Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
My daughter is shooting mostly weddings and portraits and she much prefers her K20D over my K5 because of the skintone renderings. I have to agree that the smoothness of the Samsung sensor is much better than what is found in the K5. High ISO performance however, is an entirely different matter. -- Bruce -- Sent from Sony Tablet S Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. I guess I'm not alone in preferring the out of the box skin tones of the k-7 vs the k-5. Sometimes for skin tones the embedded profile on the k-5 is better FWIW. In fact the embedded profile is better for the k-5 than it was th the k-7. Just an opinion. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 19/11/2013 9:10 AM, Darren Addy wrote: Saw this thread on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225 The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights very well. Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come out with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) and it would be a serious Home Run. This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. At base ISO, the K3 is as good as the K5, and one of the first things I noticed is how much nicer the K3 files are to work with in my environment (YMMV). In the studio K3 files are as nice as the K7 files. I didn't like the look that I got from the K5 as much as the K7 in terms of flesh tone rendering. That my K5 had useless AF didn't enamor it to me either. The K3 is certainly a big upgrade over the K5 on many, many levels. The K5II is what the K5 should have been except for the bozoness of Hoya, and I expect the K3 is more of an MP upgrade than anything else. Anyone using any of the K5 emulations would do well to consider the K3, unless there is no or minimal investment in small image circle lenses. I'm OK that way, I have a good selection of each, but someone who buys a FF camera does need to think about the new glass he might need if he is changing format from APS-C. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh can put out a FF at $4,000 and expect anyone to buy it. Cheers, --M. Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/19/2013 7:31 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: But there's no guarantee that there will be a full frame body. In fact, based on the lens roadmap, it seems unlikely. That's the fly in the ointment. Paul Indeed. I especially like the notion where people notice that certain lenses produce imagery outside the borders of APS-C image circle and hence: 1. They pronounce that the lenses do cover FF. Which is probably true as far as strict definition goes, but the sharpness fall off and other pleasantries are there nonetheless. 2. Then they conclude that Pentax has a secret plan of introducing FF and that the lenses are half way there... Some conspiracy theories are just that - theories. IMHO, it totally stands to reason that there will indeed be a FF body. However we have no information whatsoever except rumors and suppositions to know what will it be like when it will be introduced(*). I mean in terms of available lenses, etc. Boris (*) We do know that certain Englishman may have to eat his hat though... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 20/11/2013 1:49 PM, Miserere wrote: It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh can put out a FF at $4,000 and expect anyone to buy it. I'd buy it. In a heartbeat. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/11/2013 1:49 PM, Miserere wrote: It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh can put out a FF at $4,000 and expect anyone to buy it. I'd buy it. In a heartbeat. bill I think they're aiming for more than one sale, Bill :-) Cheers, --M. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Bill wrote: On 20/11/2013 1:49 PM, Miserere wrote: It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh can put out a FF at $4,000 and expect anyone to buy it. I'd buy it. In a heartbeat. I expect it to be closer to $2000-$2500, the hot price range for full frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were pretty much ready and they're waiting to have a couple of new full-frame lenses ready before they announce. -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Bill wrote: On 20/11/2013 1:49 PM, Miserere wrote: It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh can put out a FF at $4,000 and expect anyone to buy it. I'd buy it. In a heartbeat. I expect it to be closer to $2000-$2500, the hot price range for full frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were pretty much ready and they're waiting to have a couple of new full-frame lenses ready before they announce. Well, that's it: you heard it here first, folks. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 20/11/13, Miserere, discombobulated, unleashed: It's also unlikely that a camera company will release a new level of camera without accompanying lenses, because lenses is where the greater profit lies, not in the camera, especially since I don't think Ricoh can put out a FF at $4,000 and expect anyone to buy it. It wouldn't be 4k, more like 3 surely. i'd buy one. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate, || (O) |Web Video Production --www.seeingeye.tv _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 20/11/13, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: I expect it to be closer to $2000-$2500, the hot price range for full frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were pretty much ready and they're waiting to have a couple of new full-frame lenses ready before they announce. Well, they went from K-7 to K-5 to K-3 be silly to introduce the K-1 and not have it FF -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate, || (O) |Web Video Production --www.seeingeye.tv _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Time to revive the Super, as in K-3 Super for the 24MP full frame edition? On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Steve Cottrell co...