Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

Eruditass · 12-23-2009, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by kostarae

Agree Eruditass. That's a good shot but not low light which is most important to me.

The K-x is just not getting the pics I want in low light.

This is a recurring theme in the 50 or so shots I have taken in the past day comparing the D40 and K-x.

I am shooting in highest JPEG which is already pretty ridiculous with 5-6mb per picture. I have the D40 set on normal jpeg with 1-1.5mb files average and still getting better shots IMO.

There has to be some secret setting or something I am missing.

I understand lighting is important....but the lighting in the pics I am taking are identical when compared to the D40 and the camera should select the best options for ISO and shutter speed. No way it is camera shake as the D40 has NO IS and is taking at slower speeds.

If you think the size is ridiculous, why don't you set the compression higher? I am sure you would hardly notice the difference since you're resizing.

The problem looks like the focus is off, as others have stated.

Eruditass · 12-23-2009, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by kostarae

Aperture priority mode on left.....Macro Mode with flash on right

Using a Nikon AF-S 35mm F/1.8 and Pentax 18-55mm kit lens @ 35mm

I'm confused - first the images are one above each other, is left = top?

Second, are you comparing 1) a kit zoom lens vs a nice prime? 2) non flash vs flash?

Also, to check focus, you need to print a focus chart and have it placed a 45 degree angle.

Alfisti · 12-23-2009, 04:27 PM

Seriously, you're comparing a kit zoom lens worth $50 to a prime lens.

For the love of god.

SteveM · 12-23-2009, 04:28 PM

Something is not right...you should be getting a sharper picture than all 4 of the K-x and D40 pics you have posted. Just out of curiosity, there is a lot of light in that room. Can you try taking a shot at ISO100 just for comparison purposes? Can you borrow another lens to see if that is the issue?

I shoot pics indoors at primarily ISO 200, using manual lenses wide open f1.8 (or 2.5 depending on the lens) and end up with pics that are sharp. These tend to be pics of kids that don't sit still. I mention that as I am wondering if higher ISO is helping you at all (or like shake reduction, has a limited ability to make any real difference)

kostarae · 12-23-2009, 04:30 PM

A nice prime? It was $199 -- there shouldn't be that much difference

I took two shots in macro mode and aperture priority with ONLY the K-x to show the focus on the camera like was suggested.

I'm more interested in getting the K-x on par with my expectations as opposed to only comparing to other cameras.

I want my dang camera to take decent pictures while enjoying stabilization and high ISO!!!!!

kostarae · 12-23-2009, 04:32 PM

I can take pictures with the D40 and its kit lens if you really think thats the issue? I know its not since I've used that lens for awhile before purchasing the prime. That's not the issue. The D40 will still take better pictures with its kit lens than i am getting and it never had a focus issue with over 10k actuations.

Eruditass · 12-23-2009, 04:32 PM

Any prime will have significantly better IQ unless you get a relatively expensive zoom, especially when the zoom is wide open. A $50 M50/1.7 for the K-x will knock the socks off the kit lens.

Also, focusing on a flat piece of paper perpendicular to the camera does not show focus problems.

erickallemeyn · 12-23-2009, 04:33 PM

That image test doesn't really help us,

Shoot a newspaper at a 45* angle, and set the focus point to the center point only. Then we can know if its a front-focus issue with your lens or not (which I imagine is the case...).

SteveM · 12-23-2009, 04:34 PM

Re the kit lens...you should still be able to get a sharp pic.... If you try a few things, I think you'll be very happy with that camera unless there is something seriously wrong with it (which in that case you'll be very happy with the replacement). Something is not right with the D40 shots as well....

Eruditass · 12-23-2009, 04:35 PM

Yeah, I expect much sharper pictures from the 35/1.8 on the D40.

Anyways, try the newspaper thing. None of these pictures should be that soft.

Alfisti · 12-23-2009, 05:00 PM

What do you think that 3-D look is exactly??? Do you know what the aperture does? The D-40 is likely using f/1.8 for that '3d look' because the prime has f/1.8 and has less DOF.

Kit lenses wide open at f/3.5 and even stopped down a stop are notoriously soft, you nomormally need 5.6 to f/8 but you will not get your '3-d look', this is why we buy primes.

You also get a faster shutte rspeed at f/1.8 as well.

Until you can show us two images shot in identical circumstances with similar lenses and with IDENTICAL settings (aperture/shutter speed/iso/focal length/white balance) from both cameras, we can't help you.

