RE: Pentax releases data
> From: PDML [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Underpaid N. > Overpentaxed > > Only if your new camera takes nicer pictures than the old one. > > My advice is to make like Jesus: pull the trigger until it goes click, > click =) > was that a pistol in his loincloth? B > Cheers, > Ecke > > 2012/10/5, Peter Jordan : > > But I thought that buying myself a new camera would make me a better > > photographer. > > > > You mean it doesn't work like that? > > > > Peter > > > > On 11 Sep 2012, at 00:59, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> > >> Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to > >> upgrade from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.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. > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > > -- > Sent from my iP address > > -- > 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: Pentax releases data
Only if your new camera takes nicer pictures than the old one. My advice is to make like Jesus: pull the trigger until it goes click, click =) Cheers, Ecke 2012/10/5, Peter Jordan : > But I thought that buying myself a new camera would make me a better > photographer. > > You mean it doesn't work like that? > > Peter > > On 11 Sep 2012, at 00:59, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade >> from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. >> >> -- >> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia >> www.robertstech.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. > > > -- > 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. > -- Sent from my iP address -- 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: Pentax releases data
But I thought that buying myself a new camera would make me a better photographer. You mean it doesn't work like that? Peter On 11 Sep 2012, at 00:59, Mark Roberts wrote: > > Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade > from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. > > -- > Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia > www.robertstech.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. -- 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: Pentax releases data
And the only problem with that is now I have renewed K-5 lust :-) ann On 9/12/2012 15:07, P. J. Alling wrote: You missed my intention here, I was simply reassuring Ann that the K-5 was no worse and was in some ways better than her *ist-D viewfinder. On 9/12/2012 1:09 PM, William Robb wrote: On 12/09/2012 10:45 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: Ann, the tiny viewfinder, if I've done my math correctly, gives the same size image as that in the *ist-D, (which seems to be exactly the same unit used in the K20D), The K-5 differs in showing 100% frame coverage, with a slightly lower magnification. Compared to the finders in most mid to upper level APS-C DSLR's it's excellent. It's only when compared to the viewfinders in 24x36 format cameras that it seems tiny. Yes, the istD viewfinder is tiny as well. The APS-C format doesn't allow for a decent sized viewfinder, it is cropped, the same way that the format is cropped. In fact I just dragged out my ZX-5n and didn't find the K20D to be noticeably different in quality, and the image size only a tiny bit smaller. The image size is about 2/3 the size of a 35mm viewfinder, slightly smaller IIRC. I have an MZ-5, it has just about the worst viewfinder imaginable in a 35mm camera. Anyone who expects the finder in an APS-C SLR to give as big and bright a view as an LX, or one of the new 24x36 frame DSLRs, is kidding themselves, but compared to even an all glass pentaprism finder in a mid range SLR from the end of the film era it's pretty good. You've just moved into the twilight zone Peter. No one said anything about expecting an APC-C viewfinder to be as big as a 35mm viewfinder (until you decided to set it up as a false argument) The viewfinder in the K5, like the viewfinders in all APS-C finders, is small, and also suffers all the problems one would have when trying to focus a wide angle lens on a 35mm camera, because they are wide angle lenses due to the registration distance. Saying it's a good viewfinder because it has a nice pentaprism is just saying that it's dog breath is more palatable than the dog breath from another dog. In fact the Pentax magnifying eyepiece, I can't remember it's real name at the moment, pretty much brings the viewfinder image up in magnification to be almost exactly the same size as the ZX-5n. I highly recommend it to anyone who doesn't wear glasses. If you want accurate manual focusing with a cropped viewfinder, especially with shorter lenses, a magnifier is a necessity. On 9/12/2012 10:39 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: "tiny view finder" scares me a bit... My only wish was my ist-d was lots less noisy at 3200 and went up to 6400. seeing the great stuff in relatively low light I was seeing from youse guys that have the K-5 made for camera lust. but hey, I'm just dreamin anyway at this point. thanks for making me feel less deprived :-) ann On 9/12/2012 01:59, William Robb wrote: On 11/09/2012 7:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: In what way is the K-5 deficient in auto-focus? takes too long to get there, or doesnt get it right? It's pretty fast, depending on the lens, but is noticeably slower when compared to the midrange AF from the other guys. Mine is also very inaccurate under studio lights. I have to dial in the maximum AF bias to get close (really bad front focus), and unfortunately, it isn't consistent, so I never really know where it is going to focus. Under studio lights I am lucky to get an AF hit rate of 30% unless I go to live view, which combined with face detection is a decent alternative to focusing manually with the tiny viewfinder, and is accurate enough. -- 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: Pentax releases data
The PENTAX camera always sees the contrast of a dog's bung-hole as a likely fecal-focal target. Mark! I'll have to bring my clicker or dog-whistle to the park this afternoon. Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com " It is still true, as was first said many years ago, that people are the only sophisticated computing devices that can be made at low cost by unskilled workers!" - Martin G. Wolf, PhD -- 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. -- Steve Sharpe d...@eastlink.ca http://earth.delith.com/photo_gallery.html -- 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: Pentax releases data
