Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-18-2007, 08:07 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 330
high ISO performance is useless in most practice; it's just marketing bragging rights in 48 point type. In future there will be no such thing as ISO, gain, amplification will be rendered obsolete.

high frame per second is useless in most practice, it's just marketing bragging rights in 72 point type. Get a video camera at 28.3 fps, configurable up to 100+ fps for super action.

connectivity is the real issue and if Pentoya had any deep thinkers they would seriously be studying how cameras are used, the user interface both physical and virtual. Incremental technology feature set upgrades they have lost to their competittion before they even introduce sonmething new.

07-18-2007, 09:29 PM   #32
Veteran Member
blwnhr's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 663
QuoteOriginally posted by barondla Quote
1. Bigger buffer. Want to be able to shoot raw more than 9 shots. 3 fps is fast enough for me.

14. Panning mode for SR.
How could I forget these 2 very important points (to me and what I mostly shoot)!

5fps would be wonderful.

Couple that with panning SR and I would be the happiest motorsport man in the world!
07-18-2007, 10:40 PM   #33
Veteran Member
philmorley's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: in a house in Armidale, Australia
Posts: 472
I just want Less Noise across all iso's (its the only real disappointment I had going from ds/k100d to k10d) and more DR would be nice.
07-19-2007, 12:37 AM   #34
Veteran Member
Matjazz's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EU/Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 774
Less noise
more dynamic range
bring back the TTL sensor
some sort of disposable battery solution, preferably something like Nikon has.

They made a battery shaped cartridge that fits 3 CR2 batteries

07-19-2007, 10:43 PM   #35
m8o
Veteran Member
m8o's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: 40-55'-44" N / 73-24'-07" W [on LI]
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,102
My wishes are simple (or illustrate just how much of an amateur (sic) I am, not knowing any better). I only wish for the sensor's noise to be at (or better, below) the level and nature of Canon: very low and monochromatic in nature. Only think that bothers me are random speckles of color.
07-19-2007, 10:51 PM   #36
wll
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Mission Hills, CA
Posts: 773
What I forgot !!!!

I would LOVE Pocket Wizard built in, so I don't need to ad their transmiter to my hot shoe.

That would be a very clean unit and I don't have to worry about the tall transmiter being knocked off in the heat of shooting !!!!!



wll
07-19-2007, 11:19 PM   #37
Veteran Member
MJB DIGITAL's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: st. louis
Posts: 1,173
i once tacked on a bracket to my ist*D with a flash connected to the synch port...and another flash on the hotshoe

it was SWEEEET!!!!

i wish for a flash synch port on the next pentax
07-19-2007, 11:27 PM   #38
Veteran Member
-spam-'s Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 357
QuoteOriginally posted by m8o Quote
I only wish for the sensor's noise to be at (or better, below) the level and nature of Canon: very low and monochromatic in nature. Only think that bothers me are random speckles of color.
Not wanting to sound like a troll or anything, but unless pentax start developing their own CMOS type sensors, that is never going to happen. A CCD just cant compete with a CMOS when it comes to noise (long exposure and high iso).

Take iso 3200 on my 20D compared to that of my k100d. ISO 800 on the pentax looks as noisy as 3200 on the canon.

I know that there is pretty much no difference when you expose properly but sometimes not everyone has the luxury and has to push the exposure in photoshop even with high iso use.

07-20-2007, 01:30 AM   #39
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,309
Original Poster
Carved in Stone?

QuoteOriginally posted by -spam- Quote
Not wanting to sound like a troll or anything, but unless pentax start developing their own CMOS type sensors, that is never going to happen. A CCD just cant compete with a CMOS when it comes to noise (long exposure and high iso).

Take iso 3200 on my 20D compared to that of my k100d. ISO 800 on the pentax looks as noisy as 3200 on the canon.

I know that there is pretty much no difference when you expose properly but sometimes not everyone has the luxury and has to push the exposure in photoshop even with high iso use.
Nothing is carved in stone...
07-20-2007, 01:48 AM   #40
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
CMOS vs CCD noise at high ISO

QuoteOriginally posted by -spam- Quote
Not wanting to sound like a troll or anything, but unless pentax start developing their own CMOS type sensors, that is never going to happen. A CCD just cant compete with a CMOS when it comes to noise (long exposure and high iso).

Take iso 3200 on my 20D compared to that of my k100d. ISO 800 on the pentax looks as noisy as 3200 on the canon.

I know that there is pretty much no difference when you expose properly but sometimes not everyone has the luxury and has to push the exposure in photoshop even with high iso use.
You don't sound like a troll at all but I think it's a mistake, CMOS are inherently NOISIER than CCDs, it's the signal processing that does it all on Canon's cameras, not the chip.