Originally posted by kostarae

A nice prime? It was $199 -- there shouldn't be that much difference

I took two shots in macro mode and aperture priority with ONLY the K-x to show the focus on the camera like was suggested.

I'm more interested in getting the K-x on par with my expectations as opposed to only comparing to other cameras.

I want my dang camera to take decent pictures while enjoying stabilization and high ISO!!!!!

Eruditass · 12-23-2009, 05:02 PM

He matched the aperture, except the second shot(?), which is why I expect the 35mm to be much sharper as it has been stopped down.

He posted the aperture, shutter, and ISO in the OP, but yeah, still using a $200 prime.

Alfisti · 12-23-2009, 05:15 PM

Sort of ....

- none have more than two variables the same and the Nikon is clearly exposing brighter intentionally, adding to some of the lustre (the Penrtax black's are chocked up).

- Not sure of the focal length but 1/60th hand help shooting people ........ he'd wanna be at 18mm and not 55mm.

- The Nikon has a warmer WB

- The fact remains, a prime stopped down versus a kit lens at or near wide open is just plain wrong

The real problem is that Pentax has no $200 prime, there's the reason he outta be upset.

Originally posted by Eruditass

He matched the aperture, except the second shot(?), which is why I expect the 35mm to be much sharper as it has been stopped down.

He posted the aperture, shutter, and ISO in the OP, but yeah, still using a $200 prime.

Eruditass · 12-23-2009, 05:16 PM

My point was that he posted the info there for you to see.

But yes, as I initially pointed out, it wasn't a very controlled comparison.

kostarae · 12-23-2009, 05:20 PM

Well...you must consider the D40 pictures were hand-held at 1/30 without stabilization and then compressed in order to upload to the site.

Sorry about the focus test....I should listen better.....here is new pic

Center focused on the "O" in APOCALYPTIC

Thanks all for the replies and helping hand.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3663/imgp3697h.jpg

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Disappointed with Aperture 3	harmonica2	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	15	05-26-2010 09:04 PM
Really disappointed with KEH	ChipB	General Talk	7	05-10-2010 06:44 AM
disappointed in Adorama	kiwao	General Talk	16	03-03-2010 04:59 PM
Disappointed by the K7	dcreed	Photographic Technique	45	05-26-2009 06:55 PM
disappointed	nathancombs	General Talk	16	05-24-2008 05:28 PM

12-23-2009, 04:23 PM	#16
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by kostarae Agree Eruditass. That's a good shot but not low light which is most important to me. The K-x is just not getting the pics I want in low light. This is a recurring theme in the 50 or so shots I have taken in the past day comparing the D40 and K-x. I am shooting in highest JPEG which is already pretty ridiculous with 5-6mb per picture. I have the D40 set on normal jpeg with 1-1.5mb files average and still getting better shots IMO. There has to be some secret setting or something I am missing. I understand lighting is important....but the lighting in the pics I am taking are identical when compared to the D40 and the camera should select the best options for ISO and shutter speed. No way it is camera shake as the D40 has NO IS and is taking at slower speeds. If you think the size is ridiculous, why don't you set the compression higher? I am sure you would hardly notice the difference since you're resizing. The problem looks like the focus is off, as others have stated.

12-23-2009, 04:26 PM	#17
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Originally posted by kostarae Aperture priority mode on left.....Macro Mode with flash on right Using a Nikon AF-S 35mm F/1.8 and Pentax 18-55mm kit lens @ 35mm I'm confused - first the images are one above each other, is left = top? Second, are you comparing 1) a kit zoom lens vs a nice prime? 2) non flash vs flash? Also, to check focus, you need to print a focus chart and have it placed a 45 degree angle.

12-23-2009, 04:27 PM	#18
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Seriously, you're comparing a kit zoom lens worth $50 to a prime lens. For the love of god.

12-23-2009, 04:28 PM	#19
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Something is not right...you should be getting a sharper picture than all 4 of the K-x and D40 pics you have posted. Just out of curiosity, there is a lot of light in that room. Can you try taking a shot at ISO100 just for comparison purposes? Can you borrow another lens to see if that is the issue? I shoot pics indoors at primarily ISO 200, using manual lenses wide open f1.8 (or 2.5 depending on the lens) and end up with pics that are sharp. These tend to be pics of kids that don't sit still. I mention that as I am wondering if higher ISO is helping you at all (or like shake reduction, has a limited ability to make any real difference)

12-23-2009, 04:30 PM	#20
kostarae New Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 13 Original Poster	A nice prime? It was $199 -- there shouldn't be that much difference I took two shots in macro mode and aperture priority with ONLY the K-x to show the focus on the camera like was suggested. I'm more interested in getting the K-x on par with my expectations as opposed to only comparing to other cameras. I want my dang camera to take decent pictures while enjoying stabilization and high ISO!!!!!

