Official K-5 specs !!!
Posted 22/09/2010 - 09:54
Link
Mike-P wrote:
Light or Pro?ChrisA wrote:
What do you use for this Mike?
Photomatix.What do you use for this Mike?
Big difference in the price - are the Pro features important?
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Posted 22/09/2010 - 14:26
Link
Here's a recent example. In this image the difference in light intensity across the frame was enormous. I had to pull the exposure down 1EV or so and then bracketed three shots +-/1.5EV. I had no tripod and so rested the camera on the railing you see in the foreground bottom. (In other cases I have put the camera on the ground, braced myself firmly in a corner, etc.)
Had I not bracketed, the light streaming in the window would have completely burnt out the grating, even if I tried everything possible to rescue the RAW file.
old winding way on Flickr
By the way, one can "manually HDR" in an image editor rather easily. Simply stack one exposure over another, whether these were cooked from the same RAW file or not. Make the top one 50% opaque so you can align exactly. Change it back to full opacity and add a layer mask. Fill the mask with black so the top image is not displayed at all. Then paint in the mask with white, likely with a rather large brush, fill/opacity 50%. The areas you paint will show up on the top layer as an overlay. With soft edges, etc. this can look perfectly natural.
That's what I did to fix the window region.
Had I not bracketed, the light streaming in the window would have completely burnt out the grating, even if I tried everything possible to rescue the RAW file.
old winding way on Flickr
By the way, one can "manually HDR" in an image editor rather easily. Simply stack one exposure over another, whether these were cooked from the same RAW file or not. Make the top one 50% opaque so you can align exactly. Change it back to full opacity and add a layer mask. Fill the mask with black so the top image is not displayed at all. Then paint in the mask with white, likely with a rather large brush, fill/opacity 50%. The areas you paint will show up on the top layer as an overlay. With soft edges, etc. this can look perfectly natural.
That's what I did to fix the window region.
Posted 22/09/2010 - 14:36
Link
ChrisA wrote:
But I'm more a 'take photographs during a walk in the fells', than a 'lug a tripod up to a spot and wait for the light' kind of person, which does place a few limitations.
Ditto.But I'm more a 'take photographs during a walk in the fells', than a 'lug a tripod up to a spot and wait for the light' kind of person, which does place a few limitations.
ChrisA wrote:
Light or Pro?
Big difference in the price - are the Pro features important?
Just for basic stuff light is fine, pro is only if you want to go oveboard and make everything look really false.
Light or Pro?
Big difference in the price - are the Pro features important?
Posted 22/09/2010 - 16:17
Link
Algernon wrote:
I think your complicating this far too much especially bringing in audio.
The number of colours you have does not increase the dynamic range. It might make it possible to measure it more accurately, between the lowest and highest, but who's interested in measuring the DR to 0.00001 of a stop anyway.
In it's simplest form a B&W bitmap has two RGB colours 0,0,0 and 255,255,255. You could convert these to 24 bit values but it wouldn't change the range.
The same would be true of a simple grey 3 colour bitmap with 127,127,127 as mid grey (that's not its true value just an illustration). You could record these in a bitmap file with just 3 possible values... or you could convert to 24 bit, but the visual values would remain the same. And if you had a camera that just read the three zone values it wouldn't improve the dynamic range no matter how many bits were recorded they still convert back to the original three.
Yup that's why the dynamic range is firstly determined by the sensor and then by the number of bits in the digital signal path. I'd be interested to konw the DR of the sensors.
I think your complicating this far too much especially bringing in audio.
The number of colours you have does not increase the dynamic range. It might make it possible to measure it more accurately, between the lowest and highest, but who's interested in measuring the DR to 0.00001 of a stop anyway.
In it's simplest form a B&W bitmap has two RGB colours 0,0,0 and 255,255,255. You could convert these to 24 bit values but it wouldn't change the range.
The same would be true of a simple grey 3 colour bitmap with 127,127,127 as mid grey (that's not its true value just an illustration). You could record these in a bitmap file with just 3 possible values... or you could convert to 24 bit, but the visual values would remain the same. And if you had a camera that just read the three zone values it wouldn't improve the dynamic range no matter how many bits were recorded they still convert back to the original three.
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 22/09/2010 - 17:28
Link
Smeggypants wrote:
Yup that's why the dynamic range is firstly determined by the sensor and then by the number of bits in the digital signal path. I'd be interested to know the DR of the sensors.
Isn't the DxOMark sensor test any use. Obviously the K-5 hasn't been done yet. linkYup that's why the dynamic range is firstly determined by the sensor and then by the number of bits in the digital signal path. I'd be interested to know the DR of the sensors.
