I see your point now... This is really interesting. I should take my
time and study it deeper. It would seem however that although noticed by
some, these effects are not very real-life important as far as
non-brick-wall shooting is concerned.
Yet it certainly is worth one's while to know more
I find how things work fascinating and always want to know more. I'm
half tempted to run some tests with my K-5 to see if I can find out i
the different color channels lose resolution by differing amounts,
which might give a few clues. FWIW, I still think the K-5's
implementation of 3200 and above
Larry,
If what falconeyes is suggesting is correct, it looks like the
firmware is actually manipulating the data. From what I understand,
these chips quickly read out all their raw data to the imaging
processor which interprets the data and applies whatever they have
cooked up in the firmware to
http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/cat/camsec/solutions/E_CMOS_Sensor_WP_110427.pdf
See page 5. It seems that they are doing further noise reduction in
hardware after they convert to digital. Verrry interesting!
There might be more to the theory that the chip is doing this before
the
Boris,
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5RAW.HTM
Here, we can see the Pentax K-5 clearly produces the cleanest looking
RAW files, though it appears to be applying some noise reduction at
higher ISOs (above ISO 1,600), which cannot be turned off. The noise
reduction applied is pretty
See also:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/118892-how-iso-3200-works-your-k-5-technical-2.html
Especially falconeye's comments.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
Boris,
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5RAW.HTM
Here, we can see
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 01:44:02PM -0500, Zos Xavius wrote:
See also:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/115-pentax-k-5/118892-how-iso-3200-works-your-k-5-technical-2.html
Especially falconeye's comments.
Very interesting. There are times like this when I seriously wish that
I could peek
Sorry for the delayed reply Boris.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/36834206
Also read the Imaging Resource and dxomarks reviews of the K-5. Pretty
much all the reviews noticed the RAW NR above 1600. Given the K-5's
output at 3200, Pentax made a good choice IMO. Their hardware NR is
pretty
K3 scores vs The Others:
http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Pentax-K-3-camera-tested-by-DxOMark.jpg
http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Pentax-K-3-tested-by-DxOMark.jpg
Images ruthlessly pulled from this Photo Rumors post:
Zos, two points that still keep me wondering:
1. I couldn't find any mention of RAW noise reduction in Imaging
resource review after this link:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K5/K5A.HTM
2. I see what the person on DPReview wrote, but I think there is a
confusion and (as explained in
The source for K-5 raw smoothing? The source for resized K3 files?
What source do you speak of Mr Boris? :P
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/26/2013 6:38 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:
Also I must add that the k-5 does some definite noise reduction to the
The source of information that indicates that K-5 applies smoothing to
RAW files even if I specifically set its settings not to do so.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
The source for K-5 raw smoothing? The source for resized K3 files?
What source do you
I love it when I'm prescient.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-versus-Pentax-K-5-IIs-versus-Pentax-K7___914_830_615
The K3 tests out at 13.4 stops of dynamic range, compared to the K5 at
14.1. By comparison, the K7 is 10.6. Interestingly, the K3 measures very
Thanks for the link, Bill.
I, too, am surprised that the K-3 does slightly better in the ISO
department. Frankly, even at web resolution, the higher ISO images
looked noiser to me. I am not surprised that there is a .7 EV deficit
for the K-3 in the Dynamic Range department. I still think that
The D7100 scores higher! Pentax is domed!
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the link, Bill.
I, too, am surprised that the K-3 does slightly better in the ISO
department. Frankly, even at web resolution, the higher ISO images
looked
In all seriousness the dxomark tests a small print. Its not the most
scientific of tests if you ask me, but I do put some value on their DR
measurements. Also no camera has hit 100 yet. At current pixel
densities their method will still yield some information until we
start getting into much
Also I must add that the k-5 does some definite noise reduction to the
raw files over iso 1600, whether that's in the imaging pipeline or the
firmware is neither hear nor there at this point. At 3200 on the k-5
you are most certainly trading resolution for image quality. I don't
have any real
On 11/26/2013 6:38 AM, Zos Xavius wrote:
Also I must add that the k-5 does some definite noise reduction to the
raw files over iso 1600, whether that's in the imaging pipeline or the
firmware is neither hear nor there at this point. At 3200 on the k-5
you are most certainly trading resolution
On 11/26/2013 4:04 AM, Bill wrote:
I love it when I'm prescient.
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-3-versus-Pentax-K-5-IIs-versus-Pentax-K7___914_830_615
The K3 tests out at 13.4 stops of dynamic range, compared to the K5
at 14.1. By comparison, the K7 is 10.6.
On 11/19/2013 3:43 AM, Bill wrote:
Missed again, Boris.
Well, it then only fits a saying that I invented on my own - we aim to
please, sometimes we miss.
