RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
I think it is two problems. The WB is off, yes, and the shots are overexposed because of extreme contrast. I believe the combination of the two is what makes it so hard to correct the colour afterwards. What is blown is blown, I'm afraid. No highlight details to restore, and therefore hard or impossible to get the WB right, I believe. But I'd be happy, to be proven wrong though ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: 15. februar 2007 23:39 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Yeah, I know this too, Tim. But that reddish cast was not exactly what I meant. The problem you discibe is porbably caused by bad WB tuning. This was corrected: http://flickr.com/photos/bladt/25108348/ This was not: http://flickr.com/photos/bladt/25164846/in/set-572671/ http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Tim Řsleby Sendt: 12. februar 2007 20:32 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) I've noticed this with my DS too. It is a real PITA in difficult light (read concert shooting). If I don't have time to do proper spot metering I tend to end up with reddish skin cast that is impossible to get rid of in processing. I've blown a few gigs doing this. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: 11. februar 2007 16:14 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) PPS: I have added a little test to my Flickr pages as well: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594529582033/ Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 13:36 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... I don't know what the went wrong yesterday, testing exposure of the K10D. Perhaps the FA* 2.8/80-200mm is not working right with the K10D? Perhaps changing leses many times, metering by manually by Green Button etc. did confuse the cameras or me, or the light perhaps changed betewwn switching camera bodies ? I have no idea. Anyway, today I did some new test shots - comparing the K10D and the *ist D, using two samples of the same Pentax lens: The old SMC Pentax-F 4-5.6 35-80mm. So, I put one of these lenses on both cameras and did a few test shots. I shot the same scenery twice -using the same shutterspeed, same settings (multi-segnment, WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation, ISO 200, RAW). And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with contrast. The K10D shots are consistantly the most pleasing shots, despite of the dark scenery/bright sky. Such conditions are very common in our (northern) parts of the world (low sun). Very often our contrasty environment requires manual exposure corrections. It seems the K10D handeled the situation quite well. Much better than the *ist D. I am pleasantly surprised! Judge for your selves. What do you think? http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 01:03 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? No I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over compensating)? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William Robb Sendt: 10. februar 2007 19:55 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? - Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes &
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
I think it is two problems. The WB is off, yes, and the shots are overexposed because of extreme contrast. I believe the combination of the two is what makes it so hard to correct the colour afterwards. What is blown is blown, I'm afraid. No highlight details to restore, and therefore hard or impossible to get the WB right, I believe. But I'd be happy, to be proven wrong though ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: 15. februar 2007 23:39 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Yeah, I know this too, Tim. But that reddish cast was not exactly what I meant. The problem you discibe is porbably caused by bad WB tuning. This was corrected: http://flickr.com/photos/bladt/25108348/ This was not: http://flickr.com/photos/bladt/25164846/in/set-572671/ http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Tim Řsleby Sendt: 12. februar 2007 20:32 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) I've noticed this with my DS too. It is a real PITA in difficult light (read concert shooting). If I don't have time to do proper spot metering I tend to end up with reddish skin cast that is impossible to get rid of in processing. I've blown a few gigs doing this. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: 11. februar 2007 16:14 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) PPS: I have added a little test to my Flickr pages as well: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594529582033/ Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 13:36 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... I don't know what the went wrong yesterday, testing exposure of the K10D. Perhaps the FA* 2.8/80-200mm is not working right with the K10D? Perhaps changing leses many times, metering by manually by Green Button etc. did confuse the cameras or me, or the light perhaps changed betewwn switching camera bodies ? I have no idea. Anyway, today I did some new test shots - comparing the K10D and the *ist D, using two samples of the same Pentax lens: The old SMC Pentax-F 4-5.6 35-80mm. So, I put one of these lenses on both cameras and did a few test shots. I shot the same scenery twice -using the same shutterspeed, same settings (multi-segnment, WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation, ISO 200, RAW). And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with contrast. The K10D shots are consistantly the most pleasing shots, despite of the dark scenery/bright sky. Such conditions are very common in our (northern) parts of the world (low sun). Very often our contrasty environment requires manual exposure corrections. It seems the K10D handeled the situation quite well. Much better than the *ist D. I am pleasantly surprised! Judge for your selves. What do you think? http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 01:03 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? No I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over compensating)? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William Robb Sendt: 10. februar 2007 19:55 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? - Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes &
Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
On Feb 15, 2007, at 7:59 PM, William Robb wrote: >> Is this something more sofisticated than just shooting Raw files? >> http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/ > > Oh yes. > This is how to calibrate ACR so that your pictures come out the > right colour > without fiddling. > At least, I think thats what it is. > Rob S pointed us towards that link, then ran away. > At some point, I'm going to have to try to get my head around this > stuff. I believe the technique is documented in "Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS/CS2" by Bruce Fraser. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
- Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) > Thanks, William. > Is this something more sofisticated than just shooting Raw files? > http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/ Oh yes. This is how to calibrate ACR so that your pictures come out the right colour without fiddling. At least, I think thats what it is. Rob S pointed us towards that link, then ran away. At some point, I'm going to have to try to get my head around this stuff. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Thanks, William. Is this something more sofisticated than just shooting Raw files? http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/ Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William Robb Sendt: 12. februar 2007 18:01 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) > What is ACR, Rob? I curious, since I am definitely going to keep my *ist > D! Adobe Camera RAW. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.37/682 - Release Date: 02/12/2007 13:23 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/687 - Release Date: 02/14/2007 16:17 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
There it is again, Rob. I'll have to read it sometime... But I don't use the Adobe engine - I use Phase One LE (love it) and - at for the time being - Adobe Lightroom (Beta version), since I'm still waitng for the PH LE up-grade in order to deal with the K10D RAW files. I kinda like Adobe Lightroom too - except for the stupid long file-names it makes. Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Digital Image Studio Sendt: 12. februar 2007 21:59 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) On 13/02/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is ACR, Rob? I curious, since I am definitely going to keep my *ist D! > Regards Adobe Camera RAW, the import engine, see the following article on calibration of ACR for your camera: http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/AcrCalibration/ -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.37/682 - Release Date: 02/12/2007 13:23 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.39/687 - Release Date: 02/14/2007 16:17 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Yeah, I know this too, Tim. But that reddish cast was not exactly what I meant. The problem you discibe is porbably caused by bad WB tuning. This was corrected: http://flickr.com/photos/bladt/25108348/ This was not: http://flickr.com/photos/bladt/25164846/in/set-572671/ http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Tim Řsleby Sendt: 12. februar 2007 20:32 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) I've noticed this with my DS too. It is a real PITA in difficult light (read concert shooting). If I don't have time to do proper spot metering I tend to end up with reddish skin cast that is impossible to get rid of in processing. I've blown a few gigs doing this. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: 11. februar 2007 16:14 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) PPS: I have added a little test to my Flickr pages as well: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594529582033/ Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 13:36 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... I don't know what the went wrong yesterday, testing exposure of the K10D. Perhaps the FA* 2.8/80-200mm is not working right with the K10D? Perhaps changing leses many times, metering by manually by Green Button etc. did confuse the cameras or me, or the light perhaps changed betewwn switching camera bodies ? I have no idea. Anyway, today I did some new test shots - comparing the K10D and the *ist D, using two samples of the same Pentax lens: The old SMC Pentax-F 4-5.6 35-80mm. So, I put one of these lenses on both cameras and did a few test shots. I shot the same scenery twice -using the same shutterspeed, same settings (multi-segnment, WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation, ISO 200, RAW). And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with contrast. The K10D shots are consistantly the most pleasing shots, despite of the dark scenery/bright sky. Such conditions are very common in our (northern) parts of the world (low sun). Very often our contrasty environment requires manual exposure corrections. It seems the K10D handeled the situation quite well. Much better than the *ist D. I am pleasantly surprised! Judge for your selves. What do you think? http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 01:03 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? No I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over compensating)? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William Robb Sendt: 10. februar 2007 19:55 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes > (walls, grey card etc.) as well ad contraty ones, im order tio figure out > if > the meter is off or if the matrix metering is over reacting. Surely I > can't > live with this. > > When photographing a a scenery with a very bright sky (very common in the > northern parts og the world) I must dial in MINUS CORRECTION, when using > the > K10D. This is the exact opposite of what I have done for the last 30 > years! > I could never get used to this. My K10D requires reversed backlight > compensation. Surely that can't be right! > It soulds to me like the metering is compensating the sky as if it was a backlit scene (overexposi
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
