[KDAFA]

I have looked at hundreds of photos made with the Canon 5D Mark III, including many, many wedding photos and I'll tell you, the 5D Mark III with a quality prime makes absolutely stunning results...

...right now I'm not seeing anything that makes me want to jump out and get a K1.

...I think part of the problem, is that people are using these FA and DA Limited lenses, which weren't exactly built to be the baddest lenses out there. I believe Pentax made their lenses to give you really good value for your dollar as opposed to giving you insanely good performance at any price. Pentax makes some good, special glass, but it's not on par with Canon's 'L' lenses, or is it?

...I'll be honest, if I had money today for a full frame DSLR, I'm making a beeline for the Canon...

In reading your post overall, it appears that you like the output from Canon glass. That's fine. It's a matter of personal taste.

But it you really want to understand why Pentax afficianados treasure Pentax glass, you'll probably need to step out of your "comfort zone". As long as one is "locked on" or "tuned in" to the Canon look, it will be quite difficult to begin to understand and appreciate Pentax style of rendering. Indeed, there's much, much more to a lens than mere sharpness, although Pentax glass is certainly sharp alright. But here we're speaking of lens character, of rendering. The FA and DA Limiteds render quite differently than Canon glass. Same goes for older Pentax manual lenses, which are also treasured for their rendering character, even till this day.

Personally, I strongly dislike the Canon look. The 'L' lenses do absolutely nothing for me. Give me a Pentax DA* lens any day, or DA/FA Limited glass, with their signature rendering, or some of the older manual lenses.

You wrote:
"... the 5D Mark III with a quality prime makes absolutely stunning results..."

-> The same is true for Pentax. Leica too. Nikon too.

You wrote:
" ... I have looked at hundreds of photos made with the Canon 5D Mark III..."

-> I too have looked at many, many pictures from Canon. None of them render like I want them to.

You wrote:
"Pentax makes some good, special glass, but it's not on par with Canon's 'L' lenses, or is it?"

-> This actually has to do with our mental perception. The same question can be rephrased, with equal validity, as follows:

"Are Canon 'L' lenses on par with DA/FA Limiteds?"

And if you ask me, the answer is a straight, plain, "No". They don't give me the desired rendering at all, which I get with Pentax glass.

........................
Ultimately, all consumers are free to choose their own brand. There is no compulsion.

But if you do start to appreciate Pentax lens rendering, and you also factor in the extremely high value-for-money that the K-1 offers compared to the others, plus note the excellent sensor performance, well, you may then want to choose carefully.....

---------- Post added 05-13-16 at 04:04 PM ----------

Please, people, do not feed the trolls.

True.

But some points were raised in the original post, which I felt ought to be addressed.

---

Last edited by KDAFA; 05-13-2016 at 06:41 AM.

[p38arover]

I'm not trolling* but I don't understand the reference to rendering differently. Always willing to learn.

* I've been a Pentax shooter since 1968.

[KDAFA]

I'm not trolling* but I don't understand the reference to rendering differently. Always willing to learn.

* I've been a Pentax shooter since 1968.

Yeah, I'm sure different folks understand or perceive it somewhat differently.

When i speak of lens rendering character, what I mean is something that's not always straightforward to define, or even put into words, and indeed often impossible to express mathematically or via a test. But it's there, and one begins to discern it after looking at many pictures.

For this reason, there's little meaning with blindfolded "A versus B" tests when it comes to lens rendering. Indeed, lens A under certain conditions may look like lens B. And one can't just take a random shot, and ask, which lens took this? I'm talking about trends, here. After you shoot like 100 and above shots with lens A, you start to see it. More so by 1000 shots. And sometimes there's a "house-look", eg. the Pentax look or the Leica look. And within that, there could be a sub-family look, eg FA Limited look, as opposed to DA Limited look, etc.

That said, some folks honestly don't see anything - and you know, that's perfectly fine!

And some folks do see it - and that's fine too! Cheers.

Edit:
1. Needless to say, post-processing can alter things, even removing a look altogether. I was talking more about lightly processed conditions.

2. I have scientific training, and I'm not at all belittling tests and measurements. What I'm saying is, rendering often has to do with stuff that isn't (yet) well defined, mathematically. Things like the nature/texture of a lens' bokeh, or how the lens imparts a 3D effect to the image captured, or characterising the micro-contrast nature of a lens, say.