Further, in my area of interest :-), contrast is usually extreme. Thus
even a minor error is what it is - an error. Now, the more DR I
On 13/11/2013 10:42 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
What is biting my ass, Bill, is my bloody cumbersome English. Let's see
if I can hit the target from the second try.
Missed again, Boris.
The measured DR is useless because it is theoretical. The measurements
were taken in controlled environment
I finally read the review. IQ looks very, very good. On par with the
K-5 in terms of high ISO. Highlight recovery looks to be about equal.
The K-5 seems to edge out slightly on shadow recovery. Probably not a
big deal in 99% of shooting situations unless you really need to push
your shots 3 stops,
And I might add that the K-3 is clearly resolving more fine detail at
higher ISOs. I think the extra noise is a non-issue. Especially with
some raw processing.
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote:
I finally read the review. IQ looks very, very good. On par with
For me, the only thing that makes me really, really want the K-3 is the
improved focusing. Sure, I might get marginally better noise levels in
low light with my K-5 -- if I can get the thing to focus.
As it stands, though, I have to keep the K-5 simply because my computer
will buckle trying
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:33:07AM -0600, Walt wrote:
For me, the only thing that makes me really, really want the K-3 is
the improved focusing. Sure, I might get marginally better noise
levels in low light with my K-5 -- if I can get the thing to focus.
As it stands, though, I have to keep
On 11/14/2013 11:41 AM, John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:33:07AM -0600, Walt wrote:
For me, the only thing that makes me really, really want the K-3 is
the improved focusing. Sure, I might get marginally better noise
levels in low light with my K-5 -- if I can get the thing to
On 14/11/2013 12:18 PM, Walt wrote:
Still, you'd think Ricoh would have learned to cater to me a little
better by now.
Learn to want what I want. You will be very happy.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from
On 12/11/2013 11:20 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Not trying to sound pessimistic or anything, but DR is the most
important aspect to me. So I get to keep my K-5 for now.
Out of curiosity, do you know what the DR of the K3 is (I don't)?
The K5 is something like 14 stops at base ISO, which is
On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/11/2013 11:20 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Not trying to sound pessimistic or anything, but DR is the most
important aspect to me. So I get to keep my K-5 for now.
Out of curiosity, do you know what the DR of the
Bill, it is purely subjective. I have suffered enough grief from K-7's
sensor and frankly, the way Pentax treats highlights in their RAW
files seems to be rather unforgiving compared with those of Ricoh GXR
(any module with 12MP sensor). So, I don't want to take any chances.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013
Paul, I would very much appreciate a screenshot or any other way I can
see and examine where it shows how you recovered these overexposed
shots.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Mark Roberts
postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html
I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
fanboy site like Pantex Forums.
The info is right there in the review. In short, there is more info to
recover in the SHADOW areas of the K-5/ii/iis than the K-3.
As we all know, if you blow out highlights, that info is just GONE.
I'm with Boris on the importance of dynamic range and completely
disagree with the point of view
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu
alexandru.sa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Mark Roberts
postmas...@robertstech.com wrote:
David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html
I
PentaxForums: fanboy or doom and gloom, I wish you guys would make
up your minds.
I think it is important to know how to evaluate information,
regardless of the source. Treating PentaxForums as if it were a
single entity with a single point of view is rather lazy thinking,
IMHO. It is a
On 11/12/2013 9:53 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html
Apparently my K-5 is aging.
Dave
Heck, I haven't even bought one yet.
--
A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant, and the crazy,
crazier.
-
P.J. Alling wrote:
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 7:17 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: K-3 review as seen through the eyes of the PF
On 11/12/2013 9:53 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html
Apparently my K-5 is
I will dig it out when I have a few minutes to spare.
Paul
On Nov 13, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul, I would very much appreciate a screenshot or any other way I can
see and examine where it shows how you recovered these overexposed
shots.
On Wed, Nov 13,
On 11/12/2013 12:51 PM, Walt wrote:
On 11/12/2013 11:43 AM, Charles Robinson wrote:
On Nov 12, 2013, at 09:50 , Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
In short, I would say that if you have anything prior to a K-5 the
upgrade to a K-3 will be amazing.
If you have a K-5, you have a very good
On 13/11/2013 9:53 AM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Bill, it is purely subjective. I have suffered enough grief from K-7's
sensor and frankly, the way Pentax treats highlights in their RAW
files seems to be rather unforgiving compared with those of Ricoh GXR
(any module with 12MP sensor). So, I don't
I went on the PF fairly regularly after i joined in 2007, it became
apparent soon after that my opinions did not matter. I was bullied
ridiculed in mky other belifs about the cameras and lenses
by several members and soon left after that,. I don't have much love for the PF
Dave
On Wed, Nov 13,
On 13/11/2013 11:00 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
The info is right there in the review. In short, there is more info to
recover in the SHADOW areas of the K-5/ii/iis than the K-3.
