Re: CMOS sensor for MF
Nothing for granted, of course. I wrote that just because: 1 - A new CMOS sensor means a new generation of MF cameras. If Ricoh want to stay in that business (and I understand they want), they have to keep on pace. 2 - If Hasselblad now has a CMOS sensor suitable for them, Pentax can have it too. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- 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. - Nessun virus nel messaggio. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 2013.0.3462 / Database dei virus: 3681/7020 - Data di rilascio: 20/01/2014 -- 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: CMOS sensor for MF
On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- 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: CMOS sensor for MF
The line between the dots (that Dario is connecting) is that the manufacturer that is making the CMOS sensor to be used in the Hasselblad is SONY. That is not insignificant. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/126702-hasselblad-reveals-first-medium-format-cmos-sensor-opening-the-door-for-other-photography-brands While every company wants to make a profit on everything that they make, the camera body is (in essence) the razor that can be given away at cost in order to sell the razor blades (lenses, grips, flashes, and other accessories). If there are no bodies there is no demand for those. It also provides a bragging rights territory. If Pentax comes out with a camera that closely matches the functionality of the Hasselblad at a fraction of the price, then we are back to occupying the same territory that made the Pentax 67 and 645/645n such popular cameras with the medium format demographic. It is worth remembering that the new PRIME III (Fujitsu image processor) has the capabilities to handle the input from a medium format sensor. And a CMOS would have video capabilities, meaning a whole new video market for Pentax 645 lenses. Add in the other things that Pentax has learned from the K-3 line (and before) and you have the potential for a separate processor to help with exposure and white balance, improved AF performance, and perhaps even the adjustable AA of the K-3 (or no AA at all, like the K-5 IIs). On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Dario Bonazza dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote: Nothing for granted, of course. I wrote that just because: 1 - A new CMOS sensor means a new generation of MF cameras. If Ricoh want to stay in that business (and I understand they want), they have to keep on pace. 2 - If Hasselblad now has a CMOS sensor suitable for them, Pentax can have it too. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- 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. - Nessun virus nel messaggio. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 2013.0.3462 / Database dei virus: 3681/7020 - Data di rilascio: 20/01/2014 -- 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. -- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- 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: CMOS sensor for MF
In thinking about it, another interesting part of the MF sensor company being SONY is that there have been no rumors of Sony-branded cameras in the MF space (at least to this point). With their other sensor sizes, there is a bit of a conflict of interest: Use it in a Sony-branded camera and give it a lead time in the marketplace before allowing other companies to put the sensors in their cameras. But if Sony has no dog in this fight (if you will pardon the expression) then it is in Sony's interests to sell as many as they can produce. It is doubtful, in my mind, that any one company (like Hasselblad) could dictate terms that would keep other manufacturers from getting their share of the sensors they produce. If that is true, the question is whether Ricoh will be different from Hoya when it comes to paying the price for a first generation product rather than wait for the component price to come down. I don't think there is any question that a 645D II will be coming out sometime in 2014. I think putting a CMOS in makes sense, but I'm wondering if it can be done at the original price point of the 645D (which was $9995, if memory serves). On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: The line between the dots (that Dario is connecting) is that the manufacturer that is making the CMOS sensor to be used in the Hasselblad is SONY. That is not insignificant. http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/126702-hasselblad-reveals-first-medium-format-cmos-sensor-opening-the-door-for-other-photography-brands While every company wants to make a profit on everything that they make, the camera body is (in essence) the razor that can be given away at cost in order to sell the razor blades (lenses, grips, flashes, and other accessories). If there are no bodies there is no demand for those. It also provides a bragging rights territory. If Pentax comes out with a camera that closely matches the functionality of the Hasselblad at a fraction of the price, then we are back to occupying the same territory that made the Pentax 67 and 645/645n such popular cameras with the medium format demographic. It is worth remembering that the new PRIME III (Fujitsu image processor) has the capabilities to handle the input from a medium format sensor. And a CMOS would have video capabilities, meaning a whole new video market for Pentax 645 lenses. Add in the other things that Pentax has learned from the K-3 line (and before) and you have the potential for a separate processor to help with exposure and white balance, improved AF performance, and perhaps even the adjustable AA of the K-3 (or no AA at all, like the K-5 IIs). On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Dario Bonazza dario.bona...@virgilio.it wrote: Nothing for granted, of course. I wrote that just because: 1 - A new CMOS sensor means a new generation of MF cameras. If Ricoh want to stay in that business (and I understand they want), they have to keep on pace. 2 - If Hasselblad now has a CMOS sensor suitable for them, Pentax can have it too. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- 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. - Nessun virus nel messaggio. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 2013.0.3462 / Database dei virus: 3681/7020 - Data di rilascio: 20/01/2014 -- 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. -- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs look like photographs. ~ Alfred Stieglitz -- 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: CMOS sensor for MF
That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? Competition ? Kenneth Waller http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller - Original Message - From: John johnsess...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- 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: CMOS sensor for MF
Both arguments apply equally well to why Ricoh should be bringing out a full-frame Pentax DSLR. Do you see that on the horizon as well? On 1/21/2014 10:46 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Nothing for granted, of course. I wrote that just because: 1 - A new CMOS sensor means a new generation of MF cameras. If Ricoh want to stay in that business (and I understand they want), they have to keep on pace. 2 - If Hasselblad now has a CMOS sensor suitable for them, Pentax can have it too. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- 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: CMOS sensor for MF
