Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-28-2019, 11:10 PM
|
|
What I like about the Pentax is that it has great color and look, just as Canon and Fuji and KodakCCDs did. It’s not identical but it is still pleasant.
I could never get Sony cameras to look as effortlessly good as the others. The A9 and Venice color profile are apparently different though.
One of the underrated features of Pentax, and I blame Ricoh, is the JPEG engine. The ability to use three different sharpening algorithms and different contrast curves but in a simplified manner is actually very impressive but the manual doesn't explain these settings well.
In contrast, the Sony A7 III has extensive documentation for the picture profiles and the various gamma settings.
That would be a good follow up article. People like to shoot RAW but if your camera did it well in JPEG, it’s a great way to do things quickly.
The other interesting feature is the multi AutoWB.
|
Forum: General Photography
05-28-2019, 07:05 PM
|
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-24-2019, 07:08 PM
|
|
Samsung burned bridges in a way that a company like Kyocera/Contax did not. So I would not call them “smart” — they did have a very good platform though.
Photography is art.
Photography is documentation.
Smartphones have taken over documentation in many cases. In low light or extreme wide or tele, real cameras are better.
Art can be anything from dance to spoken word to photographs taken with a smartphone or photographs taken with a real camera. Your canvas and creative freedom is greater with a real camera.
The real money is in oil, banking/finance, services. But just because that’s where the money is doesn’t mean that there is no need for teachers, nurses, artists...
There are companies that keep people employed and are profitable selling paints, art paper, frames, etc.
The need is for companies like Pentax to survive to provide tools for artists. As long as they are profitable they can survive. They don’t need to grow (though it would be nice). I think the concern would be if Pentax couldn’t make enough profit to stay alive.
Not everyone needs to be an artist. That’s okay. Not every camera needs to be #1 market share.
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-23-2019, 02:02 PM
|
|
No. Pure subversion and marketing of your own lenses.
1) We know that Pentax coatings make the D FA 24-70 beat the Tamron and the D FA* 50 beats the Tokina.
2) While Pentaxians like OVF, clearly there are people who love or benefit from EVF, it’s like training wheels.
3) Pentax does not develop sensors so a partnership that leads to lower cost sensors in a DSLR lineup is advantageous.
——
$900 for D-FA* 50
$1300 for L-FA* 50
$2500 for L-FA* 70-200
So for existing E or L mount they can get Pentax mount stuff as an upcharge. People see the difference on the gear they like, they start to say : man, I wish I had access to Limiteds but it looks like I need to K mount glass, etc.
2) While you may not want an OVF, some people may. If Pentax only made lenses and not a OVF body, it wouldn’t make sense for showing how someone could learn photography on EVF and get good enough to use OVF.
Pentax’s JPEG processing is actually brilliant if you don’t use the defaults (stuff like extra fine sharpness and the high and low key adjustments).
This also lets Pentax win competitions. Mindshare and press opinion. “this is a great body with awesome ergonomics, but we wish there were more lens options”
People want options whether justified or not. Journalists and especially gear review sites like options.
3) if they partner with Sony
- since we are helping you with another E mount body that we are also paying a license for, let’s talk about our sensor pricing. Otherwise we will go to Panasonic/TowerJazz and L-Mount.
Reverse negotiation with Panasonic.
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
05-23-2019, 05:16 AM
|
|
If I were in charge...
I would release a Pentax mirrorless with a Sony E-mount or L-mount and then a high performance K to E/L mount adapter. Pentax would likely pay a hefty royalty to Sony or Leica for use of the E or Lmount, but not have to develop a full set of mirrorless lenses initially. It would allow them to "dabble" in mirrorless with a smaller R&D investment while continuing to support the K mount and SLRs.
We already know what a Sony E mount camera looks like.
A Pentax E-mount mirrorless camera may not have the fanciest AF or video features, but it would be weather sealed very well, have Pentax color/image processing, Pentax astrotracer (much like A7R vs K-1). For people who don't know about Pentax and just want E mount lenses, the grip may be smaller. For people who will keep the K-mount adapter on full-time, Pentax could do a KP like modular grip. For Sony, this could be their rugged line and be another salvo against Nikon/Canon.
A Pentax L-mount camera would be interesting since Panasonic or Sigma may be supportive if Pentax switched to Panasonic sensors or Foveon sensors. The number of Panasonic L mount users buy Leica lenses has always been questionable, but given the whole ethos of the Pentax Limited line, Leica may believe that some Pentaxians with L mount cameras will buy Leica glass. The L-Mount, like the K-mount, faces competition from EF/RF/Z/F/E mounts, and having another member with a heritage/track record like Pentax would help.
The disadvantage of L-mount is that Panasonic may be able to create better ergonomics than Sony, so the delta between Pentax/Panasonic and Pentax/Sony may be smaller.
|
Forum: Sold Items
05-15-2019, 10:15 AM
|
|
70-200 received. Thanks! (Positive feedback left).
|
Forum: Sold Items
05-11-2019, 09:22 AM
|
|
|
Forum: General Photography
05-10-2019, 12:46 PM
|
|
Just as people negative and slide film, color and b&w, there will always be a role for the cell phone and dedicated ILC.
