subject:"K\-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF"

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-30 Thread Boris Liberman

I see your point now... This is really interesting. I should take my 
time and study it deeper. It would seem however that although noticed by 
some, these effects are not very real-life important as far as 
non-brick-wall shooting is concerned.


Yet it certainly is worth one's while to know more about the specifics 
of one's camera.


Thanks for taking time and providing interesting links, Zos.

On 11/29/2013 5:43 PM, Zos Xavius wrote:

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/cat/camsec/solutions/E_CMOS_Sensor_WP_110427.pdf

See page 5. It seems that they are doing further noise reduction in
hardware after they convert to digital. Verrry interesting!

There might be more to the theory that the chip is doing this before
the imaging pipeline even sees the data. I'd kill for a white paper
now.



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-30 Thread Zos Xavius

I find how things work fascinating and always want to know more. I'm
half tempted to run some tests with my K-5 to see if I can find out i
the different color channels lose resolution by differing amounts,
which might give a few clues. FWIW, I still think the K-5's
implementation of 3200 and above is very pleasing and I wouldn't want
them to change a thing.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
I see your point now... This is really interesting. I should take my time
and study it deeper. It would seem however that although noticed by some,
these effects are not very real-life important as far as non-brick-wall
shooting is concerned.

Yet it certainly is worth one's while to know more about the specifics of
one's camera.

Thanks for taking time and providing interesting links, Zos.

On 11/29/2013 5:43 PM, Zos Xavius wrote:

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/cat/camsec/solutions/E_CMOS_Sensor_WP_110427.pdf

See page 5. It seems that they are doing further noise reduction in
hardware after they convert to digital. Verrry interesting!

There might be more to the theory that the chip is doing this before
the imaging pipeline even sees the data. I'd kill for a white paper
now.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-29 Thread Zos Xavius

Larry,

If what falconeyes is suggesting is correct, it looks like the
firmware is actually manipulating the data. From what I understand,
these chips quickly read out all their raw data to the imaging
processor which interprets the data and applies whatever they have
cooked up in the firmware to massage it. This means erasing hot
pixels, some noise control, etc. I'm pretty sure the imaging sensor is
a mostly dumb chip, though I do know that there usually some basic
hardware noise control built into the chip. I think, if I am reading
this correctly, is that falconeyes theory is that it is taking
information from the green channel (the most sensitive channel) and
interpolating some of that information into the other channels to
smooth luminance noise. It seems to be mostly accepted fact that the
K-5 does up to iso 1600 in hardware and that after that it seems to be
pushing 1600 in software and dealing with the noise in the imaging
pipeline. Yeah, a white sheet on EXMOR imaging chips would be pretty
revealing I think. If you ask me. I think looking at the loss in
resolution in the RGB channels would be the most revealing as to what
they are doing to the data. If I were a betting man, I'd throw a lot
of money on the idea that all manufacturers manipulate their raw data,
especially at high ISO. I think it would be foolish to assume
otherwise. Some people think that the K-5 is native up to 12,800.
There might be some truth to that, but I don't think it changes that
it seems to be manipulating the raw data.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 01:44:02PM -0500, Zos Xavius wrote:
See also:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/118892-how-iso-3200-works-your-k-5-technical-2.html

Especially falconeye's comments.

Very interesting. There are times like this when I seriously wish that
I could peek at the source code. I wonder if the data sheets for the Sony
Exmoor sensors are available?

I suppose that one possibility would be to take a 16 stop grey scale,
photograph it at different ISOs and exposures and compare the data in
the raw files.

As a geek, I want to know every detail about how the process works,
where data is being thrown a way. As a photographer, what I really
need to know is what gives me the best results in which circumstances?.
As a geek, I like to think that understanding the process would let me
figure things out from first principles. As a lazy photographer,
I just set the ISO and do the best I can with the light available.

Assuming that high ISO is done with math rather than electronics, it
is an interesting question as to whether a smaller processor closer to
the sensor can do a better job than a bigger processor on a desktop
computer.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Boris,

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5RAW.HTM

Here, we can see the Pentax K-5 clearly produces the cleanest looking
RAW files, though it appears to be applying some noise reduction at
higher ISOs (above ISO 1,600), which cannot be turned off. The noise
reduction applied is pretty subtle, though, nothing like the
heavy-handed approach used in earlier Sony SLRs. Still, it's something
we'd rather not see in RAW files, as it does impact fine detail.

This is noted by many other people as well. The noise reduction
settings are for JPEG only by the way. The only affect how much NR is
applied to a jpeg if your are converting raw or shooting in JPEG.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
Zos, two points that still keep me wondering:

1. I couldn't find any mention of RAW noise reduction in Imaging
resource review after this link:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5A.HTM

2. I see what the person on DPReview wrote, but I think there is a
confusion and (as explained in imaging resource review) the noise
reduction can be configured per ISO. I don't remember exactly, but it
stands to reason that ISO 3200 is where it is set to kick in by
default.

Specifically, once I learned about this setting, I went and configured
both of my cameras to apply no noise reduction until ISO 12800 or so.

So, I'm yet unconvinced that K5 applies noise reduction at ISO 3200
just because.

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the delayed reply Boris.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36834206

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-29 Thread Zos Xavius

http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/cat/camsec/solutions/E_CMOS_Sensor_WP_110427.pdf

See page 5. It seems that they are doing further noise reduction in
hardware after they convert to digital. Verrry interesting!

There might be more to the theory that the chip is doing this before
the imaging pipeline even sees the data. I'd kill for a white paper
now.

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Larry,

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 01:44:02PM -0500, Zos Xavius wrote:
See also:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/118892-how-iso-3200-works-your-k-5-technical-2.html

Especially falconeye's comments.

Very interesting. There are times like this when I seriously wish that
I could peek at the source code. I wonder if the data sheets for the Sony
Exmoor sensors are available?

I suppose that one possibility would be to take a 16 stop grey scale,
photograph it at different ISOs and exposures and compare the data in
the raw files.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Boris,

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5RAW.HTM

This is noted by many other people as well. The noise reduction
settings are for JPEG only by the way. The only affect how much NR is
applied to a jpeg if your are converting raw or shooting in JPEG.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
Zos, two points that still keep me wondering:

1. I couldn't find any mention of RAW noise reduction in Imaging
resource review after this link:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5A.HTM

Specifically, once I learned about this setting, I went and configured
both of my cameras to apply no noise reduction until ISO 12800 or so.

So, I'm yet unconvinced that K5 applies noise reduction at ISO 3200
just because.

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the delayed reply Boris.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36834206

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-28 Thread Zos Xavius

Boris,

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5RAW.HTM

Here, we can see the Pentax K-5 clearly produces the cleanest looking
RAW files, though it appears to be applying some noise reduction at
higher ISOs (above ISO 1,600), which cannot be turned off. The noise
reduction applied is pretty subtle, though, nothing like the
heavy-handed approach used in earlier Sony SLRs. Still, it's something
we'd rather not see in RAW files, as it does impact fine detail.

This is noted by many other people as well. The noise reduction
settings are for JPEG only by the way. The only affect how much NR is
applied to a jpeg if your are converting raw or shooting in JPEG.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 Zos, two points that still keep me wondering:

 1. I couldn't find any mention of RAW noise reduction in Imaging
 resource review after this link:
 http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5A.HTM

 2. I see what the person on DPReview wrote, but I think there is a
 confusion and (as explained in imaging resource review) the noise
 reduction can be configured per ISO. I don't remember exactly, but it
 stands to reason that ISO 3200 is where it is set to kick in by
 default.

 Specifically, once I learned about this setting, I went and configured
 both of my cameras to apply no noise reduction until ISO 12800 or so.

 So, I'm yet unconvinced that K5 applies noise reduction at ISO 3200
 just because.

 On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Sorry for the delayed reply Boris.

 http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36834206

 Also read the Imaging Resource and dxomarks reviews of the K-5. Pretty
 much all the reviews noticed the RAW NR above 1600. Given the K-5's
 output at 3200, Pentax made a good choice IMO. Their hardware NR is
 pretty decent, very clean looking, and still retains a lot of detail,
 especially after the raws are processed gently in lightroom. I never
 once objected to the engineers' decisions on the K-5 when it came to
 the sensor. Pentax seems to be very good at massaging maximum
 performance out of a sensor. The K-3 IMO looks very good too. A 50%
 increase in density with similar noise and DR over the previous
 generation is very good IMO. The next round of chips will likely be
 even better. What's not to like? The K-5 I have is very good in IQ.
 I'll keep shooting it till it doesn't take pictures anymore.