The K7 comes out worse than the K20D and K-x
Anyone using 200ISO instead of 100ISO on a K20D could be losing almost 1 stop of DR
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Posted 23/09/2010 - 03:38
Link
Algernon wrote:
Yes that's great! - cheers!Smeggypants wrote:
Yup that's why the dynamic range is firstly determined by the sensor and then by the number of bits in the digital signal path. I'd be interested to know the DR of the sensors.
Isn't the DxOMark sensor test any use. Yup that's why the dynamic range is firstly determined by the sensor and then by the number of bits in the digital signal path. I'd be interested to know the DR of the sensors.
Quote:
Obviously the K-5 hasn't been done yet. link
The K7 comes out worse than the K20D and K-x
Anyone using 200ISO instead of 100ISO on a K20D could be losing almost 1 stop of DR
I'm not shocked at that at all. In fact you'd expect to lose around a stop or 1EV or 6dB or 1bit for every halving in light level.Obviously the K-5 hasn't been done yet. link
The K7 comes out worse than the K20D and K-x
Anyone using 200ISO instead of 100ISO on a K20D could be losing almost 1 stop of DR
Using a higher ISO means turning up the gain on the sensor as there's less light input for a given aperture/shutter speed. Turning up the gain means you turn up the noise level as well and that's why the picture gets noisier and noisier at higher and higher ISOs.
The K-X really is impressive. it's dreadful that the K-7 and K20D should be so much worse.
Based on the one pic I've seen of the K-5 at 6400 and comparing it to my K20D at 1600 I would expect the graph of the K-5 to be only slightly better than the K-X. unless it has higher headroom that the K-X
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Posted 23/09/2010 - 09:13
Link
The K-x is really good for an APS-C camera and it only uses 12 bits. The D300s uses 14 bits, but still hasn't got the DR of the K-x. The Sony Alpha 700 has the same pixel pitch and 12 bits per pixel, but also gets beaten.
DxO LINK
DxO LINK
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Posted 23/09/2010 - 09:28
Link
Algernon wrote:
The K-x is really good for an APS-C camera and it only uses 12 bits. The D300s uses 14 bits, but still hasn't got the DR of the K-x. The Sony Alpha 700 has the same pixel pitch and 12 bits per pixel, but also gets beaten.
Not quite sure why you'd choose to compare it against those two - the D300s is a much higher-spec camera aimed at a different market (although effectively) replaced by the D7000, and the Alpha 700 is discontinued.The K-x is really good for an APS-C camera and it only uses 12 bits. The D300s uses 14 bits, but still hasn't got the DR of the K-x. The Sony Alpha 700 has the same pixel pitch and 12 bits per pixel, but also gets beaten.
Just to show that DxO DR figures don't tell you much, Kx vs FF ...Kx "beats" D700 and 5DII (orly?:mrgreen
Still shooting in the dark (literally and metaphorically)...
Posted 23/09/2010 - 10:15
Link
flossie wrote:
Not quite sure why you'd choose to compare it against those two - the D300s is a much higher-spec camera aimed at a different market (although effectively) replaced by the D7000, and the Alpha 700 is discontinued.
Just to show that DxO DR figures don't tell you much, Kx vs FF ...Kx "beats" D700 and 5DII (orly?:mrgreen
The only reason I chose those two is that I know people who moved to them from Pentax and the Alpha 700 has the same pixel pitch as the K-x. I haven't a clue why you have chosen two FF cameras costing over £2,000 each with much larger pixel pitches?Not quite sure why you'd choose to compare it against those two - the D300s is a much higher-spec camera aimed at a different market (although effectively) replaced by the D7000, and the Alpha 700 is discontinued.
Just to show that DxO DR figures don't tell you much, Kx vs FF ...Kx "beats" D700 and 5DII (orly?:mrgreen
The Pentax metering looks more accurate than the Nikon and Canon? The Canon looks to be half a stop out
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff
Algi
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
4839 posts
19 years
South West London
I've just come back from a week in the Lake District, and there was a lot of bright cloud about. In many cases, bracketing like crazy, it was impossible to get anywhere close to usable exposure for the hills without burning out great swathes of sky. It drove me nuts.
But I'm more a 'take photographs during a walk in the fells', than a 'lug a tripod up to a spot and wait for the light' kind of person, which does place a few limitations.
I hadn't realised that HDR apps were good enough to stitch together frames that weren't entirely coincident, though, so I may just leave the camera in 'bang off the whole bracket' mode next time.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.