|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-14-2015, 06:33 PM
|
| |
I've tried that as well, with little success.
As I said, I have a feeling that the heuristics of the respective software are optimised for different colour filter characteristics. If you manually tweak the X-rite color passport patches with the DNG profile editor, you'll notice that the respective adjustment points often do not exactly target the patches they are supposed to. Tweaking the source colour will make the changes to the mapping much more specific to the patches. This leads me to believe that this whole colour management chain is poorly suited to deal with Pentax RAW files.
:(
I was wondering if I had been missing out on special profiles like the Huelight profiles, but your experience is not encouraging.
I always liked the colours of earlier Sony DSLRs and heard from two professionals that Sony RAW files need much less mucking about than Canon, for instance.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-14-2015, 03:17 PM
|
| |
What RAW converter are you using?
I'm not happy with the colours of my K-5 II either. I always liked the colours of the K100D but the K-5 II often gives me a headache with unnatural looking colour shifts. I suspect the ACR (Lightroom) camera profile I'm using is to blame. I've tried to tweak it with the DNG profiler tool, but with limited success. Perhaps ACR is tuned to Canon CFA characteristics and it is hard to make it work with the Pentax CFAs?
I always wanted to try Capture One to see whether it would solve my colour woes, but support by Phase One is pretty poor, both in terms of what they supply with the product (the original K-3 profile they shipped was an extremely poorly doctored version of a K-5 profile) and also in terms of how they welcome new customers.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-09-2015, 10:57 AM
|
| |
That is correct if you focus on a "low-light" advantage, but note that FF has more advantages, such as decreased impact of AF inaccuries, higher-dynamic range (assuming same generation sensor technology), etc.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-09-2015, 05:54 AM
|
| |
If you read the article, you'd realise that your point doesn't stand.
But it's OK, I don't want to start a debate.
Regarding 645, many people don't need that kind of performance, but would appreciate to use the FF lenses they have to their full potential. So it is definitely not a case of "either go all the way or don't at all".
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
07-08-2015, 10:00 PM
|
| |
Please have a look at the "The true reasons for a full frame camera" article and you'll see that FF still makes sense.
The sensor size difference between APS-C and FF is bigger than that between FF and digital MF (645). Also, digital MF is in an entirely different price league.
Most importantly, though, what if one wants the ultimate IQ with the lenses one already has?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-07-2013, 03:22 PM
|
| |
Thanks for sharing this.
Fascinating performance by the lens and very interesting to see and hear Dr. Nasse.
I've read articles by him and it nice being able to put a face to a name.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-05-2013, 07:06 PM
|
| |
I agree with a lot of what you've said, but not with the above.
The equivalency argument is not based on the idea that you'd always want to take equivalent images.
It is used to make fair comparisons.
The "real practical low-light advantage" of FF, does not stem from the sensor size. It comes from the faster lenses. That's why I don't entirely agree with the DxOMark approach of granting better low-light scores to FF sensors. They should be comparing sensors, not lenses.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-05-2013, 06:04 AM
|
| |
Well, it seems perfectly plausible to assume that earth's seasons are created by the different distances the earth assumes during its yearly cycle around the sun. But it is still wrong. :eek:
You write "the bigger" sensor. Note, however, that size does not play a role in low-light capabilities. It may not be plausible, but that does not make it wrong.
Of course not.
A discussion about sensor size, will always implicitly assume "everything else being the same", i.e., the same sensor efficiency. Having said that, the K-x, K-5, etc. have excellent sensor performance already. Only pretty much minute advances have been made since then.
Don't let your uneasiness with the "equivalence" concept detract from the fact that larger formats do not (per se) buy you better low light capabilities. Have you looked at the "low noise benefit equals zero" thread I linked to earlier?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-05-2013, 05:57 AM
|
| |
Your daughter should have no problems whatsoever with exposure.
When you use studio strobes, the camera goes into manual. No change of brand will make a difference.