@seeingeye.tv wrote: On 20/11/13, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: I expect it to be closer to $2000-$2500, the hot price range for full frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were pretty much ready and they're waiting to have a couple of new full-frame lenses ready before they announce. Well, they went from K-7 to K-5 to K-3 be silly to introduce the K-1 and not have it FF -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate, || (O) |Web Video Production --www.seeingeye.tv _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
You seem to be assuming that it would be k mount. Steve Cottrell co...@seeingeye.tv wrote: On 20/11/13, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: I expect it to be closer to $2000-$2500, the hot price range for full frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were pretty much ready and they're waiting to have a couple of new full-frame lenses ready before they announce. Well, they went from K-7 to K-5 to K-3 be silly to introduce the K-1 and not have it FF -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 20/11/2013 5:40 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote: On 20/11/13, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: I expect it to be closer to $2000-$2500, the hot price range for full frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were pretty much ready and they're waiting to have a couple of new full-frame lenses ready before they announce. Well, they went from K-7 to K-5 to K-3 be silly to introduce the K-1 and not have it FF The full frames will have even numbers. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote: You seem to be assuming that it would be k mount. Given that Ricoh is now the owner perhaps we should all expect the FF camera to be a PK/R mount. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Maybe they will do something creative and call it the Pentax π (pi). Then the marketing department can do clever things like: Take your photography to infinity and beyond! or Finally, a full frame DSLR that is easy as pi. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/11/2013 5:40 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote: On 20/11/13, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: I expect it to be closer to $2000-$2500, the hot price range for full frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were pretty much ready and they're waiting to have a couple of new full-frame lenses ready before they announce. Well, they went from K-7 to K-5 to K-3 be silly to introduce the K-1 and not have it FF The full frames will have even numbers. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
I know. I know. My idea is half-baked. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe they will do something creative and call it the Pentax π (pi). Then the marketing department can do clever things like: Take your photography to infinity and beyond! or Finally, a full frame DSLR that is easy as pi. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/11/2013 5:40 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote: On 20/11/13, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: I expect it to be closer to $2000-$2500, the hot price range for full frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were pretty much ready and they're waiting to have a couple of new full-frame lenses ready before they announce. Well, they went from K-7 to K-5 to K-3 be silly to introduce the K-1 and not have it FF The full frames will have even numbers. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
K-0 for the imagined 24 x 36 camera. ( The K-3 has a full frame.) Paul via phone On Nov 20, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Time to revive the Super, as in K-3 Super for the 24MP full frame edition? On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Steve Cottrell co...@seeingeye.tv wrote: On 20/11/13, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: I expect it to be closer to $2000-$2500, the hot price range for full frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were pretty much ready and they're waiting to have a couple of new full-frame lenses ready before they announce. Well, they went from K-7 to K-5 to K-3 be silly to introduce the K-1 and not have it FF -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate, || (O) |Web Video Production --www.seeingeye.tv _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 20/11/2013 6:02 PM, Darren Addy wrote: I know. I know. My idea is half-baked. We are talking about the company that put an * in the name of a camera. nothing is impossible. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
K-square-root-of-minus-one On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: K-0 for the imagined 24 x 36 camera. ( The K-3 has a full frame.) Paul via phone On Nov 20, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Time to revive the Super, as in K-3 Super for the 24MP full frame edition? On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Steve Cottrell co...@seeingeye.tv wrote: On 20/11/13, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: I expect it to be closer to $2000-$2500, the hot price range for full frame. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera were pretty much ready and they're waiting to have a couple of new full-frame lenses ready before they announce. Well, they went from K-7 to K-5 to K-3 be silly to introduce the K-1 and not have it FF -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__Broadcast, Corporate, || (O) |Web Video Production --www.seeingeye.tv _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Good point, Bill. And they still use it in their lenses: DA* They do not seem to understand the Google/internet. Or concept of wildcard characters. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/11/2013 6:02 PM, Darren Addy wrote: I know. I know. My idea is half-baked. We are talking about the company that put an * in the name of a camera. nothing is impossible. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
