|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-30-2010, 04:05 AM
|
| |
Not sure DPR changed or not the first version they posted, some were heavily backfocused; now they are almost good, but there's the mistery of crisper shots at high iso than at low iso. IR fixed the photos, that were taken at f/5.6 intead of f/8.0 and also backfocused (I have an example of the first batch and compared it to the second).
I am not going anymore to judge a camera based on DPR and IR samples. At the same level/age of camera, a print would be indistinguishable; that pixel-peeping exercise is just time consuming and absolutely unuseful.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-29-2010, 02:01 PM
|
| |
Now, that's indeed an interesting coincidence! :hmm:
Focus "problems" in the DPR series, and forgot 5.6 (instead of 8) aperture on IR (I have a DNG from the first publication, and a comparison between the two shots shows ALSO a slight back-focusing problem).
My first thought has been: the usual "not perfectly focusing" Pentax... But apparently they don't rely on autofocus and double check to find the best series... :hmm: again.
As a side note: both sites have changed the pictures originally posted. Bud DIDN'T clearly state that. [edit] Ok, they are private sites, but being (and knowing to be) the most regarded ones, a news title apologizing for the inconvenience would have been fair. [/edit]
Be aware: I'm the last one on earth to think of conspiracy. Nonetheless the coincidence is... alarming; at least on the ability and credibility of those reviewers...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-26-2010, 04:56 AM
|
| |
And, just to add something interesting to the discussion:
I don't think a cmos sensor without AA would give good results. Cmos sensors gained market share cause of the lower cost, but CCD is superior, and perhaps Foveon is even better.
Cmos has to be heavily treated to give a clean image, and is superior only in the high iso stuff. Lack of AA filter would only amplify it's inherent problems. Develop a K-5 RAW with a "rough" software, and you'll see hot pixels here and there, as you see more clearly in the D7000 version.
No way. A treated image will be a tad softer. Perhaps the K-5 compromise is the best one, judging by moire and hot pixels seen in the Nikon.
So, what are we discussing here? K-5 sports the best sensor around. Are there any better sensors around? Yes. Leica's Kodak, and again, perhaps, Sigma's foveon.
Then, ask Pentax to put something different (better) in the camera, and then ask ogl and everyone else to accept bad results over 800/1600 iso...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-26-2010, 04:42 AM
|
| |
I wouldn't exclude anyone, but the pain of ogl is incurable. Of course, a premium camera at a relatively low price must bear some compromise. The supposed lack of microcontrast is not going to be noticed in any way if you print. So, I suggest ogl to buy a Leica. It's a premium camera at a premium price, and doesn't sport any AA filter. You are not going to see micro-contrast differences in prints, but ogl's passion for pixel-peeping would be definitely satisfied.
This discussion is not constructive, he will not be satisfied by new images.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-26-2010, 04:03 AM
|
| |
Why don't you give up living such a dissatisfying photographic life, sell your Pentax equipment and buy a Leica? This forum would be relieved and you'd find what you look for. Pixel peeping Leica files gives enormous satisfaction.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-24-2010, 11:14 AM
|
| |
clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap
+1
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-22-2010, 09:56 AM
|
| |
Do you confirm in this way it stays active as long as the exposure?
Tried one and had the impression it stays active for a very short time. But perhaps I moved the camera.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-15-2010, 02:32 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax K-r
10-18-2010, 03:42 AM
|
| |
How could you? Please, please, stop this false shutter blur affaire. You can't claim to see it if you have not made tests in a very controlled environment. This thing has gone way, way over Falk's intentions.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-r
10-13-2010, 01:53 PM
|
| |
And iso 2000 shot, at 1/100, is not blurred...
;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-r
10-13-2010, 11:18 AM
|
| |
Not really meaningless: they can give an idea of the noise level in a small print.
Of course, if for "actual noise" you mean the 100% screen-view noise, I agree they are not useful. But some people are not interested in staring at huge posters from a distance of 40cm! ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-23-2010, 01:37 AM
|
| |
Of course! :)
Any 100/200 sample from the K-5 around?