12-23-2009, 04:32 PM	#21
kostarae New Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 13 Original Poster	I can take pictures with the D40 and its kit lens if you really think thats the issue? I know its not since I've used that lens for awhile before purchasing the prime. That's not the issue. The D40 will still take better pictures with its kit lens than i am getting and it never had a focus issue with over 10k actuations.

12-23-2009, 04:32 PM	#22
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Any prime will have significantly better IQ unless you get a relatively expensive zoom, especially when the zoom is wide open. A $50 M50/1.7 for the K-x will knock the socks off the kit lens. Also, focusing on a flat piece of paper perpendicular to the camera does not show focus problems.

12-23-2009, 04:33 PM	#23
erickallemeyn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: United States Posts: 112	That image test doesn't really help us, Shoot a newspaper at a 45* angle, and set the focus point to the center point only. Then we can know if its a front-focus issue with your lens or not (which I imagine is the case...).

12-23-2009, 04:34 PM	#24
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Re the kit lens...you should still be able to get a sharp pic.... If you try a few things, I think you'll be very happy with that camera unless there is something seriously wrong with it (which in that case you'll be very happy with the replacement). Something is not right with the D40 shots as well....

12-23-2009, 04:35 PM	#25
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	Yeah, I expect much sharper pictures from the 35/1.8 on the D40. Anyways, try the newspaper thing. None of these pictures should be that soft.

12-23-2009, 05:00 PM	#26
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	What do you think that 3-D look is exactly??? Do you know what the aperture does? The D-40 is likely using f/1.8 for that '3d look' because the prime has f/1.8 and has less DOF. Kit lenses wide open at f/3.5 and even stopped down a stop are notoriously soft, you nomormally need 5.6 to f/8 but you will not get your '3-d look', this is why we buy primes. You also get a faster shutte rspeed at f/1.8 as well. Until you can show us two images shot in identical circumstances with similar lenses and with IDENTICAL settings (aperture/shutter speed/iso/focal length/white balance) from both cameras, we can't help you. Originally posted by kostarae A nice prime? It was $199 -- there shouldn't be that much difference I took two shots in macro mode and aperture priority with ONLY the K-x to show the focus on the camera like was suggested. I'm more interested in getting the K-x on par with my expectations as opposed to only comparing to other cameras. I want my dang camera to take decent pictures while enjoying stabilization and high ISO!!!!!

12-23-2009, 05:02 PM	#27
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	He matched the aperture, except the second shot(?), which is why I expect the 35mm to be much sharper as it has been stopped down. He posted the aperture, shutter, and ISO in the OP, but yeah, still using a $200 prime.

12-23-2009, 05:15 PM	#28
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Sort of .... - none have more than two variables the same and the Nikon is clearly exposing brighter intentionally, adding to some of the lustre (the Penrtax black's are chocked up). - Not sure of the focal length but 1/60th hand help shooting people ........ he'd wanna be at 18mm and not 55mm. - The Nikon has a warmer WB - The fact remains, a prime stopped down versus a kit lens at or near wide open is just plain wrong The real problem is that Pentax has no $200 prime, there's the reason he outta be upset. Originally posted by Eruditass He matched the aperture, except the second shot(?), which is why I expect the 35mm to be much sharper as it has been stopped down. He posted the aperture, shutter, and ISO in the OP, but yeah, still using a $200 prime.

12-23-2009, 05:16 PM	#29
Eruditass Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	My point was that he posted the info there for you to see. But yes, as I initially pointed out, it wasn't a very controlled comparison.

12-23-2009, 05:20 PM	#30
kostarae New Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 13 Original Poster	Well...you must consider the D40 pictures were hand-held at 1/30 without stabilization and then compressed in order to upload to the site. Sorry about the focus test....I should listen better.....here is new pic Center focused on the "O" in APOCALYPTIC Thanks all for the replies and helping hand. http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3663/imgp3697h.jpg

K-X : Throughly Unimpressed (Disappointed)

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!