|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-09-2010, 10:25 AM
|
| |
Hrmmm...I was not aware you could set the quality of a RAW-embedded JPG on Canons...I must have missed that option on my XT...and 1D2...and 5D...and 30D...and XSi...you sure about that?
At any rate, its just a preview...that's all its meant to be...the only reason I can think of for wanting the embedded image to be better is for import to an iPad, which reads in RAW and sucks out the embedded file for the photo album, but retains the RAW file linked to the JPG for emailing and backing up.
I know the JPG embedded in nikon NEFs are roughly 85%-quality JPGs (IOW, not very good) at full res.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
11-09-2010, 04:47 AM
|
| |
Pentax would like you to believe so.
Seriously, though, I normally shoot my 35/1.8G @f/2 or f/2.2, as that is a sweet spot for the center resolution anyway...and while it may be pretty sharp wide-open on a 6MP or 10MP camera, 16MP requires a little more than what it produces wide-open. Sharpness isn't everything either...but stopping down also noticeably improves the Nikon's bokeh quality as well.
A lot will be determined by how the 35/2.4 handles...if it is pretty sharp at max aperture, you aren't losing much in comparison with the competition. If it needs to be stopped down to f/2.8 or f/3.2 to jump the contrast up...then you might want to start thinking about an alternative (assuming you want to shoot in low light).
FWIW, the sigma 30/1.4 is available, but most say that it also needs to be stopped down to around f/2 to get good detail from it (assuming you get a GOOD sample). From what I've seen of the samples, the bokeh is pretty decent wide-open with the Sigma, so for artistic purposes it still has some value wide-open...and its heavy...and it ain't cheap.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-08-2010, 07:14 AM
|
| |
Cheated? Seriously?? I've seen everything from "conspiracy theories at DXO" (Prior to K-5 results being released, mind you) to now "they're cheating with their ISO values". And in-camera-NR forced on RAW files is considered "engineering magic".
Thank goodness for the zany interwebz...there's always someone here willing to give me a laugh and a smile on a dull Monday. :lol::D
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-08-2010, 06:29 AM
|
| |
It is likely that the pixel count was taken into account and measured against the gross pixel surface dimensions, rather than the mapped pixel surface dimensions.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-08-2010, 05:41 AM
|
| |
The real question is can Sony's camera make the most of the sensor? The A580 should have the same opportunity for success.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-08-2010, 05:20 AM
|
| |
No shock here. The variance (even in the "smoothed" area) is minimal. I didn't think the in-camera NR was very strong if it was present, and as the graphs show, its fairly conservative. Its small enough that I can't observe a significant difference between comparitve shots when looking at shadow noise.
Personally, I thought the DR of the D7000 was going to be 0.5EV lower than they show here. Since the folks at DXO apparently don't care about the preservation of color in their DR evaluation, they probably are giving the camera more highlight headroom than I consider usable.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-07-2010, 01:54 PM
|
| |
The D7000 isn't the first...the D90 also metered too close to clipping highlights as well. The D90 had about 1/2-2/3EV headroom on most matrix-metered shots (but even then didn't hold ALL the color channels from clipping the entire way). Compared to as much as 1-1/2EV in the headroom of D700 shots. The D7000 follows that D90 tradition and so I've put a universal matrix compensation (one of the custom overrides/functions on the camera) of -0.7EV into my D7000 now. That should consistently give ˜1EV+ of headroom to keep highlights from clipping too early and to offer some room to build a shoulder up to show a smooth progression to highlights. I prefer the look of film, so when shooting I try to leave myself room to emulate it in post. The D700 was a natural at this. The D7000 needs some user modification to leave room for later dabbling.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-05-2010, 11:04 AM
|
| |
It doesn't surprise me that it beats the snot-bubbles out of the 5D2. That thing is NOT good in terms of DR at all and shows massive banding in high-ISO shadows.
The D700, on the other hand reminds me of what I thought when I saw the D90 score when it was first released. The D90 DR is shown as better than the D700 (12.5 vs. 12.2), yet I know from owning BOTH that the D90 DR is NOT better than the D700. In fact, it's significantly poorer in regard to highlight DR. The D700 had a 1+EV advantage in the highlights (if you compare them by the moment a color channel clips) and the 14-bit highlights transitioned much more smoothly than the 12-bit D90 highlights. The D90 was no slouch, but it was not the ETTR miracle-worker that the D700 was.