John, Ricoh CURRENTLY HAS a Pentax MF digital system to keep updated with competition. That does not apply to FF. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:58 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF Both arguments apply equally well to why Ricoh should be bringing out a full-frame Pentax DSLR. Do you see that on the horizon as well? On 1/21/2014 10:46 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Nothing for granted, of course. I wrote that just because: 1 - A new CMOS sensor means a new generation of MF cameras. If Ricoh want to stay in that business (and I understand they want), they have to keep on pace. 2 - If Hasselblad now has a CMOS sensor suitable for them, Pentax can have it too. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- 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. - Nessun virus nel messaggio. Controllato da AVG - www.avg.com Versione: 2013.0.3462 / Database dei virus: 3681/7022 - Data di rilascio: 21/01/2014 -- 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: CMOS sensor for MF
OTOH, they do have Pentax DSLRs that they apparently don't care about keeping up with the competition, so why should they see MF digital any differently? On 1/21/2014 5:02 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote: John, Ricoh CURRENTLY HAS a Pentax MF digital system to keep updated with competition. That does not apply to FF. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:58 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF Both arguments apply equally well to why Ricoh should be bringing out a full-frame Pentax DSLR. Do you see that on the horizon as well? On 1/21/2014 10:46 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Nothing for granted, of course. I wrote that just because: 1 - A new CMOS sensor means a new generation of MF cameras. If Ricoh want to stay in that business (and I understand they want), they have to keep on pace. 2 - If Hasselblad now has a CMOS sensor suitable for them, Pentax can have it too. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- 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: CMOS sensor for MF
In what way is the K-3 not keeping up with state-of-the-art APS-C DSLRs? In fact I think it's a category leader presently. And the other current models: pretty much the same story in each of their respective categories. The only category where Pentax isn't keeping up is FF, which is a mythical one only kept alive by the whinging fanboy base. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 8:51 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: OTOH, they do have Pentax DSLRs that they apparently don't care about keeping up with the competition, so why should they see MF digital any differently? On 1/21/2014 5:02 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote: John, Ricoh CURRENTLY HAS a Pentax MF digital system to keep updated with competition. That does not apply to FF. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:58 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF Both arguments apply equally well to why Ricoh should be bringing out a full-frame Pentax DSLR. Do you see that on the horizon as well? On 1/21/2014 10:46 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Nothing for granted, of course. I wrote that just because: 1 - A new CMOS sensor means a new generation of MF cameras. If Ricoh want to stay in that business (and I understand they want), they have to keep on pace. 2 - If Hasselblad now has a CMOS sensor suitable for them, Pentax can have it too. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: CMOS sensor for MF
Paul via phone On Jan 21, 2014, at 8:51 PM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: OTOH, they do have Pentax DSLRs that they apparently don't care about keeping up with the competition, so why should they see MF digital any differently? Pentax has kept up quite well in APS-C. Obviously they've chosen not to play in the 24x36 arena, so keeping up is irrelevant. They haven't kept up in pro video either. On 1/21/2014 5:02 PM, Dario Bonazza wrote: John, Ricoh CURRENTLY HAS a Pentax MF digital system to keep updated with competition. That does not apply to FF. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:58 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF Both arguments apply equally well to why Ricoh should be bringing out a full-frame Pentax DSLR. Do you see that on the horizon as well? On 1/21/2014 10:46 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Nothing for granted, of course. I wrote that just because: 1 - A new CMOS sensor means a new generation of MF cameras. If Ricoh want to stay in that business (and I understand they want), they have to keep on pace. 2 - If Hasselblad now has a CMOS sensor suitable for them, Pentax can have it too. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- 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: CMOS sensor for MF
Ricoh may want to stay in that business, but the 645D needed a refresh two years ago, so the question is will it be viable for them. On 1/21/2014 10:46 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Nothing for granted, of course. I wrote that just because: 1 - A new CMOS sensor means a new generation of MF cameras. If Ricoh want to stay in that business (and I understand they want), they have to keep on pace. 2 - If Hasselblad now has a CMOS sensor suitable for them, Pentax can have it too. Dario -Messaggio originale- From: John Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 4:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CMOS sensor for MF On 1/21/2014 9:21 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: Looks like we'll see an updated 645D sooner or later, featuring CMOS sensor technology: http://press.hasselblad.com/press-releases/2014/2014-01-21_h5d-50c.aspx Dario That's interesting, but someone is going to have to explain how Hasselblad's new sensor means anything about the 645D? -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
2009/7/29 Ralf R. Radermacher fotor...@gmx.de: After using a K10D for a few years I find that the colours I'm getting from my new K-7 are a trifle odd, to put it mildly. Particularly my sky colours now look like 1950's bathroom tiles. Some awful cyanish cast that I have only had with the K10D in severely overexposed shots. Grey sky comes out with a distinct blueish cast. I'm shooting RAW and talking about what I get to see when I open the RAW files in Lightroom, with the same settings and exactly the same way I've done with my K10D files before. The camera is set to AWB, just like the K10D, as well. Colours space in both cases is Adobe RGB. Any suggestions? If you're capturing RAW format, whether DNG or PEF, color space setting in the camera is irrelevant. The issue is a camera calibration issue. Nothing to do with the technology of the sensor, or everything depending upon how you want to look at it.. but the difference between CMOS and CCD is not relevant. The issue is that Lightroom does not have any calibration tables for the K7 as yet, AFAIK. So the thing to do is get the DNG Profile Editor, shoot a couple of controlled tests with a Macbeth Color Checker or equivalent, and create a good calibration profile for it. Install that as the default to use when processing K7 RAW files and your colors should be accurate. -- Godfrey www.gdgphoto.com www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto www.twitter.com/godfreydigiorgi -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
