Re: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
I have an example of how amazingly low shadow noise is on the K-5 in my review: http://enticingthelight.com/2010/12/01/review-pentax-k-5/#raw For those who don't want to click through, here is the evidence (warning, full-rez files): Image as shot: http://enticingthelight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/IMGP2690.jpg Image recovered in ACR: http://enticingthelight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/IMGP2690-recovered.jpg Same scene shot with proper settings: http://enticingthelight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/IMGP2687.jpg Sony should get a Nobel prize for this sensor :-) —M. \/\/o/\/\ -- http://WorldOfMiserere.com http://EnticingTheLight.com A Quest for Photographic Enlightenment On 20 May 2012 16:23, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: You won't notice any difference in noise between the K5 and K20D at ISO 200 in flat light. But when I have to use fill in conversion or brighten shadows with dodging, I find that those actions will generate significant noise in the K20 or K7 image but not in the K5 pic. And the few extra megapixels do appear to add some detail resolution in K5 images. I think I can see it in car pics that I shoot off tripods, but I haven't done any side by side, same day tests. I'm not into pixel peeping. But I do know I'd never go back to the K7 or K20. Paul On May 20, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: In the Something to think about. thread I opined that the D800E was likely to be in my upward growth path for more useable resolution in the type of studio shooting I'm doing lately. A few kind PDMLers suggested that the K-5 might give me what I'm looking for and sent me some RAW and high-rez JPEGs to compare against. Thank you very much, Paul, Larry and Boris! I pulled all these images into Lightroom, made a gallery of them and some of my best in-studio (untouched) raws, closely examined eyes and eyebrows in full-body and head and shoulder portraits, and here's what I concluded. - at ISO 80 (K-5) and 100 (K-5 K20D), the noise (or complete lack of) is indistinguishable between them. - in all cases, in full-body shots eyebrows are indistinct (read: fairly blurry smudges). No diff between K-5 and K20D. - in head shoulders portraits, eyes and brows are sharp and well-resolved and it's very hard to say which is better, but I think the K-5 may have a very slight edge over the K20D. - the lenses being used make more difference than the two bodies. (No great surprise here.) And Boris's Sigma (whatever it is) is *sweet!* - I'll get more resolution improvement by simply using a tripod or monopod to shoot with rather then upgrading to a K-5. I also grabbed a few D800 head shoulders portrait images from DPreview and compared. It's pretty clear that there's a large improvement in resolution, but it's also hard to see by how much. I'm convinced that the D800 shots were all done with a tripod, whereas all of mine and the loaners were hand-held. There is not an order of magnitude difference in resolution. There were no full-body, f8 or above, studio lighting D800 shots, so there was nothing for me to compare there. Final conclusion: for my work, K-5 isn't going to help much, if at all. Jury is still out on if D800E would really shake my world either. I need to investigate further -- probably rent one. I do have an acquaintance with one; maybe I can borrow that. The good news for me I don't feel so much disadvantaged by my 2008-vintage kit as I was beginning to. I'm still in the ballgame. :-) -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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.
