Swap: K3 for K5IIs +Da35mm


aliengrove

Link Posted 21/05/2014 - 18:11
I'm interested in swapping my K3 for a K5IIs (plus a lens). This may sound a bit odd, but unfortunately the K3 has proved to not be much good for aerial photography. I think it's partly because it has too many pixels for shooting through an inch of laminated glass.

On the ground, it's a fantastic camera, by far the best camera I've owned. For aerial shots, however, the RAW files can't stand the extreme processing needed to get rid of excessive haze, the distortion of the windows shows up more, and for some reason I can't work out, it's very difficult to get the WB correct. On the ground, WB is never a problem, and I can't work out why it should struggle so much with WB from shots taken at altitude.

I've gone back to using my K5 for most aerial shots, but I really need a camera with no AA filter, as proved by comparisons between my GR and K5. The camera is a couple of months old, boxed, in excellent condition, with screen protectors fitted. Shutter count is around 1500. It was bought from a reputable dealer in Hong Kong (I've bought a lot of gear from them, including my 15mm Ltd and Ricoh GR), so doesn't have the two year warranty you get from a Pro dealer in the UK.

I'd be interested in swapping the camera for a K5IIs plus a lens, preferably a DA 35mm. Anyone interested?
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook

pengbai

Link Posted 21/05/2014 - 19:24
PM sent

Epithet Man

Link Posted 21/05/2014 - 19:26
Could this be anything to do with a different response to UV (which is presumably going to show up more at altitude)?

aliengrove

Link Posted 21/05/2014 - 19:35
PM's all replied to.

David, that's what I'm thinking. I've tried 3 different UV filters and they haven't made an iota of difference. I'm also sometimes getting a bit of smearing on greens from altitude, and on the ground I get none at all. It's all very strange.
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook

aliengrove

Link Posted 21/05/2014 - 19:41
I've had so many offers by PM that I'll take the one that offers the best lens, which needs to be a fast prime or zoom....
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook

aliengrove

Link Posted 23/05/2014 - 09:56
Due to some information I've discovered/been sent I am going to persevere with the K3 for a while. I'll give it until I'm back in the UK in July, and if I still can't get it doing what I want I'll sell it then.

Apologies for wasting anyone's time.
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook

davidstorm

Link Posted 23/05/2014 - 17:43
What is the information you have discovered Jon? Is it worth sharing with us so that other K-3 owners might benefit from it?

Regards
David
Flickr

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

aliengrove

Link Posted 24/05/2014 - 01:37
David, I'm still trying to get my head round some of it, and will post more detail when I have. I think I'm dealing with effects caused by shooting in a high UV environment, possibly aggravated by prismatic effects from the aircraft windows. I also think the effects may be worse with a higher pixel density, ie 24mp as opposed to 16mp on the same sized sensor.

An example of the stuff I'm trying to work out is here, the link provided by someone on another site (Z). Interestingly, this paper was all based on experiments with a K5. The findings here are mainly to do with low-key scenes, while I am dealing with low contrast (very low in a lot of cases), often with a very low dynamic range (if no sky is involved).

I'm going to experiment with using different white balances (even ridiculous ones) to see if a) I get better focus accuracy, and b) if a different WB might actually lessen the green smearing I sometimes get. However, my experiences in IR lead me to think I probably need a UV filter with a cut-off of at least 450nm instead of 420nm. A standard UV (420nm) filter makes no difference at all. I've not been able to find such a filter anywhere, probably as they will affect colour reproduction. My 665nm IR camera is affected very much less by atmospheric haze, and also achieves better focus than both my K5 and K3. My GR seems unaffected. My experiments in processing 665nm images makes me think I can deal with any colour shifts presented by images shot above 450 or even 470nm.

If anyone fancies going through the article and letting me know their thoughts, I'd be very interested to hear them. Meanwhile, I also have some other esoteric stuff to sift through and then if anyone's interested I'll post more stuff. Also, if anyone knows where I could find a filter that blocks everything below 450-470nm, I'd be extremely grateful for the info.
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook
Last Edited by aliengrove on 24/05/2014 - 01:48

aliengrove

Link Posted 24/05/2014 - 01:59
I've copied my last post to the thread I'd previously started about this problem, as it's probably a more appropriate place for it if anyone wants to continue the discussion.....
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook

kh1234567890

Link Posted 24/05/2014 - 02:26
aliengrove wrote:
Also, if anyone knows where I could find a filter that blocks everything below 450-470nm, I'd be extremely grateful for the info.

Wratten #2, #3 or #4 (the yellow ones) would normally be used for aero film shots, god knows what they'll do on digital ...
Flickr Stream

aliengrove

Link Posted 24/05/2014 - 02:38
Thanks, might try one....got to be worth a try.

Meanwhile, link to the other thread. If a mod wants to look this one, it will save duplication.
Flurble

My Website
PPG
flickr
G+
Facebook

gartmore

Link Posted 24/05/2014 - 06:06
Those filters are for black and white film
Ken
“We must avoid however, snapping away, shooting quickly and without thought, overloading ourselves with unnecessary images that clutter our memory and diminish the clarity of the whole.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson -
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.