|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-14-2013, 08:48 AM
|
| |
DR is not as good as K-5 as the sensor is older tech but it's surprisingly close. Shadow recovery is pretty good also. Also the colors after shadow recovery seem better to me on D700 than on K-5. Here is one example, not the best sample but you get the idea (it was shot ISO 500, ISO 200 would have given better result of course). Very difficult situation as the sky was still blown out even the foreground was heavily underexposed. First one is original, second one is pushed +0,50 EV and shadows pushed +100 in Lightroom 4 (click for full size image):
 
High ISO seem to be pretty similar also but it seems that D700 keeps the detail better at higher ISO's. ISO 3200 on D700 is still excellent and 6400 very good.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-14-2013, 04:11 AM
|
| |
I have owned Nikon D700 now 2 months. I decided to go for it as I could find very low shutter count unit for very good price. I used Canon 5D with some PK lenses before and really liked the "FF look", especially the fast 35mm, in some situations. I have to say that there is no going back for me. My fast 35mm on D700 is the inexpensive 35mm/1.8. It vignettes quite heavily on D700 but is more than usable in my use, especially after Lightroom lens corrections. Also the cheap 24-120mm/3.5-5.6 VR is excellent, easily comparable to DA*16-50/2.8 in sharpness. Also Samyang 14mm/2.8 is just brilliant.
I have always kept the K-5 quality good enough (and it really is) but that pixel level sharpness and the amount of details D700 12MP sensor brought "blew me away". Now pictures taken with K-5 look a bit soft. I shouldn't have bought it. And even though the K-5 is never camera, after using the D700 it feels dated (believe or not). Maybe because of the better autofocusing system, better viewfinder and better manual lens implementation on D700 (you can set non-CPU lens data and see proper F-stop in viewfinder, get proper exif data and see the manual focus aid in viewfinder (which way to turn focus ring etc.)). I also got Sigma 150-500 DG OS HSM on Nikon mount as I could get it couple hundred euros cheaper on Nikon mount than on Pentax mount on used market.
I have already sold some of my Pentax lenses (Sigma 28mm/1.8, Samyang 35/14, Samyang 85mm/1.4) to fund that other system. I will most likely sell DA*16-50/2.8 and maybe some other zooms also. I have never really thought about it before but Pentax is losing appeal in my eyes. I have never bought the newest and "best" but the one which is best bang for the buck in my use (at the time). And now I tend to leave K-5 home most of the time when I go shooting. So, I guess the FF would be "holy grail" for me after all. The photography hobbyist's "holy grail" is the gear he likes to use after all. I have event to shoot next weekend and I will take only my Nikon gear and leave Pentax home.
The only lenses that keep me using Pentax at the moment are DA18-135WR and A*300/4 (and Sigma 50-150/2.8 but this can be had for other mounts also). There is still weight and size advantage on some situations. I was surprised how little I have actually missed the IBIS. But it has been summer and there is plenty of light. The situation changes when winter comes and light fades.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
05-23-2013, 01:22 PM
|
| |
Is it "holy grail" or not, it's personal taste. There are certainly some advantages in some situations but of course not always. It is up to personal taste and need. Do I see advantages in my use? Yes. Would it replace APS-C in my shooting? No. These are the kind of shots where I see advantage of FF in my shooting (better subject isolation with wider FoV):
Here I don't see any advantage:
Here I see advantage on APS-C:
And my FF is Canon 5D with Pentax manual focus lenses. So it's not "holy grail" but gives bit more possibilities in some situations. I do not care about better low light performance as K-5 is already good enough (for me at the moment; I don't shoot black cats in a coal mine but I shoot horses in a riding ring). I don't care about better dynamic range as K-5 has already enough for my use (I have never needed more, I can already expose wrong and save the image in post processing). I don't really need more megapixels either as I can already crop quite a lot and get good enough results when printing. So for me it's basically bit better subject isolation with wider lenses. So not much "holy grail" for me :lol: But just a little bit more in some situations than APS-C can do.
|
