Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-18-2010, 04:48 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,922
QuoteOriginally posted by kyteflyer Quote
The angle of the shots may have had an effect. I guess the only way you'd really know how the two compare is by taking the same shot with the same lens. I note that those taken with the K-x have vast areas of grey (water) and that is going to damp the scene down a lot. The K200D shots are more direct of the boats and so there is more colour in the pic. I have the same two cams and so now, of course, I feel a need to carry out the same test (but I'll just be using kit lenses)... you've got me all curious now.
I agree on the angle angle.

The lack of contrast (oomph) appears because you're capturing horizon light from very long wavelengths and not short reflections.

I found the K-x default WB to be bluer than the K200D, so less warm to start. Easily corrected in PP on import preset.

Good shots on a dull day. Trying to catch what warmth there is within a cool scenery is difficult, so you went for the right test subjects, for sure.

01-18-2010, 05:00 PM   #17
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
... K200D is actually very very good already, but a lot of the difference between a good shot and bad shot is technique (including PP technique). No doubt the K-x is somewhat better, but we're talking pixel peeping differences, not night and day differences. You still need good technique to get good results.
Marc, no doubt as a K200D user you'll sing praises about it but I would suggest you actually go out and shoot with the K-x before you come up with such faint praise.
It is A LOT better in many areas (AF speed, WB, fps, high ISO, etc.) and the difference goes beyond pixel peeping and in some areas the difference is clearly night and day (LV, video).
01-18-2010, 08:25 PM   #18
Veteran Member
rustynail925's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Philippines
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,552
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
You might try posting some pictures you are not happy with. K200D is actually very very good already, but a lot of the difference between a good shot and bad shot is technique (including PP technique). No doubt the K-x is somewhat better, but we're talking pixel peeping differences, not night and day differences. You still need good technique to get good results.
I always shoot Jpegs, the pics looks dirty at 1600 and if i do a NR correction it becomes soft to look at
01-19-2010, 09:47 AM   #19
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Velence, Hungary
Posts: 664
Original Poster
I became so curious that I went out and did some pictures again now being more fair and used the same lens (DA16-45). Well I have to say the K-x is capable although needs more processing than I used to do with my k200d. I think I start to trust the K-x in daylight too.

My findings (which are totally unscientific and based on personal experience) are the following:

-k200d's pictures are more or less underexposed-no problem for me I liked it so far

-AWB is colder on the K-x. (no problem I shoot RAW)

-K-x is sharp although only if you add +3 or +4 in PP to get the sharpness my k200d gives at +1

-K-x has wonderful Dynamic Range very useful on grey days like this.

Samples: (first the K200)



k200d


K-x


k200d


K-x



Andras

01-19-2010, 12:14 PM   #20
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Marc, no doubt as a K200D user you'll sing praises about it but I would suggest you actually go out and shoot with the K-x before you come up with such faint praise.
My praise was not meant to be faint. Saying one camera is almost a full stop better at high ISO - that's quite lot relatively speaking, considering we're talking about cameras of the same sensor size. A truly remarkable achievement. But realistically, not in itself the difference between "I hate this ISO 3200 shot" and "I lvoe this ISO 3200 shot". It's more a question of, "this 3200 shot looks OK at screen size, not very good at all viewed at 1:1" versus, "this shot looks a little more than OK at screen size, and slightly less bad than the K200D at 1:1".

And while I haven't shot with the K-x, I do have images taken right next to me by a K-x user of the same scenes in the same light that I was shooting, and I have performed the comparison myself. And of course I have checked out any number of full sized samples online . No doubt the K-x performs better in low light, but I stand by what I said - the difference is *not* night and day. It's somewhat less than a full stop. Actually, to my eyes, more like around half a stop, but I recognize that different people perceive noise differently - I'm more sensitive to differences in the well-exposed areas of a scene, others are more sensitive to the differences in the deep shadows, where the K-x wins by a larger margin.

QuoteQuote:
in some areas the difference is clearly night and day (LV, video).
He was specifically talking about high ISO and nothing else as the source of his dssatisfaction, so my reply was also specifically about high ISO and nothing else. Almost a full stop difference is nothing to sneeze at, but still, it's not necessary going to make as much difference compared to say, some simple improvements in technique and/or better lenses. And even then, ISO 3200 and above at 100% is not going to as improvement as base ISO, so we *could* simply be dealing with a case of unreasonable expectations that the K-x would also fall way short of. So that's why I asked for sample images - to get a better of what specifically problems he is seeing and to see what kind of difference he could reasonably expect the camera to make.
01-19-2010, 12:19 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by rustynail925 Quote
I always shoot Jpegs, the pics looks dirty at 1600 and if i do a NR correction it becomes soft to look at
Like I said, post a sample (with EXIF) so we can see to what extent a change in camera would be the most sensible "fix" for. My guess is you just have unreasonable expectations, combined with poor choices of in-camera JPEG settings and/or less than ideal PP technique.