K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
Hello Tim, can you please explain the HUGE, BIG Difference in Improved Low Light Performance you got from your K-5 vs the K20D for the same photo situation by showing us some examples in terms of ISO, f-stop, shutter speed etc or photos. Regards. Bipin - from a far away enchanting land. -- 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: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
Bipin, I don't have any exact side by side comparisons, but if you go to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157603434373350/ you can see pictures taken in similar situations with different cameras. In order to fully appreciate them, you'll need to use the fluidr interface for the sets so that you can see the exif data. Up until March 2010 IMGP photos were taken with the K100, after that the K-x. After I got the K-x, to all intents and purposes, I didn't take any low light photos with the K20. Up until then, I'm having a hard time finding photos I took with it clean enough to post on flickr, though there are probably a bunch on facebook, it looks like I mostly just used the K100, or my infra red camera and flash. After March 2011, I started using the K-5 pretty much for everything, except when I need a backup or a second body. K20: http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157623436322776/ (ISO 3200) http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157622594252958/ (ISO 3200) http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157623227327493/ (ISO 800) K5: http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157626253302714/ (ISO 12,800) http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157629609083708/ (ISO 8,000-10,000) On May 21, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Bipin Gupta wrote: Hello Tim, can you please explain the HUGE, BIG Difference in Improved Low Light Performance you got from your K-5 vs the K20D for the same photo situation by showing us some examples in terms of ISO, f-stop, shutter speed etc or photos. It's not really fair pitting the K20 at ISO 3200 versus the K-5 at ISO 8,000 to 12,800. Not fair to the K20 that is. Regards. Bipin - from a far away enchanting land. -- 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. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
A revelation, Larry! Jack - Original Message - From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Cc: Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:12 AM Subject: Re: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.] Bipin, I don't have any exact side by side comparisons, but if you go to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157603434373350/ you can see pictures taken in similar situations with different cameras. In order to fully appreciate them, you'll need to use the fluidr interface for the sets so that you can see the exif data. Up until March 2010 IMGP photos were taken with the K100, after that the K-x. After I got the K-x, to all intents and purposes, I didn't take any low light photos with the K20. Up until then, I'm having a hard time finding photos I took with it clean enough to post on flickr, though there are probably a bunch on facebook, it looks like I mostly just used the K100, or my infra red camera and flash. After March 2011, I started using the K-5 pretty much for everything, except when I need a backup or a second body. K20: http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157623436322776/ (ISO 3200) http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157622594252958/ (ISO 3200) http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157623227327493/ (ISO 800) K5: http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157626253302714/ (ISO 12,800) http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157629609083708/ (ISO 8,000-10,000) On May 21, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Bipin Gupta wrote: Hello Tim, can you please explain the HUGE, BIG Difference in Improved Low Light Performance you got from your K-5 vs the K20D for the same photo situation by showing us some examples in terms of ISO, f-stop, shutter speed etc or photos. It's not really fair pitting the K20 at ISO 3200 versus the K-5 at ISO 8,000 to 12,800. Not fair to the K20 that is. Regards. Bipin - from a far away enchanting land. -- 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. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
My impressions with K20D and K5 are the same as Larry's. I still use both. I do not hesitate to shoot at and above ISO800 with the K5 when necesssary. (I use ISO 200 whenever I can, with either of them). With K20D I do not shoot anything critical (noise-wise). I still like them both, however ;) Bulent - http://www.flickr.com/photos/bc_the_path/ http://photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2226822 http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/bulentcelasun 2012/5/21 Jack Davis jdavi...@yahoo.com: A revelation, Larry! Jack - Original Message - From: Larry Colen l...@red4est.com To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Cc: Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:12 AM Subject: Re: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.] Bipin, I don't have any exact side by side comparisons, but if you go to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/collections/72157603434373350/ you can see pictures taken in similar situations with different cameras. In order to fully appreciate them, you'll need to use the fluidr interface for the sets so that you can see the exif data. Up until March 2010 IMGP photos were taken with the K100, after that the K-x. After I got the K-x, to all intents and purposes, I didn't take any low light photos with the K20. Up until then, I'm having a hard time finding photos I took with it clean enough to post on flickr, though there are probably a bunch on facebook, it looks like I mostly just used the K100, or my infra red camera and flash. After March 2011, I started using the K-5 pretty much for everything, except when I need a backup or a second body. K20: http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157623436322776/ (ISO 3200) http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157622594252958/ (ISO 3200) http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157623227327493/ (ISO 800) K5: http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157626253302714/ (ISO 12,800) http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157629609083708/ (ISO 8,000-10,000) On May 21, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Bipin Gupta wrote: Hello Tim, can you please explain the HUGE, BIG Difference in Improved Low Light Performance you got from your K-5 vs the K20D for the same photo situation by showing us some examples in terms of ISO, f-stop, shutter speed etc or photos. It's not really fair pitting the K20 at ISO 3200 versus the K-5 at ISO 8,000 to 12,800. Not fair to the K20 that is. Regards. Bipin - from a far away enchanting land. -- 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. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
I confess I’ve never really done A-B comparisons. But here are some pictures that couldn’t have been taken on any camera I’ve owned prior to the K-5: ISO 3200: http://goo.gl/9G9eu, http://goo.gl/7CwWU ISO 6400: http://goo.gl/9SsZQ, http://goo.gl/2wT7s, http://goo.gl/t4vlF, http://goo.gl/xQ5SK Yeah, get up to and past 3200, and there’s grain there all right. But the pictures still work just fine. -T On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:17 AM, Bipin Gupta bip...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Tim, can you please explain the HUGE, BIG Difference in Improved Low Light Performance you got from your K-5 vs the K20D for the same photo situation by showing us some examples in terms of ISO, f-stop, shutter speed etc or photos. Regards. Bipin - from a far away enchanting land. -- 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.
