|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-14-2016, 09:32 AM
|
| |
Fantastic, enjoy your setup....
And thanks for coming back and letting us know how things are working out.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-11-2016, 04:24 AM
|
| |
Exactly, the question they should ask is "do I want it?"
Getting an new camera, any new camera is an experience just on it's own. I have friends who have blown the price of a K-1 at the track in a single afternoon. But, they have the money and they seem to enjoy it. The K-1 is not worth it so much that you should go into debt for it, or miss a mortgage playment, but a K-1 is a piece of equipment capable of providing hours of enjoyment. Qualifying the difference between the a K-1 in terms of an up grade from a K-3 , the first question is, "Are you tired of your K-3?" Are you learner. Are you ready to take on a new piece of gear, pick up a new skill set, learn how to get the most out of a new system.
This is not a pro versus amateur debate. This is a do you enjoy learning about cameras, probably not as much as you enjoy taking pictures, but does learning new equipment ad to our enjoyment. Brand upgrades are always tempting between APS-c and FF because they use many of the same lenses. Maybe this year I won't buy a new lens, maybe a new camera body. Either would give me the sense that I'm growing and learning new things.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-03-2016, 01:25 PM
|
| |
Then don't... the answer to that is simple. I read your opening statement
Which you felt compelled to post. Now folks like me are left to trying to determine if such a statement is at all relevant to ourselves. It may be, it may not be. But, if you're going to post it, you need to explain it. You aren't some kind off god on high who's decrees become instant proof.
And personally, I find "I've posted all over the internet got find my posts" to be about the lest helpful kind of response. You, who are infinitely familiar with every image you've ever taken are asking us to search your work to find examples that support your statements?
Imagine if Itook a post like this if
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/326702-prim...ml#post3723458
And didn't show the examples, but just said "My images are posted all over the internet, go look for them." What would that post be worth? Nothing?
Apply to the above.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
08-03-2016, 07:07 AM
|
| |
With all due respect to those who have upgraded.....there are a lot of questions left unanswered.
As I pointed out on several occasions, I will find out the answers to my questions, when I have access to a K-1. The K-1 users are expressing for the most part pie in the sky platitudes unsupported by comparison images. Photography at it's essence is creating images.
For example, when people go in about the improved keeper rate, my K-3 keeper rate yesterday walking around my back yard with monopod was 208 keepers out of 211. So it's frustrating when people go on an on about the better AF, when I won't buy a camera for better AF. I've learned how to get good enough AF with my K-3. People go on about the 6400 ISO image performance, but, the 6400 ISO image performance is still considerably worse than the 100 ISO performance on either the K-1 or K-3, so again. I need concrete examples as to how this will make a difference to me.
Especially given that i regularly post images taken up to 3200 ISO on a K-3.
When a K-1 poster posts that the K-1 is better at something I don't need it to be better at, it can be a little frustrating.
A lot of K-1 glorifications, leave me scratching my head.
So between the lack of comparison images definitively establishing a K-1 advantage to image output, and the people who apparently were having problems getting their K-3 to work properly. One good K-1 image taken at 6400 ISO with no comparison K-3 image of any kind does not establish an advantage.
The problem with 36 MP, and this has been true since the days of the D800, is unless you pixel peep, the differences aren't noticeable in the output. That was true when the D800 came out and we were all still shooting K-5s. Now that the K-3 is 24 MP, the differences are even less.
So of course most of the posters are K-3 users. They are the ones trying to make sense of the completely anecdotal information posted. The gushers, the salesmen, those caught up n new camera fever. We are just looking for some meaningful info, that might convince us to buy this camera. Clearly, many of the early adapters are emphasizing features that we are secondary to getting the best IQ. IN my above example. I'm sure the K-1 is better. The problem is given my 208 in focus images with the 3 I missed being pressing the shutter button before the camera was done AFing. in that situation, it cannot be worth if for me to buy a K-1, based on better AF. The situation didn't call for it.
We are looking at the situations we shoot in looking for situation where the K-1 will help us out. It hasn't been easy. Information has been slow, inconclusive and anecdotal at best.
What I've seen people so far say, amounts to "It's worth it for the rush of having a new toy to play with." I was looking at the work of a buddy, who used to shoot with 5D mkII and now shoots with a D810. He, went on and on about the higher resolution etc, but, looking at his images in his booth, I couldn't tell which was which. There are a lot of people who need to have that experience.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-26-2016, 02:08 PM
|
| |
Hey surfar
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/179869-da-1...an-do-111.html
By the way, if your 18-135 vignettes badly all through it's focall range, there's something the matter with your 18-135. Mine vignettes on occasion, my guess is because it's not quite a big enough image circle to handle the SR. I rarely have 4 vignetted corners, usually the top 2.
I used the 18-135, as an example, because it's a lens that is known to vignette, yet there are hundreds of images with no vignetting. Just saying, if you looked through that thread, you wouldn't know it vignettes, because no one posts badly vignetted images. That's just not a good way to know if you have might have vignetting problems with a new lens.
Whether or not the 55-300 vignettes on the K-1, I am not offering an opinion. Just saying, ask someone who uses the combination.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
07-26-2016, 12:01 PM
|
| |
Look at the DA 18-135 group here, there are numerous images without vignetting, yet I can also produce as many images as you'd like with clear vignetting. With SR, the fact that a lens doesn't vignette sometimes, doesn't mean it doesn't vignette all the time. SO looking at people's best images on line would be a complete waste of time. People don't post their ruined images.
People who have K-1 tend to answer, yes it's worth it.
People like myself who've examined all available information and come to the opposite conclusion, say it's not.
Why would I stay with the K-3?
Faster burst rate is sometimes applicable to me.
You can use shorter lighter telephotos for the same field of view.
You get more magnification of the crop subject area.
For all but shooting wide open you can again the same image using a K-3, and that image can be just as sharp, although it won't have the same resolution, in those rare images where the image exceeds tha k-3 resolution but is lees than the K-1s upper limit. There are four scenarios in this.
1, both cameras have sufficient resolution to adequately portray the subject
2. the k-3 has insufficient resolution but the K-1 does
3. Both cameras are inadequate and you need a 645z or something with even more resolution.
4. NO camera can resolve your subject.
Of the 4 possible scenarios, only one favours the K-1.
I have a DA 35mm ƒ.2.4
The comparable FoV and DoF on FF is my FA 50-ƒ1.8
With a lens like the 50 ƒ1.4 I have the following rangers of ƒ-stop
1.4-2, 2-2.8, 2.8-4-4-5.6-5.6-8, 8-11, 11-16.
That is 7 distinct ranges on DoF.
Using those two lenses, The FA 50 ƒ1.8 is going to have the advantage in smooth OoF areas as it opens more than a stop wider. If I did have 35, 1.4, the only place the FF would have the advantage would be between 2 an ƒ3.5, one seventh or 14% of the time at most. If you regularly shoot landscape of snapshots at ƒ5.6 it's probably less than 2% of the time the FF provides a narrow DoF advantage.
SO basically, those who say an FF gives you narrower DoF are greatly oversimplifying to the point of lying. Saying FF gives you narrower DoF is very different from saying it gives you the opportunity to shoot narrower DOF in some shooting circumstances, that you may or may not encounter very often. It is a misrepresentation of the facts.
Same with low light performance. It's only relevant if you shoot a lot of low light images. One stop is just not that much difference. I've successfully shot up to 3200 ISO on a K-3. Something folks tend to to ignore when they top out their K-1 at 6400 ISO. Selecting the best image you can get with one camera and comparing it to the "average " images from another camera can produce biased results on matter how you stack them.
SO, in the end, I'd say, don't buy into the hype. A K-3 is much cheaper. Unless you specifically need something the K-1 has to offer, buy it only if you think you might like it. Despite the relatively minor difference between APS-c and FF you may actually appreciate the difference and favour one or the other way more than any technical discussion might suggest you would. But to my mind the K-1 hasn't sold me, and it hasn't sold many others as well.
I definitely would think long and hard before I got rid of a lot of APS-c lenses and had to buy new glass. It's personal, only you can decide if it's worth it, but try and stay away from the hype. No one is less reliable as s source of solid unbiased information as someone who just bought into a new camera system.
For my needs, printing up to 20x30 inches, 14 MP worked (K20D) 16 MP was overkill (K-5) , 24 MP gives me lots of room to crop and still have overkill, 36 MP? I haven't really found a use for that yet.
|
