|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-22-2016, 03:45 PM
|
| |
You're right, I'm misusing terms here. I mean (an) exposure compensation (step) of .3 ev. A whole stop of 1EV is not very practical in estimating the proper lighting of an image.
I do not shoot jpeg myself, but there are different benefits to a lower base iso, and the ability to capture a wider dynamic range in one single shot without post processing will certainly have its uses.
For raw, as also mentioned in this thread, the very low noise at iso 64 (or 50), and the consequent smoothness of detail in a large resolution sensor, is a benefit.
It (iso 50) is something easily dismissed or declared obscure, but as I said: it was often on the wish list in the many discussions in the years preceding the release of the K1, often in relation to landscape shooting.
Dismissing the unique qualities of an iso 50 sensor is all the more tempting as there simply are no Pentax shooters that have ever shot a (FF) camera with this setting available, so you will have to head to the Nikon communities to read experiences with its benefits.
I agree with the general sentiment that Pentax made the right choice of sensor by adopting the standard Sony 36 mp sensor, certainly with their first FF body and the need for competitive pricing, but there remains room for a future model where Pentax can have its go at a true iso 50 sensor like Nikon did with the D810.
Chris
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-22-2016, 04:17 AM
|
| |
.4 EV extra highlight headroom may not sound like a big deal, and it certainly won't prevent you from getting stellar results from the K1 raw files, although when shooting jpeg, the ability to dial in an extra stop of exposure and still have better highlight preservation can be very usefull.
When I use the Sony A7r (raw), I always have to mind the highlights, and in bright conditions in a scene where there are also strong shadows, I will always have to underexpose and lift in post. With the ability to lift shadows that this sensor has, that is not a problem. With a sensor like the one found in the Nikon D810, I would have to underexpose a stop less in bright, contrasty scenarios, and work on the raw files less to get the proper tonality.
I think people who deal a lot with landscapes or portraits in raw, shot in these circumstances, won't have a problem seeing the benefits of a large extra stop of highlight headroom. The advantages are undeniable.
However, the Pentax K1 has the standard Sony 36mp sensor, and this is still a great sensor. For someone who shot Olympus 4/3 in the past, this Sony sensor is still something of the holy grail that it was (together with the 16mp version) shortly after introduction years ago.
Chris
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-22-2016, 02:13 AM
|
| |
Use of iso 64 is limited to bright light scenarios, but depending on your use, these can still be many. Even at f11, a typical bright daylight shot with a 28mm lens will be perfectly hand holdable at 1/100-1/150 s.
And certainly portraits in sunlight with 50/2 or 85/1.4 can benefit considerably from the extra highlight headroom at a true iso 64.
I.m.o. even if these are not your typical use for a ff camera, at least for professionals these advantages should be equally important, or even more important, than performance at very high iso settings, and the Nikon D810 is certainly a camera aimed at professionals.
Pixel shift is a great innovation, but it can not replace or make redundant a true iso 50 or 64.
The odd thing is: when people were speculating on the K1, even years ago, iso 50 was often on the wishlist. Now it seems the wish to beat the Nikons has moved up the priority list....
Chris
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-21-2016, 09:04 AM
|
| |
There is no "design bias" with the K1 sensor. Pentax simply adopted the most common and more affordable standard version of the Sony 36mp sensor. And there is nothing wrong with that, I use the Sony A7r myself, and it is a great sensor.
What I meant to say, is that all the claims (from Pentax themselves and others) about the K1 sensor being "better" or "better tweaked" than the Nikon D800(E) sensor are revolving around iso 51000 or somewhat being cleaner than on the Nikon.
I don't understand the drive to prove that the K1 sensor is "not the old Nikon D800 sensor" or "better than the Nikon D800 sensor" to begin with, it is simply the going Sony 36mp sensor.
But it starts to get shady when even Pentax rep's or even allegedly, engineers, start coming up with all sorts of misinformation merely to play on people's irrational wishes for the K1 to beat the Nikon bodies.
I am NOT wildly speculating on the Nikon D810 sensor being a different, more expensive version of the standard Sony 36mp sensor. The specs, the lower true base iso should be enough for anybody with an unbiased mindset and some sound technical insight.
Chris
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
03-21-2016, 03:10 AM
|
| |
It may not be that important to know what sensor specifications are from Pentax' input. There is still the sensor stack, that plays an important role in producing a typical Pentax IQ. Sony experimented with/improved the sensor microlens array for its own A7r.
What is pretty much beyond doubt though, is that the Pentax K1 Sony 36 mp sensor is part of the same family as the Sony A7r sensor and the Nikon D800(e) sensor, whereas the Nikon D810 sensor is the odd one out, featuring a more expensive design introduced by Nikon for maximum detail, smoothness and dynamic range in bright light and high contrast scenarios. E.g. daylight landscapes, full daylight portaiture.
The Pentax K1 on the other hand, is boasting maximum performance at high iso levels, where the more expensive design of a Nikon D810 sensor is not required, but other factors like clever noise control are far more important.
I have not seen a single add or advertising snippet where Pentax emphasised superior IQ in bright light scenarios. They are fully going for the clean high iso thrill. I would have liked a superior bright light camera, but that would not have been possible at the K1 price. Still, if you are paying 1900,- for a camera body, why not pay 200,- more for a true iso 64 body with superior smoothness and dynamic range in bright scenarios with high contrast. I don't do much night photography myself....
Chris
|