That's a good thing or we might end up with markings like [PR][ei][nc][to][ah]x? On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Good point, Bill. And they still use it in their lenses: DA* They do not seem to understand the Google/internet. Or concept of wildcard characters. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 20/11/2013 6:02 PM, Darren Addy wrote: I know. I know. My idea is half-baked. We are talking about the company that put an * in the name of a camera. nothing is impossible. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Bruce Walker wrote: K-square-root-of-minus-one They've had the K-x and the K-r. So next is the K-i obviously! -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:44 pm, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Bruce Walker wrote: K-square-root-of-minus-one They've had the K-x and the K-r. So next is the K-i obviously! Would there be a K-j for electrical engineers? Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
I'm waiting for the K-y. With their recent price hikes on lenses, it seems like the next logical upgrade. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:17 PM, David Mann dmann...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:44 pm, Mark Roberts postmas...@robertstech.com wrote: Bruce Walker wrote: K-square-root-of-minus-one They've had the K-x and the K-r. So next is the K-i obviously! Would there be a K-j for electrical engineers? Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Saw this thread on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225 The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights very well. Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come out with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) and it would be a serious Home Run. This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Saw this thread on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225 The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights very well. Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come out with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) and it would be a serious Home Run. This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. But there's no guarantee that there will be a full frame body. In fact, based on the lens roadmap, it seems unlikely. That's the fly in the ointment. Paul -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: But there's no guarantee that there will be a full frame body. In fact, based on the lens roadmap, it seems unlikely. That's the fly in the ointment. I agree, with the current lens lineup a FF body wouldn't make sense. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Cheers Brian +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Walters Australian Native Plants Society (Australia) http://anpsa.org.auRe: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Quoting Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. But there's no guarantee that there will be a full frame body. In fact, based on the lens roadmap, it seems unlikely. That's the fly in the ointment. Yes, but if they are working on a full frame body, they probably wouldn't put any planned full frame lenses on the roadmap because that would give the game away (if they are trying to keep FF development under wraps for whatever reason). Just out of curiosity - Pentax obviously has design details for a range of FA lenses in their files. How easy would it be to bring some of those back into production? -- Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
H Well, that was odd. Not sure what happened to the subject line in my previous message. A phantom copy and paste, perhaps :-) Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ Quoting Brian Walters apathy...@lyons-ryan.org: Quoting Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. But there's no guarantee that there will be a full frame body. In fact, based on the lens roadmap, it seems unlikely. That's the fly in the ointment. Yes, but if they are working on a full frame body, they probably wouldn't put any planned full frame lenses on the roadmap because that would give the game away (if they are trying to keep FF development under wraps for whatever reason). Just out of curiosity - Pentax obviously has design details for a range of FA lenses in their files. How easy would it be to bring some of those back into production? -- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
