[pentaxmz]

Yeah, focus range...

Check and mate.

Clearly there is no point continuing this. You refuse to see beyond what you want to believe and cannot see the validity of the facts I pointed out. I volunteer in a home for elderly people... so I understand your type.

Seriously, I am happy you are enjoying your K7 and I hope it continues to prove its value to you.

[cbaytan]

The last crop of course. What I'd like to know is:

lens used and aperture/shutter settings
raw or jpg. If raw, what converter. If jpg, what settings.
Did they do multiple shots and take the best (especially wrt focus).

There are so many variables involved, to offer up a single data point and then draw a conclusion is sketchy at best, ridiculous and useless at worst.

If someone wants to get a feel for what a camera can do, look at real photos that have been made with them. The reality is that ANY modern dSLR can make awesome photos. It is the operator that makes or breaks it. Some are more idiot proof than others (eg Canikon AF vs Pentax AF). But good glass on any comparable current dSLR will give you very similar images if you know what you're doing.

It comes down to features and ergonomic preferences. The "resolution" question is such a non-issue in real-world use.

I completely agree with you except the last line - resolution issue. in the photography club sometimes we are required or asked for 60cmx70cm prints, resolution matters at that point. Hypothetically if these pictures are the resolution limits for both cameras, and you know the rest 500D wins. What I do in the club with my K200D, nothing, I don't present nor print photos. Thats why I am resolution peeper at the moment.

[pentaxmz]

I am looking at those pictures:

-First one is my favorite photo, you can check resolution, saturation, contrast and DR with eye. (As I stated in the first posting 100 ASA stills)

-Second one is cropped K7 from this picture

-Last one is 15MP Canon 500D or Kiss X3.

Resolution test with eye, a brush in front of a scale. Others aside I also love salt shaker for checking DR at the white side.

....

BTW Which one looks better to you?

As I stated before, there are far too many variable to accurately draw a conclusion from their photos. This site should come with a warning, "FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY".

The bottom photo is clearly sharper... but again, I will not use that example to state that the last photo comes from a superior camera system.

How do you write legends to pictures and line them up, I don't know yet.

I use Snagit Editor 9 for quick editing.... it's a pay program but really quick and feature filled. An excellent free program is the open source, Paint.net. You may also wish to try Google's Picasa 3.... I swear, this program is almost as good as Adobe's Lightroom. Okay, a bit of an exaggeration but it's feature packed, super uber quick, refined and slick, and it is FREE! Even if you have Lightroom, try Picasa... I guarantee you will love it!

[nostatic]

I completely agree with you except the last line - resolution issue. in the photography club sometimes we are required or asked for 60cmx70cm prints, resolution matters at that point. Hypothetically if the pictures are the resolution limits for both cameras, and you know the rest 500D wins.

I have printed 20"x30" from both K20d and DLux4 (small sensor). Frankly you often can't tell the difference. I will make a caveat that some of these are in a particular "style" that favors noise so I don't go for "ultra clean" shots.

My point is that if you take all the current "mid price" dSLR bodies, the resolutions are all effectively the same. For 99.5% of the final output there is zero difference. I don't count pixel peeping as a "final output

[pentaxmz]

Whoever RH is, he's certainly got everyone ranting page after page about him.

As far as what Lapathro said in his huge post, about the K20's metering, I have to concur. I the biggest problem I have with my K20. The PZ-1P came out in the early 90's, a good 14 years prior to the K20 and it's meter runs circles around it. I can't fathom why a 2008 camera has such a poor metering system. I've used different lenses, shot in good light and bad light, and if I take 10 photos, I swear 4 of them aren't exposed correctly. Trust me, it's not the user as I can meter with any basic SLR on the planet on small latitude slide film and come up with 10 out of 10 perfectly exposed shots.

I just don't get it. In fact, if I end up selling my K20 and moving on to another digital system, it will 100% be because of it's metering. The Pentax glass I love, the construction and look of the bodies are always great, but the metering is a problem. I also just can't justify paying for the K-7 just for the better meter and a few other perks. I'd rather put the money toward a Canon FF or a Sony A900. Let's hope the rest of my experience with the K20D goes smoother with the metering, or my Pentax DSLR experience may come to a quick halt. I'll always keep my film SLR's and lenses though.

