Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-30-2009, 06:55 PM   #46
Veteran Member
Torphoto's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Trinidad W.I.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 620
Strange I find the Mk2 more detailed than the Nikon by far, in jpeg the canon loves red and super saturates it too much making the images appear to warm. The D700 is only a bit better in low light, just enough to be noticed.
QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
The online comparisons are of little interest to me because they weren't done by me, taking pictures under what would be my typical conditions/subjects. It is hard to really get a good test, but I did one yesterday, taking my K20d w/31ltd to my local shop and shooting indoors in not great light (a typical set of conditions for me) along with a CF card. I also used a D700 w/50/1.4 and 5Dmk2 w/50/1.4. Not rigorously controlled, but me snapping away at various iso levels so I could take a look at the files later.

This actually was prompted by a shoot I did on Friday where I was indoor/low light and really was wanting a few extra stops.

So, what I found was:

The D700 and 5Dmk2 were better at iso3200 and 6400, with the Nikon beating everyone.

The D700 images tended to be more crisp and detailed.

The D700 images tended to be cooler.

The 5Dmk2 felt better in my hand than the D700.

If I just looked at the over all images the K20d had the best colors and look.

What does this mean? Well, to you, perhaps very little. I can say that there is no hiding place from physics, and FF gives you real advantages. iso6400 on the Nikon was about equivalent to 1600 on the Pentax. And just for the record, much of the "which is better" was according to my g/f, who is an artist for a living and has sold quite a few photo prints for 4-5 figures (despite mostly doing sculpture). And it was a "blind" test for her - she didn't know which camera shot which shot. On the crops she consistently picked the Nikon. But often when the Pentax would come up she preferred that look.

So at this point I'm actually leaning towards getting a FF camera for those days when I absolutely have to shoot low light and have the best possible images. But I doubt that I will want to lug around a D700 or 5Dmk2 on the street to shoot my "typical" images. So I'm thinking of ditching the K20d and FAltds and getting a K7 and one or two DAltds. It will give a better image than the E-P1 and actually will be a bit quieter. Then I have the p&s for when I want to have the smallest possible camera (and an S90 may be on the buy list).

So, right tool for the right job. No one camera can solve all your needs unless you have a small number of needs. Currently I'm high quality p&s, u4/3, APS-C. I think I'll end up at high quality p&s, APS-C, FF. With a progressive jump in iq.


08-30-2009, 07:34 PM   #47
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by Torphoto Quote
Strange I find the Mk2 more detailed than the Nikon by far, in jpeg the canon loves red and super saturates it too much making the images appear to warm. The D700 is only a bit better in low light, just enough to be noticed.
How much have you shot the D700? My comparison is a pretty short session, and I was shooting jpg with the Canon and tiff with the Nikon. That actually could be the reason for the difference right there. Unfortunately I don't find the Canon UI to be very intuitive so I was struggling to figure out how to change things. I just went back to the CF and see that there are CR2 files on there (I thought I set it to shoot both jpg and raw) but Aperture didn't pull those in. I'm going to see if I can deal with those (RawDeveloper should work with them) and look at them. It isn't really fair to compare tiff with jpg especially since I don't know how the jpg engine was tweaked. Such is store demos...

I have to say that I liked the feel of the Canon in my hand (despite the creaking) better than the Nikon.
08-30-2009, 07:54 PM   #48
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
Yikes! Just another reminder of how bad jpg can be. I always shoot raw with the Pentax so it never is an issue with that camera. I do shoot jpg right now with both the DLux4 and E-P1 because Aperture doesn't support the raw files, but I don't mind because I have the jpg settings tweaked to how I like them. The 5Dmk2 .cr2 files look good in Aperture. Some of the D700 shots are a little more crisp but variation is well within user error (which is significant).