> The old standard reference, 18% gray, is a little dark for white > balance use although it does work fine in good light ... that's > supposed to be a Zone V gray. I prefer to use a Zone VIII gray, > about 60% gray reflectance. OK, now I'm getting somewhere. I've had less than 300 shutter releases using RAW, most were in a controlled environment (testing lenses etc) where I've shot film over some 16 years, it was easy to adjust the white balance there, now I'm just getting adjusted with my first few outdoor shots, thanks for the help. Regards, John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
On Feb 13, 2007, at 10:40 AM, John Whittingham wrote: >> I doubt you have to re-install anything, though. Finding the *right* >> gray spot to sample is the trick. ;-) > > You mean like using the grey card as we all did with film, yes? I > never > considered that *light* grey. The old standard reference, 18% gray, is a little dark for white balance use although it does work fine in good light ... that's supposed to be a Zone V gray. I prefer to use a Zone VIII gray, about 60% gray reflectance. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
> I doubt you have to re-install anything, though. Finding the *right* > gray spot to sample is the trick. ;-) You mean like using the grey card as we all did with film, yes? I never considered that *light* grey. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
It ain't easy if it's way overexposed. And getting the exposure right at a rock concert ain't easy, with the constant changes in lighting and people running around way faster than my manual focusing capabilities. On second thought; maybe I should have a second look at the photos. I'm better at raw converting now. Some of the pictures are of my youngest son with one of his bands. So it is worth a try. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: 13. februar 2007 00:13 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Caucasian skin tones are apparently a problem for Bayer Matrix sensors because they are within the frequency response curves for both green and red sensor sites, which tends to give an additional red cast to caucasian skin. This can be corrected in post fairly easily if you shoot RAW of course. -Adam Who was just reading about this in a rather good book about photographing and post-processing people shots, a book called Skin by Lee Varis. And no, it's not about nudes. Tim Øsleby wrote: > I've noticed this with my DS too. It is a real PITA in difficult light (read > concert shooting). If I don't have time to do proper spot metering I tend to > end up with reddish skin cast that is impossible to get rid of in > processing. I've blown a few gigs doing this. > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens > Bladt > Sent: 11. februar 2007 16:14 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image > quality?) > > PPS: > I have added a little test to my Flickr pages as well: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594529582033/ > > Regards > > Jens Bladt > Nytarkort / Greeting Card: > http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > +45 56 63 77 11 > +45 23 43 85 77 > Skype: jensbladt248 > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens > Bladt > Sendt: 11. februar 2007 13:36 > Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Emne: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) > > > William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... > > I don't know what the went wrong yesterday, testing exposure of the > K10D. > Perhaps the FA* 2.8/80-200mm is not working right with the K10D? > Perhaps changing leses many times, metering by manually by Green Button etc. > did confuse the cameras or me, or the light perhaps changed betewwn > switching camera bodies ? I have no idea. > > Anyway, today I did some new test shots - comparing the K10D and the *ist D, > using two samples of the same Pentax lens: > The old SMC Pentax-F 4-5.6 35-80mm. > > So, I put one of these lenses on both cameras and did a few test shots. I > shot the same scenery twice -using the same shutterspeed, same settings > (multi-segnment, WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation, ISO 200, RAW). > > And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. > It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with > contrast. > The K10D shots are consistantly the most pleasing shots, despite of the dark > scenery/bright sky. Such conditions are very common in our (northern) parts > of the world (low sun). Very often our contrasty environment requires manual > exposure corrections. It seems the K10D handeled the situation quite well. > Much better than the *ist D. > I am pleasantly surprised! > > Judge for your selves. What do you think? > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html > > Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. > > Jens Bladt > Nytarkort / Greeting Card: > http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > +45 56 63 77 11 > +45 23 43 85 77 > Skype: jensbladt248 > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens > Bladt > Sendt: 11. februar 2007 01:03 > Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Emne: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > > > No > I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky > sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. > And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over > compensating)? > Regards > Jens Bladt > Nytarkort / Greeting Card: > http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > +45 56 63 77 11 > +45 23 43 85 77 > Skype: jensbl
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
On Feb 13, 2007, at 8:09 AM, John Whittingham wrote: >> The key to getting a good white balance is to find and sample a >> light gray area, not a white area... > > I've tried that at first but it never seemed right, maybe I need to > re- > install. BTW which version of ACR are you using? Right now I'm using Camera Raw v3.6. But the technique isn't limited to Camera Raw ... I use the same in Lightroom and in Photoshop on RGB images using a Layers Adjustment Layer with the sampler tools. For the latter, I set up samplers on target areas with a 5x5 sampling, then use the grayscale eyedropper after the white point and black point droppers. I doubt you have to re-install anything, though. Finding the *right* gray spot to sample is the trick. ;-) G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
> The key to getting a good white balance is to find and sample a > light gray area, not a white area... I've tried that at first but it never seemed right, maybe I need to re- install. BTW which version of ACR are you using? John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
The key to getting a good white balance is to find and sample a light gray area, not a white area... G On Feb 13, 2007, at 2:23 AM, John Whittingham wrote: > It's great when you have a definitive reference for white, but > caused me no > end of trouble with my recent Cormorant cock-up 8) > > Eventually selecting "as shot" for the starting point, some of the > other > default settings seem way off the mark, such as "daylight", "cloudy" > and "shade"!!!? > > The eyedropper in Capture One Pro seems to do a better job, but no > support > for K10D yet, I'm saving my one free upgrade for that :) > > On the flip side, Capture One has a real dogs dinner of a GUI but I > guess > it's a case of RTFM 8) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
That makes sense. In any case, I do intend to try the calibration. I bookmarked your reference page. Paul On Feb 13, 2007, at 7:01 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 13/02/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm with Godders on this one. What's more, the ideal color >> temperature varies depending on the situation, IMO. For example, when >> I shot wedding reception pics in a somewhat dark restaurant with >> tungsten lighting, I chose to keep the look warm. When I shot ice- >> storm pics, I went for a cold, slightly bluish cast. The tonality is >> part and parcel to the subject meter. Setting it by eye is usually >> the best alternative. > > You can choose your preferred WB for any given situation and benefit > from camera RAW calibration, the processes aren't mutually exclusive. > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
On 13/02/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm with Godders on this one. What's more, the ideal color > temperature varies depending on the situation, IMO. For example, when > I shot wedding reception pics in a somewhat dark restaurant with > tungsten lighting, I chose to keep the look warm. When I shot ice- > storm pics, I went for a cold, slightly bluish cast. The tonality is > part and parcel to the subject meter. Setting it by eye is usually > the best alternative. You can choose your preferred WB for any given situation and benefit from camera RAW calibration, the processes aren't mutually exclusive. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
> Personally, I've tried several different sets of ACR calibrations > for the *ist DS and K10D that people have posted here and elsewhere > ... and all of them produced results as default starting points for > color balance that were farther off the mark than just opening the > DNG file and setting white balance with the eyedropper tool. > Lightroom's white balance adjustment works even better. It's great when you have a definitive reference for white, but caused me no end of trouble with my recent Cormorant cock-up 8) Eventually selecting "as shot" for the starting point, some of the other default settings seem way off the mark, such as "daylight", "cloudy" and "shade"!!!? The eyedropper in Capture One Pro seems to do a better job, but no support for K10D yet, I'm saving my one free upgrade for that :) On the flip side, Capture One has a real dogs dinner of a GUI but I guess it's a case of RTFM 8) John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
I'm with Godders on this one. What's more, the ideal color temperature varies depending on the situation, IMO. For example, when I shot wedding reception pics in a somewhat dark restaurant with tungsten lighting, I chose to keep the look warm. When I shot ice- storm pics, I went for a cold, slightly bluish cast. The tonality is part and parcel to the subject meter. Setting it by eye is usually the best alternative. Paul On Feb 12, 2007, at 12:12 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Adobe Camera Raw. > > Personally, I've tried several different sets of ACR calibrations for > the *ist DS and K10D that people have posted here and elsewhere ... > and all of them produced results as default starting points for color > balance that were farther off the mark than just opening the DNG file > and setting white balance with the eyedropper tool. Lightroom's white > balance adjustment works even better. > > I don't think that calibration is a waste of time, however. I just > haven't found anyone's calibration that works better than what is > offered as a default. It's so easy to adjust color balances when > dealing with RAW format data I don't know why there's so much fuss > about it. > > G > > On Feb 12, 2007, at 8:06 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > >> What is ACR, Rob? I curious, since I am definitely going to keep >> my *ist D! > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