On Jul 30, 2009, at 10:26, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The issue is that Lightroom does not have any calibration tables for the K7 as yet, AFAIK. So the thing to do is get the DNG Profile Editor, shoot a couple of controlled tests with a Macbeth Color Checker or equivalent, and create a good calibration profile for it. Install that as the default to use when processing K7 RAW files and your colors should be accurate. That's a big 10-4.. the RAW files I shot with the k7 last night look HORRIBLE in Lightroom at the moment. Very bright, and a severe magenta shift. It figures that with something brand-new that it's not all sorted out in Adobe-land yet. Patience -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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
Adobe has worked out K7 specs for PSCS4 ACR. RAW images open nicely in that converter. Paul On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Charles Robinson wrote: On Jul 30, 2009, at 10:26, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The issue is that Lightroom does not have any calibration tables for the K7 as yet, AFAIK. So the thing to do is get the DNG Profile Editor, shoot a couple of controlled tests with a Macbeth Color Checker or equivalent, and create a good calibration profile for it. Install that as the default to use when processing K7 RAW files and your colors should be accurate. That's a big 10-4.. the RAW files I shot with the k7 last night look HORRIBLE in Lightroom at the moment. Very bright, and a severe magenta shift. It figures that with something brand-new that it's not all sorted out in Adobe-land yet. Patience -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. -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:22 PM, paul stenquist wrote: Adobe has worked out K7 specs for PSCS4 ACR. RAW images open nicely in that converter. Paul Lightroom 2.4 lists support for the K-7. Out of curiosity, is this the version used that renders the K-7 RAW files so poorly? On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Charles Robinson wrote: On Jul 30, 2009, at 10:26, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The issue is that Lightroom does not have any calibration tables for the K7 as yet, AFAIK. So the thing to do is get the DNG Profile Editor, shoot a couple of controlled tests with a Macbeth Color Checker or equivalent, and create a good calibration profile for it. Install that as the default to use when processing K7 RAW files and your colors should be accurate. That's a big 10-4.. the RAW files I shot with the k7 last night look HORRIBLE in Lightroom at the moment. Very bright, and a severe magenta shift. It figures that with something brand-new that it's not all sorted out in Adobe-land yet. Patience -- Matthew Montgomery matt...@electricjunk.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
Matthew Montgomery matt...@electricjunk.com wrote: Lightroom 2.4 lists support for the K-7. Out of curiosity, is this the version used that renders the K-7 RAW files so poorly? Quite so. Here at least. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
On Jul 30, 2009, at 13:32, Matthew Montgomery wrote: On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:22 PM, paul stenquist wrote: Adobe has worked out K7 specs for PSCS4 ACR. RAW images open nicely in that converter. Paul Lightroom 2.4 lists support for the K-7. Out of curiosity, is this the version used that renders the K-7 RAW files so poorly? That's my experience, yes. I'm at 2.4. -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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
- Original Message - From: Charles Robinson Subject: Re: CMOS vs. CCD colours? On Jul 30, 2009, at 13:32, Matthew Montgomery wrote: On Jul 30, 2009, at 1:22 PM, paul stenquist wrote: Adobe has worked out K7 specs for PSCS4 ACR. RAW images open nicely in that converter. Paul Lightroom 2.4 lists support for the K-7. Out of curiosity, is this the version used that renders the K-7 RAW files so poorly? That's my experience, yes. I'm at 2.4. I'm running 2.4 also. My K7 DNGs are perhaps a tad warmer than those from my K20, but it certainly isn't objectionable. William Robb -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote: I'm running 2.4 also. My K7 DNGs are perhaps a tad warmer than those from my K20, but it certainly isn't objectionable. Any tendency of blue skies veering towards cyan? This is my main prob. Difference between Lightroom 2.4 for Mac and Windows? Mac Dual G5 under 10.5.7 here. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
- Original Message - From: Ralf R. Radermacher Subject: Re: CMOS vs. CCD colours? Any tendency of blue skies veering towards cyan? This is my main prob. Difference between Lightroom 2.4 for Mac and Windows? Mac Dual G5 under 10.5.7 here. I'll have to check that for you. I won't be able to do so until later. I haven't shot anything yet with enough sky to tell me. I'm running Windows XP Pro, so there could very well be a difference between the two programs. William Robb -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:38 PM, William Robbwar...@gmail.com wrote: Any tendency of blue skies veering towards cyan? This is my main prob. Difference between Lightroom 2.4 for Mac and Windows? Mac Dual G5 under 10.5.7 here. I'll have to check that for you. I won't be able to do so until later. I haven't shot anything yet with enough sky to tell me. I'm running Windows XP Pro, so there could very well be a difference between the two programs. Good to hear that LR 2.4 is supporting the K7 already ... I haven't been following it specifically on that count. It would also be interesting to hear if there are differences in the calibrations with out of the camera DNG vs PEF files too. In the end, however, pick up the DNG Profile Editor and create a calibration file that you like, set it up as the default, and you should be good to go. This is an amazingly powerful capability. -- Godfrey www.gdgphoto.com www.flickr.com/photos/gdgphoto www.twitter.com/godfreydigiorgi -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
Ralf, I'm not having any problems with Lightroom 2.4, but I installed the 2.3 to 2.4 upgrade at the same time I got the K-7. My recollection is that Adobe had me install the same fix as Paul S is using for PSCS4 ACR and RAW images. Hope this helps. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM, paul stenquistpnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Adobe has worked out K7 specs for PSCS4 ACR. RAW images open nicely in that converter. Paul On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Charles Robinson wrote: On Jul 30, 2009, at 10:26, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The issue is that Lightroom does not have any calibration tables for the K7 as yet, AFAIK. So the thing to do is get the DNG Profile Editor, shoot a couple of controlled tests with a Macbeth Color Checker or equivalent, and create a good calibration profile for it. Install that as the default to use when processing K7 RAW files and your colors should be accurate. That's a big 10-4.. the RAW files I shot with the k7 last night look HORRIBLE in Lightroom at the moment. Very bright, and a severe magenta shift. It figures that with something brand-new that it's not all sorted out in Adobe-land yet. Patience -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. -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