On Sep 11, 2012, at 10:02 , a bunch of us wrote stuff, among which was: I wrote: > But they never say how much better. If it isn't an "Industry > Breakthrough" it is probably about the same as the K-10 to K-7 > "improvement". Just a little bit. Paul wrote: > Ir'a hard to quantify improvements in autofocus, but the K-5 is > definitely deficient in that regard, so I expect a substantial > improvement. Hope I'm right. Paul I sold my two K-20s to buy a K-5, in large part because those first responders cried how great/accurate/swift the AF was on the K-5. Now Paul, who I respect as a camera sensitive pro who makes money with his tool(s), tells me it's deficient? I don't think so myself, as it seems to get it right more often than not, almost every time if you auto-focus twice. It tries to track moving objects, doing better than my K-7. What no PENTAX does that I've owned is predictive follow focus. Memory is old and foggy, but I think my PZ-1p was better at that than any of their current DSLRs. I may be wrong on that, but it seems to smoothly follow a moving race car or running doggie, "predicting" where it will be when the shutter trips the next time (with shutter button down in fast multiple shots). The K series that I've had from *ist-D to K-5 seems to (covering my butt before any with better knowledge than I chime in) focus, stop focusing, focus, stop focusing, focus. In the K-5 the first, third, and fifth images will be the best. The others taken while the camera is still focused at the last photo. My K-7 would have the second photo in focus, and never catch up. Not that I can claim to always have a dogs eye, or even head, in the AF sweet spot all the time. If you try to use all 11 focus points under those circumstances, the camera will randomly decide the tree in the background is prettier than the dog running at you, past you, or away from you. I have more anal shots of dogs than head shots - they seem to know, and turn away. The PENTAX camera always sees the contrast of a dog's bung-hole as a likely fecal-focal target. I'll have to bring my clicker or dog-whistle to the park this afternoon. Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com “ It is still true, as was first said many years ago, that people are the only sophisticated computing devices that can be made at low cost by unskilled workers!” — Martin G. Wolf, PhD -- 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: Pentax releases data
You missed my intention here, I was simply reassuring Ann that the K-5 was no worse and was in some ways better than her *ist-D viewfinder. On 9/12/2012 1:09 PM, William Robb wrote: On 12/09/2012 10:45 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: Ann, the tiny viewfinder, if I've done my math correctly, gives the same size image as that in the *ist-D, (which seems to be exactly the same unit used in the K20D), The K-5 differs in showing 100% frame coverage, with a slightly lower magnification. Compared to the finders in most mid to upper level APS-C DSLR's it's excellent. It's only when compared to the viewfinders in 24x36 format cameras that it seems tiny. Yes, the istD viewfinder is tiny as well. The APS-C format doesn't allow for a decent sized viewfinder, it is cropped, the same way that the format is cropped. In fact I just dragged out my ZX-5n and didn't find the K20D to be noticeably different in quality, and the image size only a tiny bit smaller. The image size is about 2/3 the size of a 35mm viewfinder, slightly smaller IIRC. I have an MZ-5, it has just about the worst viewfinder imaginable in a 35mm camera. Anyone who expects the finder in an APS-C SLR to give as big and bright a view as an LX, or one of the new 24x36 frame DSLRs, is kidding themselves, but compared to even an all glass pentaprism finder in a mid range SLR from the end of the film era it's pretty good. You've just moved into the twilight zone Peter. No one said anything about expecting an APC-C viewfinder to be as big as a 35mm viewfinder (until you decided to set it up as a false argument) The viewfinder in the K5, like the viewfinders in all APS-C finders, is small, and also suffers all the problems one would have when trying to focus a wide angle lens on a 35mm camera, because they are wide angle lenses due to the registration distance. Saying it's a good viewfinder because it has a nice pentaprism is just saying that it's dog breath is more palatable than the dog breath from another dog. In fact the Pentax magnifying eyepiece, I can't remember it's real name at the moment, pretty much brings the viewfinder image up in magnification to be almost exactly the same size as the ZX-5n. I highly recommend it to anyone who doesn't wear glasses. If you want accurate manual focusing with a cropped viewfinder, especially with shorter lenses, a magnifier is a necessity. On 9/12/2012 10:39 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: "tiny view finder" scares me a bit... My only wish was my ist-d was lots less noisy at 3200 and went up to 6400. seeing the great stuff in relatively low light I was seeing from youse guys that have the K-5 made for camera lust. but hey, I'm just dreamin anyway at this point. thanks for making me feel less deprived :-) ann On 9/12/2012 01:59, William Robb wrote: On 11/09/2012 7:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: In what way is the K-5 deficient in auto-focus? takes too long to get there, or doesnt get it right? It's pretty fast, depending on the lens, but is noticeably slower when compared to the midrange AF from the other guys. Mine is also very inaccurate under studio lights. I have to dial in the maximum AF bias to get close (really bad front focus), and unfortunately, it isn't consistent, so I never really know where it is going to focus. Under studio lights I am lucky to get an AF hit rate of 30% unless I go to live view, which combined with face detection is a decent alternative to focusing manually with the tiny viewfinder, and is accurate enough. -- Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthly 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: Pentax releases data
On Sep 12, 2012, at 10:02 AM, Margus Männik wrote: > Well, ok. > What level of improvement could we theoretically expect? My biggest complaint about AF is the size of the AF zones and the camera insisting on focusing on something close to what I want, but not what I want. Usually it is microphones or podiums (podia?). -- 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: Pentax releases data
On 12/09/2012 11:02 AM, Margus Männik wrote: Well, ok. What level of improvement could we theoretically expect? I've tried out most of the new currently available camera bodies. Most of 'em are not much different from K-5 in terms of focusing. Cameras of the same price range are often even worse, especially in accuracy of focusing. I would say, that some C* models in particular are fast, but not very accurate. When people are talking about "superior AF of the other brands" they very often do compare apples to the oranges (as you say in English). Either they are not even touched latest Pentaxes or they compare 'em to much more expensive models. We all have to admit - C* and N* flagships do have very good AF modules, they REALLY do. I had an opportunity to play a bit with Nikon D4 - it's really stellar. Times ago I had D3x set for a month - and it was not very easy to go back to my K20D afterwards. But can we really expect the same kind of performance from whatever Pentax body with ~1000-1500 EUR/USD pricetag? Wouldn't it be the same as to expect the freshly announced SuperTele lens at no more than 2000 EUR/USD? I compared the AF to Nikon's D7K and the EOS7D. Both are mid range cameras, and both run circles around the AF in the Pentax (which is on the slow side, and very unreliable in anything other than very good daylight conditions). -- 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: Pentax releases data