As far as the always lesser AF system on Pentax than the other brands, I never cared about that, as I don't shoot sports and I usually always manual focus anyway.

Interesting that you bring up the great PZ-1P. I had this (picked up in London) and the even better MZ-S. My MZ-S's AF is faster and more accurate than my K20D. I've said this before and was almost whacked for that. But I only asked because I was curious as to how/why Pentax hadn't improved AF after 10 years in the business! I'd be fired if I hadn't improved in 10 years!

Anyone, that's old history... and the K20D's auto focus doesn't actually bother me b/c my best lenses are, in fact, manual anyway! Metering on the K20D isn't bad in my opinion. In tricky situations, I still use a hand-held meter anyway... and most of the time I just bracket... it's digital folks.... just take a bunch of photos...it costs nothing!!

[cbaytan]

I have printed 20"x30" from both K20d and DLux4 (small sensor). Frankly you often can't tell the difference. I will make a caveat that some of these are in a particular "style" that favors noise so I don't go for "ultra clean" shots.

My point is that if you take all the current "mid price" dSLR bodies, the resolutions are all effectively the same. For 99.5% of the final output there is zero difference. I don't count pixel peeping as a "final output

What was the max print size at 200 dpi? at 14 and 10MP, I forgot how to calculate. If anyone remembers an easy way to calculate please re-teach us.

[nostatic]

From here (http://www.worldstart.com/tips/tips.php/1332)

In order to print a 4x6 at 200 DPI, you need to take the length and multiply it by the resolution, then do the same with the width. Next multiply those results. Don't worry, this is much easier than it sounds:

4 (width) x 200 (resolution) = 800

6 (length) x 200 (resolution) = 1200

Those are your minimum width and length pixel counts. To print a 200 DPI photo quality 4x6, you would need an image that was 800 x 1200 pixels. Now, to determine how many MP this is:

800 x 1200 = 960,000 - Round up to 1,000,000.

Not too bad. Now we know a 1 MP camera can make a good 4x6 print at 200 DPI.
-----

I calculate that 200dpi 24x36 is 34.5mp. I have printed images from 10-14.6mp files at 24x36 that look awesome (have a few on my walls right now) so a lower print density can yield an acceptable print. But there is a reason that I like the a900 files so much - that FF 24mp file prints up better at large sizes. But how many people print larger than 8x10? My guess is that number is *very* small.

---

Last edited by nostatic; 07-29-2009 at 11:35 PM.

[jimby]

Enough of this nonsense. If you don't like RH, you have the power to ignore but you don't have the right to persuade everyone to join your mob.

Get over yourself.

Nowhere did I try to persuade anyone to "join my mob." There are number of people here who don't like his troll-like behavior. Deal with it.

[nostatic]

"join my mob." .

Can you tell me more about this "mob" that I can join? What's the pay like and how are the benefits (particularly retirement accounts)?

[Torphoto]

The 50d and k20d/k7 will both make good 13x19 or 16x20 prints and trust me you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference between them when printed.

Next after actually using the 50d/40d I will tell you I'm not impressed with it, the k7 impressed me more. Also note in the tests from image review, the subject locations and angles changed, and dof does have an effect.

Now also note to replace the k7 that imho I needed to go up to the 5d mk2, the iq difference ( other than noise ) in the 50d is not that significant in real world vs what I already have.

[cbaytan]

From here (Megapixels - WorldStart Computer Tips and Computer Help)

In order to print a 4x6 at 200 DPI, you need to take the length and multiply it by the resolution, then do the same with the width. Next multiply those results. Don't worry, this is much easier than it sounds:

4 (width) x 200 (resolution) = 800

6 (length) x 200 (resolution) = 1200

Those are your minimum width and length pixel counts. To print a 200 DPI photo quality 4x6, you would need an image that was 800 x 1200 pixels. Now, to determine how many MP this is:

800 x 1200 = 960,000 - Round up to 1,000,000.

Not too bad. Now we know a 1 MP camera can make a good 4x6 print at 200 DPI.
-----

I calculate that 200dpi 24x36 is 34.5mp. I have printed images from 10-14.6mp files at 24x36 that look awesome (have a few on my walls right now) so a lower print density can yield an acceptable print. But there is a reason that I like the a900 files so much - that FF 24mp file prints up better at large sizes. But how many people print larger than 8x10? My guess is that number is *very* small.