Mass madness involves makers too, cause the 100iso images from the K-7 are wonderful. So, the main update in this new model is the sensor, and in particular its high iso capabilities. Well it seems they have delivered.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-23-2010, 12:18 AM
|
| |
Agree: the small samples I posted show something. RPP is a "raw" RAW converter, it doesn't apply any kind of noise reduction and makes a clean VCDMF conversion. 1600 and 3200 samples from the K-7 have a somewhat "softer" noise, where the 6400 image from the K-5 has a crisper one; this could mean there hasn't been low level NR in the new camera. Also, the difference between 1600 and 3200 iso in the K-7 (and K20) is huge, opposing a nicely usable 1600iso to an awful 3200. Clean that K-5 6400 iso with a good NR SW, and it will be similar to the 1600iso result from K20/K-7. I am looking at noise "dimensions"; considering the increased pixel count, I think the advantage of the new sensor can reach 2 stops, being 1.5 my wild guess (and it's A LOT).
K20 and K-7 topped more or less at 1600/2000, while the new camera seems to work nicely till 6400, which is far from being unsatisfying... ;)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-22-2010, 10:48 AM
|
| |
Thanks. But it's too early to say anything conclusive. Yes, noise structure in the RAW file can't be changed with FW, but we have only one shot, that can be considered an hint more than a real sample.
Personally, I'd change the news saying there's a strong and visible difference, without giving any number... Anyway, we won't forget this is rumors area :)
One and a half stop gain with increased pixel count would indeed be great news, but won't let people think the K-7 isn't good. Cause it's good, better than it's said to be.
Cheers
Alessandro
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-22-2010, 10:16 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-22-2010, 10:09 AM
|
| |
:D
Well, yes, I agree. Pixel peeping is a different story than printing and enjoying prints.
What's different now is that you can print a 6400 picture also cropped quite a bit...
And yes, printed resolution is strictly connected with the distance of the observer. People adhered (stuck) to big prints is just a nice photographic subject. :lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-22-2010, 09:12 AM
|
| |
Actually, yes. This is the 6400 image with two small crops of the K-7 at 1600 and 3200.
All RPP processed. The "grain" of ther K-5 at 6400 seems to be somewhere between the two. Which would be a very good result, IMHO.
 |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-22-2010, 07:23 AM
|
| |
I just tried to develop the dng (6400iso) file with RPP (Raw Photo Processor).
The "grain" is finer than LR example, and the detail in the halftone screen in the sheet even bigger.
Impressive. Really similar to a 1600iso with the K-7.
(RPP used without any noise removal nor sharpening gives usually a finer noise with any kind of camera, more similar to C1 than LR or Photoshop).
original crop
RPP
 |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-17-2010, 06:56 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-17-2010, 06:54 AM
|
| |
Radical indeed! :lol:
But that was Olympus, and even in that way it didn't work. Remember they introduced live-view in the DSLR market, among other innovations now used everywhere?
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-17-2010, 06:31 AM
|
| |
Of course it's not going to be an instantaneous event!
But once you can give the same quality and higher performances at a cheaper cost, I can assure it's not going to be our own choice what we will use in some years.
Personally, if it existed at a "human" price, I'd use a rangefinder.
And perhaps I will not have money enough to buy a DSLR, in some years.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-17-2010, 06:13 AM
|
| |
I'd say any brand willing to stay alive has to develop alternatives to the SLR.
The era of a slapping mirror has just started its ending. Perhaps there will be space enough for a 21st century "Leica" (they kept alive the rangefinder), that is to say maybe one make will go on with very expensive and elitarian SLRs...
The cost/benefit proportion does not leave a long life to the traditional systems, and technology is almost ready; look at that cheap SLD with 10fps while it keeps focusing: higher performance, lower production costs...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-17-2010, 05:38 AM
|
| |
Well, the other way to read the last words quoted here is:
if we don't find something to distinguish our product, we are not going to make mirrorless cameras...
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-12-2010, 09:57 AM
|
| |
So, after the fake K-5 image, we have a fake taxi image? Is Pentax going to sell neat boxes with the picture of a camera, and 1kg of salt or a brick inside?
:lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-11-2010, 11:01 AM
|
| |
I just realized how bigger the K-r is than the K-x. Perhaps the two can coexist.
|
