|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-22-2016, 04:23 PM
|
| |
The last time I remember such angst was when the K3 sensor turned out not to have iso 80 and the dynamic range wasn't as good at base iso (the K5 was .6 EV better). People were very upset.
You know what? I own both cameras and the K3 is close enough that I don't notice the difference. If I am shooting a super high dynamic range image, I use a GND or use multiple exposures. There are just few situations where I could coax a good image out of a K5 II at iso 80 where I couldn't do the same with the K3 at iso 100.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-22-2016, 09:30 AM
|
| |
I guess I will say again that the extra dynamic range is significantly less useful to me (in general) when the light is good enough to hand hold at iso 64 than it would be at times when the light isn't as good.
Anyway, I think I've said enough about it. There is a place in the market place for all of the cameras you mentioned, including the 645z and the biggest selling point to me for the D810 isn't the presence of iso 64, it is the significantly more complete lens portfolio that Nikon offers. I suppose it is up to each photographer what they want to get.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-22-2016, 08:10 AM
|
| |
You are confusing me a little. So the benefit of this is so you can shoot jpegs better? And when did 0.4 EV turn into a whole stop?
I think having ISO 64 would be handy in a couple of situations -- flash in bright light and landscapes on a tripod. I still doubt that there is a real world difference between 14.7 EV and 14.3 EV of dynamic range. I understand it is the Internet and it is our place to magnify the tiniest differences, but these still feel fairly small.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-22-2016, 02:50 AM
|
| |
You are right. But do you know how often I shoot high dynamic range landscape images in great light? Not very often. If I am shooting at high noon, odds are that I don't really care about dynamic range. I just haven't seen situations where you need to pump up the dynamic range on a portrait shot in decent light. It just doesn't make sense to me.
I think the biggest thing that the extra low iso would help (other than tripod work) is essentially boosting flash sync speed.
As to the whole "extra dynamic range" argument, I don't really buy that it is even visible. The D800e and the D810 have both been measured by DXO Mark and at iso 100, both have a dynamic range of 14.3 EV. At iso 64 the D810 has 14.7 EV. The total scores for the D800e and D810 are 96 and 97 respectively (differences of less than 5 are unlikely to show up in real world situations). I can't remember the last situation where having an extra .4 EV of dynamic range would have put my photo over the top.
My guess is that the K-1 will have similar performance to the D800e and that's probably good enough for me -- both in low and high iso situations.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-21-2016, 06:35 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the put-down.
My point was merely that both iso 64 and pixel shift are limited in usefulness in that best results will come using a tripod. For many people, hand holding is what they rely on and if that is the case, then both of these features will have limited value, as iso 64 is going to be limited to very good light.
Once you decide you will use a tripod, you can shoot whatever iso you want or as many exposures as you want and combine them in post. That said, I do think the pixel shift feels like an easier way to get better image quality, but I will see when I get a K-1. I guess my hope wasn't for "super-resolution," but for improvement in color depth and dynamic range, that can aid ultimately in improved image processing afterwards.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-21-2016, 03:29 AM
|
| |
I would just say that most places where you will be able to use iso 64 you could also use pixel shift, which should get you a bump in dynamic range, resolution and color depth. Obviously if there is much of a breeze going on or something like that, pixel shift isn't going to give as much benefit -- my understanding is that artifacted areas will just be replaced by the first image capture -- but in those situations, iso 64 probably won't be an option either due to slow shutter speed.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-18-2016, 03:19 AM
|
| |
I am sure that jpegs are tweakable enough that you can get the look you want from them. I don't use jpegs, but when I do, I usually use natural. Bright (which was the default) had a tendency to render skin tones funny to my eye. And some of the other colors seemed off too with Bright.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-10-2016, 11:57 AM
|
| |
I find this whole discussion to be somewhat futile.
What makes the K-1 a good camera from a Pentaxian's stand point is that it can use K mount lenses without an adapter and with auto focus and auto metering. If you own a lot of K mount lenses, then this is key. If you don't care about auto metering and auto focus or don't own a bunch of K mount lenses, then you would do just as well to get an FE mount or F mount camera as the K-1.
My perception is that the K-1 matches up well against other full frame cameras that are similarly priced on the market right now. But even if it didn't, I would probably get one because of the lenses I already own.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-10-2016, 04:32 AM
|
| |
There have been extensive discussions over the last six months about whether the K1 should use the sensor that is in the D800/810 or the one that Sony uses in the A7r II. The resolution is basically equivalent, the difference is in the read out speed and therefore the quality of video you get from the two sensors. Additionally, the 36 megapixel sensor has more dynamic range at base iso and the 42 megapixel sensor is a little better in high iso situations.
My feeling has been that either sensor is fine, but that if Pentax isn't going to bump the quality of video in this camera (seemed unlikely), then they would be better going with the 36 megapixel sensor, as it is somewhat cheaper and is actually probably a little better for landscape photographers.
All camera companies claim to have tweaked the sensors they use. Nikon is extremely close mouthed about who they source their sensors from and act like theirs are the best (maybe they are). As to Canon not talking a lot about their sensors, it is because, while they are adequate, they certainly haven't performed as well as Sony and Toshiba sensors in certain respects in recent years. Canon would rather talk about their L glass and the other features that their cameras bring to the table.
I don't see Pentaxians being threatened by Canon or Nikon or Sony. Those companies make good gear and so does Pentax. I think they are just excited by a new camera, with an exceptional price and trying to figure out how it stacks up against current full frame cameras on the market. To me, it is a D810-lite, but with pixel shift, astro tracer, in body stabilization, and swivel screen (and probably some other features I've left out). Maybe it won't have quite as good dynamic range at base iso as the D810, but in most other respects it will measure up quite well.
|