On 12/09/2012 10:45 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: Ann, the tiny viewfinder, if I've done my math correctly, gives the same size image as that in the *ist-D, (which seems to be exactly the same unit used in the K20D), The K-5 differs in showing 100% frame coverage, with a slightly lower magnification. Compared to the finders in most mid to upper level APS-C DSLR's it's excellent. It's only when compared to the viewfinders in 24x36 format cameras that it seems tiny. Yes, the istD viewfinder is tiny as well. The APS-C format doesn't allow for a decent sized viewfinder, it is cropped, the same way that the format is cropped. In fact I just dragged out my ZX-5n and didn't find the K20D to be noticeably different in quality, and the image size only a tiny bit smaller. The image size is about 2/3 the size of a 35mm viewfinder, slightly smaller IIRC. I have an MZ-5, it has just about the worst viewfinder imaginable in a 35mm camera. Anyone who expects the finder in an APS-C SLR to give as big and bright a view as an LX, or one of the new 24x36 frame DSLRs, is kidding themselves, but compared to even an all glass pentaprism finder in a mid range SLR from the end of the film era it's pretty good. You've just moved into the twilight zone Peter. No one said anything about expecting an APC-C viewfinder to be as big as a 35mm viewfinder (until you decided to set it up as a false argument) The viewfinder in the K5, like the viewfinders in all APS-C finders, is small, and also suffers all the problems one would have when trying to focus a wide angle lens on a 35mm camera, because they are wide angle lenses due to the registration distance. Saying it's a good viewfinder because it has a nice pentaprism is just saying that it's dog breath is more palatable than the dog breath from another dog. In fact the Pentax magnifying eyepiece, I can't remember it's real name at the moment, pretty much brings the viewfinder image up in magnification to be almost exactly the same size as the ZX-5n. I highly recommend it to anyone who doesn't wear glasses. If you want accurate manual focusing with a cropped viewfinder, especially with shorter lenses, a magnifier is a necessity. On 9/12/2012 10:39 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: "tiny view finder" scares me a bit... My only wish was my ist-d was lots less noisy at 3200 and went up to 6400. seeing the great stuff in relatively low light I was seeing from youse guys that have the K-5 made for camera lust. but hey, I'm just dreamin anyway at this point. thanks for making me feel less deprived :-) ann On 9/12/2012 01:59, William Robb wrote: On 11/09/2012 7:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: In what way is the K-5 deficient in auto-focus? takes too long to get there, or doesnt get it right? It's pretty fast, depending on the lens, but is noticeably slower when compared to the midrange AF from the other guys. Mine is also very inaccurate under studio lights. I have to dial in the maximum AF bias to get close (really bad front focus), and unfortunately, it isn't consistent, so I never really know where it is going to focus. Under studio lights I am lucky to get an AF hit rate of 30% unless I go to live view, which combined with face detection is a decent alternative to focusing manually with the tiny viewfinder, and is accurate enough. -- 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: Pentax releases data
Well, ok. What level of improvement could we theoretically expect? I've tried out most of the new currently available camera bodies. Most of 'em are not much different from K-5 in terms of focusing. Cameras of the same price range are often even worse, especially in accuracy of focusing. I would say, that some C* models in particular are fast, but not very accurate. When people are talking about "superior AF of the other brands" they very often do compare apples to the oranges (as you say in English). Either they are not even touched latest Pentaxes or they compare 'em to much more expensive models. We all have to admit - C* and N* flagships do have very good AF modules, they REALLY do. I had an opportunity to play a bit with Nikon D4 - it's really stellar. Times ago I had D3x set for a month - and it was not very easy to go back to my K20D afterwards. But can we really expect the same kind of performance from whatever Pentax body with ~1000-1500 EUR/USD pricetag? Wouldn't it be the same as to expect the freshly announced SuperTele lens at no more than 2000 EUR/USD? BR, Margus On 9/12/2012 05:20, Paul Stenquist wrote: It's not bad overall. But compared to some of the best cameras it's not great n low light, and it has trouble locking on a moving object -- which would suggest it's a bit slow. It's better than any of the other Pentax DSLRs, save for the K-7, which seems to be about the same. It's good enough for me most of the time, but better would be nice. Paul On Sep 11, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: In what way is the K-5 deficient in auto-focus? takes too long to get there, or doesnt get it right? cf the ist-d ? ann On 9/11/2012 20:25, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 11, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote: On Sep 10, 2012, at 20:03 , John Francis wrote: Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. The diiferences I spot on the K-5 II are: o Better auto-focus (this is the big one from where I'm sitting) But they never say how much better. If it isn't an "Industry Breakthrough" it is probably about the same as the K-10 to K-7 "improvement". Just a little bit. Ir'a hard to quantify improvements in autofocus, but the K-5 is definitely deficient in that regard, so I expect a substantial improvement. Hope I'm right. Paul o Improved rear LCD (brighter & sharper, but same size & resolution) Retina Display? o SDXC memory card compatibility (or was that added in a K5 firware upgrade?) Don't remember. Don't have any of the XC cards, nor do I need them. Yet. Everything else looks to be the same as the K-5. Am I forgetting anything? Nothing that hasn't already been moved back behind the green curtain. (OZ) -- 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: Pentax releases data