 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 The source of information that indicates that K-5 applies smoothing to
 RAW files even if I specifically set its settings not to do so.

 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 The source for K-5 raw smoothing? The source for resized K3 files?
 What source do you speak of Mr Boris? :P

 On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 11/26/2013 6:38 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:

 Also I must add that the k-5 does some definite noise reduction to the
 raw files over iso 1600, whether that's in the imaging pipeline or the
 firmware is neither hear nor there at this point. At 3200 on the k-5
 you are most certainly trading resolution for image quality. I don't
 have any real figures, but I feel that looking at the files from my
 k-5, its easily giving up quite a bit of resolution due to noise
 smoothing. From what I can gather the K-3 is resolving more fine
 detail but yet showing similar amounts of noise when resized to k-5
 resolution. That's what I have seen with my own eyes at least. To be
 honest they are pretty close and careful raw processing will result
 with more detail in the k-3 files with similar noise levels. I find
 pentax's jpeg engine to be not the greatest at noise reduction, but
 honestly, its better than some other camera makers too.


 Zos, can you please point me to the source of that information? I'm
 extremely interested to *know*.

 Thanks.



 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.



 --
 Boris

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.



 --
 Boris

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-28 Thread Zos Xavius

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-28 Thread Larry Colen

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 01:44:02PM -0500, Zos Xavius wrote:
See also:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/118892-how-iso-3200-works-your-k-5-technical-2.html

Especially falconeye's comments.

Very interesting. There are times like this when I seriously wish that
I could peek at the source code. I wonder if the data sheets for the Sony
Exmoor sensors are available?

I suppose that one possibility would be to take a 16 stop grey scale,
photograph it at different ISOs and exposures and compare the data in
the raw files.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Boris,

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5RAW.HTM

This is noted by many other people as well. The noise reduction
settings are for JPEG only by the way. The only affect how much NR is
applied to a jpeg if your are converting raw or shooting in JPEG.

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
Zos, two points that still keep me wondering:

1. I couldn't find any mention of RAW noise reduction in Imaging
resource review after this link:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5A.HTM

Specifically, once I learned about this setting, I went and configured
both of my cameras to apply no noise reduction until ISO 12800 or so.

So, I'm yet unconvinced that K5 applies noise reduction at ISO 3200
just because.

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the delayed reply Boris.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36834206

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
The source for K-5 raw smoothing? The source for resized K3 files?
What source do you speak of Mr Boris? :P

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11/26/2013 6:38 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-27 Thread Zos Xavius

Sorry for the delayed reply Boris.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36834206

Also read the Imaging Resource and dxomarks reviews of the K-5. Pretty
much all the reviews noticed the RAW NR above 1600. Given the K-5's
output at 3200, Pentax made a good choice IMO. Their hardware NR is
pretty decent, very clean looking, and still retains a lot of detail,
especially after the raws are processed gently in lightroom. I never
once objected to the engineers' decisions on the K-5 when it came to
the sensor. Pentax seems to be very good at massaging maximum
performance out of a sensor. The K-3 IMO looks very good too. A 50%
increase in density with similar noise and DR over the previous
generation is very good IMO. The next round of chips will likely be
even better. What's not to like? The K-5 I have is very good in IQ.
I'll keep shooting it till it doesn't take pictures anymore.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 The source of information that indicates that K-5 applies smoothing to
 RAW files even if I specifically set its settings not to do so.

 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 The source for K-5 raw smoothing? The source for resized K3 files?
 What source do you speak of Mr Boris? :P

 On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 11/26/2013 6:38 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:

 Also I must add that the k-5 does some definite noise reduction to the
 raw files over iso 1600, whether that's in the imaging pipeline or the
 firmware is neither hear nor there at this point. At 3200 on the k-5
 you are most certainly trading resolution for image quality. I don't
 have any real figures, but I feel that looking at the files from my
 k-5, its easily giving up quite a bit of resolution due to noise
 smoothing. From what I can gather the K-3 is resolving more fine
 detail but yet showing similar amounts of noise when resized to k-5
 resolution. That's what I have seen with my own eyes at least. To be
 honest they are pretty close and careful raw processing will result
 with more detail in the k-3 files with similar noise levels. I find
 pentax's jpeg engine to be not the greatest at noise reduction, but
 honestly, its better than some other camera makers too.


 Zos, can you please point me to the source of that information? I'm
 extremely interested to *know*.

 Thanks.



 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.



 --
 Boris

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-27 Thread Miserere

K3 scores vs The Others:

http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Pentax-K-3-camera-tested-by-DxOMark.jpg
http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Pentax-K-3-tested-by-DxOMark.jpg

Images ruthlessly pulled from this Photo Rumors post:

http://photorumors.com/2013/11/27/what-else-is-new-52/

Cheers,


   —M.

\/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com

http://EnticingTheLight.com
A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment



On 27 November 2013 12:24, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Sorry for the delayed reply Boris.

 http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36834206

 Also read the Imaging Resource and dxomarks reviews of the K-5. Pretty
 much all the reviews noticed the RAW NR above 1600. Given the K-5's
 output at 3200, Pentax made a good choice IMO. Their hardware NR is
 pretty decent, very clean looking, and still retains a lot of detail,
 especially after the raws are processed gently in lightroom. I never
 once objected to the engineers' decisions on the K-5 when it came to
 the sensor. Pentax seems to be very good at massaging maximum
 performance out of a sensor. The K-3 IMO looks very good too. A 50%
 increase in density with similar noise and DR over the previous
 generation is very good IMO. The next round of chips will likely be
 even better. What's not to like? The K-5 I have is very good in IQ.
 I'll keep shooting it till it doesn't take pictures anymore.

 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 The source of information that indicates that K-5 applies smoothing to
 RAW files even if I specifically set its settings not to do so.

 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 The source for K-5 raw smoothing? The source for resized K3 files?
 What source do you speak of Mr Boris? :P

 On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 11/26/2013 6:38 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:

 Also I must add that the k-5 does some definite noise reduction to the
 raw files over iso 1600, whether that's in the imaging pipeline or the
 firmware is neither hear nor there at this point. At 3200 on the k-5
 you are most certainly trading resolution for image quality. I don't
 have any real figures, but I feel that looking at the files from my
 k-5, its easily giving up quite a bit of resolution due to noise
 smoothing. From what I can gather the K-3 is resolving more fine
 detail but yet showing similar amounts of noise when resized to k-5
 resolution. That's what I have seen with my own eyes at least. To be
 honest they are pretty close and careful raw processing will result
 with more detail in the k-3 files with similar noise levels. I find
 pentax's jpeg engine to be not the greatest at noise reduction, but
 honestly, its better than some other camera makers too.


 Zos, can you please point me to the source of that information? I'm
 extremely interested to *know*.

 Thanks.



 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.



 --
 Boris

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-27 Thread Boris Liberman

Zos, two points that still keep me wondering:

1. I couldn't find any mention of RAW noise reduction in Imaging
resource review after this link:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5A.HTM

2. I see what the person on DPReview wrote, but I think there is a
confusion and (as explained in imaging resource review) the noise
reduction can be configured per ISO. I don't remember exactly, but it
stands to reason that ISO 3200 is where it is set to kick in by
default.

Specifically, once I learned about this setting, I went and configured
both of my cameras to apply no noise reduction until ISO 12800 or so.

So, I'm yet unconvinced that K5 applies noise reduction at ISO 3200
just because.

On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 Sorry for the delayed reply Boris.

 http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36834206

 Also read the Imaging Resource and dxomarks reviews of the K-5. Pretty
 much all the reviews noticed the RAW NR above 1600. Given the K-5's
 output at 3200, Pentax made a good choice IMO. Their hardware NR is
 pretty decent, very clean looking, and still retains a lot of detail,
 especially after the raws are processed gently in lightroom. I never
 once objected to the engineers' decisions on the K-5 when it came to
 the sensor. Pentax seems to be very good at massaging maximum
 performance out of a sensor. The K-3 IMO looks very good too. A 50%
 increase in density with similar noise and DR over the previous
 generation is very good IMO. The next round of chips will likely be
 even better. What's not to like? The K-5 I have is very good in IQ.
 I'll keep shooting it till it doesn't take pictures anymore.

 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 7:46 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 The source of information that indicates that K-5 applies smoothing to
 RAW files even if I specifically set its settings not to do so.

