Return...
Posted 11/06/2013 - 22:28
Link
davidstorm wrote:
Hello Jules, nice to see you back on the site! I'm not sure if the K-5II has any advantage over the K-5 mk1 when it comes to landscapes, as the IQ is identical; only the focussing and rear screen are better on the K-5II and neither of these have much impact on landscape photography.
The K-5IIS on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. It is a magnificent camera and I would highly recommend it for landscapes. Despite early reports, it is clear when you have owned and used this camera for an extended period (as I have) that it is better than the standard K-5 for image quality. I also have a K-5 mk1 and continue to use this for landscape work, but the IIs is the one I turn to first.
Regards
David
Cheers David, just the information I need!Hello Jules, nice to see you back on the site! I'm not sure if the K-5II has any advantage over the K-5 mk1 when it comes to landscapes, as the IQ is identical; only the focussing and rear screen are better on the K-5II and neither of these have much impact on landscape photography.
The K-5IIS on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. It is a magnificent camera and I would highly recommend it for landscapes. Despite early reports, it is clear when you have owned and used this camera for an extended period (as I have) that it is better than the standard K-5 for image quality. I also have a K-5 mk1 and continue to use this for landscape work, but the IIs is the one I turn to first.
Regards
David
Many thanks for that
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 12/06/2013 - 08:43
Link
Welcome back
I have found the K5IIs a huge and apparent leap up in terms of IQ from the K5. My commercial stuff has been flowers and gardens (Chelsea etc - see my gallery). True, the lens has to be up to it, (DA*16-50, DA*50-135, DA12-24), but with LR4 the detail and quality just leaps off the printed images
For me the dynamic range is perhaps the most important factor - and I've not used ND grads for a couple of years now!
Matt
I have found the K5IIs a huge and apparent leap up in terms of IQ from the K5. My commercial stuff has been flowers and gardens (Chelsea etc - see my gallery). True, the lens has to be up to it, (DA*16-50, DA*50-135, DA12-24), but with LR4 the detail and quality just leaps off the printed images
For me the dynamic range is perhaps the most important factor - and I've not used ND grads for a couple of years now!
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
(For gallery, tips and links)
Posted 12/06/2013 - 09:14
Link
Hi Matt, I found that too, I stopped using grads after I got the K5 and oddly had to start using them again with the D600 which supposedly has similar DR, figure that one out? It blows highlights almost routinely and all the DR seems to be in the shadows, where frankly I don't want it!
It's one of the reasons I want to get back to Pentax, I feel at one with the Camera's, now I've used Nikon more than any other make but Pentax still feels more natural to me and I think it shows in my imagery, it's never a struggle to get the Camera to do what you want (Apart from shooting Birds In Flight that is!)(Pun).
Pentax=
Nikon=
It's one of the reasons I want to get back to Pentax, I feel at one with the Camera's, now I've used Nikon more than any other make but Pentax still feels more natural to me and I think it shows in my imagery, it's never a struggle to get the Camera to do what you want (Apart from shooting Birds In Flight that is!)(Pun).
Pentax=
Nikon=
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 12/06/2013 - 09:57
Link
jules wrote:
Grumpy, Middle Aged, Bad Tempered, Arthritic, Asthmatic, Tinnitus Suffering, Mountain Man...
I love this signature.. Grumpy, Middle Aged, Bad Tempered, Arthritic, Asthmatic, Tinnitus Suffering, Mountain Man...
I'm not (yet) asthmatic, but can relate to the rest of it completely.
dave k
My PBase: www.pbase.com/davekitson
Posted 12/06/2013 - 12:18
Link
Best way to get over it is to get it out there and laugh at it, works with a whole load of other stuff too
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 12/06/2013 - 14:03
Link
Pentaxophile wrote:
Wow Jules, it's like a revolving door with you and your cameras! Admit it... you just missed this forum, didn't you?
He He
Wow Jules, it's like a revolving door with you and your cameras! Admit it... you just missed this forum, didn't you?
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 12/06/2013 - 15:15
Link
McGregNi wrote:
Martyn, what is it about the K5 that you feel makes it less ideal for landscapes. Is it about the camera & sensor, or is it to do with the available quality of ultra-wides you could use. I'm thinking, it must be easier to make a top notch 21mm or 24-70mm zoom for use on FF, then the equivalent APS-C sizes - (about 12mm, or 15-40 approx.) ?
I'm very happy with the K5 generally. I am, however, considering producing A3+ prints and, from what I've seen and read, the extra resolution of a FF SHOULD make a noticeable difference (lenses being equal) - although I've never seen comparison prints of the same scene taken with the K5 and a FF. That would be really useful to see!Martyn, what is it about the K5 that you feel makes it less ideal for landscapes. Is it about the camera & sensor, or is it to do with the available quality of ultra-wides you could use. I'm thinking, it must be easier to make a top notch 21mm or 24-70mm zoom for use on FF, then the equivalent APS-C sizes - (about 12mm, or 15-40 approx.) ?
From what Jules says though, I'd probably be better of investing in better glass for the K5.......
Posted 12/06/2013 - 15:26
Link
The output from the K-5 is already sized to A3, so without any interpolation we can make superb A3 prints.
Best regards, John
Posted 12/06/2013 - 15:50
Link
MartynUK wrote:
From what Jules says though, I'd probably be better of investing in better glass for the K5.......
More dots make bigger prints easier to a point but by all accounts the K5IIs is capable of tremendous resolution, with it's superb file quality you would have no bother going quite a bit bigger than A3McGregNi wrote:
Martyn, what is it about the K5 that you feel makes it less ideal for landscapes. Is it about the camera & sensor, or is it to do with the available quality of ultra-wides you could use. I'm thinking, it must be easier to make a top notch 21mm or 24-70mm zoom for use on FF, then the equivalent APS-C sizes - (about 12mm, or 15-40 approx.) ?
I'm very happy with the K5 generally. I am, however, considering producing A3+ prints and, from what I've seen and read, the extra resolution of a FF SHOULD make a noticeable difference (lenses being equal) - although I've never seen comparison prints of the same scene taken with the K5 and a FF. That would be really useful to see!Martyn, what is it about the K5 that you feel makes it less ideal for landscapes. Is it about the camera & sensor, or is it to do with the available quality of ultra-wides you could use. I'm thinking, it must be easier to make a top notch 21mm or 24-70mm zoom for use on FF, then the equivalent APS-C sizes - (about 12mm, or 15-40 approx.) ?
From what Jules says though, I'd probably be better of investing in better glass for the K5.......
The K5/II is not far behind, the extra eight megapixels in my D600 don't really amount to a hill of beans really, it's only about 1100 extra pixels across the top of the sensor and just over 700 down the way, not a whole lot really...
Cheers Jules...
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
My viewfinder is 576,000,000 pixels.
My other viewfinder is 5.76,000,000.
www.exaggeratedperspectives.com
Posted 14/06/2013 - 13:55
Link
Been away for a few days - it's good to return and see you back on the forum! I hope things are going well for you, but no you can't have your Think-Tank back
LennyBloke
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1563 posts
16 years
if your upfor it that is lol