As we all know, if you blow out highlights, that info is just GONE.
I'm with Boris on the importance of dynamic range and
On 13/11/2013 11:11 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
PentaxForums: fanboy or doom and gloom, I wish you guys would make
up your minds.
I think it is important to know how to evaluate information,
Then why are you so bad at it?
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
What you are saying is that for reasons unknown, perhaps a side effect
of climate change, the world has gotten a hell of a lot contrastier in
the past 15 years.
bill
I'm finding that the older I get the faster the years go by and the heavier
cameras have become.
So there is no reason not to
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:17:23PM -0600, Bill wrote:
On 13/11/2013 11:00 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
The info is right there in the review. In short, there is more info to
recover in the SHADOW areas of the K-5/ii/iis than the K-3.
As we all know, if you blow out highlights, that info is just
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:02:13PM -0600, Bill wrote:
We know that the Samsung sensors used in the K20 and K7 never
performed the way they were supposed to, if they had, it's doubtful
that Pentax would have moved to Sony sensors in subsequent models.
That's one reason why I stayed with the
On 13/11/2013 1:46 PM, CollinB wrote:
What you are saying is that for reasons unknown, perhaps a side effect
of climate change, the world has gotten a hell of a lot contrastier in
the past 15 years.
bill
I'm finding that the older I get the faster the years go by and the heavier
cameras have
On 13 Nov 2013, at 19:17, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
What you are saying is that for reasons unknown, perhaps a side effect of
climate change, the world has gotten a hell of a lot contrastier in the past
15 years.
I blame the almost unstoppable rise of Manichaeism.
B
On 13/11/2013 1:49 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:17:23PM -0600, Bill wrote:
On 13/11/2013 11:00 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
The info is right there in the review. In short, there is more info to
recover in the SHADOW areas of the K-5/ii/iis than the K-3.
As we all know, if you
On 13/11/2013 1:51 PM, John Francis wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 01:02:13PM -0600, Bill wrote:
We know that the Samsung sensors used in the K20 and K7 never
performed the way they were supposed to, if they had, it's doubtful
that Pentax would have moved to Sony sensors in subsequent models.
On 11/12/2013 10:56 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html
I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
fanboy site like Pantex Forums.
Self justification? Why read a
My light meter disagrees.
Bill
No exactly. Your light meter is less sensitive than it once was.
So it only registers the same results but against a changed source.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
What is biting my ass, Bill, is my bloody cumbersome English. Let's see
if I can hit the target from the second try.
The measured DR is useless because it is theoretical. The measurements
were taken in controlled environment by people who specialize in doing
such measurements.
In reality
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html
Apparently my K-5 is aging.
Dave
--
Documenting Life in Rural Ontario.
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
York Region, Ontario, Canada
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On 12/11/2013 8:53 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html
Apparently my K-5 is aging.
Dave
My K5 got old really fast.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE
I have to say, that is a pretty comprehensive review.
As I expected the K-3 falls just a bit short in the dynamic range
department (over the K-5/ii/iis) but its advantages in other areas
would probably still make it a slam dunk upgrade overall for most. It
seems that in the AF department, owners
David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html
I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
fanboy site like Pantex Forums.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-3-review/introduction.html
I can't really understand why anyone would read a review from a
fanboy site like Pantex Forums.
I looked at a few
On 12/11/2013 9:50 AM, Darren Addy wrote:
If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be happy
with for many years, but an upgrade to a K-3 would be significant (in
everything except dynamic range).
If, like me, you have a K5 with terminally broken auto focus, the K3 is
a
It is posts like this that push me towards a K3 when I keep trying to tell
myself that I can be happy with my aging K5 (64,000 shutter actuation's).
Well, Christmas is coming, so I'm thinking I will have to ask the EPO
(Entertainment Prevention Officer) for a sweet new K3 to put under the
On Nov 12, 2013, at 09:50 , Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
In short, I would say that if you have anything prior to a K-5 the
upgrade to a K-3 will be amazing.
If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be happy
with for many years, but an upgrade to a K-3 would
On 11/12/2013 11:43 AM, Charles Robinson wrote:
On Nov 12, 2013, at 09:50 , Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
In short, I would say that if you have anything prior to a K-5 the
upgrade to a K-3 will be amazing.
If you have a K-5, you have a very good camera that you could be happy
with
On 11/12/2013 5:50 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
I have to say, that is a pretty comprehensive review.
As I expected the K-3 falls just a bit short in the dynamic range
department (over the K-5/ii/iis) but its advantages in other areas
would probably still make it a slam dunk upgrade overall for most.
63 matches
Mail list logo