K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
In the Something to think about. thread I opined that the D800E was likely to be in my upward growth path for more useable resolution in the type of studio shooting I'm doing lately. A few kind PDMLers suggested that the K-5 might give me what I'm looking for and sent me some RAW and high-rez JPEGs to compare against. Thank you very much, Paul, Larry and Boris! I pulled all these images into Lightroom, made a gallery of them and some of my best in-studio (untouched) raws, closely examined eyes and eyebrows in full-body and head and shoulder portraits, and here's what I concluded. - at ISO 80 (K-5) and 100 (K-5 K20D), the noise (or complete lack of) is indistinguishable between them. - in all cases, in full-body shots eyebrows are indistinct (read: fairly blurry smudges). No diff between K-5 and K20D. - in head shoulders portraits, eyes and brows are sharp and well-resolved and it's very hard to say which is better, but I think the K-5 may have a very slight edge over the K20D. - the lenses being used make more difference than the two bodies. (No great surprise here.) And Boris's Sigma (whatever it is) is *sweet!* - I'll get more resolution improvement by simply using a tripod or monopod to shoot with rather then upgrading to a K-5. I also grabbed a few D800 head shoulders portrait images from DPreview and compared. It's pretty clear that there's a large improvement in resolution, but it's also hard to see by how much. I'm convinced that the D800 shots were all done with a tripod, whereas all of mine and the loaners were hand-held. There is not an order of magnitude difference in resolution. There were no full-body, f8 or above, studio lighting D800 shots, so there was nothing for me to compare there. Final conclusion: for my work, K-5 isn't going to help much, if at all. Jury is still out on if D800E would really shake my world either. I need to investigate further -- probably rent one. I do have an acquaintance with one; maybe I can borrow that. The good news for me I don't feel so much disadvantaged by my 2008-vintage kit as I was beginning to. I'm still in the ballgame. :-) -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
On 5/20/2012 19:08, Bruce Walker wrote: In the Something to think about. thread I opined that the D800E was likely to be in my upward growth path for more useable resolution in the type of studio shooting I'm doing lately. A few kind PDMLers suggested that the K-5 might give me what I'm looking for and sent me some RAW and high-rez JPEGs to compare against. Thank you very much, Paul, Larry and Boris! You're very welcome, sir! - the lenses being used make more difference than the two bodies. (No great surprise here.) And Boris's Sigma (whatever it is) is *sweet!* It is rather cheap USD 250 Sigma EX DG 24-60/2.8 which is by the way a full frame lens that is certainly dandier than its monetary worth. Except seemingly (I did not shoot targets to ascertain that) every so minor difference in color rendering it is probably as good as DA* 16-50/2.8 IQ-wise. And sans SDM and WR it is built just as good as DA* - very tight tolerances, etc. I also grabbed a few D800 head shoulders portrait images from DPreview and compared. It's pretty clear that there's a large improvement in resolution, but it's also hard to see by how much. I'm convinced that the D800 shots were all done with a tripod, whereas all of mine and the loaners were hand-held. There is not an order of magnitude difference in resolution. There were no full-body, f8 or above, studio lighting D800 shots, so there was nothing for me to compare there. I remember a long time ago, before digital kicked in, an article on the web that maintained that by shooting hand-held most of alleged advantages of low-sensitivity high-res film and big MTF rating lenses are negated. You appear to support the idea that this thesis is still valid. Final conclusion: for my work, K-5 isn't going to help much, if at all. Jury is still out on if D800E would really shake my world either. I need to investigate further -- probably rent one. I do have an acquaintance with one; maybe I can borrow that. I am thinking that the only true IQ advantage of K-5 above its peers (K20D or K-7) is that of sensor dynamic range (and 14-bit RAW too). It simply allows you for more flexibility when you set up your light or when you process your images afterwards. If this is of little importance to you then indeed from pure IQ point of view K-5 does not offer anything on top of, say K20D. Glad my modest offerings could be of help, Bruce. 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: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