Ann, the tiny viewfinder, if I've done my math correctly, gives the same size image as that in the *ist-D, (which seems to be exactly the same unit used in the K20D), The K-5 differs in showing 100% frame coverage, with a slightly lower magnification. Compared to the finders in most mid to upper level APS-C DSLR's it's excellent. It's only when compared to the viewfinders in 24x36 format cameras that it seems tiny. In fact I just dragged out my ZX-5n and didn't find the K20D to be noticeably different in quality, and the image size only a tiny bit smaller. Anyone who expects the finder in an APS-C SLR to give as big and bright a view as an LX, or one of the new 24x36 frame DSLRs, is kidding themselves, but compared to even an all glass pentaprism finder in a mid range SLR from the end of the film era it's pretty good. In fact the Pentax magnifying eyepiece, I can't remember it's real name at the moment, pretty much brings the viewfinder image up in magnification to be almost exactly the same size as the ZX-5n. I highly recommend it to anyone who doesn't wear glasses. On 9/12/2012 10:39 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: "tiny view finder" scares me a bit... My only wish was my ist-d was lots less noisy at 3200 and went up to 6400. seeing the great stuff in relatively low light I was seeing from youse guys that have the K-5 made for camera lust. but hey, I'm just dreamin anyway at this point. thanks for making me feel less deprived :-) ann On 9/12/2012 01:59, William Robb wrote: On 11/09/2012 7:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: In what way is the K-5 deficient in auto-focus? takes too long to get there, or doesnt get it right? It's pretty fast, depending on the lens, but is noticeably slower when compared to the midrange AF from the other guys. Mine is also very inaccurate under studio lights. I have to dial in the maximum AF bias to get close (really bad front focus), and unfortunately, it isn't consistent, so I never really know where it is going to focus. Under studio lights I am lucky to get an AF hit rate of 30% unless I go to live view, which combined with face detection is a decent alternative to focusing manually with the tiny viewfinder, and is accurate enough. -- Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthly 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: Pentax releases data
> Boris, you have summed up my Pentax experience perfectly. > I've pretty much found that if it's automated, it's gonna be wrong. > Except for white balance. Auto white balance seems good. > > -- > > William Robb Bill, you have summed up my Pentax experience perfectly. Actually I think they get exposure right 80% of the time as well. I haven't followed Photokina closely, but with players like Sony announcing a FF compact (granted not for everybody or me) and another FF body, while Pentax announces another Q, a 645D lens that only 645D owners will possibly purchase, two bodies that are more of the same, and of all things a $7000 DA lens for their APS-C bodies, I just have to wonder. I can already see flocks of Pentax APS-C camera owners getting in line for that lens, can't you? Pentax is like a really good mom & pop burger joint. They may make burgers that taste reasonably great and for a decent price. But until they start serving Prime Rib and Filet Mignon at a high yet palatable price, they'll only attract burger buyers. And unless they sell BILLIONS/TRILLIONS (for Bob S.) they'll always be struggling to make a respectable profit, which correlates to their ability to bring out really top-tier products. (opinion) I've grown tired of faffing around with them. Tom C. -- 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: Pentax releases data
"tiny view finder" scares me a bit... My only wish was my ist-d was lots less noisy at 3200 and went up to 6400. seeing the great stuff in relatively low light I was seeing from youse guys that have the K-5 made for camera lust. but hey, I'm just dreamin anyway at this point. thanks for making me feel less deprived :-) ann On 9/12/2012 01:59, William Robb wrote: On 11/09/2012 7:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: In what way is the K-5 deficient in auto-focus? takes too long to get there, or doesnt get it right? It's pretty fast, depending on the lens, but is noticeably slower when compared to the midrange AF from the other guys. Mine is also very inaccurate under studio lights. I have to dial in the maximum AF bias to get close (really bad front focus), and unfortunately, it isn't consistent, so I never really know where it is going to focus. Under studio lights I am lucky to get an AF hit rate of 30% unless I go to live view, which combined with face detection is a decent alternative to focusing manually with the tiny viewfinder, and is accurate enough. -- 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: Pentax releases data
On 11/09/2012 10:22 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: ... with Nikon I immediately felt positively certain of its reliability. With Pentax I have to always be watchful. Boris, you have summed up my Pentax experience perfectly. I've pretty much found that if it's automated, it's gonna be wrong. Except for white balance. Auto white balance seems good. -- 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: Pentax releases data
On 11/09/2012 7:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: In what way is the K-5 deficient in auto-focus? takes too long to get there, or doesnt get it right? It's pretty fast, depending on the lens, but is noticeably slower when compared to the midrange AF from the other guys. Mine is also very inaccurate under studio lights. I have to dial in the maximum AF bias to get close (really bad front focus), and unfortunately, it isn't consistent, so I never really know where it is going to focus. Under studio lights I am lucky to get an AF hit rate of 30% unless I go to live view, which combined with face detection is a decent alternative to focusing manually with the tiny viewfinder, and is accurate enough. -- 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: Pentax releases data
In terms of what I gather(ed) from the web since Nikon D800(e) came out, Nikon's pixels are of approximately the same quality as those of K-5 (in terms of things such as DxOMark measurement, etc, but slightly more than twice the number. So, in terms of picture quality that is measure(bat)ed on the web, I would expect either parity or very small advantage to any of the players. Given that Nikon has already been on the market for a bit of time, Pentax engineers had a bit of a fore in terms of being able to tweak the 16MP sensor a bit. In terms of ergonomics and shooting experience, if D800 is as good as D700 (I have several hours of shooting with D700 in my "resume") Pentax will be facing very hard competition because, frankly Nikon is better - it simply has more features and existing ones are implemented in a better way. With Pentax I would loose shots due to mistakes in light measurement and AF misses. With Nikon I haven't lost any shots due to that. Granted, my time with D700 is tiny fraction of my time with Pentax, but with Nikon I immediately felt positively certain of its reliability. With Pentax I have to always be watchful. I am thinking that Pentax is not trying to compete with D800(e) head to head. Rather, they are trying to carve for themselves another niche - very compact semi-pro, rugged and highly capable camera without the AA-filter. They might as well ride the wave that when you're on the track in the woods or the desert, you wouldn't want to haul the likes of Nikon D800(e) and rather big Nikon lenses (such as 24-70/2.8 - huge lens). Instead, for half the price or less you can take with you Pentax K-5IIs, DA* 16-50/2.8 that will be half the bulk but not half as good in terms of results you would get from them. On 9/12/2012 5:05 AM, Darren Addy wrote: Pentax *has* to know that the are inviting "head to head" comparisons between the three "no anti-alias filter" cameras: Nikon D800E, the upcoming full frame Sony A99 (Sony's first 14-bit camera), and the Pentax K-5 IIS (the only APS-C of the bunch). Pentax must be calculating that prospective buyers are going to be impressed at what they see for $1400 less than the Sony and $2000 less than the D800E. They might just be right. -- 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: Pentax releases data