As a point of comparison, here is a typical ISO 1600 picture from my K200D:



The question is, are you expecting better results than this - and how *much* better - or are you simply failing to take full advantage of the camera you already have? Or is your dissatisfaction only when viewing at 100%, which is relevant in the real world only for pictures you plan to make large posters of?
01-19-2010, 01:29 PM   #22
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Velence, Hungary
Posts: 664
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
My praise was not meant to be faint. Saying one camera is almost a full stop better at high ISO - that's quite lot relatively speaking, considering we're talking about cameras of the same sensor size. A truly remarkable achievement. But realistically, not in itself the difference between "I hate this ISO 3200 shot" and "I lvoe this ISO 3200 shot". It's more a question of, "this 3200 shot looks OK at screen size, not very good at all viewed at 1:1" versus, "this shot looks a little more than OK at screen size, and slightly less bad than the K200D at 1:1".

And while I haven't shot with the K-x, I do have images taken right next to me by a K-x user of the same scenes in the same light that I was shooting, and I have performed the comparison myself. And of course I have checked out any number of full sized samples online . No doubt the K-x performs better in low light, but I stand by what I said - the difference is *not* night and day. It's somewhat less than a full stop. Actually, to my eyes, more like around half a stop, but I recognize that different people perceive noise differently - I'm more sensitive to differences in the well-exposed areas of a scene, others are more sensitive to the differences in the deep shadows, where the K-x wins by a larger margin.



He was specifically talking about high ISO and nothing else as the source of his dssatisfaction, so my reply was also specifically about high ISO and nothing else. Almost a full stop difference is nothing to sneeze at, but still, it's not necessary going to make as much difference compared to say, some simple improvements in technique and/or better lenses. And even then, ISO 3200 and above at 100% is not going to as improvement as base ISO, so we *could* simply be dealing with a case of unreasonable expectations that the K-x would also fall way short of. So that's why I asked for sample images - to get a better of what specifically problems he is seeing and to see what kind of difference he could reasonably expect the camera to make.
Every camera or equipement is only as good as it's user is capable of using it. No doubt about that.

Andras
01-20-2010, 07:25 AM   #23
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
When I first got my K10d a few years ago, I was amazed at the quality of ISO 1600 images. I remember photographing a dance camp indoors with no flash, and getting rave reviews on the shots. Marc is right that if you aren't cropping those shots or blowing them up to poster size, that sensor's shots are quite nice, especially with good NR applied to raw files. However, the K-x does get you to about the same place at 3200, and, with some judicious use of Noise Ninja I can stretch acceptable uncropped quality to 6400. You can't do that on the 10mp Pentaxes.

I like the cooler AWB as well. The K-x is the first Pentax that renders properly to my eyes in Tungsten light. I notice that there is very little difference in ACR from its "as shot" setting to "auto" for indoor shots in Tungsten light.

01-20-2010, 12:22 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
On the other hand, it's also possible to get miserable results at ISO 6400 on the K-x if the lighting isn't conducive, and possible to get pretty amazing results even without dedicated NR programs (but just using standard NR tools in one's RAW processing programs) shooting at the push processed equivalent of ISO 6400 on the K200D (shoot two stops underexposed, brighten in PP). The K10D suffers more here because of its banding issue, apparently due to the fact it uses a different the ADC than the other models.

To put it in perspective: my best ISO 6400 equivalent images on the K200D are far, *FAR* better than the worst ISO 6400 images from the K-x I've seen. The sort of thing easily visible in even web resolution - my best K200D images absolutely *smoke* the worst K-x images at ISO 6400. The converse is, unfortunately for me, equally true. What this tells me is that "technique"- and here I'm actually including things that are at least partially out of one's control, like lighting - have a much bigger influence on the results than one might think. Which is, again, why I'm suggesting that samples be posted - so we can assess the sort of things that could be done to improve the results without buying new camer, and to set some reaosnable expectations as to how much of a difference the camera alone would make.
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, da16-45, dslr, fa50, k-x, k200d, kit, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5, ISO200 vs ISO3200, Sampled from RAW PP/NR: OFF JohnBee Pentax K-5 30 10-29-2010 04:38 AM
K-x AF vs K200D AF alexulo Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 05-15-2010 11:39 AM
New to K200D mkcmcuh Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 04-28-2009 04:29 AM
Fuji Superia ISO200 Gooshin Pentax Film SLR Discussion 17 01-25-2009 01:14 PM
EV range, and ISO200-3200 v.s. 100-1600 kmccanta Pentax DSLR Discussion 6 03-07-2007 05:17 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:50 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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