|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-22-2016, 07:28 AM
|
| |
I think after the K-70 is released , the K-1 noise advantage will back to an equivalent situation. Using the same noise reduction technology there should be a one stop noise advantage to the K-1 if you are willing to give up a 1 stop advantage in DoF. Right now a K-1 has a 2-3 stop advantage making it functional for birders. My guess is the K-70 will bring the APS_c model up to a one stop difference. You have to remember the K-1 came out with noise reduction algorithms superior to those in the K-3 series. But all Pentax bodies going forward will take advantage of the same technologies.
The K-1 will appear to have a noise advantage, until the nest APS-c body is released. Just a guess. The we'll be back to equivalences.
If Pentax doesn't go that route, Nikon already has in thier D7300 with much better tracking AF and K-3 killing DR, so they'll start losing Pentax 24MP landscape and wildlife shooters at some point. We put up with the K-5 limitations because we could get better images at a better price. It's been awhile now since the D7300 came out and so far Pentax hasn't responded. It usually takes tham about a year to catch up., so we're waiting to see what they come up with.
I tend to look at one camera systems that presents workable compromises to do everything. The only thing I don't like about the K-70 would be 6 FPS instead of 8 and no built in GPS. But that's a compromise I could live with if it meant increased DR and IQ, making it a replacement for my K-5 back-up unit rather than my K-3. For some reason, despite the objection of some, Ifiind the K-3 tracking thing a joy to use. The other day tracking some very pesky Terns a was amazed at the way it was able to look focus and snap off 4 frames a second while tracking these fast moving birds in flight.
I'm guessing you'll still need a K-3 to do that, even after you get a K-70, but, we can always hope.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-22-2016, 06:45 AM
|
| |
Just from consideration of what's gone on in this thread, I don't think any true APS_c shooter will upgrade to a K-1. But, the guys who were pure FF shooters right from the start who have been waiting for a Pentax camera, they will all upgrade.
But the K-70 looks like a great option. It has more advanced noise reduction, I believe it will address the biggest K-3 issue, noise at high ISO and bring it back into an equivalent images for the same size file, with a K-1. I think I prefer the K-70 screen to a 645z / K-1 type of screen. It has improved AF, although improved over what it's hard to tell.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-21-2016, 09:31 AM
|
| |
I'll try and read better next time. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-21-2016, 06:21 AM
|
| |
Are you forgetting that on Pentax you don't need VR for your Tamron 70-200? I'm not even looking at the 36 MP. I'm looking high/ low noise performance to boost shutter speeds, in body SR for my older glass, and that flippy screen and GPS. For resolution a 6D doesn't even measure up to my K-3. It's not in the picture and would be a serious downgrade to my K-3, not an upgrade.
The only cost cost comparison for me will be the difference between the next APS-C and the K-1.
I'm hoping the next APS-c will continue to push the frame rate to say 10 FPS, have a flippy screen, have pixels shift, and be 28 MP., and have improved tracking possibly using the K-1 AF system and GPS. IF it has all those things it's going to be a tough call on my next upgrade. It's a tough call with the K-3 at 24 MP. With a K-? at 28 MP, or 30 MP, I think the balance at least for me falls back in favour of the APS_c sensor.
I'm the type of shooter who is happy to trade low light performance for magnification in good light.
Essentially 24 MP on APS-c gives the potential for more magnification than 36 MP on the K-1 with the same lens.
28-30 MP on APs-c would push APS-c back "over the top." if they can maintain the current 24 MP ISO/noise performance.
28-30 MP on APS-c would once again pass the Canon 51 MP camera in that metric as well.
---------- Post added 06-21-16 at 09:55 AM ----------
Next time, ask her, "Who gave you the right to intrude on our time together as a family?"
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-21-2016, 05:21 AM
|
| |
If one looks at the Canon and Nikon worlds, the number of APs-c shooters switching to the K-1 will be somewhere between 5% and 10%. And it will take a few years to get there. The vast majority of Pentax shooters are probably currently shooting with K-30s K-50s, K-S1s, or K-S2s. Despite the current K-1 hoopla, that's not going to change.
Despite the enthusiasm of many, for most, it's going to come down to a the best combination price vs performance.. Th K-1 will fall into the category of the premium system at a premium price. The K-1 however does offer the best price performance if you don't go for the premium lenses. It has an advantage over it's Canikon brothers and sisters in that, for an extra few hundred bucks an APS-c shooter can get a huge performance bonus as long as they have some old film glass lying around. The K-1 offers by far the most cost effective path into full frame for entry level users. Especially with the plastic fantastics on board. Essentially the K-1 with a the DA35 DA 50 and 28-105 or 60-250 is your standard K-1000 type kit.
You make that jump with a Nikon and you get a D610, with Canon you get a 6D. Both represent a fraction of the potential of a K-1.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-17-2016, 06:01 AM
|
| |
^ what he said.