It's not bad overall. But compared to some of the best cameras it's not great n low light, and it has trouble locking on a moving object -- which would suggest it's a bit slow. It's better than any of the other Pentax DSLRs, save for the K-7, which seems to be about the same. It's good enough for me most of the time, but better would be nice. Paul On Sep 11, 2012, at 9:20 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > In what way is the K-5 deficient in auto-focus? > takes too long to get there, or doesnt get it right? > > cf the ist-d ? > > ann > > On 9/11/2012 20:25, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >> On Sep 11, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote: >> >>> On Sep 10, 2012, at 20:03 , John Francis wrote: >>> > Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade > from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. The diiferences I spot on the K-5 II are: o Better auto-focus (this is the big one from where I'm sitting) >>> >>> But they never say how much better. If it isn't an "Industry Breakthrough" >>> it is probably about the same as the K-10 to K-7 "improvement". Just a >>> little bit. >>> >> >> Ir'a hard to quantify improvements in autofocus, but the K-5 is definitely >> deficient in that regard, so I expect a substantial improvement. Hope I'm >> right. >> Paul >> >> o Improved rear LCD (brighter & sharper, but same size & resolution) >>> >>> Retina Display? o SDXC memory card compatibility (or was that added in a K5 firware upgrade?) >>> Don't remember. Don't have any of the XC cards, nor do I need them. Yet. Everything else looks to be the same as the K-5. Am I forgetting anything? >>> >>> Nothing that hasn't already been moved back behind the green curtain. (OZ) >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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: Pentax releases data
Pentax *has* to know that the are inviting "head to head" comparisons between the three "no anti-alias filter" cameras: Nikon D800E, the upcoming full frame Sony A99 (Sony's first 14-bit camera), and the Pentax K-5 IIS (the only APS-C of the bunch). Pentax must be calculating that prospective buyers are going to be impressed at what they see for $1400 less than the Sony and $2000 less than the D800E. They might just be right. -- 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: Pentax releases data
In what way is the K-5 deficient in auto-focus? takes too long to get there, or doesnt get it right? cf the ist-d ? ann On 9/11/2012 20:25, Paul Stenquist wrote: On Sep 11, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote: On Sep 10, 2012, at 20:03 , John Francis wrote: Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. The diiferences I spot on the K-5 II are: o Better auto-focus (this is the big one from where I'm sitting) But they never say how much better. If it isn't an "Industry Breakthrough" it is probably about the same as the K-10 to K-7 "improvement". Just a little bit. Ir'a hard to quantify improvements in autofocus, but the K-5 is definitely deficient in that regard, so I expect a substantial improvement. Hope I'm right. Paul o Improved rear LCD (brighter & sharper, but same size & resolution) Retina Display? o SDXC memory card compatibility (or was that added in a K5 firware upgrade?) Don't remember. Don't have any of the XC cards, nor do I need them. Yet. Everything else looks to be the same as the K-5. Am I forgetting anything? Nothing that hasn't already been moved back behind the green curtain. (OZ) -- 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: Pentax releases data
This fellow seems to be pretty high on the K-5 2s. Even comes up with a why-not-Nikon whine. Paul On Sep 11, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote: > >> On Sep 10, 2012, at 20:03 , John Francis wrote: >> Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. >>> >>> The diiferences I spot on the K-5 II are: >>> >>> o Better auto-focus (this is the big one from where I'm sitting) >> >> But they never say how much better. If it isn't an "Industry Breakthrough" >> it is probably about the same as the K-10 to K-7 "improvement". Just a >> little bit. >> > > Ir'a hard to quantify improvements in autofocus, but the K-5 is definitely > deficient in that regard, so I expect a substantial improvement. Hope I'm > right. > Paul > > >>> >>> o Improved rear LCD (brighter & sharper, but same size & resolution) >> >> Retina Display? >>> >>> o SDXC memory card compatibility (or was that added in a K5 firware >>> upgrade?) >>> >> Don't remember. Don't have any of the XC cards, nor do I need them. Yet. >>> >>> Everything else looks to be the same as the K-5. Am I forgetting anything? >> >> Nothing that hasn't already been moved back behind the green curtain. (OZ) >> >> >> -- >> 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: Pentax releases data
On Sep 11, 2012, at 7:39 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote: > On Sep 10, 2012, at 20:03 , John Francis wrote: > >>> Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade >>> from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. >> >> The diiferences I spot on the K-5 II are: >> >> o Better auto-focus (this is the big one from where I'm sitting) > > But they never say how much better. If it isn't an "Industry Breakthrough" it > is probably about the same as the K-10 to K-7 "improvement". Just a little > bit. > Ir'a hard to quantify improvements in autofocus, but the K-5 is definitely deficient in that regard, so I expect a substantial improvement. Hope I'm right. Paul >> >> o Improved rear LCD (brighter & sharper, but same size & resolution) > > Retina Display? >> >> o SDXC memory card compatibility (or was that added in a K5 firware >> upgrade?) >> > Don't remember. Don't have any of the XC cards, nor do I need them. Yet. >> >> Everything else looks to be the same as the K-5. Am I forgetting anything? > > Nothing that hasn't already been moved back behind the green curtain. (OZ) > > > -- > 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: Pentax releases data
On Sep 10, 2012, at 20:03 , John Francis wrote: >> Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade >> from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. > > The diiferences I spot on the K-5 II are: > > o Better auto-focus (this is the big one from where I'm sitting) But they never say how much better. If it isn't an "Industry Breakthrough" it is probably about the same as the K-10 to K-7 "improvement". Just a little bit. > > o Improved rear LCD (brighter & sharper, but same size & resolution) Retina Display? > > o SDXC memory card compatibility (or was that added in a K5 firware upgrade?) > Don't remember. Don't have any of the XC cards, nor do I need them. Yet. > > Everything else looks to be the same as the K-5. Am I forgetting anything? Nothing that hasn't already been moved back behind the green curtain. (OZ) -- 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: Pentax releases data