On May 20, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: I remember a long time ago, before digital kicked in, an article on the web that maintained that by shooting hand-held most of alleged advantages of low-sensitivity high-res film and big MTF rating lenses are negated. You appear to support the idea that this thesis is still valid. It would be interesting to see how much difference hand held versus tripod makes with studio flash, or with speedlight. Final conclusion: for my work, K-5 isn't going to help much, if at all. Jury is still out on if D800E would really shake my world either. I need to investigate further -- probably rent one. I do have an acquaintance with one; maybe I can borrow that. At ISO 100 I'm not sure much anything will make a bid difference. I'm sure that someone good with math could look at the MTF of different lenses, translate that into resolution at APS or 24x36 sensor sizes , and come up with a maximum effective resolution for that lens. One of the things that Kennyboy said that seemed to make sense on his site is that one of the biggest advantage of larger sensor sizes (or larger film) is that the lens doesn't have to be as sharp to have a sharper final image. He didn't mention whether it costs more for a full frame lens with 100 lines per mm resolution than it does for an aps lens with 140 lines per mm (or whatever the typical is). Note that when I'm working in the studio, the ultimate, best, resolution is not my number one goal. I'm concerned with lighting, composition, maybe depth of field as an artistic element, or to make focusing less critical, and I'm just assuming that things will be sharp enough. I didn't even check to see what lens I used for the shots you asked for. However, it's my general feeling that pretty much any lens in the f/10 to f/16 range is working in it's sweet spot, and if you are looking at just sharpness it may be tough to tell a kit lens from an FA77. I am thinking that the only true IQ advantage of K-5 above its peers (K20D or K-7) is that of sensor dynamic range (and 14-bit RAW too). It simply allows you for more flexibility when you set up your light or when you process your images afterwards. If this is of little importance to you then indeed from pure IQ point of view K-5 does not offer anything on top of, say K20D. If you are always going to use flash, and they're going to throw enough photons that you can always use base ISO, the advantages of the K-5 versus the K20 are more along the lines of focus speed, bigger viewfinder, how it fits in your hand, buffer size, ability to use Live View on the tripod for manual focusing on static images, a focus assist light and so forth. If I were an even bigger geek than I am, it would be fun to set up a test, using multiple cameras, lenses, tripods, lights and test the resolving power of different setups and see what it takes to get the ultimate sharpness in the studio. However, since I do have a life outside of photography, I just don't see myself having the time and resources to do such a test. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
I moved to a K-5 from a K20 and the big difference - for me, huge - was the improved low-light performance. For someone like me who finds not plans pictures, and who hates flashes anyhow, it really is a big deal. -T On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com wrote: In the Something to think about. thread I opined that the D800E was likely to be in my upward growth path for more useable resolution in the type of studio shooting I'm doing lately. A few kind PDMLers suggested that the K-5 might give me what I'm looking for and sent me some RAW and high-rez JPEGs to compare against. Thank you very much, Paul, Larry and Boris! I pulled all these images into Lightroom, made a gallery of them and some of my best in-studio (untouched) raws, closely examined eyes and eyebrows in full-body and head and shoulder portraits, and here's what I concluded. - at ISO 80 (K-5) and 100 (K-5 K20D), the noise (or complete lack of) is indistinguishable between them. - in all cases, in full-body shots eyebrows are indistinct (read: fairly blurry smudges). No diff between K-5 and K20D. - in head shoulders portraits, eyes and brows are sharp and well-resolved and it's very hard to say which is better, but I think the K-5 may have a very slight edge over the K20D. - the lenses being used make more difference than the two bodies. (No great surprise here.) And Boris's Sigma (whatever it is) is *sweet!* - I'll get more resolution improvement by simply using a tripod or monopod to shoot with rather then upgrading to a K-5. I also grabbed a few D800 head shoulders portrait images from DPreview and compared. It's pretty clear that there's a large improvement in resolution, but it's also hard to see by how much. I'm convinced that the D800 shots were all done with a tripod, whereas all of mine and the loaners were hand-held. There is not an order of magnitude difference in resolution. There were no full-body, f8 or above, studio lighting D800 shots, so there was nothing for me to compare there. Final conclusion: for my work, K-5 isn't going to help much, if at all. Jury is still out on if D800E would really shake my world either. I need to investigate further -- probably rent one. I do have an acquaintance with one; maybe I can borrow that. The good news for me I don't feel so much disadvantaged by my 2008-vintage kit as I was beginning to. I'm still in the ballgame. :-) -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
