 2012 and compared how I processed it then with how I'd do a basic PEF to JPEG conversion nowadays. Here's what I did with it back in 2012: And here's what I did with it this morning using the standard approach I apply nowadays: So yes, the differences I mentioned in my post higher up on this page are probably down to changes in my approach to processing rather than sensor differences. And when I look at these two samples, I have to conclude that in many ways my processing has become much, much WORSE over the past 7 years. I think I need to reconsider what I'm doing with my raw files. In particular, to remember that I DON'T always have to recover as much shadow detail as possible, and that actually leaving quite deep shadows in a photo looks good. Last edited by Dartmoor Dave; 06-08-2019 at 01:12 AM.

06-10-2019, 08:03 AM - 5 Likes	#830
Jan178 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Rovaniemi, Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 963	Converted *ist DL, 720nm IR, 18-55 kit lens [IMG][/IMG]

06-25-2019, 11:12 AM - 1 Like	#840
Jan178 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Rovaniemi, Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 963	Converted *ist DL, 850nm IR, 18-55 kit lens [IMG][/IMG] x-posted

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
24 megapixel vs 16 megapixel image quality for macros	Renato	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	40	10-01-2020 01:54 PM
41 Megapixel Nokia 808 smartphone camera	falconeye	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	375	09-03-2020 10:27 PM
Phase One 100 Megapixel?	K57XR	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	2	01-17-2016 06:59 PM
Samsung said to soon introduce 14.6-megapixel CMOS image sensor. What does it mean?	ogl	Pentax News and Rumors	13	05-22-2008 05:21 AM

06-07-2019, 02:00 PM	#826
Dartmoor Dave Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Dartmoor, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,890	Originally posted by st_tsourkan Which sensor is used in K100D/110D/100D Super? What is the difference between ICX413AQ and ICX453AQ (in terms of noise, dynamic range, colour depth etc.) Who knows? Question Nr 2. istD (2003) and istDL2 (2005) uses the same sensor - ICX413AQ. Is there some difference at noise, dynamic range, colours etc between these two cameras? In-camrea processing of RAW-data from sensor in 2003 and in 2005 may be other. I think the K100D that I had back in 2012-13 gave a more saturated and contrasty look than I get now from the DL2. The DL2 seems to give a more naturalistic colour rendering that I actually prefer, and more of a feeling of three-dimensionality. Of course, that could be down to different firmware processing rather than physical differences in the sensors. Or even down to the fact that I'm using a newer version of Camera Raw now.

06-07-2019, 03:26 PM	#827
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,306 Original Poster	Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave I think the K100D that I had back in 2012-13 gave a more saturated and contrasty look than I get now from the DL2 I'd always thought that the OOC jpegs from the K100D were punchier and more crisp than the ones from my *ist D. But I cannot tell much, if any difference from the processed RAW files.

06-08-2019, 11:16 AM - 3 Likes	#829
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,736	Not to confuse the sensor color saturation issue. I've started to experiment with some shots using a Tiffen Warm Low Light Polarizing Filter, which I actually got to try on my Spiratone Ultratel f/8 500mm mirror lens, but here I am testing it out on my Rokinon (Samyang) f/2 16mm. Camera: Pentax K110D. Last edited by goatsNdonkey; 06-08-2019 at 11:27 AM.

06-10-2019, 01:18 PM - 3 Likes	#831
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,736	Among my first shots with my new-to-me Phoenix/Consina AF f/3.5-4.5 19-35mm, using my trusty Pentax K110D: at 19mm: at 35mm: While you may have heard of "eye-brow windows," the brick building's upper story has windows with eyebrows! .

06-11-2019, 04:31 AM - 1 Like	#832
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,736	Originally posted by goatsNdonkey Among my first shots with my new-to-me Phoenix/Consina AF f/3.5-4.5 19-35mm . . . . I meant to type "Phoenix/Cosina," not with two Ns in Cosina, consarnit!

06-11-2019, 04:49 PM - 1 Like	#833
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210	Originally posted by Dartmoor Dave So yes, the differences I mentioned in my post higher up on this page are probably down to changes in my approach to processing rather than sensor differences. And when I look at these two samples, I have to conclude that in many ways my processing has become much, much WORSE over the past 7 years. I think I need to reconsider what I'm doing with my raw files. In particular, to remember that I DON'T always have to recover as much shadow detail as possible, and that actually leaving quite deep shadows in a photo looks good. I think (as with everything) it depends on the shot. I don't think either processing looks bad per se but the deeper shadows with that shot makes it a tad more dramatic. But sometimes a lack of contrast can be just what a photo needs.

06-11-2019, 05:30 PM - 1 Like	#834
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,306 Original Poster	Originally posted by ZombieArmy I think (as with everything) it depends on the shot. I don't think either processing looks bad per se but the deeper shadows with that shot makes it a tad more dramatic. But sometimes a lack of contrast can be just what a photo needs. My thoughts exactly ^^

06-16-2019, 11:29 AM - 1 Like	#836
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,306 Original Poster	Just another bulldozer portrait - Tamron Adaptall-2 02B on *ist D:

06-16-2019, 03:23 PM - 1 Like	#837
goatsNdonkey Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: Fulton County, Illinois Posts: 3,736	Elderberry bushes in flower along fenceline. Bower/Samyang f/3.5 8mm + Pentax K110D (cross-posted)

06-18-2019, 11:30 PM - 3 Likes	#838
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,306 Original Poster	Willow in the water - Super Tak 28/3.5 on *ist D:

06-23-2019, 09:35 PM - 2 Likes	#839
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,306 Original Poster	Older home in the historical district of Grapevine TX. I believe it's slated for restoration soon. F35-70 on *ist D: