|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 06:58 PM
|
| |
Personally, I'm not looking for a big bucks solution. I'm just not a "throw money at the problem" kind of guy.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-08-2018, 09:59 AM
|
| |
Same old same old, a new camera model, some switch to Pentax because of it, some leave Pentax because of it, as long as we have more coming than going Pentax will do alright.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 10:55 AM
|
| |
I have seen many images on all sites that try and do comparison testing, where missed focus makes for differences in the images, that probably won't matter in the real world. The most common thing is different focus points. One picture is sharp in one area, the other isn't, but look at a different area the previously unsharp one is now the sharp one and the other isn't. This is also an issue with APS_c and FF comaprisons. Back in the day shooting an FfFand an APS-c at 5.6. the APS-c camera may have had more of the test image in focus and appears sharper, even though the 36MP FF images was sharper at the focus point. So this is not unexpected when taking in such reviews.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 09:32 AM
|
| |
You can turn it off, shoot between 100 and 400 ISO. By the time you get to 800 ISO your image is seriously degraded anyway in terms of noise reduction. You haven't established which is worse and for what type of image. What ruins most of your images, noise, or lack of detail? I know what it is for me, it's noise. I rarely need the level of detail I capture with either my K-3 or my K-1. In fact I can show you landscape images where my K-1 and my wife K-5 using the same lens at different focal lengths produce identical landscapes when viewed on a 4k monitor. The extra resolution of the K-1 made no improvement at all to the image.
Folks don't seem to understand that noise is not part of what you were looking at when you framed the image. All noise is artifacts. You may be more comfortable enlarging artifacts but I have taken many images where noise made using sharpening or even adding an appropriate level of contrast was impossible because sharpening, definition and contrast all increase noise artifacts. As well getting to 800 ISO you are going to see decreases in dynamic range becoming factor. I just have no understanding of why people are opposed to deceasing the effect of artificial artifacts cause by the sensor cleanly and efficiently.
I guess astrophotgrpaher would rather see what was there, with a lot of artifacts, tham a cleaned up image that looks more like what was actually there.
Each to heir own I guess, but forgive me if i don't buy in to the hysteria. Don't want the accelerator chip and if you can be happy with the same level of noise control you get on a K-P, fine use a K-1. If you don't like sensor artifacts and choose to give up bit of resolution, which by the way is ridiculous on a K-1, buy a K-ii. You have choices.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-07-2018, 07:49 AM
|
| |
After all the bother about noise at high ISO being so important that I've seen threads where people advocated buying 12MP full frame over a 16 MP APS-c camera for the supposed better high ISO performance, even when the APS-c had a much higher rating on DxO, I refuse to even read this article.
DPR used low light performance to trash Pentax when Pentax was already pretty good at it, now that Pentax has put some money into increasing low light performance, it's not worth upgrading for. You will never see a bunch of more two faced, target changing hypocrites than DPR.
The question is not whether or not everyone should upgrade, the question is who should upgrade. Wedding photographers, come to mind. Every little bit of high ISO performance counts. Anyone doing low light candids on a regular basis or event photography. And I'm completely over the top tired of having to correct the nonsense published over at DPR. It's getting to the point where if I see DPR in a thread, I'm not going to read it, except to ask folks not to repeat what they read over there, over here.
|