ACR = Adobe Camera RAW. Cheers, Dave At 01:06 AM 13/02/2007, Jens Bladt wrote: > What is ACR, Rob? I curious, since I am definitely going to keep my *ist D! >Regards >Jens > >Jens Bladt >Nytarkort / Greeting Card: >http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html > >http://www.jensbladt.dk >+45 56 63 77 11 >+45 23 43 85 77 >Skype: jensbladt248 > >-Oprindelig meddelelse- >Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Digital >Image Studio >Sendt: 11. februar 2007 22:47 >Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Emne: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) > > >On 12/02/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > PS: > > I want to add, that it have always annoyed me a little, that the D has a > > tendency of colouring overexposed areas redish - rendering very bright >parts > > with a reddish cast. That's one of the reasons I had a tendency of > > deliberately underexposing, to totally avoid over exposed parts of the > > images. Thje K10D does not add a reddish cast to the very bright parts. > > My conclusion is that the image quality of K10D images are in fact >superior, > > compared to the quality of a similar *ist D image. > >Lots of "issues" I had with the *ist D rendering went away after I >calibrated ACR to the camera. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Caucasian skin tones are apparently a problem for Bayer Matrix sensors because they are within the frequency response curves for both green and red sensor sites, which tends to give an additional red cast to caucasian skin. This can be corrected in post fairly easily if you shoot RAW of course. -Adam Who was just reading about this in a rather good book about photographing and post-processing people shots, a book called Skin by Lee Varis. And no, it's not about nudes. Tim Øsleby wrote: > I've noticed this with my DS too. It is a real PITA in difficult light (read > concert shooting). If I don't have time to do proper spot metering I tend to > end up with reddish skin cast that is impossible to get rid of in > processing. I've blown a few gigs doing this. > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens > Bladt > Sent: 11. februar 2007 16:14 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image > quality?) > > PPS: > I have added a little test to my Flickr pages as well: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594529582033/ > > Regards > > Jens Bladt > Nytarkort / Greeting Card: > http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > +45 56 63 77 11 > +45 23 43 85 77 > Skype: jensbladt248 > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens > Bladt > Sendt: 11. februar 2007 13:36 > Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Emne: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) > > > William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... > > I don't know what the went wrong yesterday, testing exposure of the > K10D. > Perhaps the FA* 2.8/80-200mm is not working right with the K10D? > Perhaps changing leses many times, metering by manually by Green Button etc. > did confuse the cameras or me, or the light perhaps changed betewwn > switching camera bodies ? I have no idea. > > Anyway, today I did some new test shots - comparing the K10D and the *ist D, > using two samples of the same Pentax lens: > The old SMC Pentax-F 4-5.6 35-80mm. > > So, I put one of these lenses on both cameras and did a few test shots. I > shot the same scenery twice -using the same shutterspeed, same settings > (multi-segnment, WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation, ISO 200, RAW). > > And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. > It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with > contrast. > The K10D shots are consistantly the most pleasing shots, despite of the dark > scenery/bright sky. Such conditions are very common in our (northern) parts > of the world (low sun). Very often our contrasty environment requires manual > exposure corrections. It seems the K10D handeled the situation quite well. > Much better than the *ist D. > I am pleasantly surprised! > > Judge for your selves. What do you think? > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html > > Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. > > Jens Bladt > Nytarkort / Greeting Card: > http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > +45 56 63 77 11 > +45 23 43 85 77 > Skype: jensbladt248 > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens > Bladt > Sendt: 11. februar 2007 01:03 > Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Emne: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > > > No > I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky > sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. > And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over > compensating)? > Regards > Jens Bladt > Nytarkort / Greeting Card: > http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html > > http://www.jensbladt.dk > +45 56 63 77 11 > +45 23 43 85 77 > Skype: jensbladt248 > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William > Robb > Sendt: 10. februar 2007 19:55 > Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Jens Bladt" > Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > > > >> Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes >> (walls, grey card etc.) as well ad contraty ones, im order tio figure out >> if >> the meter is off or if the matrix metering is over reacting. Surely I >> can't >> live with this. &g
Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
On 13/02/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is ACR, Rob? I curious, since I am definitely going to keep my *ist D! > Regards Adobe Camera RAW, the import engine, see the following article on calibration of ACR for your camera: http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/AcrCalibration/ -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
I've noticed this with my DS too. It is a real PITA in difficult light (read concert shooting). If I don't have time to do proper spot metering I tend to end up with reddish skin cast that is impossible to get rid of in processing. I've blown a few gigs doing this. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: 11. februar 2007 16:14 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) PPS: I have added a little test to my Flickr pages as well: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594529582033/ Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 13:36 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... I don't know what the went wrong yesterday, testing exposure of the K10D. Perhaps the FA* 2.8/80-200mm is not working right with the K10D? Perhaps changing leses many times, metering by manually by Green Button etc. did confuse the cameras or me, or the light perhaps changed betewwn switching camera bodies ? I have no idea. Anyway, today I did some new test shots - comparing the K10D and the *ist D, using two samples of the same Pentax lens: The old SMC Pentax-F 4-5.6 35-80mm. So, I put one of these lenses on both cameras and did a few test shots. I shot the same scenery twice -using the same shutterspeed, same settings (multi-segnment, WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation, ISO 200, RAW). And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with contrast. The K10D shots are consistantly the most pleasing shots, despite of the dark scenery/bright sky. Such conditions are very common in our (northern) parts of the world (low sun). Very often our contrasty environment requires manual exposure corrections. It seems the K10D handeled the situation quite well. Much better than the *ist D. I am pleasantly surprised! Judge for your selves. What do you think? http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 01:03 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? No I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over compensating)? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William Robb Sendt: 10. februar 2007 19:55 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes > (walls, grey card etc.) as well ad contraty ones, im order tio figure out > if > the meter is off or if the matrix metering is over reacting. Surely I > can't > live with this. > > When photographing a a scenery with a very bright sky (very common in the > northern parts og the world) I must dial in MINUS CORRECTION, when using > the > K10D. This is the exact opposite of what I have done for the last 30 > years! > I could never get used to this. My K10D requires reversed backlight > compensation. Surely that can't be right! > It soulds to me like the metering is compensating the sky as if it was a backlit scene (overexposing to ensure sufficient exposure to the subject). This is what we call subject failure in the industry. I think you will find the meter is behaving normally, and that you will need to adjust your metering strategy for this scene type. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Its always possible to fine tune the highlights color (color correct) any image if you really have to in photoshop using the color correction adjustments, set on hightlights. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 11:09 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Funny, you shoud say that JCO'C. I have been thingking the same since I got the K10D. The redish cast in the (over) exposed areas have alwasy sbeen a PITA to me:-) But unlike the K10D, ito's not possible to fine tune the WB. Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 12. februar 2007 03:51 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) color casts in highlights could be a white balance issue. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Digital Image Studio Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 4:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) On 12/02/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PS: > I want to add, that it have always annoyed me a little, that the D > has a tendency of colouring overexposed areas redish - rendering very > bright parts with a reddish cast. That's one of the reasons I had a > tendency of deliberately underexposing, to totally avoid over exposed > parts of the images. Thje K10D does not add a reddish cast to the very > bright parts. My conclusion is that the image quality of K10D images > are in fact superior, compared to the quality of a similar *ist D > image. Lots of "issues" I had with the *ist D rendering went away after I calibrated ACR to the camera. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.37/682 - Release Date: 02/12/2007 13:23 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
- Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) > What is ACR, Rob? I curious, since I am definitely going to keep my *ist > D! Adobe Camera RAW. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Adobe Camera Raw. Personally, I've tried several different sets of ACR calibrations for the *ist DS and K10D that people have posted here and elsewhere ... and all of them produced results as default starting points for color balance that were farther off the mark than just opening the DNG file and setting white balance with the eyedropper tool. Lightroom's white balance adjustment works even better. I don't think that calibration is a waste of time, however. I just haven't found anyone's calibration that works better than what is offered as a default. It's so easy to adjust color balances when dealing with RAW format data I don't know why there's so much fuss about it. G On Feb 12, 2007, at 8:06 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > What is ACR, Rob? I curious, since I am definitely going to keep > my *ist D! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Funny, you shoud say that JCO'C. I have been thingking the same since I got the K10D. The redish cast in the (over) exposed areas have alwasy sbeen a PITA to me:-) But unlike the K10D, ito's not possible to fine tune the WB. Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 12. februar 2007 03:51 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) color casts in highlights could be a white balance issue. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Digital Image Studio Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 4:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) On 12/02/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PS: > I want to add, that it have always annoyed me a little, that the D > has a tendency of colouring overexposed areas redish - rendering very > bright parts with a reddish cast. That's one of the reasons I had a > tendency of deliberately underexposing, to totally avoid over exposed > parts of the images. Thje K10D does not add a reddish cast to the very > bright parts. My conclusion is that the image quality of K10D images > are in fact superior, compared to the quality of a similar *ist D > image. Lots of "issues" I had with the *ist D rendering went away after I calibrated ACR to the camera. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.37/682 - Release Date: 02/12/2007 13:23 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
SV: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
What is ACR, Rob? I curious, since I am definitely going to keep my *ist D! Regards Jens Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Digital Image Studio Sendt: 11. februar 2007 22:47 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) On 12/02/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PS: > I want to add, that it have always annoyed me a little, that the D has a > tendency of colouring overexposed areas redish - rendering very bright parts > with a reddish cast. That's one of the reasons I had a tendency of > deliberately underexposing, to totally avoid over exposed parts of the > images. Thje K10D does not add a reddish cast to the very bright parts. > My conclusion is that the image quality of K10D images are in fact superior, > compared to the quality of a similar *ist D image. Lots of "issues" I had with the *ist D rendering went away after I calibrated ACR to the camera. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.37/682 - Release Date: 02/12/2007 13:23 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