Thanks much, that was easy, so we divide with 200dpi or whatever dpi we need, theoretically I wouldn't go anything lesser than 200dpi for prints. For instance.

K7 is 4672 dpi at the long side 4672 / 200 = 23.26 inch = 59 cm
K200 is 3872 dpi long side 3872 / 200 = 19.36 inch = 49 cm

maximum print sizes at 200dpi.

I should check 180 dpi prints either to see if they are acceptable for exhibition when I have time.

What is the dpi's of your 24 x 36 prints?

[cbaytan]

The 50d and k20d/k7 will both make good 13x19 or 16x20 prints and trust me you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference between them when printed.

Next after actually using the 50d/40d I will tell you I'm not impressed with it, the k7 impressed me more. Also note in the tests from image review, the subject locations and angles changed, and dof does have an effect.

Now also note to replace the k7 that imho I needed to go up to the 5d mk2, the iq difference ( other than noise ) in the 50d is not that significant in real world vs what I already have.

My current decision is I will get K-7 when price drops to 1000 USD, if Pentax will be able to fix the green line (cooling) problem. Otherwise I will get a K20.

[Samsungian]

Benjikan prints big and here's his thoughts on brand versus brand :

Benjamin Kanarek Blog Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Panasonic, Olympus…or?

with comments from another thread at this site:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/everything-else/67660-nikon-canon-sony-pe...panasonic.html

[lapratho]

I always find it funny that it seems that some who rail about exposure problems and AF issues are also the ones that claim to have a substantial "investment" in (older) Pentax glass.

So then either they couldn't take a decent picture with film cameras and are now still bitter, or maybe they are collectors and not photographers and just like to complain. Gawd knows I love a good complaint:

M: I want to complain.
C: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I've only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
M: No, I want to complain about...
C: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
M: Oh!
C: Oh my back hurts, it's not a very fine day and I'm sick and tired of this office.

The above is not exactly an intelligent reply and assumes some fuddy duddy lens collection with mold growing on it, yes?.

Like I said, I'm not a pro, but a few of my candids I am very happy with, and the lenses and right body made a difference indeed - NEW lenses I bought over the last 3 years!
The bulk of my investment was made recently.
So yes, I AM grumpy at Pentax for good reason for them dropping the ball in so many ways because the money is still missed having been spent recently, some of it last week!

I never wine - I snarl, and when that gets ignored, I can react quite extremely and actually hurt somebody

People who actually shoot with their lenses and cameras, instead of just having their stuff in a fan cabinet/altar and worshiping it, will know the differences and the occasion for each piece, and some pieces may just get retired as emergency backups, whereas the unexpected "workhorse" may turn out to be a gem.
In my case my severe infliction with LBA only occurred about 3 years ago and my glass is not exactly old and is all post millenium designs and editions!

I also know the trappings of expensive lenses some people buy just to hang on to them and lauding them (the altar syndrome again!) without accepting that the cheaper one before may have made the better pictures.
Example would be my recently returned Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Macro (latest design that just came out, got the first one in stock at B&H when it arrived there) with an ugly flare problem getting beat in the final result by a much shorter midrange lens at 1/3 the cost, which I so far had to crop to get what I wanted . So I dispensed with the idea of an expensive longer reach light bucket and will stick with the lighter and better, if shorter, piece for now.

Most of my glass is Sigma and Tamron, not Pentax, and the off brand glass is quite nice compared to similar Pentax gear and does expose better on a Pentax body than Pentax lenses - what an irony and what a poor grade for the Pentax light metering system

I don't shoot for living, and if I did - I would have had to cut my losses for the business already to survive and likely gone Nikon.

Owen

[gfmucci]

RH has ceased being objective. He bloviates all over the map about his disdain for recent Pentax products. The tone of his posts reveals excessive editorializing bias and fiction with a slight mix of objectivity and truth, in the same manner as Dan Brown did with the Di Vinci Code. RH's ineffectively concealed hostility toward Pentax is obvious. With skillful words and contrived logic, one could discredit The Messiah - and many have.

In addition, my experience with a recent Imaging Resources review of a Canon Elf 1200 S review made me also question the accuracy of their testing. The 1200 in their test showed markedly softer images (on the left side of the image) than the previously tested 1100. This has since been demonstrated to me as a faulty test.