[p38arover]

Thanks very much for the detailed reply. I'll do a bit of hunting down of images to see what I can see. Perhaps it's a little like the difference between CMOS and CCD sensor colours.

[KDAFA]

Thanks very much for the detailed reply. I'll do a bit of hunting down of images to see what I can see. Perhaps it's a little like the difference between CMOS and CCD sensor colours.

You're welcome.

That's a useful comparison you gave, although it's not to do with lenses per se.

Indeed, CCD and CMOS give subtly different looking results.

(Technically, CMOS is more linear at the extremities of the dynamic range, if I recall correctly.)

And so it is, with lenses too, there can be subtle differences in the look, and the reason is not always easy to explain.

One important thing to remember in this regard is that just because we don't know how to define an observed phenomenon, nor how to measure it, that doesn't make the observation invalid.

[Rondec]

Well, I'm sorry if the question was asked honestly. It is just that most of the folks using K-1s are hobby photographers and their images are bound to look like snap shots. That doesn't particularly say anything about the camera or the lenses, it just says that we have a lot to learn.

I think the biggest difference is what was brought up early, which is to say that at base iso, the K-1 (and other cameras with a Sony sensor) will have significantly more dynamic range than the equivalent Canon cameras. For many images it won't be a big deal, but if you shoot landscape much, it can be something that makes a difference in what you can get out of a single image, versus needing to shoot and combine multiple exposures. Pixel shift does add quite a bit of detail as well and is interesting to play with.

As to glass, I really like the way Pentax glass renders, but most of it has more interesting feel to it than the clinical, sharp from edge to edge modern glass that predominates in the top end glass from other makers.

[howieb101]

I think there are a few things to think about.

In daylight conditions there will be little difference.

At high iso the Pentax will be better as Canon sensor is poor compared to Sony sensor. Canon has been behind for at least five years. Check dxo and most forums/ blogs.

It also depends on what you shoot.

Macro, Pentax will be better as lenses is equal if not better than Canon and you can use pixel shift as well as having better sensor

Landscape, again although new Pentax wide angle is a Tamron rebrand all reviews indicate it us a stellar lense. You will benefit from better Sony sensor and pixel shift when it is possible.

You are not going to see many portrait examples on an internet forum for obvious reasons. However, I have looked at portrait photos taken with the Pentax FA 77mm vs the Sigma 85mm and the Sigma is clinical and sharp but the Pentax photos look nicer. This comparison is only on crop sensor tho

[aleonx3]

I'm not trolling* but I don't understand the reference to rendering differently. Always willing to learn.

* I've been a Pentax shooter since 1968.

I think (to me anyway) "Image rendering" is something in the lens design (or lens property) that makes the subject more 3D like (as oppose to flat) and natural proportion. I like the FA limited (31, 43 and 77) lenses because of how the image is rendered.

[howieb101]

I agreement with you.

For some reason, the FA 77mm F1.8 photo's look nicer than Sigma 85mm F1.4. The Pentax is at a disdavantage for portait shots because of shorter focal length and slower max. aperture but the photo's somehow look nicer.

Howie Be

[KDAFA]

Well, I'm sorry if the question was asked honestly...

I think the biggest difference is ... the K-1 (and other cameras with a Sony sensor) will have significantly more dynamic range than the equivalent Canon cameras. For many images it won't be a big deal, but if you shoot landscape much, it can be something that makes a difference in what you can get out of a single image, versus needing to shoot and combine multiple exposures. Pixel shift does add quite a bit of detail as well and is interesting to play with.

As to glass, I really like the way Pentax glass renders, but most of it has more interesting feel to it than the clinical, sharp from edge to edge modern glass that predominates in the top end glass from other makers.

Whether the original post was trolling or sincere, to me, some misconceptions were raised, and I thought ought to be addressed.

For example, 'L' lenses are automatically presumed to be superior to just about anything else. But so much of that depends on what one is looking for. Those who celebrate FA Limited rendering, and Pentax image character in general, may well find that 'L' rendering is not what is desired.

As regards the value of sensor dynamic range in landscape shooting, coming from a landscape shooter as yourself, Rondec, I'll just take your word for it!