 On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 The source for K-5 raw smoothing? The source for resized K3 files?
 What source do you speak of Mr Boris? :P

 On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 11/26/2013 6:38 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:

 Also I must add that the k-5 does some definite noise reduction to the
 raw files over iso 1600, whether that's in the imaging pipeline or the
 firmware is neither hear nor there at this point. At 3200 on the k-5
 you are most certainly trading resolution for image quality. I don't
 have any real figures, but I feel that looking at the files from my
 k-5, its easily giving up quite a bit of resolution due to noise
 smoothing. From what I can gather the K-3 is resolving more fine
 detail but yet showing similar amounts of noise when resized to k-5
 resolution. That's what I have seen with my own eyes at least. To be
 honest they are pretty close and careful raw processing will result
 with more detail in the k-3 files with similar noise levels. I find
 pentax's jpeg engine to be not the greatest at noise reduction, but
 honestly, its better than some other camera makers too.


 Zos, can you please point me to the source of that information? I'm
 extremely interested to *know*.

 Thanks.



 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.



 --
 Boris

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.



-- 
Boris

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-26 Thread Zos Xavius

The source for K-5 raw smoothing? The source for resized K3 files?
What source do you speak of Mr Boris? :P

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 11/26/2013 6:38 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:

 Also I must add that the k-5 does some definite noise reduction to the
 raw files over iso 1600, whether that's in the imaging pipeline or the
 firmware is neither hear nor there at this point. At 3200 on the k-5
 you are most certainly trading resolution for image quality. I don't
 have any real figures, but I feel that looking at the files from my
 k-5, its easily giving up quite a bit of resolution due to noise
 smoothing. From what I can gather the K-3 is resolving more fine
 detail but yet showing similar amounts of noise when resized to k-5
 resolution. That's what I have seen with my own eyes at least. To be
 honest they are pretty close and careful raw processing will result
 with more detail in the k-3 files with similar noise levels. I find
 pentax's jpeg engine to be not the greatest at noise reduction, but
 honestly, its better than some other camera makers too.


 Zos, can you please point me to the source of that information? I'm
 extremely interested to *know*.

 Thanks.



 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-26 Thread Boris Liberman

The source of information that indicates that K-5 applies smoothing to
RAW files even if I specifically set its settings not to do so.

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
 The source for K-5 raw smoothing? The source for resized K3 files?
 What source do you speak of Mr Boris? :P

 On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 11/26/2013 6:38 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:

 Also I must add that the k-5 does some definite noise reduction to the
 raw files over iso 1600, whether that's in the imaging pipeline or the
 firmware is neither hear nor there at this point. At 3200 on the k-5
 you are most certainly trading resolution for image quality. I don't
 have any real figures, but I feel that looking at the files from my
 k-5, its easily giving up quite a bit of resolution due to noise
 smoothing. From what I can gather the K-3 is resolving more fine
 detail but yet showing similar amounts of noise when resized to k-5
 resolution. That's what I have seen with my own eyes at least. To be
 honest they are pretty close and careful raw processing will result
 with more detail in the k-3 files with similar noise levels. I find
 pentax's jpeg engine to be not the greatest at noise reduction, but
 honestly, its better than some other camera makers too.


 Zos, can you please point me to the source of that information? I'm
 extremely interested to *know*.

 Thanks.



 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.



-- 
Boris

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-25 Thread Bill



I love it when I'm prescient.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-versus-Pentax-K-5-IIs-versus-Pentax-K7___914_830_615

The K3 tests out at 13.4 stops of dynamic range, compared to the K5 at 
14.1. By comparison, the K7 is 10.6. Interestingly, the K3 measures very 
slightly higher (effectively the same) at their high ISO measurement 
(highest ISO to maintain 30db of noise and 9 stops of DR).


bill


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:43:27 -0600
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net


Fair enough. I delayed this reply in hopes that DXO would do the K3
fairly soon, but it looks like this will not be the case. I am guessing
that when they do test the K3, that it will turn in really close to the
K5 at base ISO, I would think in the 13.5 range.






--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-25 Thread Darren Addy

Thanks for the link, Bill.

I, too, am surprised that the K-3 does slightly better in the ISO
department. Frankly, even at web resolution, the higher ISO images
looked noiser to me. I am not surprised that there is a .7 EV deficit
for the K-3 in the Dynamic Range department. I still think that 16MP
is a sweet spot for APS-C - I only wish that they made a 16MP model
that had the other K-3 innovations (and PRIME III) on it.

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:

I love it when I'm prescient.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-versus-Pentax-K-5-IIs-versus-Pentax-K7___914_830_615

The K3 tests out at 13.4 stops of dynamic range, compared to the K5 at 14.1.
By comparison, the K7 is 10.6. Interestingly, the K3 measures very slightly
higher (effectively the same) at their high ISO measurement (highest ISO to
maintain 30db of noise and 9 stops of DR).

bill

Original Message
Subject: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:43:27 -0600
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net

Fair enough. I delayed this reply in hopes that DXO would do the K3
fairly soon, but it looks like this will not be the case. I am guessing
that when they do test the K3, that it will turn in really close to the
K5 at base ISO, I would think in the 13.5 range.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
I don't have a problem with idiots.
I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-25 Thread Zos Xavius

The D7100 scores higher! Pentax is domed!

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the link, Bill.

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:

I love it when I'm prescient.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-versus-Pentax-K-5-IIs-versus-Pentax-K7___914_830_615

bill

Original Message
Subject: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:43:27 -0600
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
I don't have a problem with idiots.
I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-25 Thread Zos Xavius

In all seriousness the dxomark tests a small print. Its not the most
scientific of tests if you ask me, but I do put some value on their DR
measurements. Also no camera has hit 100 yet. At current pixel
densities their method will still yield some information until we
start getting into much higher densities.

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
The D7100 scores higher! Pentax is domed!

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the link, Bill.

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:

I love it when I'm prescient.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-versus-Pentax-K-5-IIs-versus-Pentax-K7___914_830_615

bill

Original Message
Subject: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:43:27 -0600
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
I don't have a problem with idiots.
I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-25 Thread Zos Xavius

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
In all seriousness the dxomark tests a small print. Its not the most
scientific of tests if you ask me, but I do put some value on their DR
measurements. Also no camera has hit 100 yet. At current pixel
densities their method will still yield some information until we
start getting into much higher densities.

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:26 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
The D7100 scores higher! Pentax is domed!

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the link, Bill.

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:

I love it when I'm prescient.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-versus-Pentax-K-5-IIs-versus-Pentax-K7___914_830_615

The K3 tests out at 13.4 stops of dynamic range, compared to the K5 at
14.1.
By comparison, the K7 is 10.6. Interestingly, the K3 measures very slightly
higher (effectively the same) at their high ISO measurement (highest ISO to
maintain 30db of noise and 9 stops of DR).

bill

Original Message
Subject: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:43:27 -0600
From: Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
I don't have a problem with idiots.
I have a problem with the fact that they have an internet connection.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-25 Thread Boris Liberman


On 11/26/2013 6:38 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:

Also I must add that the k-5 does some definite noise reduction to the
raw files over iso 1600, whether that's in the imaging pipeline or the
firmware is neither hear nor there at this point. At 3200 on the k-5
you are most certainly trading resolution for image quality. I don't
have any real figures, but I feel that looking at the files from my
k-5, its easily giving up quite a bit of resolution due to noise
smoothing. From what I can gather the K-3 is resolving more fine
detail but yet showing similar amounts of noise when resized to k-5
resolution. That's what I have seen with my own eyes at least. To be
honest they are pretty close and careful raw processing will result
with more detail in the k-3 files with similar noise levels. I find
pentax's jpeg engine to be not the greatest at noise reduction, but
honestly, its better than some other camera makers too.


Zos, can you please point me to the source of that information? I'm 
extremely interested to *know*.


Thanks.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: DXO does the K3....was..Fwd: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-25 Thread Boris Liberman


On 11/26/2013 4:04 AM, Bill wrote:


I love it when I'm prescient.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-versus-Pentax-K-5-IIs-versus-Pentax-K7___914_830_615



The K3 tests out at 13.4 stops of dynamic range, compared to the K5
at 14.1. By comparison, the K7 is 10.6. Interestingly, the K3
measures very slightly higher (effectively the same) at their high
ISO measurement (highest ISO to maintain 30db of noise and 9 stops of
DR).

bill


When you're right, you're right, Bill...

Boris

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-19 Thread Boris Liberman


On 11/19/2013 3:43 AM, Bill wrote:

Missed again, Boris.


Well, it then only fits a saying that I invented on my own - we aim to 
please, sometimes we miss.



Further, in my area of interest :-), contrast is usually extreme. Thus
even a minor error is what it is - an error. Now, the more DR I have -
the more tolerance/leeway for correction I am given.


Fair enough. I delayed this reply in hopes that DXO would do the K3
fairly soon, but it looks like this will not be the case. I am guessing
that when they do test the K3, that it will turn in really close to the
K5 at base ISO, I would think in the 13.5 range.


We will see, but I trust your experience and might of Pentax engineers 
as far as imaging engine goes.



You always make sense, no matter how unmercifully I tease you.


From personal promo: Boris Liberman - making sense for 42 years :-)

Boris



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-18 Thread Bill


On 13/11/2013 10:42 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:

What is biting my ass, Bill, is my bloody cumbersome English. Let's see
if I can hit the target from the second try.

Missed again, Boris.


The measured DR is useless because it is theoretical. The measurements
were taken in controlled environment by people who specialize in doing
such measurements.


Well yes, that is the point of DXO measurements.


In reality the metering is not always spot on, and not because of a
camera, or actually only partly because of a camera, but also because of
a human error. Human being me here.


But this is the same in any camera.


Further, in my area of interest :-), contrast is usually extreme. Thus
even a minor error is what it is - an error. Now, the more DR I have -
the more tolerance/leeway for correction I am given.


Fair enough. I delayed this reply in hopes that DXO would do the K3 
fairly soon, but it looks like this will not be the case. I am guessing 
that when they do test the K3, that it will turn in really close to the 
K5 at base ISO, I would think in the 13.5 range.




I don't pretend to be extremely accurate or well versed in terms of
using my camera. I usually set it to P-mode, dial in some -0.7Ev
correction and go on shooting. I try to deal with tonality of my
pictures in post.

So, I much rather have wider DR than more MP or more focus points, that
all. Like I said - it is subjective.

Oh, and like Larry pointed out - the more DR I have at base ISO, the
more DR am I going to have at higher ISOs...

Does it make sense now? Do I sound pessimistic?



You always make sense, no matter how unmercifully I tease you.

bill


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-14 Thread Zos Xavius

I finally read the review. IQ looks very, very good. On par with the
K-5 in terms of high ISO. Highlight recovery looks to be about equal.
The K-5 seems to edge out slightly on shadow recovery. Probably not a
big deal in 99% of shooting situations unless you really need to push
your shots 3 stops, in that case its time to learn how to expose. I
would say from what I've seen the DR and marginally more noise is
going to be a non-issue for most folks out there. So what's the fight
over? Are people with K-5s really suddenly inadequate or something?
For me I am going to stick with my K-5. Its perfect for the type of
shooting I do and I need to focus on getting better glass more than
more megapixels. From what I can tell most of my lenses wouldn't be up
to resolving 24mp from a crop anyways.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
What is biting my ass, Bill, is my bloody cumbersome English. Let's see if I
can hit the target from the second try.

The measured DR is useless because it is theoretical. The measurements were
taken in controlled environment by people who specialize in doing such
measurements.

In reality the metering is not always spot on, and not because of a camera,
or actually only partly because of a camera, but also because of a human
error. Human being me here.

Further, in my area of interest :-), contrast is usually extreme. Thus even
a minor error is what it is - an error. Now, the more DR I have - the more
tolerance/leeway for correction I am given.

I don't pretend to be extremely accurate or well versed in terms of using my
camera. I usually set it to P-mode, dial in some -0.7Ev correction and go on
shooting. I try to deal with tonality of my pictures in post.

So, I much rather have wider DR than more MP or more focus points, that all.
Like I said - it is subjective.

Oh, and like Larry pointed out - the more DR I have at base ISO, the more DR
am I going to have at higher ISOs...

Does it make sense now? Do I sound pessimistic?

Boris

On 11/13/2013 9:02 PM, Bill wrote:

On 13/11/2013 9:53 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:

Bill, it is purely subjective. I have suffered enough grief from K-7's
sensor and frankly, the way Pentax treats highlights in their RAW
files seems to be rather unforgiving compared with those of Ricoh GXR
(any module with 12MP sensor). So, I don't want to take any chances.

Boris, it isn't subjective at all. This is one of those areas where DXO
is a good resource.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/874%7C0/(brand)/Ricoh/(appareil2)/676%7C0/(brand2)/Pentax/(appareil3)/615%7C0/(brand3)/Pentax

Look at the DR. The K7 is 10.6 EV, the K5 is 14.1EV, the Ricoh GR is
13.5EV. They don't have the K3 tested yet, but I'm thinking it will
probably place very close to the GR, based on what I've see coming off
the camera.
We know that the Samsung sensors used in the K20 and K7 never performed
the way they were supposed to, if they had, it's doubtful that Pentax
would have moved to Sony sensors in subsequent models.
This is one of those times when being a professional pessimist is biting
your ass.

bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-14 Thread Zos Xavius

And I might add that the K-3 is clearly resolving more fine detail at
higher ISOs. I think the extra noise is a non-issue. Especially with
some raw processing.

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
I finally read the review. IQ looks very, very good. On par with the
K-5 in terms of high ISO. Highlight recovery looks to be about equal.
The K-5 seems to edge out slightly on shadow recovery. Probably not a
big deal in 99% of shooting situations unless you really need to push
your shots 3 stops, in that case its time to learn how to expose. I
would say from what I've seen the DR and marginally more noise is
going to be a non-issue for most folks out there. So what's the fight
over? Are people with K-5s really suddenly inadequate or something?
For me I am going to stick with my K-5. Its perfect for the type of
shooting I do and I need to focus on getting better glass more than
more megapixels. From what I can tell most of my lenses wouldn't be up
to resolving 24mp from a crop anyways.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
What is biting my ass, Bill, is my bloody cumbersome English. Let's see if I
can hit the target from the second try.

The measured DR is useless because it is theoretical. The measurements were
taken in controlled environment by people who specialize in doing such
measurements.

In reality the metering is not always spot on, and not because of a camera,
or actually only partly because of a camera, but also because of a human
error. Human being me here.

Further, in my area of interest :-), contrast is usually extreme. Thus even
a minor error is what it is - an error. Now, the more DR I have - the more
tolerance/leeway for correction I am given.

So, I much rather have wider DR than more MP or more focus points, that all.
Like I said - it is subjective.

Oh, and like Larry pointed out - the more DR I have at base ISO, the more DR
am I going to have at higher ISOs...

Does it make sense now? Do I sound pessimistic?

Boris

On 11/13/2013 9:02 PM, Bill wrote:

On 13/11/2013 9:53 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:

Boris, it isn't subjective at all. This is one of those areas where DXO
is a good resource.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/874%7C0/(brand)/Ricoh/(appareil2)/676%7C0/(brand2)/Pentax/(appareil3)/615%7C0/(brand3)/Pentax

bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-14 Thread Walt

For me, the only thing that makes me really, really want the K-3 is the
improved focusing. Sure, I might get marginally better noise levels in
low light with my K-5 -- if I can get the thing to focus.

As it stands, though, I have to keep the K-5 simply because my computer
will buckle trying to process the 24mp files of a K-3.

But, if Ricoh were to put out a 16mp body with the K-3's focusing system
-- well, now. That would be something.

-- Walt

On 11/14/2013 11:20 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:

What is biting my ass, Bill, is my bloody cumbersome English. Let's see if I
can hit the target from the second try.

The measured DR is useless because it is theoretical. The measurements were
taken in controlled environment by people who specialize in doing such
measurements.

In reality the metering is not always spot on, and not because of a camera,
or actually only partly because of a camera, but also because of a human
error. Human being me here.

Further, in my area of interest :-), contrast is usually extreme. Thus even
a minor error is what it is - an error. Now, the more DR I have - the more
tolerance/leeway for correction I am given.

So, I much rather have wider DR than more MP or more focus points, that all.
Like I said - it is subjective.

Oh, and like Larry pointed out - the more DR I have at base ISO, the more DR
am I going to have at higher ISOs...

Does it make sense now? Do I sound pessimistic?

Boris

On 11/13/2013 9:02 PM, Bill wrote:

On 13/11/2013 9:53 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:

Boris, it isn't subjective at all. This is one of those areas where DXO
is a good resource.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/874%7C0/(brand)/Ricoh/(appareil2)/676%7C0/(brand2)/Pentax/(appareil3)/615%7C0/(brand3)/Pentax

bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-14 Thread John Francis

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:33:07AM -0600, Walt wrote:
 For me, the only thing that makes me really, really want the K-3 is
 the improved focusing. Sure, I might get marginally better noise
 levels in low light with my K-5 -- if I can get the thing to focus.
 
 As it stands, though, I have to keep the K-5 simply because my
 computer will buckle trying to process the 24mp files of a K-3.
 
 But, if Ricoh were to put out a 16mp body with the K-3's focusing
 system -- well, now. That would be something.
 
 -- Walt

That's pretty much how I feel about the K3, too. I want the better
auto-focus.  The extra megapixels I could probably live without most
of the time, but I wouldn't want to give up the maximum frame rate
or the increased depth of the buffer.

The trouble is that we all want different features.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-14 Thread Walt


On 11/14/2013 11:41 AM, John Francis wrote:

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:33:07AM -0600, Walt wrote:

For me, the only thing that makes me really, really want the K-3 is
the improved focusing. Sure, I might get marginally better noise
levels in low light with my K-5 -- if I can get the thing to focus.

As it stands, though, I have to keep the K-5 simply because my
computer will buckle trying to process the 24mp files of a K-3.

But, if Ricoh were to put out a 16mp body with the K-3's focusing
system -- well, now. That would be something.

-- Walt

That's pretty much how I feel about the K3, too. I want the better
auto-focus.  The extra megapixels I could probably live without most
of the time, but I wouldn't want to give up the maximum frame rate
or the increased depth of the buffer.

The trouble is that we all want different features.

Agreed -- the frame rate and buffer depth would be nice, even though I 
rarely utilize those capabilities.


Still, you'd think Ricoh would have learned to cater to me a little 
better by now.


-- Walt

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-14 Thread Bill


On 14/11/2013 12:18 PM, Walt wrote:



Still, you'd think Ricoh would have learned to cater to me a little
better by now.


Learn to want what I want. You will be very happy.

bill


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Bill


On 12/11/2013 11:20 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:



Not trying to sound pessimistic or anything, but DR is the most
important aspect to me. So I get to keep my K-5 for now.


Out of curiosity, do you know what the DR of the K3 is (I don't)?

The K5 is something like 14 stops at base ISO, which is something like 8 
stops more than most people will encounter in real life picture taking 
situations.
Extreme DR perhaps isn't as important as you think it needs to be, and 
the DR of the K3 seems ample, at least at lower ISOs.


bill


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Paul Stenquist


On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 12/11/2013 11:20 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
 
 
 Not trying to sound pessimistic or anything, but DR is the most
 important aspect to me. So I get to keep my K-5 for now.
 
 Out of curiosity, do you know what the DR of the K3 is (I don't)?
 
 The K5 is something like 14 stops at base ISO, which is something like 8 
 stops more than most people will encounter in real life picture taking 
 situations.
 Extreme DR perhaps isn't as important as you think it needs to be, and the DR 
 of the K3 seems ample, at least at lower ISOs.
 
 bill
 
I've wondered about this concern over DR myself. Compared to the slide film we 
all used to shoot, modern digital cameras have a huge range. I don't recall 
ever running out of latitude. (I grossly overexposed a white interior on a car 
shoot last summer when brain fade set in, but was easily able to retrieve 
detail in conversion.) I shot some ducks on a river that was offering some 
reflections of direct sunlight last weekend with the K-3 and didn't experience 
any difficulty. So far, it seems as forgiving as the K-5 in that regard.

Paul
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Boris Liberman

Bill, it is purely subjective. I have suffered enough grief from K-7's
sensor and frankly, the way Pentax treats highlights in their RAW
files seems to be rather unforgiving compared with those of Ricoh GXR
(any module with 12MP sensor). So, I don't want to take any chances.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 12/11/2013 11:20 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:


 Not trying to sound pessimistic or anything, but DR is the most
 important aspect to me. So I get to keep my K-5 for now.

 Out of curiosity, do you know what the DR of the K3 is (I don't)?

 The K5 is something like 14 stops at base ISO, which is something like 8
 stops more than most people will encounter in real life picture taking
 situations.
 Extreme DR perhaps isn't as important as you think it needs to be, and the
 DR of the K3 seems ample, at least at lower ISOs.

 bill


 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.



-- 
Boris

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Boris Liberman

Paul, I would very much appreciate a screenshot or any other way I can
see and examine where it shows how you recovered these overexposed
shots.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:

 On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 12/11/2013 11:20 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:


 Not trying to sound pessimistic or anything, but DR is the most
 important aspect to me. So I get to keep my K-5 for now.

 Out of curiosity, do you know what the DR of the K3 is (I don't)?

 The K5 is something like 14 stops at base ISO, which is something like 8 
 stops more than most people will encounter in real life picture taking 
 situations.
 Extreme DR perhaps isn't as important as you think it needs to be, and the 
 DR of the K3 seems ample, at least at lower ISOs.

 bill

 I've wondered about this concern over DR myself. Compared to the slide film 
 we all used to shoot, modern digital cameras have a huge range. I don't 
 recall ever running out of latitude. (I grossly overexposed a white interior 
 on a car shoot last summer when brain fade set in, but was easily able to 
 retrieve detail in conversion.) I shot some ducks on a river that was 
 offering some reflections of direct sunlight last weekend with the K-3 and 
 didn't experience any difficulty. So far, it seems as forgiving as the K-5 in 
 that regard.

 Paul

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.


 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.



-- 
Boris

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Mark Roberts
postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
 David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

 I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
 fanboy site like Pantex Forums.

For the record, the owner of Pentax Forums also has a Nikon Forums.

Alex Sarbu

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Darren Addy

The info is right there in the review. In short, there is more info to
recover in the SHADOW areas of the K-5/ii/iis than the K-3.
As we all know, if you blow out highlights, that info is just GONE.

I'm with Boris on the importance of dynamic range and completely
disagree with the point of view that 6 stops of dynamic range is all
one needs for most scenes. I think you are confusing the dynamic range
of the OUTPUT (like a JPEG on a monitor) with the usefulness of the
dynamic range in the RAW that you will use to GENERATE the output file
(to monitor or print). It is always useful to have more info to draw
from in the source RAW.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 9:54 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
 Paul, I would very much appreciate a screenshot or any other way I can
 see and examine where it shows how you recovered these overexposed
 shots.

 On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net 
 wrote:

 On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 12/11/2013 11:20 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:


 Not trying to sound pessimistic or anything, but DR is the most
 important aspect to me. So I get to keep my K-5 for now.

 Out of curiosity, do you know what the DR of the K3 is (I don't)?

 The K5 is something like 14 stops at base ISO, which is something like 8 
 stops more than most people will encounter in real life picture taking 
 situations.
 Extreme DR perhaps isn't as important as you think it needs to be, and the 
 DR of the K3 seems ample, at least at lower ISOs.

 bill

 I've wondered about this concern over DR myself. Compared to the slide film 
 we all used to shoot, modern digital cameras have a huge range. I don't 
 recall ever running out of latitude. (I grossly overexposed a white interior 
 on a car shoot last summer when brain fade set in, but was easily able to 
 retrieve detail in conversion.) I shot some ducks on a river that was 
 offering some reflections of direct sunlight last weekend with the K-3 and 
 didn't experience any difficulty. So far, it seems as forgiving as the K-5 
 in that regard.

 Paul

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.


 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.



 --
 Boris

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.



-- 
Nothing is sure but death and Pentaxes.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread David J Brooks

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu
alexandru.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Mark Roberts
 postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
 David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

 I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
 fanboy site like Pantex Forums.

 For the record, the owner of Pentax Forums also has a Nikon Forums.

So, doom and gloom on two fronts then

Dave

 Alex Sarbu

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Darren Addy

PentaxForums: fanboy or doom and gloom, I wish you guys would make
up your minds.

I think it is important to know how to evaluate information,
regardless of the source. Treating PentaxForums as if it were a
single entity with a single point of view is rather lazy thinking,
IMHO. It is a collection of voices, much like PDML, some more
(un)reasonable than others.

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu
 alexandru.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Mark Roberts
 postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
 David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

 I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
 fanboy site like Pantex Forums.

 For the record, the owner of Pentax Forums also has a Nikon Forums.

 So, doom and gloom on two fronts then

 Dave

 Alex Sarbu

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.



 --
 Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
 www.caughtinmotion.com
 http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
 York Region, Ontario, Canada

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.



-- 
Nothing is sure but death and Pentaxes.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread P.J. Alling


On 11/12/2013 9:53 AM, David J Brooks wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

Apparently my K-5 is aging.

Dave


Heck, I haven't even bought one yet.

--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, 
crazier.

 - H.L.Mencken


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Dario Bonazza


P.J. Alling wrote:

Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:17 PM 
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
Subject: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF 


On 11/12/2013 9:53 AM, David J Brooks wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

Apparently my K-5 is aging.

Dave


Heck, I haven't even bought one yet.

My reply:

Then you'll buy an already-matured one.

Dario 


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Paul Stenquist

I will dig it out when I have a few minutes to spare.

Paul
On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:

 Paul, I would very much appreciate a screenshot or any other way I can
 see and examine where it shows how you recovered these overexposed
 shots.
 
 On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net 
 wrote:
 
 On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On 12/11/2013 11:20 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
 
 
 Not trying to sound pessimistic or anything, but DR is the most
 important aspect to me. So I get to keep my K-5 for now.
 
 Out of curiosity, do you know what the DR of the K3 is (I don't)?
 
 The K5 is something like 14 stops at base ISO, which is something like 8 
 stops more than most people will encounter in real life picture taking 
 situations.
 Extreme DR perhaps isn't as important as you think it needs to be, and the 
 DR of the K3 seems ample, at least at lower ISOs.
 
 bill
 
 I've wondered about this concern over DR myself. Compared to the slide film 
 we all used to shoot, modern digital cameras have a huge range. I don't 
 recall ever running out of latitude. (I grossly overexposed a white interior 
 on a car shoot last summer when brain fade set in, but was easily able to 
 retrieve detail in conversion.) I shot some ducks on a river that was 
 offering some reflections of direct sunlight last weekend with the K-3 and 
 didn't experience any difficulty. So far, it seems as forgiving as the K-5 
 in that regard.
 
 Paul
 
 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.
 
 
 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.
 
 
 
 -- 
 Boris
 
 -- 
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread P.J. Alling


On 11/12/2013 12:51 PM, Walt wrote:

On 11/12/2013 11:43 AM, Charles Robinson wrote:

On Nov 12, 2013, at 09:50 , Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:

In short, I would say that if you have anything prior to a K-5 the
upgrade to a K-3 will be amazing.
If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be happy
with for many years, but an upgrade to a K-3 would be significant (in
everything except dynamic range).
Sounds like I get to stick with my current game plan: Wait for 
whatever replaces the K-3 in a couple years (?!?!) and buy a used K-3 
for $600.


Hopefully I can stick to that plan.

  -Charles
That's my plan, too. Unfortunately, we have the worst support group in 
the world.


-- Walt


K-5 Classics are still available NIB for a little over $600.  The K-3 
will be there when you're ready...





--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson








--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, 
crazier.

 - H.L.Mencken


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Bill


On 13/11/2013 9:53 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:

Bill, it is purely subjective. I have suffered enough grief from K-7's
sensor and frankly, the way Pentax treats highlights in their RAW
files seems to be rather unforgiving compared with those of Ricoh GXR
(any module with 12MP sensor). So, I don't want to take any chances.



Boris, it isn't subjective at all. This is one of those areas where DXO 
is a good resource.


http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/874%7C0/(brand)/Ricoh/(appareil2)/676%7C0/(brand2)/Pentax/(appareil3)/615%7C0/(brand3)/Pentax

Look at the DR. The K7 is 10.6 EV, the K5 is 14.1EV, the Ricoh GR is 
13.5EV. They don't have the K3 tested yet, but I'm thinking it will 
probably place very close to the GR, based on what I've see coming off 
the camera.
We know that the Samsung sensors used in the K20 and K7 never performed 
the way they were supposed to, if they had, it's doubtful that Pentax 
would have moved to Sony sensors in subsequent models.
This is one of those times when being a professional pessimist is biting 
your ass.


bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread David J Brooks

I went on the PF fairly regularly after i joined in 2007, it became
apparent soon after that my opinions did not matter. I was bullied
ridiculed in mky other belifs about the cameras and lenses
by several members and soon left after that,. I don't have much love for the PF

Dave

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
 PentaxForums: fanboy or doom and gloom, I wish you guys would make
 up your minds.

 I think it is important to know how to evaluate information,
 regardless of the source. Treating PentaxForums as if it were a
 single entity with a single point of view is rather lazy thinking,
 IMHO. It is a collection of voices, much like PDML, some more
 (un)reasonable than others.

 On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:03 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu
 alexandru.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Mark Roberts
 postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
 David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

 I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
 fanboy site like Pantex Forums.

 For the record, the owner of Pentax Forums also has a Nikon Forums.

 So, doom and gloom on two fronts then

 Dave

 Alex Sarbu

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.



 --
 Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
 www.caughtinmotion.com
 http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
 York Region, Ontario, Canada

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
 follow the directions.



 --
 Nothing is sure but death and Pentaxes.

 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
 the directions.



-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Bill


On 13/11/2013 11:00 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

The info is right there in the review. In short, there is more info to
recover in the SHADOW areas of the K-5/ii/iis than the K-3.
As we all know, if you blow out highlights, that info is just GONE.

I'm with Boris on the importance of dynamic range and completely
disagree with the point of view that 6 stops of dynamic range is all
one needs for most scenes. I think you are confusing the dynamic range
of the OUTPUT (like a JPEG on a monitor) with the usefulness of the
dynamic range in the RAW that you will use to GENERATE the output file
(to monitor or print). It is always useful to have more info to draw
from in the source RAW.




What you seem to be confusing is the number six, which is the bit depth 
of most monitors with 6 stops, which is the outside dynamic range of 
most any scene you might care to photograph.


I don't know how long you have been involved in photography, I don't 
know if you have ever shot a roll of film in your life, but colour slide 
film at best had a 5 to 6 stop range, colour print film about a 7 stop 
range, and if you were careful, BW could be coaxed into a 14 stop 
range, though 8-10 stops was more or less what one would get with 
conventional Zone System exposure and development. Using non specialized 
development, BW was limited to about 8 stops.
Interestingly, we were able to make film work, and work well even with 
this very limited DR of well under 10 stops.
The reason for this is because the DR of most scenes fits into a 6 stop 
range.
You can believe this or not, or you could do something smart and take a 
color blind light meter out and measure some scenes to see what you come 
up with.
And then come back and tell us why 14.5 stops is so much more necessary 
than 13.5 stops.


What you are saying is that for reasons unknown, perhaps a side effect 
of climate change, the world has gotten a hell of a lot contrastier in 
the past 15 years.

Or, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

bill



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Bill


On 13/11/2013 11:11 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

PentaxForums: fanboy or doom and gloom, I wish you guys would make
up your minds.

I think it is important to know how to evaluate information,


Then why are you so bad at it?

bill


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread CollinB

What you are saying is that for reasons unknown, perhaps a side effect 
of climate change, the world has gotten a hell of a lot contrastier in 
the past 15 years.

bill

I'm finding that the older I get the faster the years go by and the heavier
cameras have become.
So there is no reason not to conclude that the sun isn't getting brighter.
Didn't Al Gore predict something like this?


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Larry Colen

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:17:23PM -0600, Bill wrote:
 On 13/11/2013 11:00 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
 The info is right there in the review. In short, there is more info to
 recover in the SHADOW areas of the K-5/ii/iis than the K-3.
 As we all know, if you blow out highlights, that info is just GONE.
 
 Interestingly, we were able to make film work, and work well even
 with this very limited DR of well under 10 stops.
 The reason for this is because the DR of most scenes fits into a 6
 stop range.
 You can believe this or not, or you could do something smart and
 take a color blind light meter out and measure some scenes to see
 what you come up with.
 And then come back and tell us why 14.5 stops is so much more
 necessary than 13.5 stops.
 
 What you are saying is that for reasons unknown, perhaps a side
 effect of climate change, the world has gotten a hell of a lot
 contrastier in the past 15 years.
 Or, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
 
 bill

Or, just possibly, some people photograph different things than you do.

We got great shots on film, so why would anybody need anything 
that performs better than it?  Maybe film saturates differently than
digital sensors.  I could never afford to to much serious photography
with film, so I'm not well versed at how it handles at the edges of 
the performance envelope.