I'm not surprised the resolution difference is minimal and all but disappears when you compare linear resolution. The place the K-5 shines is in high ISO low light shooting as far as IQ is concerned. Studio shooting with plenty of light you might as well stick with the K20D. There are only really four reasons to get a K-5. Low light High ISO shooting. Extremely quiet shutter, (supposedly quieter than the Leica M9). Smaller lighter body, (the K20D hulks over the *ist-D), better autofocus. Notice resolution doesn't figure into this. Images taken with both the K20D should be near indistinguishable at any ISO under 800. The total resolution difference is about 12% but linear resolution which is what really counts in discerning fine detail is only about a 5% difference. Since you're shooting in a studio and controlling the lighting you would expect little or no improvement. With the Nikon D800 you'll see almost a 40 percent improvement in linear resolution. Now that is significant. But it still may not be sufficient to resolve the details you wish to be able to record. On 5/20/2012 12:08 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: In the Something to think about. thread I opined that the D800E was likely to be in my upward growth path for more useable resolution in the type of studio shooting I'm doing lately. A few kind PDMLers suggested that the K-5 might give me what I'm looking for and sent me some RAW and high-rez JPEGs to compare against. Thank you very much, Paul, Larry and Boris! I pulled all these images into Lightroom, made a gallery of them and some of my best in-studio (untouched) raws, closely examined eyes and eyebrows in full-body and head and shoulder portraits, and here's what I concluded. - at ISO 80 (K-5) and 100 (K-5 K20D), the noise (or complete lack of) is indistinguishable between them. - in all cases, in full-body shots eyebrows are indistinct (read: fairly blurry smudges). No diff between K-5 and K20D. - in head shoulders portraits, eyes and brows are sharp and well-resolved and it's very hard to say which is better, but I think the K-5 may have a very slight edge over the K20D. - the lenses being used make more difference than the two bodies. (No great surprise here.) And Boris's Sigma (whatever it is) is *sweet!* - I'll get more resolution improvement by simply using a tripod or monopod to shoot with rather then upgrading to a K-5. I also grabbed a few D800 head shoulders portrait images from DPreview and compared. It's pretty clear that there's a large improvement in resolution, but it's also hard to see by how much. I'm convinced that the D800 shots were all done with a tripod, whereas all of mine and the loaners were hand-held. There is not an order of magnitude difference in resolution. There were no full-body, f8 or above, studio lighting D800 shots, so there was nothing for me to compare there. Final conclusion: for my work, K-5 isn't going to help much, if at all. Jury is still out on if D800E would really shake my world either. I need to investigate further -- probably rent one. I do have an acquaintance with one; maybe I can borrow that. The good news for me I don't feel so much disadvantaged by my 2008-vintage kit as I was beginning to. I'm still in the ballgame. :-) -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- 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: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
Assuming perfect lenses it doesn't improve that much. I can say right now my lenses and the K20D sensor are better than my technique will show. On 5/20/2012 1:50 PM, Larry Colen wrote: On May 20, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: I remember a long time ago, before digital kicked in, an article on the web that maintained that by shooting hand-held most of alleged advantages of low-sensitivity high-res film and big MTF rating lenses are negated. You appear to support the idea that this thesis is still valid. It would be interesting to see how much difference hand held versus tripod makes with studio flash, or with speedlight. Final conclusion: for my work, K-5 isn't going to help much, if at all. Jury is still out on if D800E would really shake my world either. I need to investigate further -- probably rent one. I do have an acquaintance with one; maybe I can borrow that. At ISO 100 I'm not sure much anything will make a bid difference. I'm sure that someone good with math could look at the MTF of different lenses, translate that into resolution at APS or 24x36 sensor sizes , and come up with a maximum effective resolution for that lens. One of the things that Kennyboy said that seemed to make sense on his site is that one of the biggest