Tue Sep 11 11:58:10 EDT 2012 William Robb wrote: > On 11/09/2012 9:12 AM, Larry Colen wrote: > > > > > > It would be an interesting experiment to specifically try for moire. > > > > Post your results on pentax forums and get them all worked up about how > crappy the camera is. > You don't have to specifically try for moire. I've used cameras that > have no AA filter. It's amazing what will cause it. > Window screens, car grills, chain link fence, anything with a repetitive > pattern can cause it depending on the magnification. Back in 2007, I posted this photo with plenty of blur and moire (taken with *ist DS): http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/Zoo/IMGP7964.jpg :-) Cheers, 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.
Re: Pentax releases data
On 11/09/2012 9:12 AM, Larry Colen wrote: It would be an interesting experiment to specifically try for moire. Post your results on pentax forums and get them all worked up about how crappy the camera is. You don't have to specifically try for moire. I've used cameras that have no AA filter. It's amazing what will cause it. Window screens, car grills, chain link fence, anything with a repetitive pattern can cause it depending on the magnification. -- 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: Pentax releases data
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Matthew Hunt wrote: > >>On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM, George Sinos wrote: >> >>> I'm not sure you can learn much about the K5 moire from a D800/e >>> comparison. There is a difference in resolution and pixel size. I >>> don't know if that makes a difference, but a few of the articles I've >>> read seem to indicate it does. >> >>The physical pixel size is extremely similar between the D800(E) and >>K-5 (both are a bit under 5 microns). > > Interesting. Seems about right. 16-megapixel APS-C should be very > close to 36-megapixel full-frame. Ned seems to hint that too. :-) http://nedbunnell.posterous.com/k-5iis -- -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: Pentax releases data
Matthew Hunt wrote: >On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM, George Sinos wrote: > >> I'm not sure you can learn much about the K5 moire from a D800/e >> comparison. There is a difference in resolution and pixel size. I >> don't know if that makes a difference, but a few of the articles I've >> read seem to indicate it does. > >The physical pixel size is extremely similar between the D800(E) and >K-5 (both are a bit under 5 microns). Interesting. Seems about right. 16-megapixel APS-C should be very close to 36-megapixel full-frame. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.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: Pentax releases data
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM, George Sinos wrote: > I'm not sure you can learn much about the K5 moire from a D800/e > comparison. There is a difference in resolution and pixel size. I > don't know if that makes a difference, but a few of the articles I've > read seem to indicate it does. The physical pixel size is extremely similar between the D800(E) and K-5 (both are a bit under 5 microns). -- 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: Pentax releases data
I'm not sure you can learn much about the K5 moire from a D800/e comparison. There is a difference in resolution and pixel size. I don't know if that makes a difference, but a few of the articles I've read seem to indicate it does. Like I said, not sure. I might wait for the inevitable comparisons and test shots that are sure to be coming. gs George Sinos gsi...@gmail.com www.georgesphotos.net plus.georgesinos.com On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >>On Sep 10, 2012, at 9:34 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >>> Paul Stenquist wrote: >>> How sensitive to moire would the lack of n anti-aliasing filter make the camera? I know no one can say with certainty, but how has it affected other digital cameras? I'd like to have more resolution, but I'm concerned that the cross--hatch pattern on automobile grilles might cause moire. >>> >>> A few months ago Luminous Landscape did some comparisons between the >>> two versions of the D800. Initial tests showed the superiority of the >>> D800E (without AA filter) but several people pointed out that standard >>> capture sharpening would reduce the difference significantly. He >>> posted more samples, this time with capture sharpening applied to both >>> cameras and the difference between the two was *drastically* reduced. >>> Reichmann insisted that the difference would be apparent in print but >>> I really think he's kidding himself here. Differences in print are >>> always *less* than pixel-peeped 100% views and after seeing his tests >>> I wouldn't pay extra for a camera without an anti-aliasing filter. >>> >>Thanks Mark. Good to know. > > The Luminous landscape page is here: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_d800e_first_comparison.shtml > Scroll all the way to the bottom to see the final sharpened > comparison. The top image (D800E without AA filter) looks a hair > sharper -- but nowhere near enough (in my opinion) to show up in a > print. I also notice he rendered the non-AA image with a little more > contrast than the one from the camera with the AA filter; extra > contrast always gives a subjective impression of additional sharpness. > I brought them both into Photoshop and equalized the black and white > levels of both images; they were virtually indistinguishable at that > point. > > Mind you, I think Reichmann's right about moire being an > over-emphasized bogeyman. You might see it in fine weave like cloth > but probably only rarely then. I can't see car grilles ever being a > problem. At equal pricing I wouldn't hesitate to buy a camera without > an anti-aliasing filter. The K-5IIs is one hundred dollars more than > the K-5II; that's pretty close, so it all depends on how much you need > that hundred dollars to spend on something else ;-) > > > > -- > Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia > www.robertstech.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. -- 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: Pentax releases data