On 12/02/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > color casts in highlights could be a white balance issue. It could be but generally if the WB has been made from a reference patch of mid-range exposure and your shadows still show tints then the default "Shadow Tint" (advanced calibrate tab) may not be appropriate for the camera. The following article is worth a read: http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/AcrCalibration/ -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
color casts in highlights could be a white balance issue. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Digital Image Studio Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 4:47 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) On 12/02/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PS: > I want to add, that it have always annoyed me a little, that the D > has a tendency of colouring overexposed areas redish - rendering very > bright parts with a reddish cast. That's one of the reasons I had a > tendency of deliberately underexposing, to totally avoid over exposed > parts of the images. Thje K10D does not add a reddish cast to the very > bright parts. My conclusion is that the image quality of K10D images > are in fact superior, compared to the quality of a similar *ist D > image. Lots of "issues" I had with the *ist D rendering went away after I calibrated ACR to the camera. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
On 12/02/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PS: > I want to add, that it have always annoyed me a little, that the D has a > tendency of colouring overexposed areas redish - rendering very bright parts > with a reddish cast. That's one of the reasons I had a tendency of > deliberately underexposing, to totally avoid over exposed parts of the > images. Thje K10D does not add a reddish cast to the very bright parts. > My conclusion is that the image quality of K10D images are in fact superior, > compared to the quality of a similar *ist D image. Lots of "issues" I had with the *ist D rendering went away after I calibrated ACR to the camera. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
On Feb 11, 2007, at 11:35 AM, John Francis wrote: > As a matter of interest, does anyone know how the spot metering area > of the digital bodies compares to that of the PZ-1p? I believe that > was 2.5% of the area (of a 24x36 frame), so I'd expect the digitals > would be 5% if they were using the same sensor. When I measured it for the DS body, I found that Spot pattern was approximately 5-6% of the total frame's area (approximately a 5-5.5 mm diameter circle in the center of the screen). That's consistent with 2.5% for the PZ-1p if the Spot pattern was also 5-5.5 mm in diameter. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Using the same lens will give you more accuracy as lenses vary one to another. Of course, you're testing just one sample of K10D against one sample of *ist D bodies, but I thought that's what you were after. You can make the exact same test regardless of time, if you work with controlled lighting as opposed to outdoor lighting. G On Feb 11, 2007, at 7:52 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > Godfrey, that's basically what I did! > If not the very same lens - just two lenses of the exact same > model and > make. > Two K10D's or two *ist D's may be slightlydifferent too. > HAd I used the saqme lens - the time difference woukld have been > greater > too. My test shots were done just seconds apart. > You can't really do the exact same thing twice, can you? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:09:02PM +0100, John Whittingham wrote: > > Switched to multi-segment with the MZ-3, found it to be accurate and > consistent although I would occasionally use spot metering fot tricky > lighting situations. That's what I did, too (except for the fact I had a PZ-1p, not an MZ-3). The only time I've use centre-weighted metering in the past decade or more is when I've been using the MX. But spot-weighted metering is not something I'd gladly forgo; it's good enough that I've never bothered to have my ancient Weston Master V recalibrated/repaired. As a matter of interest, does anyone know how the spot metering area of the digital bodies compares to that of the PZ-1p? I believe that was 2.5% of the area (of a 24x36 frame), so I'd expect the digitals would be 5% if they were using the same sensor. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
I didnt say your conclusions were incorrect, I just stated some ways to improve your tests ( for next time you might try running one like that). If you are running a test, might as well run best one easily possible. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:12 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) JCO, Boris, Godfrey For my purposes I don't really need scientific tests. I'm not a scientist - just a photographer, who wnats to know my tools. I just need to know, if my genral approach to exposure has to change (using a different strategy for exposure corretions). And I wanted to know if my camera meter was off. I believe I have a negative answer to both questions now :-) Except perhaps that the need for exposure corrections (in order to avoid over exposed highlights) has become a some what smaller, when using the K10D. How the K10D will react to sunny sceneries with deep shadows - I have no idea. But I'm sure that the 67% increase of the amount of pixels - and a larger colour depth, will in fact mean improved dynamic range, thus more room for post editing. This may very well be one of the reasons Pentax to choose to let this camera render the images a litle bit darker (this suits me jsut fine). It won't be a huge problem dealing with this later. It would have been much worse having to deal with burned out highlights - believe me, I know :-). Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 11. februar 2007 14:16 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Your conclusion is most likely correct based on overall experiences with these cameras, but I would question a few things in this specific test procedure. The exact same lens should be used on both cameras and the images should be tweeked on one of the cameras via fine bracketing for exposure value to make up for any variations in camera metering or shutter speeds from camera to camera. It would also be interesting to see what differences remain with both images optimized manually in RAW conversion and photoshop tweeking. I dont know about the K10D, but my istDS doesnt do that great on a bright sunny day scene with lots shadows compared to typical color neg film. Its more like medium speed slide film with regards to handling high contrast scenes like that. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boris Liberman Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:55 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Jens, at al. I did not perform any tests such as this one, however my general impression is that K10D: 1. Has slightly wider dynamic range. 2. Has more consistent auto white balance operation. 3. Renders images in somewhat more faithful way. The colors look more natural. Just my cents. On 2/11/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... > ... > And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. > It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with > contrast. ... Judge for your selves. What do you think? > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html > > Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
yes, but by using two different lenses (even of same model) you may be seeing variations due to the lens both optically and mechanically( fstop variation causing exposure variation). This along with possible shutter speed variations from body to body is why I suggested you should have fine bracketed one of the bodies so you could get an overall exposure (density) that matched the other for sure, and then compare the dynamics. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:52 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Godfrey, that's basically what I did! If not the very same lens - just two lenses of the exact same model and make. Two K10D's or two *ist D's may be slightlydifferent too. HAd I used the saqme lens - the time difference woukld have been greater too. My test shots were done just seconds apart. You can't really do the exact same thing twice, can you? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 11. februar 2007 16:33 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Whatever the issue was, i'm glad you have sorted it out to your satisfaction. A proper exposure test would mean, to me, using the same lens and repeating the exact same setup/capture with each of the two camera bodies you are comparing. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
JCO, Boris, Godfrey For my purposes I don't really need scientific tests. I'm not a scientist - just a photographer, who wnats to know my tools. I just need to know, if my genral approach to exposure has to change (using a different strategy for exposure corretions). And I wanted to know if my camera meter was off. I believe I have a negative answer to both questions now :-) Except perhaps that the need for exposure corrections (in order to avoid over exposed highlights) has become a some what smaller, when using the K10D. How the K10D will react to sunny sceneries with deep shadows - I have no idea. But I'm sure that the 67% increase of the amount of pixels - and a larger colour depth, will in fact mean improved dynamic range, thus more room for post editing. This may very well be one of the reasons Pentax to choose to let this camera render the images a litle bit darker (this suits me jsut fine). It won't be a huge problem dealing with this later. It would have been much worse having to deal with burned out highlights - believe me, I know :-). Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 11. februar 2007 14:16 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Your conclusion is most likely correct based on overall experiences with these cameras, but I would question a few things in this specific test procedure. The exact same lens should be used on both cameras and the images should be tweeked on one of the cameras via fine bracketing for exposure value to make up for any variations in camera metering or shutter speeds from camera to camera. It would also be interesting to see what differences remain with both images optimized manually in RAW conversion and photoshop tweeking. I dont know about the K10D, but my istDS doesnt do that great on a bright sunny day scene with lots shadows compared to typical color neg film. Its more like medium speed slide film with regards to handling high contrast scenes like that. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boris Liberman Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:55 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Jens, at al. I did not perform any tests such as this one, however my general impression is that K10D: 1. Has slightly wider dynamic range. 2. Has more consistent auto white balance operation. 3. Renders images in somewhat more faithful way. The colors look more natural. Just my cents. On 2/11/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... > ... > And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. > It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with > contrast. ... > Judge for your selves. What do you think? > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html > > Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Godfrey, that's basically what I did! If not the very same lens - just two lenses of the exact same model and make. Two K10D's or two *ist D's may be slightlydifferent too. HAd I used the saqme lens - the time difference woukld have been greater too. My test shots were done just seconds apart. You can't really do the exact same thing twice, can you? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 11. februar 2007 16:33 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Whatever the issue was, i'm glad you have sorted it out to your satisfaction. A proper exposure test would mean, to me, using the same lens and repeating the exact same setup/capture with each of the two camera bodies you are comparing. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Whatever the issue was, i'm glad you have sorted it out to your satisfaction. A proper exposure test would mean, to me, using the same lens and repeating the exact same setup/capture with each of the two camera bodies you are comparing. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