More specifically, Adobe recommended installing an update to get Photoshop Elements 7.0 to recognize K-7 DNG's. I'm running PS Elements 5.0 but did the upgrade anyway. Colors are fine in both Lightroom 2.4 and Elements 5.0 on my Windows machine. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Bob Sullivanrf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: Ralf, I'm not having any problems with Lightroom 2.4, but I installed the 2.3 to 2.4 upgrade at the same time I got the K-7. My recollection is that Adobe had me install the same fix as Paul S is using for PSCS4 ACR and RAW images. Hope this helps. Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:22 PM, paul stenquistpnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Adobe has worked out K7 specs for PSCS4 ACR. RAW images open nicely in that converter. Paul On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:33 PM, Charles Robinson wrote: On Jul 30, 2009, at 10:26, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The issue is that Lightroom does not have any calibration tables for the K7 as yet, AFAIK. So the thing to do is get the DNG Profile Editor, shoot a couple of controlled tests with a Macbeth Color Checker or equivalent, and create a good calibration profile for it. Install that as the default to use when processing K7 RAW files and your colors should be accurate. That's a big 10-4.. the RAW files I shot with the k7 last night look HORRIBLE in Lightroom at the moment. Very bright, and a severe magenta shift. It figures that with something brand-new that it's not all sorted out in Adobe-land yet. Patience -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. -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 07:50:54PM +0200, Ralf R. Radermacher scripsit: [sky looks like bathroom tile] The camera is set to AWB, just like the K10D, as well. Colours space in both cases is Adobe RGB. The times I've seen something like that have been the white balance being set to tungsten in the processing software when it was an open shade outdoor shot; switching off of tungsten to the camera white balance setting fixed it. 'd be looking to make sure that the K7 was known to the software *and* that the exposure setting was defaulting to automatic, so that the camera exposure and white balance are being used, rather than some set of values being remembered from last time. -- Graydon -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
2009/7/29 Ralf R. Radermacher fotor...@gmx.de: After using a K10D for a few years I find that the colours I'm getting from my new K-7 are a trifle odd, to put it mildly. Particularly my sky colours now look like 1950's bathroom tiles. Some awful cyanish cast that I have only had with the K10D in severely overexposed shots. Grey sky comes out with a distinct blueish cast. I didn't think that LightRoom had support for K-7 RAW files yet. This sounds like exactly what happened when I tried my K20D RAWs before the LR support was there. Once they had it, everything worked fine. -Tim -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: After using a K10D for a few years I find that the colours I'm getting from my new K-7 are a trifle odd, to put it mildly. Particularly my sky colours now look like 1950's bathroom tiles. Some awful cyanish cast that I have only had with the K10D in severely overexposed shots. Grey sky comes out with a distinct blueish cast. I'm shooting RAW and talking about what I get to see when I open the RAW files in Lightroom, with the same settings and exactly the same way I've done with my K10D files before. The camera is set to AWB, just like the K10D, as well. Colours space in both cases is Adobe RGB. Any suggestions? Ralf I'd suggest playing with camera profiles and calibration in ACR http://is.gd/1T4g9 I tweaked the settings for my K100Ds and got better noise performance and what I thought were better colours (a little less magenta, I think). -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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
Ralf, Do you shoot PEF? If you do, maybe it's worth an exposure to test if DNG is any different, just to test if the software has got the file format wrong. Notice also that Pentax has sometimes been criticised for producing a magenta cast in low colour temp settings, and with the K-7 there's a menu option to turn this on or off. That may make a difference for your nightscapes, at least. I'm sorry I don't have the K-7 close by right now. I suspect you'll be able to dig out the exact number of that setting before I do. Jostein 2009/7/29 Ralf R. Radermacher fotor...@gmx.de: After using a K10D for a few years I find that the colours I'm getting from my new K-7 are a trifle odd, to put it mildly. Particularly my sky colours now look like 1950's bathroom tiles. Some awful cyanish cast that I have only had with the K10D in severely overexposed shots. Grey sky comes out with a distinct blueish cast. I'm shooting RAW and talking about what I get to see when I open the RAW files in Lightroom, with the same settings and exactly the same way I've done with my K10D files before. The camera is set to AWB, just like the K10D, as well. Colours space in both cases is Adobe RGB. Any suggestions? Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de -- 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. -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com wrote: Do you shoot PEF? No, it's DNG in both cases and the WB in Lightroom is set to as shot. Notice also that Pentax has sometimes been criticised for producing a magenta cast in low colour temp settings, and with the K-7 there's a menu option to turn this on or off. That may make a difference for your nightscapes, at least. My current troubles are mostly with normal sunlit skies. The lighting situatiuons in my nightshots are usually far too complex to be corrected by a simple colour temp adjustment. I'm sorry I don't have the K-7 close by right now. I suspect you'll be able to dig out the exact number of that setting before I do. My suspicions went rather in the direction of CCD vs. CMOS behaviour. I had a K20D for two weeks, just before I got the K-7, and I had similar troubles getting the sky to look right. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany Blog : http://the-real-fotoralf.blogspot.com Audio : http://aporee.org/maps/projects/fotoralf Web : http://www.fotoralf.de -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
PSCS4 supports K7 RAW files, and they open looking very normal and nice in that software's ACR converter. The k7 files generally don't require as much tweaking as did those from the K20D, although that's primarily the result of more predictable exposure. Paul On Jul 29, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Tim Bray wrote: 2009/7/29 Ralf R. Radermacher fotor...@gmx.de: After using a K10D for a few years I find that the colours I'm getting from my new K-7 are a trifle odd, to put it mildly. Particularly my sky colours now look like 1950's bathroom tiles. Some awful cyanish cast that I have only had with the K10D in severely overexposed shots. Grey sky comes out with a distinct blueish cast. I didn't think that LightRoom had support for K-7 RAW files yet. This sounds like exactly what happened when I tried my K20D RAWs before the LR support was there. Once they had it, everything worked fine. -Tim -- 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: CMOS vs. CCD colours?
What happens if you shoot a greycard and color balance in PS? -- The first step is learning to take great photos, the second step is learning to throw away ones that are merely good. Larry Colen l...@red4est.comhttp://www.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: CMOS vs CCD sensor
CMOS is lower power, lower heat and inherently noisier, but with easier to control noise characteristics. -Adam On 1/23/08, Igor Roshchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are the pro's and con's of CMOS and CCD sensors? It is something I should know, and I even remember reading about it, but I don't remember. So, I'd appreciate if someone can either post a link to or list them here. Additionally, a specific question: which one should (theoretically) show less of thermally induced noise usually visible (at least on DS) at high ISOs? Thanks, Igor -- 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. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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: CMOS vs CCD sensor
I dont know if there is any difference between them as far as noise per unit area of silicon for one photosite, but I'm wondering if CMOS provides a different fill factor for the whole chip that gives it an advantage via more silicon per photosite, if indeed CMOS has a better fill factor. On 1/23/08, Igor Roshchin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What are the pro's and con's of CMOS and CCD sensors? It is something I should know, and I even remember reading about it, but I don't remember. So, I'd appreciate if someone can either post a link to or list them here. Additionally, a specific question: which one should (theoretically) show less of thermally induced noise usually visible (at least on DS) at high ISOs? Thanks, Igor -- 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: CMOS vs CCD sensor
Gonz wrote: I dont know if there is any difference between them as far as noise per unit area of silicon for one photosite, but I'm wondering if CMOS provides a different fill factor for the whole chip that gives it an advantage via more silicon per photosite, if indeed CMOS has a better fill factor. Yes, CMOS permits a slightly better fill factor. CCD is, from what I've read, inherently less noisy, but the fill factor of CMOS may make up for that. It certainly seems that the cameras with the best noise performance are CMOS these days. One thing that makes CMOS more attractive to camera makers is that it includes more of the imaging circuitry on-chip, making manufacturing slightly less expensive: The output signal from a CCD is analog -- the output from a CMOS sensor is digital. Of course, both CCD and CMOS sensors require some outboard circuitry, but in a business with very tight margins, any advantage in this area is significant. -- 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: CMOS vs CCD sensor
Either way, i can spell them both, so i'm ok Dave On Jan 23, 2008 5:00 PM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gonz wrote: I dont know if there is any difference between them as far as noise per unit area of silicon for one photosite, but I'm wondering if CMOS provides a different fill factor for the whole chip that gives it an advantage via more silicon per photosite, if indeed CMOS has a better fill factor. Yes, CMOS permits a slightly better fill factor. CCD is, from what I've read, inherently less noisy, but the fill factor of CMOS may make up for that. It certainly seems that the cameras with the best noise performance are CMOS these days. One thing that makes CMOS more attractive to camera makers is that it includes more of the imaging circuitry on-chip, making manufacturing slightly less expensive: The output signal from a CCD is analog -- the output from a CMOS sensor is digital. Of course, both CCD and CMOS sensors require some outboard circuitry, but in a business with very tight margins, any advantage in this area is significant. -- 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. -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ 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: CMOS
On 3/10/06, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed: See: http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp Excellent article, thanks -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: CMOS
Godfrey wrote: I haven't seen much evidence to say that their CCD sensor products (Pentax, Nikon, KM aka Sony, Olympus, etc) do better or worse than the Canon CMOS sensors do in any way that is significant to a purchase decision. Well, IIRC a CMOS chip is much cheaper, I believe, althoug the production gear is very expesive. Also the low battery consumption leaves more energy for other purposes (features). Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 2. oktober 2006 13:04 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: CMOS In general, the differences between CCD and CMOS sensors today are more important to the hardware/manufacturing process then any benefits of one type over the other are to the photographer. How a specific design is implemented and built into a camera affects the photographer much more than which type of sensor it is. Canon's made a huge investment into CMOS manufacturing and it is working well for them. Sony produces sensors with both technologies and I haven't seen much evidence to say that their CCD sensor products (Pentax, Nikon, KM aka Sony, Olympus, etc) do better or worse than the Canon CMOS sensors do in any way that is significant to a purchase decision. I judge the cameras I buy based on the total package, not specifics of component implementation. Godfrey On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:25 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Is CMOS supposedly better than what we have now, and, if so, in what way(s). If it is better, then why aren't other camera manufacturers using such sensors? I believe I read somewhere, that Pentax is planning to take up pruduction of CMOS image sensors. Does this mean future genrations of Pentax cameras will have CMOS? Like Canons! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 10/01/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/461 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
A great shot with an unusual perspective. Only wish it had better light. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: CMOS Godfrey wrote: I haven't seen much evidence to say that their CCD sensor products (Pentax, Nikon, KM aka Sony, Olympus, etc) do better or worse than the Canon CMOS sensors do in any way that is significant to a purchase decision. Well, IIRC a CMOS chip is much cheaper, I believe, althoug the production gear is very expesive. Also the low battery consumption leaves more energy for other purposes (features). Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 2. oktober 2006 13:04 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: CMOS In general, the differences between CCD and CMOS sensors today are more important to the hardware/manufacturing process then any benefits of one type over the other are to the photographer. How a specific design is implemented and built into a camera affects the photographer much more than which type of sensor it is. Canon's made a huge investment into CMOS manufacturing and it is working well for them. Sony produces sensors with both technologies and I haven't seen much evidence to say that their CCD sensor products (Pentax, Nikon, KM aka Sony, Olympus, etc) do better or worse than the Canon CMOS sensors do in any way that is significant to a purchase decision. I judge the cameras I buy based on the total package, not specifics of component implementation. Godfrey On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:25 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Is CMOS supposedly better than what we have now, and, if so, in what way(s). If it is better, then why aren't other camera manufacturers using such sensors? I believe I read somewhere, that Pentax is planning to take up pruduction of CMOS image sensors. Does this mean future genrations of Pentax cameras will have CMOS? Like Canons! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 10/01/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.12/461 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