Imagine that you are in a minor car accident. Are you going to use your ILC? Probably not. Your phone will work. So for documentation, a phone is pretty reasonable.
ILCs will be like sports cars or frame on body SUVs. There will be the satisfaction of manual transmission or superior handling and drivability or extended capabilities that aren’t needed on a day to day basis like fast AF or low light performance.
As “true” photographers, when we see people shooting with a phone we shouldn’t poo-poo them. We should encourage their love of photography. Instead of spray and pray, maybe they should try to look with a photographers eye. If they like a photo, encourage them to make a physical print. If we help cell phone photographers learn to become better photographers, it helps keep photo labs (print houses) alive and they will reach the ceiling effect earlier where they NEED to make the step up to a DSLR.
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
05-06-2019, 09:57 AM
|
|
Great shots. I have followed your videos as you switched from one camera to the next. I think I subscribed to your channel about 3 years ago.
I know you did a few reviews with the K-1. What made you drop the K-1? The D FA* 50 seems like it may be a really interesting lens to pair with the low light performance of the K-1 and tonality of Pentax RAW files. Although AF is poor compared to modern cameras, I have to imagine that it is at least as good as the 645Z.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-06-2019, 08:58 AM
|
|
Well, sure. I know a little about deep sky astrophotography as my friend shoots with a Paramount ME and MX and has a RCOS Carbon Truss 12.5” Ritchey-Chrétien and a Takahashi TOA-150 and FSQ-106EDXII. I shoot with a modded Vixen SXW/NexSXD and a TEC 110FL.
One of the strengths of astrotracer is being able to shoot 150-300mm without any polar alignment or bulkiness.
When looking at dim stars, I see more on the K-1 sample shot than the K-1 Mark II sample shot, to the extent that if I had a stack a 10 or so images, I would expect those dim stars to make a difference.
(But as I have said, the K1-Mark II appears to be just slightly out of focus, which for these dim stars may distribute the luminous flux enough across several pixels.)
This is NOT Sony stareater problem (where even bright stars are lost) The Star Eater Issue: Why I No Longer Recommend Sony Cameras for Astrophotography
I am just saying that the jury is still out on K1 Mark II performance for astrophotography.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-05-2019, 06:49 PM
|
|
This is what I was pointing out earlier. In the center, the K-1c (Classic) is sharper than the K-1 II at Dpreview’s comparison shot. BUT if you look at the corners (say top right watercolor brush), the K-1 II is sharper, suggesting a shift in focus rather than actual difference. ---------- Post added 05-05-19 at 07:16 PM ----------
I haven’t gotten my K1 II yet but I wasn’t able to find a cheap K1 anyway.
1) PentaxForums’s review of the two is flawed. While the crop they show reveals similar stars, that actual full res images shows fewer stars on the K1-II under very high scrutiny. So the claim that there are equal number of stars is incorrect.
But I actually think that the K1 II is slightly misfocused so there is less ability for the faint stars to reveal themselves. But I need to test it to confirm that it is not a blur/noise reduction issue.
It is possible that this may be an area where the K1 is better since you do see pinpoint faint stars and I don’t see them on the K1 II *full res* pic from the review here.
The Japanese link I posted earlier has very convincing images in favor of the Mark II.
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-04-2019, 08:11 PM
|
|
I just went through this question myself.
If you go used, go for the cheapest model. The differences are small. I missed out on some good K-1 deals but ended up getting a K-1 Mark II.
If you look at the Pentax sample gallery at dpreview, you can see the differences in processing. Sharpness initially looks better on the original but if you look at the CORNERS (the red watercolor brush), you will see that the K-1 Mark II is sharper. This means there is a subtle difference in focus points and with the crazy pixel peeping, you can see it.
Next, if you look at PentaxForums’s review and look at the star eater page, you can download the full res photos. Here you can see that there are fewer stars in the K-1 Mark II but that this is probably a focusing error to since the stars are not as pinpoint. The background sky is also better on the K-1 Mark II.
Pentax has stated in some cases that the accelerator may be worse, but I think stacked astrophotography may be the only time that’s happening. I have not seen enough K1 Mark II astrophotography pictures to really tell what is happening (you also need advanced optics on a tracking mount to be confident that you are not just seeing thermal shift between lenses). PENTAX K-1 Mark II????????K-1??????????DPReview?????????? - ?????
Is a good comparison.
——-
Last, as you look at the noise, remember that different companies use different measurements. Pentax is pretty honest. At ISO 100 both the K1-Mark II and Panasonic S1R have a 1/40s
Go to ISO 25600 and you see under JPEG that Pentax is 1/6400 but 1/5000 for the S1 and A73. There are some weird differences that way and the RAWs are 1/5000. Makes you wonder why they don’t shoot RAW+JPEG?
At DxOMark you can see how the A73, S1 compared to the K1 for ISO and low light. But remember that in good light, you get 36MP
|