Regarding clinical, sharp end-to-end glass, it does seem to be in fashion at this time. Like you, I personally prefer something with character, and stopped down to attain uniform sharpness. The results certainly do not lack sharpness, and yet, they are rendered with a lovely touch - there's a warmth, a "life" to the resulting image.

[IOO]

I agreement with you.

For some reason, the FA 77mm F1.8 photo's look nicer than Sigma 85mm F1.4. The Pentax is at a disdavantage for portait shots because of shorter focal length and slower max. aperture but the photo's somehow look nicer.

Howie Be

Hi!


Here is a link that explain the reason why some lenses have the 3D-feeling.
The Problem with Modern Optics ? YANNICK KHONG

[KDAFA]

I think (to me anyway) "Image rendering" is something in the lens design (or lens property) that makes the subject more 3D like (as oppose to flat) and natural proportion. I like the FA limited (31, 43 and 77) lenses because of how the image is rendered.

In the case of the FA Limiteds, it is a true fact that Jun Hirakawa intentionally designed the lenses to have a desired character.

This point is not understood nor appreciated by everyone. But the plain fact is, Hirakawa was prepared to make a lens which would "measure" less impressively in tests, because his intent was to capture real-world images, imbued with a special, magical character - images that make you take another look.

---------- Post added 05-13-16 at 10:17 PM ----------

For some reason, the FA 77mm F1.8 photo's look nicer than Sigma 85mm F1.4. ... the photo's somehow look nicer.

I'm not going to comment on which is "better".

But what I wanted to point out is the way you worded it: "for some reason" .... "somehow"....

This is exactly what I meant by a lens' rendering character. You can see it in pictures. Not every shot, but the trend is there. It's not easy to describe the effect. And sometimes it's even harder to explain it. But it's real. And it can make all the difference.

You see Hirakawa's reasoning with the FA77? Same goes with the FA43 & FA31. Thus we have Tele, Normal and Wide. Three focal lengths with that signature rendering. This was Hirakawa's vision.

And now imagine all this, captured with the K-1's superb Full-frame sensor.

[howieb101]

I've been over these forums last couple days looking at the different photos people are making with the new full frame K1. I'm not impressed. Maybe it's because all the lenses for Pentax are relatively cheap? (compared with typical Canon 'L' lens). I've looked at the Official pictures that Pentax released for the K1 and I've looked at some of the photos that newly minted owners have put on this website and none of these pictures blow me away.

I have looked at hundreds of photos made with the Canon 5D Mark III, including many, many wedding photos and I'll tell you, the 5D Mark III with a quality prime makes absolutely stunning results. Can someone do a head to head test of the K1 versus the 5D Mark III?? Same subject, same focal length, etc. etc. I want to see a direct comparison because right now I'm not seeing anything that makes me want to jump out and get a K1. All the pictures look like an APS-C on steroids. They have more detail, and maybe some better dynamic range, that's about it.

I think part of the problem, is that people are using these FA and DA Limited lenses, which weren't exactly built to be the baddest lenses out there. I believe Pentax made their lenses to give you really good value for your dollar as opposed to giving you insanely good performance at any price. Pentax makes some good, special glass, but it's not on par with Canon's 'L' lenses, or is it?

There's gotta be somebody out there with both of these cameras in their hand. There's a gazillion Canon 5D Mark III's out in the wild, you sneeze and you're bound to get a 5D Mark III wet. I'll be honest, if I had money today for a full frame DSLR, I'm making a beeline for the Canon and the first lens I get will either be the 50mm F1.2 or the 24-70mm F2.8.

You also have to remember that the camera has only been out 1 week.

There are only going to be a limited amount of photo's created in one week.

Just saying.]

[richmondthefish]

I've been over these forums last couple days looking at the different photos people are making with the new full frame K1. I'm not impressed. Maybe it's because all the lenses for Pentax are relatively cheap? (compared with typical Canon 'L' lens). I've looked at the Official pictures that Pentax released for the K1 and I've looked at some of the photos that newly minted owners have put on this website and none of these pictures blow me away.

Show me full size 5D Mark III pics that have better IQ.



https://www.flickr.com/photos/56053365@N07/26348460563/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/103760324@N05/26527414460/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/103760324@N05/26803015686/in/dateposted/