We, in northern CA, just experienced a short power failure at 12:05 PM. Lasted perhaps 4 min's. - Original Message - From: Brian Walters apathy...@lyons-ryan.org To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Cc: Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:08 PM Subject: Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail H Well, that was odd. Not sure what happened to the subject line in my previous message. A phantom copy and paste, perhaps :-) Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ Quoting Brian Walters apathy...@lyons-ryan.org: Quoting Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net: On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. But there's no guarantee that there will be a full frame body. In fact, based on the lens roadmap, it seems unlikely. That's the fly in the ointment. Yes, but if they are working on a full frame body, they probably wouldn't put any planned full frame lenses on the roadmap because that would give the game away (if they are trying to keep FF development under wraps for whatever reason). Just out of curiosity - Pentax obviously has design details for a range of FA lenses in their files. How easy would it be to bring some of those back into production? -- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Quoting Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com: We, in northern CA, just experienced a short power failure at 12:05 PM. Lasted perhaps 4 min's. Are you blaming me?? :-) Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia http://lyons-ryan.org/southernlight/ - Original Message - From: Brian Walters apathy...@lyons-ryan.org To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Cc: Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 1:08 PM Subject: Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail H Well, that was odd. Not sure what happened to the subject line in my previous message.nbsp; Anbsp; phantom copy and paste, perhapsnbsp; :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 19/11/2013 9:10 AM, Darren Addy wrote: Saw this thread on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225 The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights very well. Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come out with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) and it would be a serious Home Run. This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. At base ISO, the K3 is as good as the K5, and one of the first things I noticed is how much nicer the K3 files are to work with in my environment (YMMV). In the studio K3 files are as nice as the K7 files. I didn't like the look that I got from the K5 as much as the K7 in terms of flesh tone rendering. That my K5 had useless AF didn't enamor it to me either. The K3 is certainly a big upgrade over the K5 on many, many levels. The K5II is what the K5 should have been except for the bozoness of Hoya, and I expect the K3 is more of an MP upgrade than anything else. Anyone using any of the K5 emulations would do well to consider the K3, unless there is no or minimal investment in small image circle lenses. I'm OK that way, I have a good selection of each, but someone who buys a FF camera does need to think about the new glass he might need if he is changing format from APS-C. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Interesting. I guess I'm not alone in preferring the out of the box skin tones of the k-7 vs the k-5. Sometimes for skin tones the embedded profile on the k-5 is better FWIW. In fact the embedded profile is better for the k-5 than it was th the k-7. Just an opinion. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 19/11/2013 9:10 AM, Darren Addy wrote: Saw this thread on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225 The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights very well. Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come out with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) and it would be a serious Home Run. This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. At base ISO, the K3 is as good as the K5, and one of the first things I noticed is how much nicer the K3 files are to work with in my environment (YMMV). In the studio K3 files are as nice as the K7 files. I didn't like the look that I got from the K5 as much as the K7 in terms of flesh tone rendering. That my K5 had useless AF didn't enamor it to me either. The K3 is certainly a big upgrade over the K5 on many, many levels. The K5II is what the K5 should have been except for the bozoness of Hoya, and I expect the K3 is more of an MP upgrade than anything else. Anyone using any of the K5 emulations would do well to consider the K3, unless there is no or minimal investment in small image circle lenses. I'm OK that way, I have a good selection of each, but someone who buys a FF camera does need to think about the new glass he might need if he is changing format from APS-C. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
I'm glad to see that after a long absence you guys are still debating Pentax FF. It's like I never left! Sign me up for not buying the definitely for sure (really this time it is) up-coming FF. I'll continue to slum it with my APS-C equipment :-) Cheers, --M. Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Saw this thread on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225 The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights very well. Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come out with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) and it would be a serious Home Run. This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. But there's no guarantee that there will be a full frame body. In fact, based on the lens roadmap, it seems unlikely. That's the fly in the ointment. Paul -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Welcome back, Miserere! On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote: I'm glad to see that after a long absence you guys are still debating Pentax FF. It's like I never left! Sign me up for not buying the definitely for sure (really this time it is) up-coming FF. I'll continue to slum it with my APS-C equipment :-) Cheers, --M. Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Saw this thread on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225 The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights very well. Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come out with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) and it would be a serious Home Run. This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. But there's no guarantee that there will be a full frame body. In fact, based on the lens roadmap, it seems unlikely. That's the fly in the ointment. Paul -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 19/11/2013 3:55 PM, Zos Xavius wrote: Interesting. I guess I'm not alone in preferring the out of the box skin tones of the k-7 vs the k-5. Sometimes for skin tones the embedded profile on the k-5 is better FWIW. In fact the embedded profile is better for the k-5 than it was th the k-7. Just an opinion. I was never able to get a K5 file that I liked as much as the K7 in my studio work. Something about the sensor sensitivity just made the K7 work better for me. John Francis found it was more red sensitive, I suspect that is the difference. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote: I'm glad to see that after a long absence you guys are still debating Pentax FF. It's like I never left! Sign me up for not buying the definitely for sure (really this time it is) up-coming FF. I'll continue to slum it with my APS-C equipment :-) Me too, APS-C is perfectly fine for me. We were just discussing probabilities. Strictly scientifically speaking of course :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
I grew to dislike the K-7. Hard to deal with the noise, even at ISO 400. Tonality was never a problem for me with the K-5. I usually tweak the image to display the pallet I want anyway. I didn't do a lot of studio shooting with the K-5, but I did do one major job, shooting about a dozen portraits each of a dozen consulting firm execs. I was surprised to see that I missed focus on four or five of the approximate 150 frames. It seemed inexplicable, but I attributed it to simple incompetence -- which may well have been the case. Paul Paul On Nov 19, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: Interesting. I guess I'm not alone in preferring the out of the box skin tones of the k-7 vs the k-5. Sometimes for skin tones the embedded profile on the k-5 is better FWIW. In fact the embedded profile is better for the k-5 than it was th the k-7. Just an opinion. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 19/11/2013 9:10 AM, Darren Addy wrote: Saw this thread on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225 The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights very well. Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come out with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) and it would be a serious Home Run. This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. At base ISO, the K3 is as good as the K5, and one of the first things I noticed is how much nicer the K3 files are to work with in my environment (YMMV). In the studio K3 files are as nice as the K7 files. I didn't like the look that I got from the K5 as much as the K7 in terms of flesh tone rendering. That my K5 had useless AF didn't enamor it to me either. The K3 is certainly a big upgrade over the K5 on many, many levels. The K5II is what the K5 should have been except for the bozoness of Hoya, and I expect the K3 is more of an MP upgrade than anything else. Anyone using any of the K5 emulations would do well to consider the K3, unless there is no or minimal investment in small image circle lenses. I'm OK that way, I have a good selection of each, but someone who buys a FF camera does need to think about the new glass he might need if he is changing format from APS-C. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Thanks, Darren! I really missed these edifying discussions on FF vs APS-C ;-) Cheers, --M. Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Welcome back, Miserere! On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Miserere miser...@gmail.com wrote: I'm glad to see that after a long absence you guys are still debating Pentax FF. It's like I never left! Sign me up for not buying the definitely for sure (really this time it is) up-coming FF. I'll continue to slum it with my APS-C equipment :-) Cheers, --M. Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: On Nov 19, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Saw this thread on dpreview: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52547225 The guy has 3 year's experience with the K-5. His verdict is There is more visible noise at high ISO starting ISO 640. K-5 shots looked cleaner. But, man, cropping ability and details of K-3 on top of faster and more reliable AF, including now working well enough AF.C, are simply amazing. Also metering is much more accurate, handling highlights very well. Some good images of Birds In Flight (BIF) as examples. I believe that this illustrates why Pentax could very easily come out with a Full Frame DSLR that has the SAME MP as the K-3 and it would still be a winner: Larger sensor sites would mean less noise (and probably better high ISO performance) and so the FF image quality would top the K-3 (for presumably more money). However, if Pentax takes what they learned from making the K-3 (in terms of AF performance, exposure system, high frame rate, and switchable AA) and it would be a serious Home Run. This is the main reason that I think that K-5 and K-5ii owners could pretty easily wait for the FF in 2014, rather than hopping on the K-3 now. Think of it as putting $1299 towards your eventual full frame body. But there's no guarantee that there will be a full frame body. In fact, based on the lens roadmap, it seems unlikely. That's the fly in the ointment. Paul -- I