On Sep 11, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > The Luminous landscape page is here: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_d800e_first_comparison.shtml > Scroll all the way to the bottom to see the final sharpened > comparison. The top image (D800E without AA filter) looks a hair > sharper -- but nowhere near enough (in my opinion) to show up in a > print. I also notice he rendered the non-AA image with a little more > contrast than the one from the camera with the AA filter; extra > contrast always gives a subjective impression of additional sharpness. > I brought them both into Photoshop and equalized the black and white > levels of both images; they were virtually indistinguishable at that > point. > > Mind you, I think Reichmann's right about moire being an > over-emphasized bogeyman. You might see it in fine weave like cloth > but probably only rarely then. I can't see car grilles ever being a > problem. At equal pricing I wouldn't hesitate to buy a camera without > an anti-aliasing filter. The K-5IIs is one hundred dollars more than > the K-5II; that's pretty close, so it all depends on how much you need > that hundred dollars to spend on something else ;-) It would be an interesting experiment to specifically try for moire. I'd print a target with various line spacings, and knowing the resolution of the sensor, I'd know where moire should be a visible effect. I'd take photos with the camera a bit closer than it should be noticeable, at a range of f-stops, both hand held and on a tripod. Move the camera back and repeat. It would also be interesting to try the same experiment with red, blue and green lines on white and on black. I doubt that it would show much of any practical use to photographers, but I do think it might be an interesting demo for high school science students.What I bet it would mostly show is the effects of diffraction. I wonder if it would also show the effects of diffraction being different at different wavelengths. -- 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: Pentax releases data
On Sep 10, 2012, at 22:03 , John Francis wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 07:59:23PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: >>> so how fast will the current K-5 body drop in price ? :-) >>> >>> It's already down to $895. I guess it depends on how many they have left. >>> If the supply is scant, it may stay right where it is. >> >> Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade >> from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. > > The diiferences I spot on the K-5 II are: > > o Better auto-focus (this is the big one from where I'm sitting) > > o Improved rear LCD (brighter & sharper, but same size & resolution) > > o SDXC memory card compatibility (or was that added in a K5 firware upgrade?) > K7 (and I would expect K5) are SDXC compatible with firmware upgrades. -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: Pentax releases data
Paul Stenquist wrote: >On Sep 10, 2012, at 9:34 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >>> How sensitive to moire would the lack of n anti-aliasing filter make the >>> camera? I know no one can say with certainty, but how has it affected >>> other digital cameras? I'd like to have more resolution, but I'm concerned >>> that the cross--hatch pattern on automobile grilles might cause moire. >> >> A few months ago Luminous Landscape did some comparisons between the >> two versions of the D800. Initial tests showed the superiority of the >> D800E (without AA filter) but several people pointed out that standard >> capture sharpening would reduce the difference significantly. He >> posted more samples, this time with capture sharpening applied to both >> cameras and the difference between the two was *drastically* reduced. >> Reichmann insisted that the difference would be apparent in print but >> I really think he's kidding himself here. Differences in print are >> always *less* than pixel-peeped 100% views and after seeing his tests >> I wouldn't pay extra for a camera without an anti-aliasing filter. >> >Thanks Mark. Good to know. The Luminous landscape page is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon_d800_d800e_first_comparison.shtml Scroll all the way to the bottom to see the final sharpened comparison. The top image (D800E without AA filter) looks a hair sharper -- but nowhere near enough (in my opinion) to show up in a print. I also notice he rendered the non-AA image with a little more contrast than the one from the camera with the AA filter; extra contrast always gives a subjective impression of additional sharpness. I brought them both into Photoshop and equalized the black and white levels of both images; they were virtually indistinguishable at that point. Mind you, I think Reichmann's right about moire being an over-emphasized bogeyman. You might see it in fine weave like cloth but probably only rarely then. I can't see car grilles ever being a problem. At equal pricing I wouldn't hesitate to buy a camera without an anti-aliasing filter. The K-5IIs is one hundred dollars more than the K-5II; that's pretty close, so it all depends on how much you need that hundred dollars to spend on something else ;-) -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.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: Pentax releases data
> > So in a nutshell, the main differences are the improved AF, new video modes > and the removal of the AA filter? > > I relly wish it had flash sync of 1/250, that would be awesome. > > Can somebody explain to me the main difference between the K5II and the > K5IIs? Is it just the AA filter? Is that a significant enough difference to > warrant two completely different bodies being released? A bit confused here? > > (and gutted that there is no FF as promised, but let's not talk about that! > Lol)... Wondering if it will be able to be tethered?! > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 11/09/2012, at 11:43 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> Thanks Mark. Good to know. >> >> Paul >> On Sep 10, 2012, at 9:34 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >>> Paul Stenquist wrote: >>> How sensitive to moire would the lack of n anti-aliasing filter make the camera? I know no one can say with certainty, but how has it affected other digital cameras? I'd like to have more resolution, but I'm concerned that the cross--hatch pattern on automobile grilles might cause moire. >>> >>> A few months ago Luminous Landscape did some comparisons between the >>> two versions of the D800. Initial tests showed the superiority of the >>> D800E (without AA filter) but several people pointed out that standard >>> capture sharpening would reduce the difference significantly. He >>> posted more samples, this time with capture sharpening applied to both >>> cameras and the difference between the two was *drastically* reduced. >>> Reichmann insisted that the difference would be apparent in print but >>> I really think he's kidding himself here. Differences in print are >>> always *less* than pixel-peeped 100% views and after seeing his tests >>> I wouldn't pay extra for a camera without an anti-aliasing filter. >>> >>> -- >>> Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia >>> www.robertstech.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. >> >> >> -- >> 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: Pentax releases data
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 07:59:23PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > >On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > > >> so how fast will the current K-5 body drop in price ? :-) > > > >It's already down to $895. I guess it depends on how many they have left. If > >the supply is scant, it may stay right where it is. > > Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade > from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. The diiferences I spot on the K-5 II are: o Better auto-focus (this is the big one from where I'm sitting) o Improved rear LCD (brighter & sharper, but same size & resolution) o SDXC memory card compatibility (or was that added in a K5 firware upgrade?) Everything else looks to be the same as the K-5. Am I forgetting anything? -- 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: Pentax releases data
