|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-01-2018, 11:11 PM
|
| |
I just posted what the DPReview comparison scene shows. But they seem to show the same field of view in all the samples, so I would say that the Nikon and Sony, with more megapixels, would be *less* zoomed in (less than 1:1) since they have the same field of view.
---------- Post added 06-01-18 at 11:28 PM ----------
Well, it could be argued that Canon is stupid, since their most recent version of the 6D didn't really have an upgrade to their low-light performance which has been around fora while in their newer 5D models. It's not unheard-of.
While looking at the DPReview test scene, it struck me how unrepresentative of regular photography it is. It is almost totally flat objects with I guess flat lighting, so there is little opportunity for contrast of micro contrast. (Though those are contributed to by the lenses as well.) The skin tones presented are from printed out photos (I guess), so there's a second level of reproduction to introduce additional error. Also, there are so many things in the scene, that any of the objects only use a small fraction of the resolution of the image, which is not necessarily ideal.
It would be nice if they also had a couple actual physical objects that they could photograph for a comparison, like plants or people, though there would be logistical difficulties in reproducing the same lighting and image from one test to another.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-01-2018, 01:55 PM
|
| |
It looks like it could be an error -- compare to the A7R II -- but for those who are more prone to detect a bias, the A7R III review identified the III as sharper than the II, which is not the case in the high-detail areas.
A7R III image comparison |
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-01-2018, 10:13 AM
|
| |
It's hard to tell if it is detail loss or not; in some cases the K-1 has finer details in thin objects, whereas the K-1 is chunkier in that case. Which is more accurate?
Link here
---------- Post added 06-01-18 at 10:15 AM ----------
And the A7R III looks like it could also use a reshoot, or else it uses significant noise reduction.
|