Douglas Newman wrote: Actually, it's the opposite. CMOS use much less power than CCD but they have higher noise levels. ok Canon CMOS have very low noise levels because of a proprietary noise elimination circuit that is patented by Canon. This type of technology only works with CMOS (because of the way the data gets off the sensor in a CMOS as opposed to CCD) but anyhow it is proprietary, patented technology that nobody else can touch. ok the only other large-sensor CMOS cameras are the Nikon D2X/D2Xs and the Sony DSC-R1. Both have quite high noise levels given the size of their sensors. I think this is a case of pixel density. The Nikon D2X is 12MP on an APS sensor and the Sony is 10MP on a smaller-than-APS sensor. And actually I have not heard of poor noise performance with the D2X(s), on the contrary, I've heard people praise it. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, how well does Canon do at higher ISO setting? Do they equal or exceed what we've seen thus far from Pentax? Not sure you can extract viable conclusions about CMOS this way, Shel, in the sense that the software plays a great part in the equation. Potentially manufacturers that use the same chip will come up with products that fare differently when it comes to noise. So when Christian comes back and says that his Canon is much better than the Pentax, it may just mean that the Canon software on his model is better than that of his Pentax model. And sw is only one factor. I would look at performance from specific models as opposed to specific technologies. And there is the other can of worms; does the operator know what they are doing. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
On 1/10/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: The lack of noise at high sensitivity is something people claim as an advantage for CMOS. Supposedly a drawback is that they suck more power. Just the opposite dear boy. They use less power - that is why they are attractive. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
Cotty wrote: On 1/10/06, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed: The lack of noise at high sensitivity is something people claim as an advantage for CMOS. Supposedly a drawback is that they suck more power. Just the opposite dear boy. They use less power - that is why they are attractive. OOPS! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
It's more a matter of exposure evaluation than image processing, Shel. You need to stuff the highlight areas where you want detail up as close to saturation as you can get without hitting the saturation level, which often seems like overexposure to a film camera shooter, and then adjust the RAW conversion curves appropriately. That gives you the most data to work with in shadow regions and the least noise. At high ISO settings, dynamic range is reduced so it becomes more essential to get enough exposure in or bottom-end values are swamped with noise. On Oct 2, 2006, at 4:18 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: You've hit upon one of the things I don't like about the DS and that is noise in the shadows unless you bring the exposure up a bit. I sometimes like to shoot scenes in a very low key manner, and the Pentax - perhaps all DSLR cameras - don't make that easy to do. Perhaps I've not got my digital processing act together. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I think if you shoot at the meter reading with the D, it can be noisy at 800 or above. If you plus a half stop of exposure comp, the D is extremely noise free. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
In general, the differences between CCD and CMOS sensors today are more important to the hardware/manufacturing process then any benefits of one type over the other are to the photographer. How a specific design is implemented and built into a camera affects the photographer much more than which type of sensor it is. Canon's made a huge investment into CMOS manufacturing and it is working well for them. Sony produces sensors with both technologies and I haven't seen much evidence to say that their CCD sensor products (Pentax, Nikon, KM aka Sony, Olympus, etc) do better or worse than the Canon CMOS sensors do in any way that is significant to a purchase decision. I judge the cameras I buy based on the total package, not specifics of component implementation. Godfrey On Oct 2, 2006, at 12:25 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Is CMOS supposedly better than what we have now, and, if so, in what way(s). If it is better, then why aren't other camera manufacturers using such sensors? I believe I read somewhere, that Pentax is planning to take up pruduction of CMOS image sensors. Does this mean future genrations of Pentax cameras will have CMOS? Like Canons! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
I understand that part, and that's what I've been doing (I shoot a lot @ +.3,+.7, even +1, and sometimes, depending on the light and the scene, +1.3), and getting good results. But ... when I want a low key shot, with lots of dark areas in a photo, that's where my results suffer. Noise in the shadows is a constant problem for me, yet I don't see it as much in the work of other people. They seem to get cleaner shadows with better Zone 1-2-3 separation. I sent you some examples of this a month or so back, but hadn't heard back from you - figured you were busy with other things (which you were) or maybe didn't get the message, then I got overwhelmed with some things here ... I want to be able to get better low-key results with less noise (quantization maybe?) in the darker areas of my photos on a more consistent basis. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi It's more a matter of exposure evaluation than image processing, Shel. You need to stuff the highlight areas where you want detail up as close to saturation as you can get without hitting the saturation level, which often seems like overexposure to a film camera shooter, and then adjust the RAW conversion curves appropriately. That gives you the most data to work with in shadow regions and the least noise. At high ISO settings, dynamic range is reduced so it becomes more essential to get enough exposure in or bottom-end values are swamped with noise. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
I find that if I want low-key with lots of shadow, I get better results by pulling down the shadows in post processing, generally with curves adjustments. Exposing for heavy blacks always creates noise, particularly at high ISO. Paul -- Original message -- From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] I understand that part, and that's what I've been doing (I shoot a lot @ +.3,+.7, even +1, and sometimes, depending on the light and the scene, +1.3), and getting good results. But ... when I want a low key shot, with lots of dark areas in a photo, that's where my results suffer. Noise in the shadows is a constant problem for me, yet I don't see it as much in the work of other people. They seem to get cleaner shadows with better Zone 1-2-3 separation. I sent you some examples of this a month or so back, but hadn't heard back from you - figured you were busy with other things (which you were) or maybe didn't get the message, then I got overwhelmed with some things here ... I want to be able to get better low-key results with less noise (quantization maybe?) in the darker areas of my photos on a more consistent basis. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi It's more a matter of exposure evaluation than image processing, Shel. You need to stuff the highlight areas where you want detail up as close to saturation as you can get without hitting the saturation level, which often seems like overexposure to a film camera shooter, and then adjust the RAW conversion curves appropriately. That gives you the most data to work with in shadow regions and the least noise. At high ISO settings, dynamic range is reduced so it becomes more essential to get enough exposure in or bottom-end values are swamped with noise. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