Have you ever photographed a musician on stage and tried to keep the
color in the gelled stage lights?  That's a case where 
I want more dynamic range than the K-5 can give me.

Likewise I do a lot of photography at light, or in dark rooms, with
well lit corners, and even with 14 stops of DR, I need more.  But, I'm
not really getting those 14 stops, because I have to push the ISO
much harder.  Shooting ISO 6400, those 14 stops become a lot closer to
8 or 9.

Every aspect of camera performance is a compromise with some other
aspect (light, fast, or cheap, pick any two).  A landscape photographer
won't care about fast autofocus, but will care about resolution.
Someone photographing for a magazine probably doesn't need more than about
10MP of resolution (if that), but might want as high of a clean ISO
as they can get.   A sports photographer needs fast autofocus, and 
possibly accurate auto exposure.  A 5 foot tall woman with tendonitis
might want a small light camera that she can hold without getting 
tired, carry in her purse and reach the buttons, while a 6'3 
man might need a large camera that has room for more than three
of his fingers.

For some people, who are losing photos because one aspect isn't 
good enough, every improvement will make a difference on the photos
that are keepers. 

-- 
Larry Colen  l...@red4est.com http://red4est.com/lrc


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread John Francis

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:02:13PM -0600, Bill wrote:
 
 We know that the Samsung sensors used in the K20 and K7 never
 performed the way they were supposed to, if they had, it's doubtful
 that Pentax would have moved to Sony sensors in subsequent models.

That's one reason why I stayed with the K10D until the K5 came along.
I didn't like some of the colours from the Samsung sensor (especially
the deep reds of some roses; they didn't match what my eye was seeing).
I suspect this might simply have been the frequency response at the
red end of the spectrum differing from that of the human eye, or maybe
it was simply the red component of the bayer filter.  In any case,
there were enough other questions about the K20D (and, later, the K7)
that I stayed with what was working for me.

And, when it comes down to it, the K10D was a pretty good camera.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Bill


On 13/11/2013 1:46 PM, CollinB wrote:

What you are saying is that for reasons unknown, perhaps a side effect
of climate change, the world has gotten a hell of a lot contrastier in
the past 15 years.

bill


I'm finding that the older I get the faster the years go by and the heavier
cameras have become.
So there is no reason not to conclude that the sun isn't getting brighter.
Didn't Al Gore predict something like this?



My light meter disagrees.

bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Bob W

On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:17, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 [...]
 
 What you are saying is that for reasons unknown, perhaps a side effect of 
 climate change, the world has gotten a hell of a lot contrastier in the past 
 15 years.

I blame the almost unstoppable rise of Manichaeism.

B
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Bill


On 13/11/2013 1:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:17:23PM -0600, Bill wrote:

On 13/11/2013 11:00 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

The info is right there in the review. In short, there is more info to
recover in the SHADOW areas of the K-5/ii/iis than the K-3.
As we all know, if you blow out highlights, that info is just GONE.


Interestingly, we were able to make film work, and work well even
with this very limited DR of well under 10 stops.
The reason for this is because the DR of most scenes fits into a 6
stop range.
You can believe this or not, or you could do something smart and
take a color blind light meter out and measure some scenes to see
what you come up with.
And then come back and tell us why 14.5 stops is so much more
necessary than 13.5 stops.

What you are saying is that for reasons unknown, perhaps a side
effect of climate change, the world has gotten a hell of a lot
contrastier in the past 15 years.
Or, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

bill


Or, just possibly, some people photograph different things than you do.

We got great shots on film, so why would anybody need anything
that performs better than it?
We already have things that perform close to three times as well as 
film, and the half stop to a stop of DR that is being discussed probably 
isn't going to bring the house down.


 Maybe film saturates differently than

digital sensors.  I could never afford to to much serious photography
with film, so I'm not well versed at how it handles at the edges of
the performance envelope.
Better than digital actually, however the performance envelope is a lot 
smaller.


Have you ever photographed a musician on stage and tried to keep the
color in the gelled stage lights?  That's a case where
I want more dynamic range than the K-5 can give me.
Yes I have. And to do it, I worked with the lighting guy to give me a 
workable solution.


Likewise I do a lot of photography at light, or in dark rooms, with
well lit corners, and even with 14 stops of DR, I need more.  But, I'm
not really getting those 14 stops, because I have to push the ISO
much harder.  Shooting ISO 6400, those 14 stops become a lot closer to
8 or 9.


So by your own admission a stop difference in DR isn't going to do 
anything for you, as your situation is already artificially set up to be 
well nigh impossible.


bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Bill


On 13/11/2013 1:51 PM, John Francis wrote:

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:02:13PM -0600, Bill wrote:


We know that the Samsung sensors used in the K20 and K7 never
performed the way they were supposed to, if they had, it's doubtful
that Pentax would have moved to Sony sensors in subsequent models.


That's one reason why I stayed with the K10D until the K5 came along.
I didn't like some of the colours from the Samsung sensor (especially
the deep reds of some roses; they didn't match what my eye was seeing).
I suspect this might simply have been the frequency response at the
red end of the spectrum differing from that of the human eye, or maybe
it was simply the red component of the bayer filter.  In any case,
there were enough other questions about the K20D (and, later, the K7)
that I stayed with what was working for me.

And, when it comes down to it, the K10D was a pretty good camera.


I really liked the K10, the K20 not so much, though both it and the K7 
at base ISO gave lovely results in the studio, I suspect for the same 
reason you didn't like it ( the red response).


bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread P.J. Alling


On 11/12/2013 10:56 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:

David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:


http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
fanboy site like Pantex Forums.



Self justification?  Why read a review from a fanboy site of some other 
fanboy's Camera?  You know it probably won't be objective. Yet a lot of 
folks seem to think that Kennyboy is credible, (including Mike Johnston, 
occasionally, everybody be sure to take a cat or flower photo in his 
honor, and send it to him. Wait a PUG theme, Photos Mike Johnston would 
hate!).


--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy, 
crazier.

 - H.L.Mencken


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Collin Brendemuehl

My light meter disagrees.

Bill

No exactly.  Your light meter is less sensitive than it once was.
So it only registers the same results but against a changed source.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-13 Thread Boris Liberman

What is biting my ass, Bill, is my bloody cumbersome English. Let's see
if I can hit the target from the second try.

The measured DR is useless because it is theoretical. The measurements
were taken in controlled environment by people who specialize in doing
such measurements.

In reality the metering is not always spot on, and not because of a
camera, or actually only partly because of a camera, but also because of
a human error. Human being me here.

Further, in my area of interest :-), contrast is usually extreme. Thus
even a minor error is what it is - an error. Now, the more DR I have -
the more tolerance/leeway for correction I am given.

I don't pretend to be extremely accurate or well versed in terms of
using my camera. I usually set it to P-mode, dial in some -0.7Ev
correction and go on shooting. I try to deal with tonality of my
pictures in post.

So, I much rather have wider DR than more MP or more focus points, that
all. Like I said - it is subjective.

Oh, and like Larry pointed out - the more DR I have at base ISO, the
more DR am I going to have at higher ISOs...

Does it make sense now? Do I sound pessimistic?

Boris

On 11/13/2013 9:02 PM, Bill wrote:

On 13/11/2013 9:53 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:

Boris, it isn't subjective at all. This is one of those areas where DXO
is a good resource.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/874%7C0/(brand)/Ricoh/(appareil2)/676%7C0/(brand2)/Pentax/(appareil3)/615%7C0/(brand3)/Pentax

bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.

K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-12 Thread David J Brooks

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

Apparently my K-5 is aging.

Dave

-- 
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-12 Thread Bill


On 12/11/2013 8:53 AM, David J Brooks wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

Apparently my K-5 is aging.

Dave


My K5 got old really fast.

bill

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-12 Thread Darren Addy

I have to say, that is a pretty comprehensive review.

As I expected the K-3 falls just a bit short in the dynamic range
department (over the K-5/ii/iis) but its advantages in other areas
would probably still make it a slam dunk upgrade overall for most. It
seems that in the AF department, owners of the K-5ii/iis will not
notice a big difference in the AF performance, and K-5iis owners
already have the AA-free option (though not the switchable option of
the K-3).

In short, I would say that if you have anything prior to a K-5 the
upgrade to a K-3 will be amazing.
If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be happy
with for many years, but an upgrade to a K-3 would be significant (in
everything except dynamic range).
If you have a K-5ii, you already have most of the AF improvements seen
in the K-3 but not its other features (PRIME III-related throughput,
FPS, HDR, switchable AA, dual slots and, of course, 24MP).
If you have a K-5ii, the same things as the K-5ii apply with the
possible exception of the AA-related stuff.