I wonder if DXO even takes into account color information or just luminance when measuring DR...I really need to read up on their SOP for DR testing. If I look at the Fuji S5 score of 13.5EV, I really start to think they are not concerned with the status of ALL the channels and are only looking at luminance...cuz the S5 is terrible about clipping individual channels (though retaining luminance data, see terrible color cast of pulled S5 photos!) ;)
Also, looking at the under-exposed, yet recoverable K-5 shots that I've seen, I tend to think a lot of that DR may be in the shadows...which is fine...it just means that you will need to err on the side of under-exposing, if that works out to be the case.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-03-2010, 09:30 AM
|
| |
Yeah, the SNR curve from the D5k looks pretty uniform. I tend to trust DXO and don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories about how they operate. On the other hand, when I look at RAW images from the D5k and D90 (particularly in the shadows) my eyes are telling me something's fishy. The luminance noise being inconsistent and smeariness to the chroma just seems unnatural.
And you're right, the K-5 shouldn't need additional NR. The 16MP Exmor seems to be quite a good performer naturally, assuming the D7000 isn't cooking the RAW.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-r
11-03-2010, 09:13 AM
|
| |
The results on DXO show them to be practically identical. The slight deviation you see is an example of sample-to-sample variance.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-03-2010, 08:29 AM
|
| |
I'm not saying there CAN'T be any K-5 secondary NR...just saying that I can't see it in comparison with its cousin.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-03-2010, 08:03 AM
|
| |
The "blotted" noise effect (it figuratively appears as though someone took a damp cloth and pressed it against what was likely a higher-frequency original noise) that is present on the K-x and D5k (though the D5k shows more occasional high-luminance artifacts, probably the algorithm was trying to preserve detail and ended up preserving random high-luminance dot-noise) in these shots are NOT present (or are so subdued as to be not readily apparent) in either RAW sample I looked at from the D7K or the K-5. A few minutes ago, I compared the RAW samples on IR for the D7K, D3100, D90, and 7D (all at 6400) and found the following:
*The 7D has the worst noise levels and there appears to be some attempt to blot out the noise (though it still left tons of noise and more prevalent random noise "spiking", like a hot pixel but too frequent to be so simply explained)
*The D90, IMO, was just ahead of the 7D, with the blotchy noise similar to the D5k sample you linked.
*The D3100 was just ahead of the D90, but had an even consistent noise grain to it, showing minimal NR, but with a prevalent deep-red noise pattern that creates a color cast that is unattractive.
*The D7000 was in the lead, with a similar noise pattern to the D3100 (very consistent, with no chroma smearing visible), though amazingly less per-pixel noise than the D3100. The strong red color cast present in the D3100 is not in the D7000, despite them both being same-generation Exmor sensors. That was the most surprising result.
I agree, the K-x NR is obvious...it looks unnatural, but I'm sure it subdues noise for the most part. I simply don't see the same effect on the K-5 samples (limited few I've seen) or any of my D7000 shots. If there is secondary NR, its VERY, VERY well hidden.
In looking at the D3100 and D7000 side-by-side, it makes me wonder if something was employed in the D7000 to mitigate the strong red noise to reduce color cast, but I have no proof one way or another.
To be fair, DXO should make a similar comment regarding the D5k/D90 in terms of smoothing. It's clear if you look at the SNR curve or any images that there is some obvious NR being applied at ISO3200+.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
11-03-2010, 06:03 AM
|
| |
I was at the National Air and Space Museum 2 weekends ago...saw at least 4 guys/girls shooting Pentax...most of them were K-x cameras (one K100D mixed in). That was the most Pentaxians I have seen at one place at the same time.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
11-03-2010, 05:31 AM
|
| |
I tend to agree with this. I looked at RAW files (DNG vs. NEF, both read in with RPP) of the K-5 and D7K and the shadow noise (intensity and pattern) for similarly exposed areas at ISO6400 and ISO12800 look absolutely identical. I wouldn't be able to tell them apart if my life depended on it. One of the following must be true:
(a) Pentax is NOT using secondary (primary being chip-level) NR on the RAW files...
(b) Pentax AND Nikon are using similar types of secondary NR on RAW files...
(c) Pentax is using the slightest of secondary NR on RAW files so that you can not discern it (option "c" makes absolutely no sense, but I am accounting for all possibilities logical or not)
I also don't see any detail loss in either that is indicative of secondary luminance NR.