Assuming your daughter uses a K-30, she shouldn't have focusing issues either. A K-5 with a slow lens could prove to yield inconsistent results, but a K-30 should be absolutely fine (just like a K-5 II(s)).
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-05-2013, 03:12 AM
|
| |
I'm pretty sure the graph you have included shows the performance of all cameras assuming the same f-stop. In other words, there is no compensation for the fact that on an FF camera you have to stop down to get the same DOF, if you want to take an equivalent image.
It is basically this stop difference that you are seeing as an "advantage", but it isn't real, if you are comparing apples with apples. The issue, AFAIC, is that "same exposure" is considered to provide a fair comparison. It does not, in my book, because "exposure" is measured per unit area so if you are increasing the sensor area without lowering the exposure you are gathering a lot more photons. Only a faster lens can do the latter (and will produce more shallow DOF as a side effect).
N.B., I'm always assuming equivalent images, i.e., same FOV, noise, DOF, etc.
I'm sort of OK with DxOMark favouring larger sensors, but one should not mistake the higher ISO scores with actually better low-light performance. Larger sensors have better dynamic range, but they have no "light amplification" effect.
The only reason larger sensors can be better in low light is because some lenses for them exist that have no equivalent in the smaller format.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-04-2013, 05:04 PM
|
| |
Too bad that (1) does not exist.
And (6) does not make sense either (considering the current sensor landscape). Most existing smaller sensors provide higher resolution than their larger counterparts.
I didn't comment on the original list because I've gone through too many rounds of dispelling FF myths.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-01-2013, 06:07 PM
|
| |
No, they are not.
To anyone with open ears, I'd be happy to explain in detail why they are facts, not myths.
I'm sorry to say that I will not extent this offer to you, Pål, because I know from experience that you are not open to facts if they run against your beliefs.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-01-2013, 04:58 PM
|
| |
The original question -- Why FF? -- isn't really that hard to answer.
One can argue all day long that FF gives you better dynamic range, better AF accuracy, better pop (sharpness to fuzzy ratio), more DOF control, etc. I've done that myself.
But it really comes down to this: Either you dig the different look of FF or you don't.
If the images of jsherman999 and others posted here and in the Full-Frame Shots thread float your boat then you are in the market for an FF.
If you don't see the difference to APS-C shots then going FF wouldn't make any sense for you.
I personally cannot fathom anyone not seeing the significant difference between these FF samples and what you can get from an APS-C camera (with the available lenses), but I'm certainly happy for anyone to feel differently.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-22-2013, 05:04 AM
|
| |
Well, it is almost half a stop difference.
A 50/1.2 commands a much higher price than a 50/1.4 and I'd like to think it is not only because of the prestige factor. In any case, a good f/1.2 lens is much harder to manufacture than a good f/1.4 lens. Unfortunately the aberrations and cost do not rise in a linear fashion.
Purely theoretical talk can be a bit abstract, though, hence I recommend to scoot over to the "Full-Frame-Shots" thread and see whether you dig the look of FF shots. To me eyes, many of those shots have significantly better impact than typical APS-C shots.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-21-2013, 11:53 PM
|
| |
To give an as shallow depth of field as your 85/1.8 on an FF, the DA* 55/1.4 would have to be a 55/1.2 (f/1.16, to be precise) lens.
In terms of sharpness, the 85/1.8 would most likely outperform the 55/1.2 (due to the lower enlargement factor). AF will definitely be less challenging for the 85/1.8.
You can also imagine the difference in price.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
05-26-2013, 07:08 AM
|
| |
I like yours better.
Exactly.
There is no APS-C 28/1.4 normal lens that can take images as well as an FA 50/1.4 on FF.
As you said, the FA Ltds will be great on an FF camera.
Thanks for the many great shots.
Just a minor disagreement regarding the following:
What helped was the high pixel-density, not the smaller sensor.
If the pixel-density doesn't change (say as it doesn't between a K-5 and a D800) then switching to a larger format is not a disadvantage (because you can just crop without losing resolution).
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
05-23-2013, 07:23 AM
|
| |
| |
