|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
12-24-2017, 05:39 PM
|
| |
With the glacial pace of lens releases for the full frame format I hope you are not holding your breath.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-01-2017, 06:20 PM
|
| |
cough*depth of field control*cough
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
04-06-2017, 04:14 AM
|
| |
Hello All,
In the past 4 months, I have brought into the Pentax K-1, after having been firmly in the Canon camp for several years, mainly for the FF offering of the K1 and the improved low light performance / dynamic range its sensor has over any Canon solutions to date. However, with each passing week, I'm becoming more and more aware and concerned that there seems to be a dying lens ecosystem for the K mount, especially from traditional 3rd party manufacturers. ala (Tamron/Sigma) is anyone else a little concerned about the future lens offering on the K mount for the otherwise amazing K-1?
I appreciate there is a massive back catalogue of lenses that are available and this is great, but time does change and optics and manufacturing processes do improve. I'm surprised the latest offerings from Sigma / Tamron et al are not available in the K mount. With Pentax's roadmap seeming very limited for 2017, I fear maybe forced back into Cannon land in search of a compromised K-1 Substitute.
Regards
Geoff
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-21-2016, 09:12 AM
|
| |
Everywhere, I can't be bothered to go through past threads and find specific posts. They were about the K3/K3 II though.
 Quote: What actually happens is that people like me upload sharply-auto-focused photos of planes in flight, racing bikes, racing cars, etc. We support what we say with actual photos taken with the K-1, not just words. Everyone can pick one of two sharp images out of a sequence of mostly out-of-focus shots. Never have I ever seen a full sequence of images of a subject coming towards the camera or moving away from it at moderate to high speed. Everyone posts either a) a couple of sharp shots picked from a sequence, or b) a sequence of a subject that moves mostly laterally rather than on the z-axis.
Because if someone actually posted an honest, full (i.e. every image of the sequence), high speed drive (i.e. set to the highest fps) AF.C sequence of e.g. a jogger coming towards the camera, at least half of the frames would be out of focus. That's a behaviour that has been described in detail and replicated by scores of users and reviewers, and I won't accept assertions to the opposite unless I see a full sequence as described above.
But I am honestly, seriously interested in what I could do better. I have read guides on the Pentax AF.C, experimented with all the options (hold status, single point vs. expanded area etc.) and tried my K3 with various lenses (Pentax screw-drive or Sigma HSM) at different kind of sports (football, rugby, basketball, mountain biking ...), and after all that (and the reports of other users) I am confident that the camera simply cannot do better. So if you can provide me with a sequence of images as described above, and add all the settings so I can replicate it, please go ahead. K3, K3 II, K1, as you please.
I agree, no one buys a Pentax for sports and you certainly get more keepers if you have the skills than if you don't. But there are many people here who claim that Pentax cameras can reliably track subjects, and that's simply not true.
Quote: One thing we object to are claims that hint that the K-1 can't be used for this sort of photography! You can use a K1000 with an SMC-M 50 f/1.7 for that sorts of photography, but do you really want to?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-15-2016, 09:19 PM
|
| |
Love the colors on these. I hadn't really considered how the sensor might respond to H-alpha and other sky emissions, looks like decent detail. If you have a telephoto it would be good to see Sagittarius (Messiers 8 and 20) up close for more spectral hints.. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-15-2016, 09:54 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-16-2016, 01:15 AM
|
| |
Really nice shots - especially as it's your first time ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-16-2016, 03:25 AM
|
| |
Nice foreground in the first shot!
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-16-2016, 01:31 AM
|
| |
wow, really nice! I've got to have a go with astrotracer one of these days.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
08-16-2016, 02:06 AM
|
| |
These are really good! I'm heading to South Wales at the end of the month and will hopefully dark (and clear!) skies that will allow me to give Astrotracer a try.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-26-2016, 01:43 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-20-2016, 04:38 AM
|
| |
Using the same settings and profiles in Lightroom does not mean that two RAW files from different cameras will get the same treatment.
A brightness setting of "0" for one camera may correspond to a brightness setting of "+6" for another camera. An Adobe "0" does not mean "neutral". It just means the "default" for that particular camera (and profile).
Don't be fooled by a linear curve either. When LR (Adobe) shows you a linear curve that just means "you haven't done any adjustments yourself yet. Under the hood, the camera profile already contains a pretty strong "S"-curve. If it did not, all RAW files would look very flat.