PPS: I have added a little test to my Flickr pages as well: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594529582033/ Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 13:36 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... I don't know what the went wrong yesterday, testing exposure of the K10D. Perhaps the FA* 2.8/80-200mm is not working right with the K10D? Perhaps changing leses many times, metering by manually by Green Button etc. did confuse the cameras or me, or the light perhaps changed betewwn switching camera bodies ? I have no idea. Anyway, today I did some new test shots - comparing the K10D and the *ist D, using two samples of the same Pentax lens: The old SMC Pentax-F 4-5.6 35-80mm. So, I put one of these lenses on both cameras and did a few test shots. I shot the same scenery twice -using the same shutterspeed, same settings (multi-segnment, WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation, ISO 200, RAW). And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with contrast. The K10D shots are consistantly the most pleasing shots, despite of the dark scenery/bright sky. Such conditions are very common in our (northern) parts of the world (low sun). Very often our contrasty environment requires manual exposure corrections. It seems the K10D handeled the situation quite well. Much better than the *ist D. I am pleasantly surprised! Judge for your selves. What do you think? http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 01:03 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? No I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over compensating)? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William Robb Sendt: 10. februar 2007 19:55 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes > (walls, grey card etc.) as well ad contraty ones, im order tio figure out > if > the meter is off or if the matrix metering is over reacting. Surely I > can't > live with this. > > When photographing a a scenery with a very bright sky (very common in the > northern parts og the world) I must dial in MINUS CORRECTION, when using > the > K10D. This is the exact opposite of what I have done for the last 30 > years! > I could never get used to this. My K10D requires reversed backlight > compensation. Surely that can't be right! > It soulds to me like the metering is compensating the sky as if it was a backlit scene (overexposing to ensure sufficient exposure to the subject). This is what we call subject failure in the industry. I think you will find the meter is behaving normally, and that you will need to adjust your metering strategy for this scene type. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG F
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
PS: I want to add, that it have always annoyed me a little, that the D has a tendency of colouring overexposed areas redish - rendering very bright parts with a reddish cast. That's one of the reasons I had a tendency of deliberately underexposing, to totally avoid over exposed parts of the images. Thje K10D does not add a reddish cast to the very bright parts. My conclusion is that the image quality of K10D images are in fact superior, compared to the quality of a similar *ist D image. Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 13:36 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... I don't know what the went wrong yesterday, testing exposure of the K10D. Perhaps the FA* 2.8/80-200mm is not working right with the K10D? Perhaps changing leses many times, metering by manually by Green Button etc. did confuse the cameras or me, or the light perhaps changed betewwn switching camera bodies ? I have no idea. Anyway, today I did some new test shots - comparing the K10D and the *ist D, using two samples of the same Pentax lens: The old SMC Pentax-F 4-5.6 35-80mm. So, I put one of these lenses on both cameras and did a few test shots. I shot the same scenery twice -using the same shutterspeed, same settings (multi-segnment, WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation, ISO 200, RAW). And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with contrast. The K10D shots are consistantly the most pleasing shots, despite of the dark scenery/bright sky. Such conditions are very common in our (northern) parts of the world (low sun). Very often our contrasty environment requires manual exposure corrections. It seems the K10D handeled the situation quite well. Much better than the *ist D. I am pleasantly surprised! Judge for your selves. What do you think? http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 01:03 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? No I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over compensating)? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William Robb Sendt: 10. februar 2007 19:55 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes > (walls, grey card etc.) as well ad contraty ones, im order tio figure out > if > the meter is off or if the matrix metering is over reacting. Surely I > can't > live with this. > > When photographing a a scenery with a very bright sky (very common in the > northern parts og the world) I must dial in MINUS CORRECTION, when using > the > K10D. This is the exact opposite of what I have done for the last 30 > years! > I could never get used to this. My K10D requires reversed backlight > compensation. Surely that can't be right! > It soulds to me like the metering is compensating the sky as if it was a backlit scene (overexposing to ensure sufficient exposure to the subject). This is what we call subject failure in the industry. I think you will find the meter is behaving normally, and that you will need to adjust your metering strategy for this scene type. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 /
RE: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Your conclusion is most likely correct based on overall experiences with these cameras, but I would question a few things in this specific test procedure. The exact same lens should be used on both cameras and the images should be tweeked on one of the cameras via fine bracketing for exposure value to make up for any variations in camera metering or shutter speeds from camera to camera. It would also be interesting to see what differences remain with both images optimized manually in RAW conversion and photoshop tweeking. I dont know about the K10D, but my istDS doesnt do that great on a bright sunny day scene with lots shadows compared to typical color neg film. Its more like medium speed slide film with regards to handling high contrast scenes like that. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boris Liberman Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 7:55 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?) Jens, at al. I did not perform any tests such as this one, however my general impression is that K10D: 1. Has slightly wider dynamic range. 2. Has more consistent auto white balance operation. 3. Renders images in somewhat more faithful way. The colors look more natural. Just my cents. On 2/11/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... > ... > And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. > It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with > contrast. ... > Judge for your selves. What do you think? > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html > > Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
Jens, at al. I did not perform any tests such as this one, however my general impression is that K10D: 1. Has slightly wider dynamic range. 2. Has more consistent auto white balance operation. 3. Renders images in somewhat more faithful way. The colors look more natural. Just my cents. On 2/11/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... > ... > And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. > It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with > contrast. > ... > Judge for your selves. What do you think? > > http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html > > Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Better K10D exposure-tests (Was:*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?)
William, PauI, Godfrey, Rob, Peter, David, John ... I don't know what the went wrong yesterday, testing exposure of the K10D. Perhaps the FA* 2.8/80-200mm is not working right with the K10D? Perhaps changing leses many times, metering by manually by Green Button etc. did confuse the cameras or me, or the light perhaps changed betewwn switching camera bodies ? I have no idea. Anyway, today I did some new test shots - comparing the K10D and the *ist D, using two samples of the same Pentax lens: The old SMC Pentax-F 4-5.6 35-80mm. So, I put one of these lenses on both cameras and did a few test shots. I shot the same scenery twice -using the same shutterspeed, same settings (multi-segnment, WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation, ISO 200, RAW). And guess what? The results are quite surpirsing. It seems to me that the K10D in fact does a better job, dealing with contrast. The K10D shots are consistantly the most pleasing shots, despite of the dark scenery/bright sky. Such conditions are very common in our (northern) parts of the world (low sun). Very often our contrasty environment requires manual exposure corrections. It seems the K10D handeled the situation quite well. Much better than the *ist D. I am pleasantly surprised! Judge for your selves. What do you think? http://www.jensbladt.dk/Test/K10D-vs-istD/K10D-test-album.html Thanks for looking - comments area welcome. Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Jens Bladt Sendt: 11. februar 2007 01:03 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? No I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over compensating)? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William Robb Sendt: 10. februar 2007 19:55 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes > (walls, grey card etc.) as well ad contraty ones, im order tio figure out > if > the meter is off or if the matrix metering is over reacting. Surely I > can't > live with this. > > When photographing a a scenery with a very bright sky (very common in the > northern parts og the world) I must dial in MINUS CORRECTION, when using > the > K10D. This is the exact opposite of what I have done for the last 30 > years! > I could never get used to this. My K10D requires reversed backlight > compensation. Surely that can't be right! > It soulds to me like the metering is compensating the sky as if it was a backlit scene (overexposing to ensure sufficient exposure to the subject). This is what we call subject failure in the industry. I think you will find the meter is behaving normally, and that you will need to adjust your metering strategy for this scene type. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.35/680 - Release Date: 02/10/2007 21:15 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
Jens, > I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky > sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. > And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over > compensating)? perhaps you can find the answer here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml Cheers, Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
> I found the multi-segment metering in the ist-D to be very good - I > started using it even though I'd been a lifelong > centerweighted-metering photographer up until then. > > But I've found the multi-segment metering in the K10D to be even > better. I hardly ever use centerweighted any more. Switched to multi-segment with the MZ-3, found it to be accurate and consistent although I would occasionally use spot metering fot tricky lighting situations. Up until then I only ever had centre-weighted or a hand held Weston Master V, I think I still have the Weston in a camera bag somewhere. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
On 11/02/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found the multi-segment metering in the ist-D to be very good - I > started using it even though I'd been a lifelong > centerweighted-metering photographer up until then. > > But I've found the multi-segment metering in the K10D to be even > better. I hardly ever use centerweighted any more. > > Old dog. New tricks. Who'da thunk? Exactly the same here, shooting RAW using matrix metering on the *ist D lead to a very high percentage of good exposures. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