In any event, Pentax has apparently achieved their objectives in
significantly moving the top end of the APS-C cameras, surpassing not
only themselves but also the field (if only temporarily). The fact
that Canikon CANNOT duplicate the switchable AA filter since they
don't use internal SR means that is many ways this is a lead that
Pentax could hold for a good while. If Pentax has improved the AF
system to the point that IT is no longer a compromise, then I really
think that they have shored up the only real vulnerability that they
have historically had.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 12/11/2013 8:53 AM, David J Brooks wrote:

 http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

 Apparently my K-5 is aging.

 Dave

 My K5 got old really fast.

 bill


 --
 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
 PDML@pdml.net
 http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
 follow the directions.



-- 
Nothing is sure but death and Pentaxes.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-12 Thread Mark Roberts

David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html

I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
fanboy site like Pantex Forums.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-12 Thread Stan Halpin


On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:

 David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html
 
 I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
 fanboy site like Pantex Forums.
 

I looked at a few sections of this review. You may chose to discount any of 
the evaluative comments and conclusions, but leaving those aside they still 
provide a pretty good description of functionality and options. 

stan


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-12 Thread Bill


On 12/11/2013 9:50 AM, Darren Addy wrote:


If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be happy
with for many years, but an upgrade to a K-3 would be significant (in
everything except dynamic range).


If, like me, you have a K5 with terminally broken auto focus, the K3 is 
a very significant upgrade. I'm a detail junkie, which is why I 
gravitated towards large format when film was king. For me, 24mp is a 
very significant significant upgrade.
Going from the K20/K7 with their rather noisy Samsung sensors to the K5 
was, for me, an epiphany in that I could actually shoot at ISOs that I 
had previously only dreamed of. I never liked what came out of those 
cameras above ISO 640. At the same time, I rarely find myself needing 
anything as high as 6400 ISO, and the K5 isn't really significantly 
better until 6400 and above. At 3200, they are practically a wash, 
especially if you downsize the K3 image to the same size as the K5. The 
K5 may have an edge at very high ISO, but it really isn't anything big. 
The K3 is excellent, the K5 is marginally more excellent.
As of yet, I haven't touched on how the K3 compares to the K5's 
handling. The K5 feels like an old camera compared to the K3. I've said 
since the K5 came out that Hoya had made it as cheaply as they could, 
cutting corners wherever they thought they could get away with it, and 
the K3, to me anyway, proves me right. The K5 runs like an old nag put 
away wet a few times too often compared to the K3. This is huge, as it 
tells me that Ricoh is serious about what they are doing with the Pentax 
brand, unlike Hoya, who I felt was trying to wring every last penny they 
could out of it before tossing it to the curb.


bill


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-12 Thread Bruce

It is posts like this that push me towards a K3 when I keep trying to tell 
myself that I can be happy with my aging K5 (64,000 shutter actuation's).  
Well,  Christmas is coming,  so I'm thinking I will have to ask the EPO 
(Entertainment Prevention Officer) for a sweet new K3 to put under the tree. 

Thanks for the insights,  Bill. 

--
Bruce
-- 
Sent from Sony Tablet S

Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/2013 9:50 AM, Darren Addy wrote:

 If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be
happy
 with for many years, but an upgrade to a K-3 would be significant (in
 everything except dynamic range).

If, like me, you have a K5 with terminally broken auto focus, the K3 is

a very significant upgrade. I'm a detail junkie, which is why I 
gravitated towards large format when film was king. For me, 24mp is a 
very significant significant upgrade.
Going from the K20/K7 with their rather noisy Samsung sensors to the K5

was, for me, an epiphany in that I could actually shoot at ISOs that I 
had previously only dreamed of. I never liked what came out of those 
cameras above ISO 640. At the same time, I rarely find myself needing 
anything as high as 6400 ISO, and the K5 isn't really significantly 
better until 6400 and above. At 3200, they are practically a wash, 
especially if you downsize the K3 image to the same size as the K5. The

K5 may have an edge at very high ISO, but it really isn't anything big.

The K3 is excellent, the K5 is marginally more excellent.
As of yet, I haven't touched on how the K3 compares to the K5's 
handling. The K5 feels like an old camera compared to the K3. I've said

since the K5 came out that Hoya had made it as cheaply as they could, 
cutting corners wherever they thought they could get away with it, and 
the K3, to me anyway, proves me right. The K5 runs like an old nag put 
away wet a few times too often compared to the K3. This is huge, as it 
tells me that Ricoh is serious about what they are doing with the
Pentax 
brand, unlike Hoya, who I felt was trying to wring every last penny
they 
could out of it before tossing it to the curb.

bill


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-12 Thread Charles Robinson

On Nov 12, 2013, at 09:50 , Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 In short, I would say that if you have anything prior to a K-5 the
 upgrade to a K-3 will be amazing.
 If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be happy
 with for many years, but an upgrade to a K-3 would be significant (in
 everything except dynamic range).

Sounds like I get to stick with my current game plan: Wait for whatever 
replaces the K-3 in a couple years (?!?!) and buy a used K-3 for $600.

Hopefully I can stick to that plan.

 -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-12 Thread Walt


On 11/12/2013 11:43 AM, Charles Robinson wrote:

On Nov 12, 2013, at 09:50 , Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:

In short, I would say that if you have anything prior to a K-5 the
upgrade to a K-3 will be amazing.
If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be happy
with for many years, but an upgrade to a K-3 would be significant (in
everything except dynamic range).

Sounds like I get to stick with my current game plan: Wait for whatever 
replaces the K-3 in a couple years (?!?!) and buy a used K-3 for $600.

Hopefully I can stick to that plan.

  -Charles
That's my plan, too. Unfortunately, we have the worst support group in 
the world.


-- Walt


--
Charles Robinson - charl...@visi.com
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org
http://www.facebook.com/charles.robinson





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF

2013-11-12 Thread Boris Liberman


On 11/12/2013 5:50 PM, Darren Addy wrote:

I have to say, that is a pretty comprehensive review.

As I expected the K-3 falls just a bit short in the dynamic range
department (over the K-5/ii/iis) but its advantages in other areas
would probably still make it a slam dunk upgrade overall for most. It
seems that in the AF department, owners of the K-5ii/iis will not
notice a big difference in the AF performance, and K-5iis owners
already have the AA-free option (though not the switchable option of
the K-3).


Thanks for mentioning this, Darren. This pretty much sums up my 
impressions this far.



In short, I would say that if you have anything prior to a K-5 the
upgrade to a K-3 will be amazing.


Upgrade from K-7 to K-5 was pretty amazing, I'm telling you. So if one 
goes from K-7 to K-3, the update will be at least amazinger :-).



If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be happy
with for many years, but an upgrade to a K-3 would be significant (in
everything except dynamic range).


Not trying to sound pessimistic or anything, but DR is the most 
important aspect to me. So I get to keep my K-5 for now.



If you have a K-5ii, you already have most of the AF improvements seen
in the K-3 but not its other features (PRIME III-related throughput,
FPS, HDR, switchable AA, dual slots and, of course, 24MP).
If you have a K-5ii, the same things as the K-5ii apply with the
possible exception of the AA-related stuff.


None of the above hold any interest to me personally, though of course 
they are significant technological improvements, which indeed prove that 
K-3 is head and shoulders above any other Pentax camera as far as 
technology goes.



In any event, Pentax has apparently achieved their objectives in
significantly moving the top end of the APS-C cameras, surpassing not
only themselves but also the field (if only temporarily). The fact
that Canikon CANNOT duplicate the switchable AA filter since they
don't use internal SR means that is many ways this is a lead that
Pentax could hold for a good while. If Pentax has improved the AF
system to the point that IT is no longer a compromise, then I really
think that they have shored up the only real vulnerability that they
have historically had.


It still needs to be proven that switchable AA filter is useful. I mean 
- I expect that 99.9% of the photographers using the camera will have AA 
simply off in 99.9% cases of actually taking the shot. I do agree that 
Pentax is now as good or better than competition in the same 
price/feature-set category. Therefore, it would seem to me, the ball is 
now totally in the court of marketing department at Ricoh. Engineers did 
their job brilliantly, now it is time to capitalize (pun intended) on 
that brilliance.


Boris



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

63 matches

Mail list logo