So even if you choose "Adobe Standard" and all controls look identical, you'll get different processing. It is not secret that Adobe puts more effort into some brands over others in terms of making results look "good" out of the box.
To get a real comparison, either use a converter that does not apply different defaults under the hood (such as dcraw, or perhaps RawTherapee), or just tweak the files so that they look similar and then check which one suffered more (e.g., has more noise).
Also note what others have pointed out already: A manufacturer's ISO rating means almost nothing. Manufacturers consistently overrate the ISO value, e.g., state "ISO 1600" whereas it really is just "ISO 1150". Fuji is a particularly well-known offender. Sometimes this is rather obvious in camera comparisons when the same scene is shot with various cameras, all using the same ISO setting and f-stop, but some have to use slower shutter speeds to get a similar exposure. Oops.
I would have pointed you to a comparison page showing the real vs measured ISO values of the Canon 5D Mk II and the Nikon D800 (the K-1 has a very similar sensor; it does not have the same sensor as the D810, no matter what TN or others think), but DxOMark.com isn't working at the moment. The main effect you are seeing, however, most likely comes from different "under the hood" tone curves.
If you want to investigate this, you could use Adobe's DNG profile editor and make a clones of the "Adobe Standard" profiles with entirely linear tone curves. That would level the playing field to some extent, but I'm sure there are more "under the hood" differences when it comes to ACR and different camera brands.
See above and I hope you are not making the mistake of comparing 100% views. A lower MP sensor will always look better in such comparisons as the higher MP sensor provides more magnification, with the latter making lens imperfections more obvious and increasing noise as well. If you want to compare noise levels, either look at both images at the same size, or -- if you want to pixel peep -- rescale one so that it has the same number of pixels as the other one.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-19-2016, 07:47 AM
|
| |
Another person in DC! :lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-19-2016, 05:19 AM
|
| |
Yeah, I would expect the same brightness. That's why they have standards like ISO and F number. If you were using a light meter that gave you those settings. You would expect both images to come out exactly the same exposure. As for saturation, that seems to be company dependent. I always thought Nikon images were a little over saturated. I guess the same goes for Canon. However, how can you be sure your post processing is exactly the same. I don't think you can use lightroom or you have to control its raw processor, which as I understand it adjusts for each camera, DNG or not. Maybe you could try processing with another software like Gimp or Silkypix, etc. Also, if the K-1 has higher dynamic range, I'm sure this will affect how its converted for viewing - i.e. you also need to control the output converter - perceptual or relative colorimetric.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-19-2016, 05:10 AM
|
| |
Most raw developing software apply a camera specific base curve "before" you do any pp yourself. Comparing raw files with the same settings is meningless because the files are different.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-18-2016, 11:19 PM
|
| |
In general I have found and seen that both Nikon and Pentax RAW images coming from the Sony sensor are always about 2/3 EV darker than Canon RAW images. I believe this helps to prevent blown out highlights as the Sony sensor has a distinct advantage in dynamic range over Canonʻs sensors. With correct adjustment of even your underexposed image samples, it should not look like the results you posted.
The assumption with anyone shooting RAW is that the photographer knows how to PP better than the cameraʻs jpeg processor.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-18-2016, 10:31 PM
|
| |
Both images are underexposed a bit. And the difference between Canon and Pentax is a classic. Pentax is has always been more conservation to protect the highlights in terms of exposure. If you'd compensate for exposure on both cameras, Canon 5DII +0.3ev and Pentax K1 +0.7ev. That means noise will be even lower on the K1. As for the colors, there is not reason why they can't be the same because color test charts show very accurate color test points in both Canon 5DII and Pentax, so, it's only a matter of adjusting color saturation and hue during the raw conversion to match your taste. I agree, Canon have brighter images by default but more sensitive to blowing high lights in high DR scenes.
---------- Post added 19-07-16 at 07:34 ----------
I'm really surprised here. The 5DII AF in dim lighting is pretty bad, so fast yes but also out of focus... The K5II/K5IIs were already better than the 5DII at focusing in low lighting. The 5DII is known to have poor AF in low light situations, and that was a reason for a number of Canon shooter to upgrade to a 5DIII.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-18-2016, 09:13 PM
|
| |
i always thought ISO settings and aperture may vary from brand to brand, possibly among camera models even. Therefore, you cannot set the cameras the same and expect them to expose exactly the same.
I believe Pentax keeps colors fairly tame in the RAW so they can be punched up to taste in post. That Canon result looks oversaturated to me, but YMMV.
Welcome and good luck!
|