Ditto as well. I was primarily a centre weighted metering user (even with the D) but I've recently started using the multi-segment metering on the K10D more & more. Cheers, Dave On 2/11/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was a convert back in the PZ-1p days; it handled tricky > lighting situations with consumate ease (especially when > balancing ambient and flash exposure). > > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:18:19PM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > That mirrors my experience. I was either center weighted TTL or > > incident meter hand held. But the D and the K10D have made me a fan > > of multi-segment. > > Paul > > On Feb 10, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > > > > I found the multi-segment metering in the ist-D to be very good - I > > > started using it even though I'd been a lifelong > > > centerweighted-metering photographer up until then. > > > > > > But I've found the multi-segment metering in the K10D to be even > > > better. I hardly ever use centerweighted any more. > > > > > > Old dog. New tricks. Who'da thunk? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
I was a convert back in the PZ-1p days; it handled tricky lighting situations with consumate ease (especially when balancing ambient and flash exposure). On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 08:18:19PM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote: > That mirrors my experience. I was either center weighted TTL or > incident meter hand held. But the D and the K10D have made me a fan > of multi-segment. > Paul > On Feb 10, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > > I found the multi-segment metering in the ist-D to be very good - I > > started using it even though I'd been a lifelong > > centerweighted-metering photographer up until then. > > > > But I've found the multi-segment metering in the K10D to be even > > better. I hardly ever use centerweighted any more. > > > > Old dog. New tricks. Who'da thunk? > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
That mirrors my experience. I was either center weighted TTL or incident meter hand held. But the D and the K10D have made me a fan of multi-segment. Paul On Feb 10, 2007, at 7:29 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > I found the multi-segment metering in the ist-D to be very good - I > started using it even though I'd been a lifelong > centerweighted-metering photographer up until then. > > But I've found the multi-segment metering in the K10D to be even > better. I hardly ever use centerweighted any more. > > Old dog. New tricks. Who'da thunk? > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
I found the multi-segment metering in the ist-D to be very good - I started using it even though I'd been a lifelong centerweighted-metering photographer up until then. But I've found the multi-segment metering in the K10D to be even better. I hardly ever use centerweighted any more. Old dog. New tricks. Who'da thunk? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
Hello Godfrey. The same anwer as to WR - why does the D do it right - not over compensating for the bright sky? The sky isn't THAT bright. IMO the image done with the *ist D is exposed exactly right, rendering both the clouds and the foreground with detail. The one done with the K10D is clearly over exposed - even the dark foreground is too bright and the clouds are burned away. If this is as intended, it's a disrace to Pentax, Pnetrax camera have in the past been well respected for accuate exposure. The *ist D is too, I believe. An old fashioned camera (pre matrix metering) would have underexposed the foreground, rendering it too dark. Regards Jens http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 10. februar 2007 22:26 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? On Feb 10, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > I also discovered that I had the contrast set to +1. This may > partly have > caused the burned out sky/the missing clouds. That's a big help, but for such a scene I actually prefer the K10D's rendering over the D's ... As WR suggested, it's a subject failure. ;-) > I will never get used to having to dial in MINUS CORRECTION for > back lit > scenery or bright sky (quite the opposite of what I have been doing > for the > past 30 years. Even dispite matrix metering). So I'll be doing more > test > tomorrow, preferably in RAW format (now that I don't have to reset > it all > the time :-) > Hopefully I don't have to have it repaired ( I use it every day). I think you'll find the camera is metering properly. The fact that it meters differently is neither here nor there. Matrix metering would lens more importance to the foreground/shadow areas ... it can't help blowing out the sky unless it underexposes those other areas since it's just one exposure for the whole scene. If you had captured in RAW format, either exposure would have been fine. > You are right on the image quality issue, of cource. > However, I don't see any big difference in image quality. At the sample resolution you presented, I don't know what differences you were expecting to see. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
No I've done this right a 1000 times. And the strategy for a (too) bright sky sky IS the same as for a backlit scenry. And - so why does the *ist D do the exact scenery right (not over compensating)? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William Robb Sendt: 10. februar 2007 19:55 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes > (walls, grey card etc.) as well ad contraty ones, im order tio figure out > if > the meter is off or if the matrix metering is over reacting. Surely I > can't > live with this. > > When photographing a a scenery with a very bright sky (very common in the > northern parts og the world) I must dial in MINUS CORRECTION, when using > the > K10D. This is the exact opposite of what I have done for the last 30 > years! > I could never get used to this. My K10D requires reversed backlight > compensation. Surely that can't be right! > It soulds to me like the metering is compensating the sky as if it was a backlit scene (overexposing to ensure sufficient exposure to the subject). This is what we call subject failure in the industry. I think you will find the meter is behaving normally, and that you will need to adjust your metering strategy for this scene type. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
On Feb 10, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > I also discovered that I had the contrast set to +1. This may > partly have > caused the burned out sky/the missing clouds. That's a big help, but for such a scene I actually prefer the K10D's rendering over the D's ... As WR suggested, it's a subject failure. ;-) > I will never get used to having to dial in MINUS CORRECTION for > back lit > scenery or bright sky (quite the opposite of what I have been doing > for the > past 30 years. Even dispite matrix metering). So I'll be doing more > test > tomorrow, preferably in RAW format (now that I don't have to reset > it all > the time :-) > Hopefully I don't have to have it repaired ( I use it every day). I think you'll find the camera is metering properly. The fact that it meters differently is neither here nor there. Matrix metering would lens more importance to the foreground/shadow areas ... it can't help blowing out the sky unless it underexposes those other areas since it's just one exposure for the whole scene. If you had captured in RAW format, either exposure would have been fine. > You are right on the image quality issue, of cource. > However, I don't see any big difference in image quality. At the sample resolution you presented, I don't know what differences you were expecting to see. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
Thanks Godfrey. I have now corrected the RAW selection (Raw/DNG by default), RAW+ by pressing the button). I also discovered that I had the contrast set to +1. This may partly have caused the burned out sky/the missing clouds. I will never get used to having to dial in MINUS CORRECTION for back lit scenery or bright sky (quite the opposite of what I have been doing for the past 30 years. Even dispite matrix metering). So I'll be doing more test tomorrow, preferably in RAW format (now that I don't have to reset it all the time :-) Hopefully I don't have to have it repaired ( I use it every day). And I'll try to get a good price on a Extreeme Card :-) You are right on the image quality issue, of cource. However, I don't see any big difference in image quality. The bigest diffences would probably be: 1. SR prevents a great deal of unusable shots, especially in low ligh, resulting in: Less motion blurr or less noise. 2. Better cropability: 10 Mp often means, that after cropping I still have sufficent resolution, often I still have 6 Mp left. 3. Faster speeds (write speed and FPS) means that I get shots with the K10D, that I would have missed, with the D. All very important issues to me, because I do a lot of reportage shots an a lot of concert shots. So, if I can get the exposure right, I'm quite pleased. I maen, how can I compare image quality to the shots I didn't get, with the D :-) I am also very pleased that the K10D is quite affardable, compared to the D (in it's time). The price of the K10D in Denmark was close one third of the D. So, the K10D will pay for it self much faster than the D did :-) Regards Jens Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 10. februar 2007 17:10 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? On Feb 10, 2007, at 7:31 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > ... However, I never really understood the thing about card speed. > The *ist D, for instance, could only utilze a fast card up to a > certain > point. Cards faster thant this and that would NOT improve the write > speed. > > Where would this point be with the K10D, please? Simply put, it means the *ist D's IO transfer limit was exceeded by cards faster than a given spec (I think it was 45x but am not sure about that). Since the K10D's ability to write files to storage faster continues up to the fastest cards currently available on the market, I would say the body's IO transfer limits have yet to be reached by current card technology. The Sandisk Extreme III cards seem to be about the fastest SD cards currently available, and are available in capacities up to 2Gbyte at present. In SDHC you can get larger capacities but, as far as I'm aware, the fastest cards currently available are Sandisk Ultra II spec, or 60x. The Panasonic SDHC offerings *might* be faster, I just don't know enough about them yet. (BTW: I was poking around the Epson sight recently and discovered that the Epson P3000 and P5000 are now SDHC enabled. So I now doubt that Epson is going to produce an SDHC update for my old P2000 ... Oh well ... the price of progress. Good, fast SDHC cards and readers are still rare so it's not quite time yet to buy into 4G cards ... ) > Back to the original issue: K10D vs. *ist D. > I did many tests - and had to redo them many times - I had travel disc > troubles. And I kept forgetting the the darned K10D does go b ack > to JPEG's > every time I trun it off (Grrr...). Do you have RAW file format output selected in the Record Menu? or are you switching to RAW capture mode by pressing the RAW button? The latter always resets on a power cycle, the former should not. > The biggest difference I found was, that the K10D overexposes the > shots > quite consistantly. I have no idea why. > And I had to ficus manually on the D, because the AF is no adjusted > right. > > Here's two test shots done with a FA* 2.8 80-200mm @ F.8: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594527835191/ Hmm. It seems to me that your judgment is very subjective. The K10D did a better job of exposing for the darker foreground, the *ist D did a better job of retaining the sky values with this test. With JPEG's limited dynamic range, you don't get both. Depending upon what *you* were trying to get out of the photograph, either one could be better than the other. I set the K10D to RAW/DNG and leave it that way. I see from comparing many many DS and K10D exposures that the K10D does a better job of exposing for RAW format: I rarely have to add exposure with the compensation control, the DS nearly always needed +.3 to +.7 EV to get the best resul
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
- Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes > (walls, grey card etc.) as well ad contraty ones, im order tio figure out > if > the meter is off or if the matrix metering is over reacting. Surely I > can't > live with this. > > When photographing a a scenery with a very bright sky (very common in the > northern parts og the world) I must dial in MINUS CORRECTION, when using > the > K10D. This is the exact opposite of what I have done for the last 30 > years! > I could never get used to this. My K10D requires reversed backlight > compensation. Surely that can't be right! > It soulds to me like the metering is compensating the sky as if it was a backlit scene (overexposing to ensure sufficient exposure to the subject). This is what we call subject failure in the industry. I think you will find the meter is behaving normally, and that you will need to adjust your metering strategy for this scene type. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
SV: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 10. februar 2007 17:10 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? On Feb 10, 2007, at 7:31 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > ... However, I never really understood the thing about card speed. > The *ist D, for instance, could only utilze a fast card up to a > certain > point. Cards faster thant this and that would NOT improve the write > speed. > > Where would this point be with the K10D, please? Simply put, it means the *ist D's IO transfer limit was exceeded by cards faster than a given spec (I think it was 45x but am not sure about that). Since the K10D's ability to write files to storage faster continues up to the fastest cards currently available on the market, I would say the body's IO transfer limits have yet to be reached by current card technology. The Sandisk Extreme III cards seem to be about the fastest SD cards currently available, and are available in capacities up to 2Gbyte at present. In SDHC you can get larger capacities but, as far as I'm aware, the fastest cards currently available are Sandisk Ultra II spec, or 60x. The Panasonic SDHC offerings *might* be faster, I just don't know enough about them yet. (BTW: I was poking around the Epson sight recently and discovered that the Epson P3000 and P5000 are now SDHC enabled. So I now doubt that Epson is going to produce an SDHC update for my old P2000 ... Oh well ... the price of progress. Good, fast SDHC cards and readers are still rare so it's not quite time yet to buy into 4G cards ... ) > Back to the original issue: K10D vs. *ist D. > I did many tests - and had to redo them many times - I had travel disc > troubles. And I kept forgetting the the darned K10D does go b ack > to JPEG's > every time I trun it off (Grrr...). Do you have RAW file format output selected in the Record Menu? or are you switching to RAW capture mode by pressing the RAW button? The latter always resets on a power cycle, the former should not. > The biggest difference I found was, that the K10D overexposes the > shots > quite consistantly. I have no idea why. > And I had to ficus manually on the D, because the AF is no adjusted > right. > > Here's two test shots done with a FA* 2.8 80-200mm @ F.8: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594527835191/ Hmm. It seems to me that your judgment is very subjective. The K10D did a better job of exposing for the darker foreground, the *ist D did a better job of retaining the sky values with this test. With JPEG's limited dynamic range, you don't get both. Depending upon what *you* were trying to get out of the photograph, either one could be better than the other. I set the K10D to RAW/DNG and leave it that way. I see from comparing many many DS and K10D exposures that the K10D does a better job of exposing for RAW format: I rarely have to add exposure with the compensation control, the DS nearly always needed +.3 to +.7 EV to get the best results. So I fully believe that you're seeing on the order of about a +1EV plus exposure bias with JPEGs and the K10D. However, this doesn't say anything about image quality. It simply says that you need to recalibrate your exposure settings for the new body. Once you have achieved proper exposure with both cameras, then you can evaluate how the image quality compares. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
Thanks for the info, William. I'll look closer into the set-up options. And perhaps get af faster card :-) Regarding exposure, I'll do som emore test tomorrow, evenly lit scenes (walls, grey card etc.) as well ad contraty ones, im order tio figure out if the meter is off or if the matrix metering is over reacting. Surely I can't live with this. When photographing a a scenery with a very bright sky (very common in the northern parts og the world) I must dial in MINUS CORRECTION, when using the K10D. This is the exact opposite of what I have done for the last 30 years! I could never get used to this. My K10D requires reversed backlight compensation. Surely that can't be right! So, I'll phone Pentax in Denmark Monday morning. My problem is, that my *ist D is faulty too. The AF is off, so I must focus manually in critical situations. I have quite a few assignments in the near future. So. I will need at least one of the Pentax DSLR's! I guess I could dial in - 0.7 in the K10D, while my D gets repaired. Then send in the K10D and use the *ist D! Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af William Robb Sendt: 10. februar 2007 18:56 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > That's a good point, Godfrey. > You are right of course. I alrady had the card, when I got the camera - > and > naturally I will buy a faster card shortly. > However, I never really understood the thing about card speed. > The *ist D, for instance, could only utilze a fast card up to a certain > point. > Cards faster thant this and that would NOT improve the write speed. Read speed when downloading is something to consider as well, if you use a card reader. > > Where would this point be with the K10D, please? > > The K10D is pretty fast. > But, for the first time I had to wait for the next shot today - while > doing > a panorama series from RAW shots. > So, I definitely want a fast card. But which one? > Sandisk Ultra 2 seems to perform about as well as Sandisk Extreme 3 in the K10. This means that both are fast enough to keep me happy, since I am not actually timing this stuff. Hope this helps, I don't know the I/O speeds of these cards > Back to the original issue: K10D vs. *ist D. > I did many tests - and had to redo them many times - I had travel disc > troubles. And I kept forgetting the the darned K10D does go b ack to > JPEG's > every time I trun it off (Grrr...). This sounds like a set up error. My K10 is set to Raw (DNG) and never switches unless I tell it to. Do you have the camera set to Jpeg, and then to hold RAW when the RAW button is pushed? If so, it will default back to how it was set up. I don't know if the user menu can be optimized for this, it might be worth a try. > The biggest difference I found was, that the K10D overexposes the shots > quite consistantly. I have no idea why. Mine seems to underexpose a little bit. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
- Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > That's a good point, Godfrey. > You are right of course. I alrady had the card, when I got the camera - > and > naturally I will buy a faster card shortly. > However, I never really understood the thing about card speed. > The *ist D, for instance, could only utilze a fast card up to a certain > point. > Cards faster thant this and that would NOT improve the write speed. Read speed when downloading is something to consider as well, if you use a card reader. > > Where would this point be with the K10D, please? > > The K10D is pretty fast. > But, for the first time I had to wait for the next shot today - while > doing > a panorama series from RAW shots. > So, I definitely want a fast card. But which one? > Sandisk Ultra 2 seems to perform about as well as Sandisk Extreme 3 in the K10. This means that both are fast enough to keep me happy, since I am not actually timing this stuff. Hope this helps, I don't know the I/O speeds of these cards > Back to the original issue: K10D vs. *ist D. > I did many tests - and had to redo them many times - I had travel disc > troubles. And I kept forgetting the the darned K10D does go b ack to > JPEG's > every time I trun it off (Grrr...). This sounds like a set up error. My K10 is set to Raw (DNG) and never switches unless I tell it to. Do you have the camera set to Jpeg, and then to hold RAW when the RAW button is pushed? If so, it will default back to how it was set up. I don't know if the user menu can be optimized for this, it might be worth a try. > The biggest difference I found was, that the K10D overexposes the shots > quite consistantly. I have no idea why. Mine seems to underexpose a little bit. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
On Feb 10, 2007, at 7:31 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > ... However, I never really understood the thing about card speed. > The *ist D, for instance, could only utilze a fast card up to a > certain > point. Cards faster thant this and that would NOT improve the write > speed. > > Where would this point be with the K10D, please? Simply put, it means the *ist D's IO transfer limit was exceeded by cards faster than a given spec (I think it was 45x but am not sure about that). Since the K10D's ability to write files to storage faster continues up to the fastest cards currently available on the market, I would say the body's IO transfer limits have yet to be reached by current card technology. The Sandisk Extreme III cards seem to be about the fastest SD cards currently available, and are available in capacities up to 2Gbyte at present. In SDHC you can get larger capacities but, as far as I'm aware, the fastest cards currently available are Sandisk Ultra II spec, or 60x. The Panasonic SDHC offerings *might* be faster, I just don't know enough about them yet. (BTW: I was poking around the Epson sight recently and discovered that the Epson P3000 and P5000 are now SDHC enabled. So I now doubt that Epson is going to produce an SDHC update for my old P2000 ... Oh well ... the price of progress. Good, fast SDHC cards and readers are still rare so it's not quite time yet to buy into 4G cards ... ) > Back to the original issue: K10D vs. *ist D. > I did many tests - and had to redo them many times - I had travel disc > troubles. And I kept forgetting the the darned K10D does go b ack > to JPEG's > every time I trun it off (Grrr...). Do you have RAW file format output selected in the Record Menu? or are you switching to RAW capture mode by pressing the RAW button? The latter always resets on a power cycle, the former should not. > The biggest difference I found was, that the K10D overexposes the > shots > quite consistantly. I have no idea why. > And I had to ficus manually on the D, because the AF is no adjusted > right. > > Here's two test shots done with a FA* 2.8 80-200mm @ F.8: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594527835191/ Hmm. It seems to me that your judgment is very subjective. The K10D did a better job of exposing for the darker foreground, the *ist D did a better job of retaining the sky values with this test. With JPEG's limited dynamic range, you don't get both. Depending upon what *you* were trying to get out of the photograph, either one could be better than the other. I set the K10D to RAW/DNG and leave it that way. I see from comparing many many DS and K10D exposures that the K10D does a better job of exposing for RAW format: I rarely have to add exposure with the compensation control, the DS nearly always needed +.3 to +.7 EV to get the best results. So I fully believe that you're seeing on the order of about a +1EV plus exposure bias with JPEGs and the K10D. However, this doesn't say anything about image quality. It simply says that you need to recalibrate your exposure settings for the new body. Once you have achieved proper exposure with both cameras, then you can evaluate how the image quality compares. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
