Sample .pef downloads?

Does anyone know where I can get my hands on some K-5 .pef samples (no DNG thanks) ?
Any links you can provide would be appreciated.

I've searched with google and got absolutely no-where (the PU search function didn't help much either)

I've been using Photomatix tone mapping on some old *istDS .pef files with extraordinarily pleasing results, but using .pef from my K-7 are just depressing me as they show up terrible noise in the darker areas even at 100 iso.

So, if I'm convinced that the K-5 is truly has the sensor everyone claims it has, then I'm ready to upgrade.

Many thanks

Why PEFs? I don't know if any third party software handles K5 PEFs yet.
DNGs would give you a better chance at working with other software.

If you're getting bad results, either your software or your technique are to blame.

G

Dunno about that. There are times the K7 has just awful noise in the shadows, even in bright sunlight.
I have some downright disappointing ISO 100 images.
The K7 is nice, but there are times I think the K10D did a decent job more consistently.

I have not had the K5 long enough to weigh in on whether it suffers from low ISO noise.
It certainly appears to do very well at high ISO.

But, I do not know where DNG would make any significant difference over PEF and why PEF would be preferred for testing of tone mapping.

Thanks for that, very helpful.

@amoringello
I'd like to test the pentax raw format.
The *istDS doesn't write DNG, so for what I initially want to compare, only a PEF will do.
DNG may well be fine for the K5, but I will discover that for myself once I have a PEF.

Cheers


Found some:
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/my-k5-sample-shots-from-srs-open-day-2310...

Thanks again

DNG and PEF are essential the same things there is no different in the DATA they hold it's just that the container is different.

See it as milk, it comes in various containers but they all hold the same product.

Not a good analogy Stefan

Some milk contains awful things like pus. But that's a different discussion.

I know what you mean regarding PEF and DNG though. I wouldn't have a problem comparing PEF and DNG. Same data.

That kind of statement is implying the equipment is never at fault, or never a factor in IQ. Which of course we all know isn't true.

Like you I own and regularly shoot with both a K20D and K10D. Surely you recognise the limitations of these bodies? Come on, it's not always technique and PP software.

I know for a fact given the high ISO samples of the K-5 I've seen so far that in many situations the same pic taken on a K-5 will be heaps better than the same taken on a K10D/K20D.

I've even seen K-x pics that beat K10D/K20D.K-7

I'm getting a K-5 as soon as. It won't make me a better photographer but it will give me better pics.

Thanks - I'm aware of what DNG is.
What I required was PEF. My requirements have now been satisfied.
Thanks to all for your interest.

I must say that I am completely in accord with George on this.

I have made a rather a good living from taking pictures since 1977 and I've never come across any of the problems, real or imagined, that frequently dog the pages of this forum.

Perhaps my standards and those of my clients aren't particularly high.

I will tell you this however, I will never buy a camera body from anyone on this forum when clearly so many people have duds.

John

I'd be interested in which part of technique is responsible for noise in shadows.
I'm not above blaming myself for problems, nor am I incapable of believing equipment is possibly at fault (equipment that has been proven to have other major faults in some cases).

In either case, I do not want these issues and if it is merely a step I can take to improve my personal abilities that would save a lot of money and time over repairs or purchase of new equipment.

So someone, please educate us with your wisdom, if you would please be so kind.

One of the reasons there is noises in the shadows is because the image sensor is a linear device. It capture more details in the lighter part than the dark part.
ETTR is a solution for that.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-exposure-techniques.htm

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

Without seeing the image I couldn't comment specifically but I certainly agree with Stefan's suggestion in principle.

It was tha same in film, placing your exposure too far down (to the left) on the D log E curve would give good highlights and mid tones but horrible shadows with lots of grain because there was nothing else there.

If Stefan and I are correct then perhaps 1/3 or 1/2 stop more exposure might just do the trick.

There's noise in every part of the picture. The lighter areas simply mask it better. Higher S/N ration.

More dynamic range = less noise.