Pure poppy-cock...I am looking at ye ol' Dino shot at ISO200 with no chroma NR applied at import and there is the same ever-so-slight chroma pattern in the midtones that the D7K shows. Pushed 1-1/2EV, and the chroma shows clearly in the shadows. This is the same behavior I'm seeing with the D7K (and pretty much every other camera I've ever owned...D700, D3100, D90, 30D, XT, XSi, 1D2, 5D...all show some chroma in shadows when pushing ISO200 files, all to varying degrees of course).
Not trying to burst any bubbles here...the K-5 images look fantastic, but I seriously can't say it looks any different than the other cameras with the 16MP Exmor in them.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
10-20-2010, 05:40 PM
|
| |
ISO25600, FTW! I mean if you ask me, the kid looks WAY better without his eyebrows. :confused:
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-01-2010, 11:19 AM
|
| |
That was handled well? The sky is clipped, as pretty much any camera properly exposing the trees will do. I'm missing something. Spot-meter a tree, look up and shoot. That's all you have to do to mimic this shot. If the sky was blue and clouds were visible, I'm seeing your point. I see properly exposed vegetation and blown sky (not to mention purple-fringing galore in the trees on this lens...typical of a lot of lenses, but notable).
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-01-2010, 09:55 AM
|
| |
I understand the theory, but without seeing the environment with your own eyes or comparing the shot to another camera's production, these shots tell you nothing.
I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but when I see a user saying that these quick snapshots in the woods with unknown settings and no comparison makes his/her K-x look like a toy, I just have a face-palm moment. The rampant excitement is great, but its all getting too much like a crack addict taking a hit every time a vga-sized snapshot surfaces.
All I ask: Please maintain the "enthusiasm", but minimize the "crazy".
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-01-2010, 09:19 AM
|
| |
I'm with you. These could have been taken with any DSLR. Heck, they could have been taken with a decent P&S for all we know.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
10-01-2010, 09:07 AM
|
| |
ISO80 is not a natve ISO option, its a 1/3EV over-exposed-and-pulled ISO100 shot, hence why it is not listed in the native ISO range of 100-12800. While this will result in slightly less overall noise (particularly in shadows), it will also result in less headroom in the highlights.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
10-01-2010, 06:58 AM
|
| |
Convert it to Canon EF...everything but IS will work!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
10-01-2010, 06:55 AM
|
| |
The biggest difference in the shots is the way the color/contrast is handled. Shooting on the "faithful" setting on Canons tends to match what you see in that K-x shot.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-5 & K-5 II
10-01-2010, 03:53 AM
|
| |
This isn't a K-5 bashing comment really, but its not a praise so I'll place it here.
It appears that Sony's implementation of the 16.2MP sensor (used in the A55, also with Sony's variant of SR) is having problems with heat buildup while recording video. IIRC, the videos are limited to 10 minutes each to address the heat buildup issue while using SR.
Anyone hear if this issue affects Pentax's SR implementation during video?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-r
10-01-2010, 03:46 AM
|
| |
While I agree that buying a $510 K-x makes more sense than a $800 K-r at the moment, I also feel the improvements to the model are part of the natural evolution of the product. I'm not so sure the ISO25600 option is going to lure too many in, but the speed increase (6fps vs 4.7fps) with the updated AF makes the K-r a little more attractive to sports-minded people.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-23-2010, 04:51 AM
|
| |
ZFs were being produced for >2 years prior to the FX line being introduced. They likely are not selling enough to warrant continuing the mount. Lack of FF might of had some bearing on people not buying them, but I suspect the price of the lenses had more to do with it. While there are legitimate photogs using zeiss optics for their performance, the majority of the users I've run across are more interested in the collecting (or rather the snob-aspect) of the lenses. They don't outperform most system lenses, and early copies had their focus gumming up in cold weather too. They simply don't represent good value at all.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
09-22-2010, 10:30 AM
|
| |
Yeah, I wasn't trying to break any balls...its just that some discretion is a good thing, even if the normal excitement tells you to do otherwise. I think most of the posts here and the sample comparisons suggest that a 1 to 1.5 stop noise improvement is more realistic (from a RAW standpoint, which is all that matters IMO) and should be more than enough to garnish praise. 1.5 stops is a HUGE difference.
|