That's a good point, Godfrey. You are right of course. I alrady had the card, when I got the camera - and naturally I will buy a faster card shortly. However, I never really understood the thing about card speed. The *ist D, for instance, could only utilze a fast card up to a certain point. Cards faster thant this and that would NOT improve the write speed. Where would this point be with the K10D, please? The K10D is pretty fast. But, for the first time I had to wait for the next shot today - while doing a panorama series from RAW shots. So, I definitely want a fast card. But which one? Back to the original issue: K10D vs. *ist D. I did many tests - and had to redo them many times - I had travel disc troubles. And I kept forgetting the the darned K10D does go b ack to JPEG's every time I trun it off (Grrr...). The biggest difference I found was, that the K10D overexposes the shots quite consistantly. I have no idea why. And I had to ficus manually on the D, because the AF is no adjusted right. Here's two test shots done with a FA* 2.8 80-200mm @ F.8: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157594527835191/ Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 3. februar 2007 16:07 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? Sandisk standard SD cards are 45x rating. Ultra II models (they're clearly labeled) are 60x and Extreme III models (again clearly labeled) are 133x. For someone who who had an issue with camera speed at one time in the past, it seems a little incongruous that you didn't buy a card to exploit the speed of the K10D. With a Sandisk Ultra II card, capturing in RAW/DNG will write almost literally as fast as you can press the shutter release for individual exposures. An Extreme IIi is even faster. Write performance tests of Transcend 45x, Sandisk Ultre II and Transcend 150x. http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/ Extreme III is faster than Transcend 150x. Godfrey On Feb 3, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > I'm not sure what it is. I only have one SD card so far. I sold the > ones I > had, with the *ist DL. > It's a 2 GB Sandisk. I think it's called Standard, High Speed - > which is - > anything but fast :-) > I know, that it (or the camera) made me wait, when I was shooting the > panorama sequence earlier today. > I will probably make it a habit to shoot JPEG's when ever write > speed is > crutial, at least until I get a Sandsik Extreeme III card, next > time I need > more capasity :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.21/665 - Release Date: 02/02/2007 23:39 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.33/678 - Release Date: 02/09/2007 16:06 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
Sandisk standard SD cards are 45x rating. Ultra II models (they're clearly labeled) are 60x and Extreme III models (again clearly labeled) are 133x. For someone who who had an issue with camera speed at one time in the past, it seems a little incongruous that you didn't buy a card to exploit the speed of the K10D. With a Sandisk Ultra II card, capturing in RAW/DNG will write almost literally as fast as you can press the shutter release for individual exposures. An Extreme IIi is even faster. Write performance tests of Transcend 45x, Sandisk Ultre II and Transcend 150x. http://homepage.mac.com/godders/Pentax-DS-150x-timing/ Extreme III is faster than Transcend 150x. Godfrey On Feb 3, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > I'm not sure what it is. I only have one SD card so far. I sold the > ones I > had, with the *ist DL. > It's a 2 GB Sandisk. I think it's called Standard, High Speed - > which is - > anything but fast :-) > I know, that it (or the camera) made me wait, when I was shooting the > panorama sequence earlier today. > I will probably make it a habit to shoot JPEG's when ever write > speed is > crutial, at least until I get a Sandsik Extreeme III card, next > time I need > more capasity :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
I'm not sure what it is. I only have one SD card so far. I sold the ones I had, with the *ist DL. It's a 2 GB Sandisk. I think it's called Standard, High Speed - which is - anything but fast :-) I know, that it (or the camera) made me wait, when I was shooting the panorama sequence earlier today. I will probably make it a habit to shoot JPEG's when ever write speed is crutial, at least until I get a Sandsik Extreeme III card, next time I need more capasity :-) Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Bob W Sendt: 3. februar 2007 12:12 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? > > I believe the main improvements are the speed issues. No > more waiting for > > the buffer to clear, as long as I shoot JPG's. > > In all everything works faster with the K10D. > > What cards are you using with your new camera? Using fast cards like > the Sandisk Extreme III means that there is very little waiting even > when shooting DNG. > I'd go along with that. When I bought the E-1 last week I had to buy a CF card, which I've never had before. I bought a Fuji one, knowing nothing about them. A few days later, because I need more capacity, I bought a Sandisk Extreme III and I'm amazed at the difference in speed. Shooting raw the E-1 gets through 12 frames at 3 fps before it has to stop to catch breath. It then recovers quite quickly. It was taking forever with the Fuji card. In fact, I've just tested them. The Fuji starts to slow down noticeably at the 9th frame, and takes 45 seconds to write 12 frames to the disk. The Sandisk wheezes a little at the 9th, but not so obviously, and takes 15 seconds to write to the disk. And the Sandisk was cheaper. Regards Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.21/665 - Release Date: 02/02/2007 23:39 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.21/665 - Release Date: 02/02/2007 23:39 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
> > I believe the main improvements are the speed issues. No > more waiting for > > the buffer to clear, as long as I shoot JPG's. > > In all everything works faster with the K10D. > > What cards are you using with your new camera? Using fast cards like > the Sandisk Extreme III means that there is very little waiting even > when shooting DNG. > I'd go along with that. When I bought the E-1 last week I had to buy a CF card, which I've never had before. I bought a Fuji one, knowing nothing about them. A few days later, because I need more capacity, I bought a Sandisk Extreme III and I'm amazed at the difference in speed. Shooting raw the E-1 gets through 12 frames at 3 fps before it has to stop to catch breath. It then recovers quite quickly. It was taking forever with the Fuji card. In fact, I've just tested them. The Fuji starts to slow down noticeably at the 9th frame, and takes 45 seconds to write 12 frames to the disk. The Sandisk wheezes a little at the 9th, but not so obviously, and takes 15 seconds to write to the disk. And the Sandisk was cheaper. Regards Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
On 03/02/07, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe the main improvements are the speed issues. No more waiting for > the buffer to clear, as long as I shoot JPG's. > In all everything works faster with the K10D. What cards are you using with your new camera? Using fast cards like the Sandisk Extreme III means that there is very little waiting even when shooting DNG. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
I have only had the K10D for a couple of days. Until now, I can't see any difference in image quality. If any, the D seem to make clearer imgages: But maybe that's just because I haven't had decent light yet. And bevause I'm not really familiar with DNG covnersions in Adobe Lightroom 4.1 (Beta) (I loved the Phase One LE, which can't yet handle the K10D RAW-files. The SR does help, so I've noticed. Also it seems the K10D may show less noice. I believe the main improvements are the speed issues. No more waiting for the buffer to clear, as long as I shoot JPG's. In all everything works faster with the K10D. And the user interface is very convenient (the Fn fast menu). Also the WB adjustment facilities are simply brilliant. Today is Saturday - ad we have a little winter sunshine. I give the K10D a good workout today, and may post more K10D images later...:-) PS: I took a sjhot at the Moone yesterday. The heavy wind gave me difficulties, though: K10D: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/377719597/ *ist D (old shot): http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/237883702/ Actually, the *ist shot is the better one, right? Regards Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Mark Erickson Sendt: 1. februar 2007 20:00 Til: pdml Emne: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality? All, After nearly 2 years, I'm still happy with my *ist-Ds (except for the name, of course). I'm getting results I like (even without Shake Reduction) and I'm really comfortable with it as a tool. I shoot only raw and have a post-processing workflow that I find fast and easy. Soo, for all of you *ist-D[x] users out there who have upgraded to K10D's, can you comment on image quality improvements (or lack thereof) between the two camera generations? Does 10 really beat 6 in the real world? Your thoughts? Thanks, Mark -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 02/01/2007 14:28 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 02/01/2007 14:28 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
"Does 10 really beat 6 in the real world? Your thoughts?" A resounding "yes!". I was very happy with my DL, still have it. But the image smoothness is the first thing that grabbed me. I bought an Epson R1800 printer right after ordering the K10. I enter prints for competition in our camera club. Quite a few folks noticed that my prints, even at 11x17 and 13 x19, looked really great. They asked which camera I was using. Most were agahst when I told them Pentax. "I did not know they made dslr's!" Those prints look better than my Canon (or Nikon) does." A friend who shoots a D200 has told me several times that the print quality I get is better than any dslr prints he has seen. Me thinks that maybe he needs to learn how to print?? :-) Walt -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
On Feb 1, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Mark Erickson wrote: > Soo, for all of you *ist-D[x] users out there who have upgraded to > K10D's, can you comment on image quality improvements (or lack > thereof) > between the two camera generations? Does 10 really beat 6 in the real > world? Your thoughts? Yes. Particularly for when you are making A3 and larger prints and/or working with finely detailed scenes, the K10D gives you more data to work with in rendering the photograph. The difference is not enormous ... max of about 29% in linear resolution ... so if you're making smallish prints (up to 8x12) it will be difficult to see. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: *ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
I have found the K10D offers considerable advantages compared to my D. For one, I shoot a lot of indoor available light photography. The two extra stops that SR give me are very valuable for this type of work, ditto for shooting birds with a handheld 400. The higher resolution has also proved to be a boon, particularly when cropping. I can make a vertical out of a horizontal without sacrificing a lot. I feel my 11 x 17 prints show more detail as wel, although I haven't done a direct comparison. The Tav shooting mode is great. Moving from shade to sun no longer requires fumbling with the ISO. Or moving from one room to another when shooting indoors. Variable ISO is a huge plus. Paul -- Original message -- From: "Mark Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > All, > > After nearly 2 years, I'm still happy with my *ist-Ds (except for the name, > of course). I'm getting results I like (even without Shake Reduction) and > I'm really comfortable with it as a tool. I shoot only raw and have a > post-processing workflow that I find fast and easy. > > Soo, for all of you *ist-D[x] users out there who have upgraded to > K10D's, can you comment on image quality improvements (or lack thereof) > between the two camera generations? Does 10 really beat 6 in the real > world? Your thoughts? > > Thanks, > > Mark > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
*ist-Ds Vs. K10D image quality?
All, After nearly 2 years, I'm still happy with my *ist-Ds (except for the name, of course). I'm getting results I like (even without Shake Reduction) and I'm really comfortable with it as a tool. I shoot only raw and have a post-processing workflow that I find fast and easy. Soo, for all of you *ist-D[x] users out there who have upgraded to K10D's, can you comment on image quality improvements (or lack thereof) between the two camera generations? Does 10 really beat 6 in the real world? Your thoughts? Thanks, Mark -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