If you're not happy with your images, buying a K-1 won't help.
On the other hand is people are always asking you to sell them prints of your amazing images, and you're making a decent income, a K-1 might help push you to the next level.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-14-2016, 07:13 AM
|
| |
Arguing that almost any westerner doesn't suffer from pathological buying disorders might not be clinically supportable. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-11-2016, 07:23 PM
|
| |
My rebutal, would be 95% of K-3 users don't need it. At least 90% of K-5 users never take an image that makes use of it's ability. I bet more than 50% of K-5 users could do everything they do with a K-x, and 25% could get along fine with a K100D. When you start down that road, it never ends.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-11-2016, 02:28 PM
|
| |
You always want it to be sooooooo complicated. :D
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-11-2016, 02:02 PM
|
| |
Areas in which the K-3 exceeds the K-1.
Much higher maximum frame rate, 2x more. For some of us, this is the choice between a great image or no image. More frames increases you chances of getting the keeper you want. 2x more chance to get a keeper is significant.
More magnification and DoF using the same lens and ƒ-stop.
As I see more and more K-1 images the more I suspect it may not be in my future. I know every K-1 image posted gets 5 likes and everyone loves it. I'm just not seeing it. It's a D800 all over again for me. It has great potential, which much of the time is wasted, A K-2 APS_c with more advanced tracking, and faster AF, higher frame rate, Pixel shift and an APS-c version of the tilting screen, and maybe 28 MP with reduced noise would be more to my liking.
The last little while I've gone back to the K-5 for many of my images.
I used to say if I wanted an FF I'd buy a D810. Thanks to release of the K-1, I'll now say, if I wanted an FF, I'd buy a K-1. But, I'm saying almost exactly the same thing with a few improvements.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
05-14-2016, 06:37 AM
|
| |
Not all D7000 users, even the pros, upgraded to a D810. It's to be expected that most users won't upgrade. It is a great addition for the "I need more ways to spend my money." crowd, and the very small minority who actually do prints large enough to take advantage of the increased resolution. And there are a lot more who claim to need that capability than actually do need that capability.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-03-2016, 06:53 AM
|
| |
I've rarely seen a post that so clearly says. "I know nothing about Pentax."
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-01-2016, 11:41 AM
|
| |
For the most part I agree with you. The things I want are, built in GPS, pixels shift, clean 6400 ISO for BiFs. If I had a K-3II I wouldn't even be looking. I'm looking at it as a K-3II plus.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-01-2016, 07:19 AM
|
| |
Hardly, because of the various factors involved in lens design etc, in practical terms, you have a wider range of Dof, on FF cameras. An FF wide open with your fastest lens on it has narrower DoF than a smaller sensor. But you can stop it down to give you 6 feet to infinity as good as any smaller sensor is likely to be. MF would be narrower but you can't practically get as fast glass. So in the real world, not the theoretical world where lenses can be made any size, MF and FF are about equal, but with FF having 1.2 lenses available and most MF lenses being 2.8, even for the faster one..the difference is caused by lens size an availability, not theoretical attributes. If you consider control an attribute, FF gives you a little more range expressed as a ratio than MF or any smaller sensor.
If narrow DoF is your goal it's kind of a sweet spot in digital. That makes it sound like everyone should rush out and by an FF. But the fact is a competent photographer will produce the results he want with the equipment he buys. FF may have a small advantage in getting narrow, but I've seen way more botched shots where someone thought they were doing something cool and went way to narrow, because they could, than I have great images that depended on narrow DoF by a factor of about 1000 to 1. Narrow DoF is not for people who don't have a very keen sense of artistic vision. These guys who think they can just go for the narrowest and it will be special, are caught up in the technical, because technically they are special, but most of them are junk aesthetically, and from an artistic stand point may have been better shot a stop or two wider.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-29-2016, 09:00 AM
|
| |
I've done it, and you've got it backwards, a 55 from the same distance has more DoF than an 85. The 55 is on the small format, the 85 is on the large format. You need to stop the larger format down one stop to match the DoF if the two formats are APS_c and FF. I have actually gone to a DoF calculator and done this.
Same FoV, Same DoF, same ƒ-stop, more DoF for the smaller format.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
02-29-2016, 08:01 AM
|
| |
As much as I've told people they don't have to buy one, I have to buy one, just to show folks how open minded I am. :D
---------- Post added 02-29-16 at 10:09 AM ----------
Maybe you could explain that. I've shown any number of times that equivalence is equivalence, same everything for the same image, Maybe you know of some variable I don't know about. I used DoF and VoF as my constant and ISO and Aperture as my variables. The same image with the same DoF requires a smaller ƒ-stop in the larger format, letting in less light and a higher ISO. Noise, total light etc. all equal out.
I found, equivalence means equivalence. Functionally you have less DoF at the wider aperture settings in larger formats, but for any setting where both formats have the same FoV and DoF, they are functionally the same in every regard.
|