On 2/10/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: I judge the cameras I buy based on the total package, not specifics of component implementation. Wise words. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
Hmm. I don't recall receiving any files, but it *has* been really pretty busy lately and I might have missed them. Similar to Paul's effort, I find that for some images you just need to pull the shadows down with a Levels/Curves adjustment layer to push the noise into solid black. Here's an example ... I layered a Levels correction and a Curves correction on the left side image, you can compare it to the right hand one: http://homepage.mac.com/godders/IMGP3536.jpg Sometimes you can do the same with a simple S-curve adjustment using the Curves tool. Godfrey On Oct 2, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I understand that part, and that's what I've been doing (I shoot a lot @ +.3,+.7, even +1, and sometimes, depending on the light and the scene, +1.3), and getting good results. But ... when I want a low key shot, with lots of dark areas in a photo, that's where my results suffer. Noise in the shadows is a constant problem for me, yet I don't see it as much in the work of other people. They seem to get cleaner shadows with better Zone 1-2-3 separation. I sent you some examples of this a month or so back, but hadn't heard back from you - figured you were busy with other things (which you were) or maybe didn't get the message, then I got overwhelmed with some things here ... I want to be able to get better low-key results with less noise (quantization maybe?) in the darker areas of my photos on a more consistent basis. Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi It's more a matter of exposure evaluation than image processing, Shel. You need to stuff the highlight areas where you want detail up as close to saturation as you can get without hitting the saturation level, which often seems like overexposure to a film camera shooter, and then adjust the RAW conversion curves appropriately. That gives you the most data to work with in shadow regions and the least noise. At high ISO settings, dynamic range is reduced so it becomes more essential to get enough exposure in or bottom-end values are swamped with noise. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
Well, I do that when it seems appropriate, but then subtle detail is lost. Honestly, I'm quite frustrated with this aspect of the camera/processing, although I'm sure it's as much my techniques as it is the dynamics of digital. Juan seems to get what I want in a lot of his work, and I've seen it in yours both on the web and in person. However, the example you posted clearly shows what I am trying to avoid. There's no detail in the darkest area of the image, and the area outlined in yellow shows a lot of noise compared to the clean black in the similar area of the other shoe. I'm looking for clean detail in zone 2, 3,and 4 and don't want to mask the noise with full black. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/IMGP3536b.jpg Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Hmm. I don't recall receiving any files, but it *has* been really pretty busy lately and I might have missed them. Similar to Paul's effort, I find that for some images you just need to pull the shadows down with a Levels/Curves adjustment layer to push the noise into solid black. Here's an example ... I layered a Levels correction and a Curves correction on the left side image, you can compare it to the right hand one: http://homepage.mac.com/godders/IMGP3536.jpg Sometimes you can do the same with a simple S-curve adjustment using the Curves tool. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
Shel, The shoe on the right is the original, the show on the left has had the corrections done. There is no real detail in that area, it's all Zone 1, but the noise makes you believe that there is detail there. To obtain more detail on the inner sole of the shoe, I should have given it 1 to 2 stops more exposure, then dealt with the highlight values that would have been dangerously close to saturation. It's always a trade off. The film or sensor only has so much dynamic range to work with. The inner sole of the shoe has no significant or interesting detail to me, so I let it go black so as not to burn the Zone IX details which I wanted. (This is only a 1:1 section of the full frame!) Godfrey On Oct 2, 2006, at 9:18 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Well, I do that when it seems appropriate, but then subtle detail is lost. Honestly, I'm quite frustrated with this aspect of the camera/ processing, although I'm sure it's as much my techniques as it is the dynamics of digital. Juan seems to get what I want in a lot of his work, and I've seen it in yours both on the web and in person. However, the example you posted clearly shows what I am trying to avoid. There's no detail in the darkest area of the image, and the area outlined in yellow shows a lot of noise compared to the clean black in the similar area of the other shoe. I'm looking for clean detail in zone 2, 3,and 4 and don't want to mask the noise with full black. http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/IMGP3536b.jpg Shel [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Hmm. I don't recall receiving any files, but it *has* been really pretty busy lately and I might have missed them. Similar to Paul's effort, I find that for some images you just need to pull the shadows down with a Levels/Curves adjustment layer to push the noise into solid black. Here's an example ... I layered a Levels correction and a Curves correction on the left side image, you can compare it to the right hand one: http://homepage.mac.com/godders/IMGP3536.jpg Sometimes you can do the same with a simple S-curve adjustment using the Curves tool. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: CMOS
It's cheaper to produce - once you have invested in the manufacturing gear, which is rather expensive - IIRC. In use the battery comsumption, is relatively low. Canon has been very successfful making their own CMOS chips. See: http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Shel Belinkoff Sendt: 2. oktober 2006 01:25 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: RE: CMOS Is CMOS supposedly better than what we have now, and, if so, in what way(s). If it is better, then why aren't other camera manufacturers using such sensors? Shel [Original Message] From: Jens Bladt I believe I read somewhere, that Pentax is planning to take up pruduction of CMOS image sensors. Does this mean future genrations of Pentax cameras will have CMOS? Like Canons! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 10/01/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 10/01/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
The rep I already talked about from Photokina confirmed Pentax does want sensors from themselves. That has been reported several months ago already. Now would these be Pentax sensors manufactured by Samsung or be Samsung sensors used by Pentax, who knows ? But yes they are heading that way it seems. -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: CMOS