Last edited by nostatic; 08-30-2009 at 08:07 PM.
08-30-2009, 08:50 PM   #49
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
actually it makes sense to have a HQ durable all-around P&S cam for everyday travel, an APS-C dslr for most of your work or as your main camera and a FF dslr for special purposes or a backup for those special needs.

the things that I only need for an FF dslr is it's full FOV, sharper DOF result, more detail (I hope the A850 doesn't fail in this department) and HigH-ISO noise control and lowlight performance (which is also a big deal for me). I hope that the A850 is atleast as good as the D700 at ISO 3200 or ISO 6400, otherwise it would be pointless going or getting an FF dslr which have an APS-C sensor noise problem. can I use those Pentax glasses on it already? could it produce the same Pentax colors on a different system? I hope so.

the K-7 on the otherhand is really a marvel from low ISO til 1600. and an excellent performer under lowlight, especially if paired with the proper lens. it is more than enough for the usual shooting day and no point on using a FF. I'm impressed on how the CPU sensor of the cam interprets the images, eventhough the K-7 has a lil bit of issue on the AF speed side. but that's no big deal for me as I don't miss that often. did I say that the AWB is great?

08-30-2009, 09:16 PM   #50
Veteran Member
Torphoto's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Trinidad W.I.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 620
Ah tiff on the nikon are more detailed than canons standard jpegs so that is why. I have used a few D700s and I prefer the nikon to the canon build wise, the K7 and k20 are also better built than the mk2. You are
also right the canon UI isn't great for shooters, its meant for those who lock their settings in and blast away its so not for the creative types.

Yeah and a note on the sony, its the same sensor as the A900 so don't expect good hi iso past 1600 iso but it will rule in the studio or lanscapes

QuoteOriginally posted by nostatic Quote
How much have you shot the D700? My comparison is a pretty short session, and I was shooting jpg with the Canon and tiff with the Nikon. That actually could be the reason for the difference right there. Unfortunately I don't find the Canon UI to be very intuitive so I was struggling to figure out how to change things. I just went back to the CF and see that there are CR2 files on there (I thought I set it to shoot both jpg and raw) but Aperture didn't pull those in. I'm going to see if I can deal with those (RawDeveloper should work with them) and look at them. It isn't really fair to compare tiff with jpg especially since I don't know how the jpg engine was tweaked. Such is store demos...

I have to say that I liked the feel of the Canon in my hand (despite the creaking) better than the Nikon.
08-30-2009, 09:35 PM   #51
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Torphoto Quote
Ah tiff on the nikon are more detailed than canons standard jpegs so that is why. I have used a few D700s and I prefer the nikon to the canon build wise, the K7 and k20 are also better built than the mk2. You are
also right the canon UI isn't great for shooters, its meant for those who lock their settings in and blast away its so not for the creative types.

Yeah and a note on the sony, its the same sensor as the A900 so don't expect good hi iso past 1600 iso but it will rule in the studio or lanscapes

if that's true, I believe there is no point in going FF unless of course you wouldn't mind maxing out at 1600 ISO and printing large posters. it still a bummer if it can't even go 3200 and get butt-kicked by APS-C dslr's High ISO performance.
08-30-2009, 10:33 PM   #52
Veteran Member
nostatic's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: socal
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,576
QuoteOriginally posted by Torphoto Quote
Ah tiff on the nikon are more detailed than canons standard jpegs so that is why. I have used a few D700s and I prefer the nikon to the canon build wise, the K7 and k20 are also better built than the mk2. You are
also right the canon UI isn't great for shooters, its meant for those who lock their settings in and blast away its so not for the creative types.

Yeah and a note on the sony, its the same sensor as the A900 so don't expect good hi iso past 1600 iso but it will rule in the studio or lanscapes
Even still, for whatever reason there were a number of images where the Nikon was just a lot more crisp (at anywhere between iso400-3200). May have been some focus issues. From what I've seen of Sony files, if you have light they are as good or better than any FF camera. But seems that at 3200 they fall off. To my eye the Nikon wins the high iso thing, but that is to be expected given the lower mp count. The AF was malfunctioning on the Nikon though - was a little odd.

I shot a bunch today with the K20d and mostly 50-135*. That is still an amazing combination. Under these conditions I don't see much of an advantage of FF unless I wanted to print a wall mural. But the shot I want to take right now indoors, I could use the extra stops...

reflections1 - Page 1
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, dslr, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's a FAST (used to be fast) film lens neverbnnba Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 07-03-2010 05:42 PM
How fast is the K7 really Jomy Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 11-16-2009 01:50 PM
What is "Fast" about the fast Fifties... jess Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 11 01-04-2009 05:18 PM
A Fast Fifty Is Really A Fast 75mm drewdlephone Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 182 12-08-2008 10:38 AM
Help Fast NYpHoToGraphEr Photographic Technique 4 11-08-2007 11:32 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:11 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