Any electronicians here to start an endless technical discussion on CCD's vs CMOS?
07-20-2007, 02:06 AM   #41
Veteran Member
lol101's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Garennes sur Eure France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 900
My wishes...

I think the K10 has the best ergonomy of it's class but if I had any suggestion on how to improve it, it would go like this:

Move the rear wheel to the right side like Nikon (and *istD if I remember well): i'm left-eyed and this would avoid having my thumb in my eye when shooting

Place the ML button right next to it.

Permanent ISO display in all modes (who cares about remaining shots?) or better yet, get the user to choose what to display in VF.

Duplicate the AF button on grip.

Keep the 10MP until you know how to get a useable ISO 3200 (even drop down to 6-8MP if you must, after all, what's the point of all these MP if you can't use the pics?)


And that's about it...
07-20-2007, 02:18 AM   #42
Junior Member




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Posts: 40
What I would like implemented is a workaround for the crippled KAF2 mount - just like we tell the body the focal length of the K or M lens we're using, can't they put in a mode (an "M-Av" mode if you will) were we could tell the body what's the max aperture of the lens attached (once for lens, like the SR length input) and then use the scroll wheel to tell the camera what aperture is set on the ring, and so allow it to meter properly? This could be done in firmware, right?

I dream of this... all that wonderful K glass at wonderful prices...
07-20-2007, 02:22 AM   #43
and
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,471
Regarding CMOS vs CCD for noise:

"Fixed Pattern Noise

In a CMOS sensor, each pixel has its own amplifier. Unfortunately, there is variation between the amplifiers. As a result, the amount the voltage is amplified varies from one pixel to another. This is called fixed pattern noise.

CCD sensors have only one amplifier for the entire sensor. Thus, the voltages from all of the pixels are run through the same amplifier. Thus, fixed pattern noise is not a problem for CCD sensors."

I am not aware of any advantages, there might be some. But I do know about this one disadvantage.
07-20-2007, 03:32 AM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by and Quote
Regarding CMOS vs CCD for noise:

"Fixed Pattern Noise

In a CMOS sensor, each pixel has its own amplifier. Unfortunately, there is variation between the amplifiers. As a result, the amount the voltage is amplified varies from one pixel to another. This is called fixed pattern noise.

CCD sensors have only one amplifier for the entire sensor. Thus, the voltages from all of the pixels are run through the same amplifier. Thus, fixed pattern noise is not a problem for CCD sensors."

I am not aware of any advantages, there might be some. But I do know about this one disadvantage.
But CMOS sensor has its pixel level already available right out of the sensor. THe CCD, whilst have one amplifier *per* channel, they produce a chain of waveform which need to be cropped for the lightness level for each pixel. As such, bandings or some other artifacts can also occur as a result of this additional process. Besides, the clock (master or separate) for the CCD and for the cropping job (say, the A to D convertor) need to be very accurate, otherwise more errors would result.

I think there is actually no superior and inferior technology regarding the CMOS Vs CCD. We should see the whole sensor to image processing process and hardware plus software as a black box and only the end results count. If it performs, it performs, this is actually regardless of whether it is CMOS or CCD.
07-20-2007, 04:47 AM   #45
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 264
QuoteOriginally posted by Donald Quote
high ISO performance is useless in most practice; it's just marketing bragging rights in 48 point type. In future there will be no such thing as ISO, gain, amplification will be rendered obsolete.
I don't find high ISO performance all that useless when I'm shooting in a bar, at a concert, a gig... we can all talk about what might happen in the future. But in the present, dSLRs have ISO settings, and I for one need the higher sensitivities for many, many situations where available light is low and use of flash is impossible or undesirable. In those situations I don't want to brag, I want to get the shot and have a reasonably clean image.

Having said that, I'm not asking for 12800 ISO with perfectly noise-free shots. The K100d produces very acceptable images at 1600 ISO, and has the option of 3200 ISO in-camera. If Pentax could reproduce (or improve on) that in future I would be very happy.

QuoteOriginally posted by Donald Quote
high frame per second is useless in most practice, it's just marketing bragging rights in 72 point type. Get a video camera at 28.3 fps, configurable up to 100+ fps for super action.
I'm inclined to agree with you there... it's not useless at all for some types of photography, but then... If shooting 10fps was a priority for me, I wouldn't have bought Pentax. That's not what their systems have been about, at least as long as I can remember. That said, Minolta managed 5fps in their high-end film SLRs; something of that level from Pentax would be nice, so at least we have the option... not right now but when enough SDM lenses are available for it to make sense.
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, generation, photography, slot
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:02 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