Is CMOS supposedly better than what we have now, and, if so, in what way(s). If it is better, then why aren't other camera manufacturers using such sensors? Shel [Original Message] From: Jens Bladt I believe I read somewhere, that Pentax is planning to take up pruduction of CMOS image sensors. Does this mean future genrations of Pentax cameras will have CMOS? Like Canons! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Is CMOS supposedly better than what we have now, and, if so, in what way(s). If it is better, then why aren't other camera manufacturers using such sensors? The lack of noise at high sensitivity is something people claim as an advantage for CMOS. Supposedly a drawback is that they suck more power. Any truth in there? Maybe, but I bet you get an argument on both. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
So, how well does Canon do at higher ISO setting? Do they equal or exceed what we've seen thus far from Pentax? Shel [Original Message] From: Christian Shel Belinkoff wrote: Is CMOS supposedly better than what we have now, and, if so, in what way(s). If it is better, then why aren't other camera manufacturers using such sensors? The lack of noise at high sensitivity is something people claim as an advantage for CMOS. Supposedly a drawback is that they suck more power. Any truth in there? Maybe, but I bet you get an argument on both. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
It's interesting but you get both views from various reviews. I've seen reviews that will flat out say that the Pentax D series cameras have lower noise characteristics than Canons and others that talk about how noisy Pentax DSLR are at high ISO. The only Canons I've seen high ISO output from were D20s and my brother's digital Rebel, (don't even ask). The D20 output is extremely clean but don't seem noticably cleaner than my D and DS at any particular ISO. I don't think my brother has actually taken his DigiReb, beyond ISO 100 and uses the built in flash for most inside shots, and to think he never even had a flash for his Minolta SRT 101. Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, how well does Canon do at higher ISO setting? Do they equal or exceed what we've seen thus far from Pentax? Shel [Original Message] From: Christian Shel Belinkoff wrote: Is CMOS supposedly better than what we have now, and, if so, in what way(s). If it is better, then why aren't other camera manufacturers using such sensors? The lack of noise at high sensitivity is something people claim as an advantage for CMOS. Supposedly a drawback is that they suck more power. Any truth in there? Maybe, but I bet you get an argument on both. -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, how well does Canon do at higher ISO setting? Do they equal or exceed what we've seen thus far from Pentax? Ok, I had a *ist D, 6MP CCD , and while it performed well at high ISO (800-3200), my Canon 20D, 8MP CMOS, blows it away (the sensors are about the same size). I know I'll get flamed for that, but I did have the *ist D for 2 years and the Canon now for a year and a half and I have countless examples in the archives. As for battery power, with both cameras I could easily get 1000 shots using the battery grips. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
I think if you shoot at the meter reading with the D, it can be noisy at 800 or above. If you plus a half stop of exposure comp, the D is extremely noise free. As I said before, it's not as noisy as my co- worker's 20D. But maybe she's underexposing. Exposure seems to be the key, at least with the Pentax. Paul On Oct 1, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Christian wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: So, how well does Canon do at higher ISO setting? Do they equal or exceed what we've seen thus far from Pentax? Ok, I had a *ist D, 6MP CCD , and while it performed well at high ISO (800-3200), my Canon 20D, 8MP CMOS, blows it away (the sensors are about the same size). I know I'll get flamed for that, but I did have the *ist D for 2 years and the Canon now for a year and a half and I have countless examples in the archives. As for battery power, with both cameras I could easily get 1000 shots using the battery grips. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
--- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] The lack of noise at high sensitivity is something people claim as an advantage for CMOS. Supposedly a drawback is that they suck more power. Actually, it's the opposite. CMOS use much less power than CCD but they have higher noise levels. Canon CMOS have very low noise levels because of a proprietary noise elimination circuit that is patented by Canon. This type of technology only works with CMOS (because of the way the data gets off the sensor in a CMOS as opposed to CCD) but anyhow it is proprietary, patented technology that nobody else can touch. Aside from the Canons (all Canon D-SLRs but the D2000, D6000 and 1D) the only other large-sensor CMOS cameras are the Nikon D2X/D2Xs and the Sony DSC-R1. Both have quite high noise levels given the size of their sensors. New Doug __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
You've hit upon one of the things I don't like about the DS and that is noise in the shadows unless you bring the exposure up a bit. I sometimes like to shoot scenes in a very low key manner, and the Pentax - perhaps all DSLR cameras - don't make that easy to do. Perhaps I've not got my digital processing act together. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I think if you shoot at the meter reading with the D, it can be noisy at 800 or above. If you plus a half stop of exposure comp, the D is extremely noise free. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CMOS
Yes, low key can be tough. However, if the highlights arent' completely blown, it's easy to bring them down. Every shot is different. Digital has it's limits, but with good post processing, they're gneraly less restricting than film. Paul On Oct 1, 2006, at 11:18 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: You've hit upon one of the things I don't like about the DS and that is noise in the shadows unless you bring the exposure up a bit. I sometimes like to shoot scenes in a very low key manner, and the Pentax - perhaps all DSLR cameras - don't make that easy to do. Perhaps I've not got my digital processing act together. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I think if you shoot at the meter reading with the D, it can be noisy at 800 or above. If you plus a half stop of exposure comp, the D is extremely noise free. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Cmos was: Hypothetical Question
So is the CMOS gathering data in a similar fashion as a CCD,but with out the CCD?One BIG digital problem with the CCD is dust on the filter.Is this now eliminated or greatly reduced with CMOS. I know i will eventually have to or want to upo grade from the 2.74 megapixel to a higher unit.Just not sure what is better or more stable,CMOS or CCD. Cotty, i beleive you mentioned shooting soccer was not a problem with the Canon correct,and shutter lag was up there with SLR types. Correct. I believe the Pentax will have a CMOS sensor. Costs will simply not allow it to be equipped with a CCD. Cheers. Cot Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
RE: Cmos was: Hypothetical Question
No, CMOS is cheaper- it's the more common process these days. R Quoting Glen O'Neal [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Cotty, Not sure I understand. Isn't the CMOS more expensive? Glen -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2002 3:18 PM To: Pentax List Subject: Re: Cmos was: Hypothetical Question So is the CMOS gathering data in a similar fashion as a CCD,but with out the CCD?One BIG digital problem with the CCD is dust on the filter.Is this now eliminated or greatly reduced with CMOS. I know i will eventually have to or want to upo grade from the 2.74 megapixel to a higher unit.Just not sure what is better or more stable,CMOS or CCD. Cotty, i beleive you mentioned shooting soccer was not a problem with the Canon correct,and shutter lag was up there with SLR types. Correct. I believe the Pentax will have a CMOS sensor. Costs will simply not allow it to be equipped with a CCD. Cheers. Cot Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