advantage of larger sensor sizes (or larger film) is that the lens doesn't have to be as sharp to have a sharper final image. He didn't mention whether it costs more for a full frame lens with 100 lines per mm resolution than it does for an aps lens with 140 lines per mm (or whatever the typical is). Note that when I'm working in the studio, the ultimate, best, resolution is not my number one goal. I'm concerned with lighting, composition, maybe depth of field as an artistic element, or to make focusing less critical, and I'm just assuming that things will be sharp enough. I didn't even check to see what lens I used for the shots you asked for. However, it's my general feeling that pretty much any lens in the f/10 to f/16 range is working in it's sweet spot, and if you are looking at just sharpness it may be tough to tell a kit lens from an FA77. I am thinking that the only true IQ advantage of K-5 above its peers (K20D or K-7) is that of sensor dynamic range (and 14-bit RAW too). It simply allows you for more flexibility when you set up your light or when you process your images afterwards. If this is of little importance to you then indeed from pure IQ point of view K-5 does not offer anything on top of, say K20D. If you are always going to use flash, and they're going to throw enough photons that you can always use base ISO, the advantages of the K-5 versus the K20 are more along the lines of focus speed, bigger viewfinder, how it fits in your hand, buffer size, ability to use Live View on the tripod for manual focusing on static images, a focus assist light and so forth. If I were an even bigger geek than I am, it would be fun to set up a test, using multiple cameras, lenses, tripods, lights and test the resolving power of different setups and see what it takes to get the ultimate sharpness in the studio. However, since I do have a life outside of photography, I just don't see myself having the time and resources to do such a test. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- 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: K20D vs K-5 vs D800: portrait image rez [was: Something to think about.]
You won't notice any difference in noise between the K5 and K20D at ISO 200 in flat light. But when I have to use fill in conversion or brighten shadows with dodging, I find that those actions will generate significant noise in the K20 or K7 image but not in the K5 pic. And the few extra megapixels do appear to add some detail resolution in K5 images. I think I can see it in car pics that I shoot off tripods, but I haven't done any side by side, same day tests. I'm not into pixel peeping. But I do know I'd never go back to the K7 or K20. Paul On May 20, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: In the Something to think about. thread I opined that the D800E was likely to be in my upward growth path for more useable resolution in the type of studio shooting I'm doing lately. A few kind PDMLers suggested that the K-5 might give me what I'm looking for and sent me some RAW and high-rez JPEGs to compare against. Thank you very much, Paul, Larry and Boris! I pulled all these images into Lightroom, made a gallery of them and some of my best in-studio (untouched) raws, closely examined eyes and eyebrows in full-body and head and shoulder portraits, and here's what I concluded. - at ISO 80 (K-5) and 100 (K-5 K20D), the noise (or complete lack of) is indistinguishable between them. - in all cases, in full-body shots eyebrows are indistinct (read: fairly blurry smudges). No diff between K-5 and K20D. - in head shoulders portraits, eyes and brows are sharp and well-resolved and it's very hard to say which is better, but I think the K-5 may have a very slight edge over the K20D. - the lenses being used make more difference than the two bodies. (No great surprise here.) And Boris's Sigma (whatever it is) is *sweet!* - I'll get more resolution improvement by simply using a tripod or monopod to shoot with rather then upgrading to a K-5. I also grabbed a few D800 head shoulders portrait images from DPreview and compared. It's pretty clear that there's a large improvement in resolution, but it's also hard to see by how much. I'm convinced that the D800 shots were all done with a tripod, whereas all of mine and the loaners were hand-held. There is not an order of magnitude difference in resolution. There were no full-body, f8 or above, studio lighting D800 shots, so there was nothing for me to compare there. Final conclusion: for my work, K-5 isn't going to help much, if at all. Jury is still out on if D800E would really shake my world either. I need to investigate further -- probably rent one. I do have an acquaintance with one; maybe I can borrow that. The good news for me I don't feel so much disadvantaged by my 2008-vintage kit as I was beginning to. I'm still in the ballgame. :-) -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- 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.
