And I might add that the K-3 is clearly resolving more fine detail at higher ISOs. I think the extra noise is a non-issue. Especially with some raw processing.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Zos Xavius <zosxav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I finally read the review. IQ looks very, very good. On par with the > K-5 in terms of high ISO. Highlight recovery looks to be about equal. > The K-5 seems to edge out slightly on shadow recovery. Probably not a > big deal in 99% of shooting situations unless you really need to push > your shots 3 stops, in that case its time to learn how to expose. I > would say from what I've seen the DR and marginally more noise is > going to be a non-issue for most folks out there. So what's the fight > over? Are people with K-5s really suddenly inadequate or something? > For me I am going to stick with my K-5. Its perfect for the type of > shooting I do and I need to focus on getting better glass more than > more megapixels. From what I can tell most of my lenses wouldn't be up > to resolving 24mp from a crop anyways. > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Boris Liberman <bori...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What is biting my ass, Bill, is my bloody cumbersome English. Let's see if I >> can hit the target from the second try. >> >> The measured DR is useless because it is theoretical. The measurements were >> taken in controlled environment by people who specialize in doing such >> measurements. >> >> In reality the metering is not always spot on, and not because of a camera, >> or actually only partly because of a camera, but also because of a human >> error. Human being me here. >> >> Further, in my area of interest :-), contrast is usually extreme. Thus even >> a minor error is what it is - an error. Now, the more DR I have - the more >> tolerance/leeway for correction I am given. >> >> I don't pretend to be extremely accurate or well versed in terms of using my >> camera. I usually set it to P-mode, dial in some -0.7Ev correction and go on >> shooting. I try to deal with tonality of my pictures in post. >> >> So, I much rather have wider DR than more MP or more focus points, that all. >> Like I said - it is subjective. >> >> Oh, and like Larry pointed out - the more DR I have at base ISO, the more DR >> am I going to have at higher ISOs... >> >> Does it make sense now? Do I sound pessimistic? >> >> Boris >> >> >> >> On 11/13/2013 9:02 PM, Bill wrote: >>> >>> On 13/11/2013 9:53 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: >>>> >>>> Bill, it is purely subjective. I have suffered enough grief from K-7's >>>> sensor and frankly, the way Pentax treats highlights in their RAW >>>> files seems to be rather unforgiving compared with those of Ricoh GXR >>>> (any module with 12MP sensor). So, I don't want to take any chances. >>>> >>> >>> Boris, it isn't subjective at all. This is one of those areas where DXO >>> is a good resource. >>> >>> >>> http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/874%7C0/(brand)/Ricoh/(appareil2)/676%7C0/(brand2)/Pentax/(appareil3)/615%7C0/(brand3)/Pentax >>> >>> >>> Look at the DR. The K7 is 10.6 EV, the K5 is 14.1EV, the Ricoh GR is >>> 13.5EV. They don't have the K3 tested yet, but I'm thinking it will >>> probably place very close to the GR, based on what I've see coming off >>> the camera. >>> We know that the Samsung sensors used in the K20 and K7 never performed >>> the way they were supposed to, if they had, it's doubtful that Pentax >>> would have moved to Sony sensors in subsequent models. >>> This is one of those times when being a professional pessimist is biting >>> your ass. >>> >>> 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.