don't have a problem with idiots. I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 19/11/2013 4:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I grew to dislike the K-7. Hard to deal with the noise, even at ISO 400. Tonality was never a problem for me with the K-5. I usually tweak the image to display the pallet I want anyway. I didn't do a lot of studio shooting with the K-5, but I did do one major job, shooting about a dozen portraits each of a dozen consulting firm execs. I was surprised to see that I missed focus on four or five of the approximate 150 frames. It seemed inexplicable, but I attributed it to simple incompetence -- which may well have been the case. The K7 was well nigh unusable above 400, but at base was as good as anything out there. I was never fond of the coolness of the K5 files, when I tweaked them to get a flesh tone I liked, something else was wrong. The colour of the K3 seems closer to the rendering of the K7, which pleases me greatly. Your focus problem was likely the same problem my K5 had, just not as severe. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Its not you. The K-5 misses focus. I often focus and recompoe a couple of times to make sure I have a shot. Especially in low light. Stopping down gives a margin of error too. On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote: On 19/11/2013 4:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I grew to dislike the K-7. Hard to deal with the noise, even at ISO 400. Tonality was never a problem for me with the K-5. I usually tweak the image to display the pallet I want anyway. I didn't do a lot of studio shooting with the K-5, but I did do one major job, shooting about a dozen portraits each of a dozen consulting firm execs. I was surprised to see that I missed focus on four or five of the approximate 150 frames. It seemed inexplicable, but I attributed it to simple incompetence -- which may well have been the case. The K7 was well nigh unusable above 400, but at base was as good as anything out there. I was never fond of the coolness of the K5 files, when I tweaked them to get a flesh tone I liked, something else was wrong. The colour of the K3 seems closer to the rendering of the K7, which pleases me greatly. Your focus problem was likely the same problem my K5 had, just not as severe. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 19/11/2013 6:11 PM, Zos Xavius wrote: Its not you. The K-5 misses focus. I often focus and recompoe a couple of times to make sure I have a shot. Especially in low light. Stopping down gives a margin of error too. I ended up having to use LiveView with face detect AF to make my K5 work with studio lights. My K5 was Crap with a capital C. When i bought my X-Pro1, I was amazed and impressed that the AF just worked. It was such a joy to be able to use a camera that took pictures reliably. Unfortunately for a lot of people, the K3 works. Had they come out with another sensor on a turd camera, there would have been a lot of nice Pentax glass on the market while I was changing systems. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 11/20/2013 1:24 AM, Bill wrote: On 19/11/2013 4:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I grew to dislike the K-7. Hard to deal with the noise, even at ISO 400. Tonality was never a problem for me with the K-5. I usually tweak the image to display the pallet I want anyway. I didn't do a lot of studio shooting with the K-5, but I did do one major job, shooting about a dozen portraits each of a dozen consulting firm execs. I was surprised to see that I missed focus on four or five of the approximate 150 frames. It seemed inexplicable, but I attributed it to simple incompetence -- which may well have been the case. The K7 was well nigh unusable above 400, but at base was as good as anything out there. I was never fond of the coolness of the K5 files, when I tweaked them to get a flesh tone I liked, something else was wrong. The colour of the K3 seems closer to the rendering of the K7, which pleases me greatly. Your focus problem was likely the same problem my K5 had, just not as severe. This is really interesting. You see, Bill, my impressions are rather opposite of yours. I've recently reviewed several thousand photos from our album. The ones taken with K-7 had the worst colors and especially the worst skin tones - pinkish/magentish cast all over. OTOH, K-7 could go to ISO 6400 as opposed to K10D's mere ISO 1600. This actually pushed me towards the low light photography. I'm not saying the results were extraordinary, but since then I kind of like the genre. As far as AF goes - K-5 is fine - I don't have any trouble with it. I just don't expect it to be surgically precise or hit exactly, but absolutely exactly, where I want it to focus. Under these assumptions, K-5 has perfectly fine AF. Indeed I was surprised to learn that two AF Ricoh modules are very accurate in terms of AF precision, but not as fast. These days I don't care - manual focus with proper focus assist with EVF suits me just fine. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 11/20/2013 1:24 AM, Bill wrote: On 19/11/2013 4:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I grew to dislike the K-7. Hard to deal with the noise, even at ISO 400. Tonality was never a problem for me with the K-5. I usually tweak the image to display the pallet I want anyway. I didn't do a lot of studio shooting with the K-5, but I did do one major job, shooting about a dozen portraits each of a dozen consulting firm execs. I was surprised to see that I missed focus on four or five of the approximate 150 frames. It seemed inexplicable, but I attributed it to simple incompetence -- which may well have been the case. The K7 was well nigh unusable above 400, but at base was as good as anything out there. I was never fond of the coolness of the K5 files, when I tweaked them to get a flesh tone I liked, something else was wrong. The colour of the K3 seems closer to the rendering of the K7, which pleases me greatly. Your focus problem was likely the same problem my K5 had, just not as severe. This is really interesting. You see, Bill, my impressions are rather opposite of yours. I've recently reviewed several thousand photos from our album. The ones taken with K-7 had the worst colors and especially the worst skin tones - pinkish/magentish cast all over. OTOH, K-7 could go to ISO 6400 as opposed to K10D's mere ISO 1600. This actually pushed me towards the low light photography. I'm not saying the results were extraordinary, but since then I kind of like the genre. As far as AF goes - K-5 is fine - I don't have any trouble with it. I just don't expect it to be surgically precise or hit exactly, but absolutely exactly, where I want it to focus. Under these assumptions, K-5 has perfectly fine AF. Indeed I was surprised to learn that two AF Ricoh modules are very accurate in terms of AF precision, but not as fast. These days I don't care - manual focus with proper focus over EVF assist suits me just fine. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
I'm with you on this one, Paul. On 11/20/2013 12:24 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I grew to dislike the K-7. Hard to deal with the noise, even at ISO 400. Tonality was never a problem for me with the K-5. I usually tweak the image to display the pallet I want anyway. I didn't do a lot of studio shooting with the K-5, but I did do one major job, shooting about a dozen portraits each of a dozen consulting firm execs. I was surprised to see that I missed focus on four or five of the approximate 150 frames. It seemed inexplicable, but I attributed it to simple incompetence -- which may well have been the case. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
Shalom :-). Yep, small APS-C gear can be far more advantageous than big and heavy FF one. On 11/20/2013 12:02 AM, Miserere wrote: I'm glad to see that after a long absence you guys are still debating Pentax FF. It's like I never left! Sign me up for not buying the definitely for sure (really this time it is) up-coming FF. I'll continue to slum it with my APS-C equipment :-) Cheers, --M. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 11/19/2013 7:31 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: But there's no guarantee that there will be a full frame body. In fact, based on the lens roadmap, it seems unlikely. That's the fly in the ointment. Paul Indeed. I especially like the notion where people notice that certain lenses produce imagery outside the borders of APS-C image circle and hence: 1. They pronounce that the lenses do cover FF. Which is probably true as far as strict definition goes, but the sharpness fall off and other pleasantries are there nonetheless. 2. Then they conclude that Pentax has a secret plan of introducing FF and that the lenses are half way there... Some conspiracy theories are just that - theories. IMHO, it totally stands to reason that there will indeed be a FF body. However we have no information whatsoever except rumors and suppositions to know what will it be like when it will be introduced(*). I mean in terms of available lenses, etc. Boris (*) We do know that certain Englishman may have to eat his hat though... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: More K-3 BIF: more noise, but more detail
On 19/11/2013 11:23 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: On 11/20/2013 1:24 AM, Bill wrote: On 19/11/2013 4:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I grew to dislike the K-7. Hard to deal with the noise, even at ISO 400. Tonality was never a problem for me with the K-5. I usually tweak the image to display the pallet I want anyway. I didn't do a lot of studio shooting with the K-5, but I did do one major job, shooting about a dozen portraits each of a dozen consulting firm execs. I was surprised to see that I missed focus on four or five of the approximate 150 frames. It seemed inexplicable, but I attributed it to simple incompetence -- which may well have been the case. The K7 was well nigh unusable above 400, but at base was as good as anything out there. I was never fond of the coolness of the K5 files, when I tweaked them to get a flesh tone I liked, something else was wrong. The colour of the K3 seems closer to the rendering of the K7, which pleases me greatly. Your focus problem was likely the same problem my K5 had, just not as severe. This is really interesting. You see, Bill, my impressions are rather opposite of yours. I've recently reviewed several thousand photos from our album. The ones taken with K-7 had the worst colors and especially the worst skin tones - pinkish/magentish cast all over. I shoot most of my people pictures in the studio. The lights are not the same colour. bill OTOH, K-7 could go to ISO 6400 as opposed to K10D's mere ISO 1600. This actually pushed me towards the low light photography. I'm not saying the results were extraordinary, but since then I kind of like the genre. As far as AF goes - K-5 is fine - I don't have any trouble with it. I just don't expect it to be surgically precise or hit exactly, but absolutely exactly, where I want it to focus. Under these assumptions, K-5 has perfectly fine AF. Indeed I was surprised to learn that two AF Ricoh modules are very accurate in terms of AF precision, but not as fast. These days I don't care - manual focus with proper focus over EVF assist suits me just fine. Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