Thanks Mark. Good to know. Paul On Sep 10, 2012, at 9:34 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> How sensitive to moire would the lack of n anti-aliasing filter make the >> camera? I know no one can say with certainty, but how has it affected >> other digital cameras? I'd like to have more resolution, but I'm concerned >> that the cross--hatch pattern on automobile grilles might cause moire. > > A few months ago Luminous Landscape did some comparisons between the > two versions of the D800. Initial tests showed the superiority of the > D800E (without AA filter) but several people pointed out that standard > capture sharpening would reduce the difference significantly. He > posted more samples, this time with capture sharpening applied to both > cameras and the difference between the two was *drastically* reduced. > Reichmann insisted that the difference would be apparent in print but > I really think he's kidding himself here. Differences in print are > always *less* than pixel-peeped 100% views and after seeing his tests > I wouldn't pay extra for a camera without an anti-aliasing filter. > > -- > Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia > www.robertstech.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. -- 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: Pentax releases data
Paul Stenquist wrote: >How sensitive to moire would the lack of n anti-aliasing filter make the >camera? I know no one can say with certainty, but how has it affected >other digital cameras? I'd like to have more resolution, but I'm concerned >that the cross--hatch pattern on automobile grilles might cause moire. A few months ago Luminous Landscape did some comparisons between the two versions of the D800. Initial tests showed the superiority of the D800E (without AA filter) but several people pointed out that standard capture sharpening would reduce the difference significantly. He posted more samples, this time with capture sharpening applied to both cameras and the difference between the two was *drastically* reduced. Reichmann insisted that the difference would be apparent in print but I really think he's kidding himself here. Differences in print are always *less* than pixel-peeped 100% views and after seeing his tests I wouldn't pay extra for a camera without an anti-aliasing filter. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.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: Pentax releases data
On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:59 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: >> >>> so how fast will the current K-5 body drop in price ? :-) >> >> It's already down to $895. I guess it depends on how many they have left. If >> the supply is scant, it may stay right where it is. > > Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade > from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. If the autofocus is truly better, that's enough to make me want one. I'll keep the K-5 I have and replace my K-7 backup. How sensitive to moire would the lack of n anti-aliasing filter make the camera? I know no one can say with certainty, but how has it affected other digital cameras? I'd like to have more resolution, but I'm concerned that the cross--hatch pattern on automobile grilles might cause moire. Paul > > -- > Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia > www.robertstech.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. -- 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: Pentax releases data
Paul Stenquist wrote: >On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > >> so how fast will the current K-5 body drop in price ? :-) > >It's already down to $895. I guess it depends on how many they have left. If >the supply is scant, it may stay right where it is. Agreed. These new cameras aren't going to tempt many people to upgrade from a K-5. They're probably not intended to. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.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: Pentax releases data
When the K-7 was announced the K20D dropped to ~$600 within 6 weeks and stayed there pretty much until the reputable retailers were sold out. I don't remember exactly what happened with the K-7 but Pentax tried to stop it from taking a precipitous nose dive by keeping it in the line, but deep discounting seemed to be the rule. I just didn't see any particular reason to upgrade from the K20D to the K-7 On 9/10/2012 7:21 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: so how fast will the current K-5 body drop in price ? :-) ann On 9/10/2012 19:19, Paul Stenquist wrote: http://www.pentaximaging.com/dslr/K-5_II http://www.pentaximaging.com/dslr/K-5_IIs http://www.pentaximaging.com/hybrid/Q10 http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses http://www.pentaximaging.com/digital-camera/X-5_Silver -- Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthly 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: Pentax releases data
It's already down to $895. I guess it depends on how many they have left. If the supply is scant, it may stay right where it is. Paul On Sep 10, 2012, at 7:21 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > so how fast will the current K-5 body drop in price ? :-) > > ann > > On 9/10/2012 19:19, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/dslr/K-5_II >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/dslr/K-5_IIs >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/hybrid/Q10 >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/digital-camera/X-5_Silver >> >> > > -- > 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: Pentax releases data
On Sep 10, 2012, at 4:21 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > so how fast will the current K-5 body drop in price ? :-) Probably as quickly as people who have K-5s realize what a crappy camera it is, and how they won't be able to get decent photos without buying a K-5II or IIs. > > ann > > On 9/10/2012 19:19, Paul Stenquist wrote: >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/dslr/K-5_II >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/dslr/K-5_IIs >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/hybrid/Q10 >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses >> http://www.pentaximaging.com/digital-camera/X-5_Silver >> >> > > -- > 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: Pentax releases data
so how fast will the current K-5 body drop in price ? :-) ann On 9/10/2012 19:19, Paul Stenquist wrote: http://www.pentaximaging.com/dslr/K-5_II http://www.pentaximaging.com/dslr/K-5_IIs http://www.pentaximaging.com/hybrid/Q10 http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses http://www.pentaximaging.com/camera-lenses http://www.pentaximaging.com/digital-camera/X-5_Silver -- 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.
