Time for a new DSLR sensor??

You can judge whether or not my pictures are sharp by looking at my A3 prints, for which a visit to ADAPS on a competition night would be needed, or by visiting ePHOTOzine and looking at my portfolio under the name johnriley1uk By all means let me know what you think, be it positive or negative, all comments are always welcomed.

The point about sharpening is that it has to happen, be it in camera or in Photoshop, and the processing power in Photoshop is very much greater. So in camera sharpening is relatively primitive and will give rise to artifacts, whereas proper handling in Photoshop will give much superior results. This is why we are pleased that Pentax do not over-sharpen the in-camera images. For the more casual user, they will find the compact digital cameras (Pentax included) will be more aggressively sharpened in camera and more nearly ready for printing.

No, I don't know of anyone who has performed what I would consider to be a full and proper test. Magazines these days are relatively trivial in their approach and only summarise and simplify. A real test would be the purview of the lens designers themselves. Practical tests will reveal to the individual user whether or not a product fulfills their own particular requirements. Theese sort of tests we can all do ourselves with a bit of thought and some careful and consistent technique. Might be a good subject for an article.

The sort of tests I have done have scratched the surface of the subject, and have usually been to prove a point in a presentation of some sort. Or more to establish a point really, as I don't have any axe to grind one way or another.....

Hope that is helpful, please let us know what you think of the EPZ pictures.

I, for one, am glad that Pentax holds off on the in-camera sharpening. I usually shoot RAW, but if I shoot JPEG, I'll do my own damn sharpening in Photoshop, thank you very much.

Pentax will not be preleasing a 6x7 digital. If they did, with a full -frame chip, it would cost about as much as a house. That's why they won't.

G

javascript:emoticon('')

Sad to say that I have lenses that are sharper than me...what woman would want to pose in front of a lens that'll pick-up every hair, wrinkle, and pore?
How many dpi do magazines print at? and heaven forbid, newspapers?
Sure sharp can be good but aren't we just splitting hairs?

Could this ever be the ultimate PENTAX ?




The pic of the camera and lens was actually taken with a 750Z in Tiff mode.

John, thank you for letting me view your images, I can see you take your camera with you everywhere! I will have a longer look at the portfolio and give you feedback later this week if you so wish.

I understand your perspective on the matter of image quality from the Pentax DS, that being it looks great onscreen and upto an A4 print, making it ideal for 95% of photogaphers, however my problem is that I am one of the 5% who requires big sharp prints for exhibition work.

The fact of the matter is that I only use my Ds as a replacement for my 35mm Pentax cameras. If I want a print for presentation I will use a minimum of 6x7 and generally 5x4 or if needed I will push the boat out and hire a phase or better light back.
What gets me is people rating the quality from the Ds as better than medium format.

As far as sharpness goes, sharpening an image in PS (or poorly in camera) is required with almost all digital cameras because digital sensors cant get the image pin sharp in-camera unlike film, which is why drum scans dont need sharpening in PS at all. Sharpening is simply increasing contrast between light and dark making a stronger edge (ie its faking sharpness)
However the extent of sharpening required is far less on high end cameras such as 20d and Eos1ds MII and is pretty much is not at all required with a Phase one back. The simple reason for this is that they are sharp enough and dont need saving or faking in Photoshop.

Sooo... what's the problem? Just use your 6x7 for exhibition prints... using your DS for such things is like trying to milk a chicken... or a cat...
Use the right tool for the job.

I researched my equipment (including visiting this forum) BEFORE buying equipment.
Made sure it would fit my needs.....
"Not too sharp" would in my opinion describe a business person that drops a thousand bucks on a tool that won't do the job.
"Not too sharp at all" aplies to the guy that after, wasting a thousand bucks goes around drawing attention to his own mistakes.
I guess now that digital takes the photofinisher out of the equation, some people have only thier equipment to blame for lousy photos......

You know what? That last post of mine was unduly harsh. When one is trying to be funny ANYTHING goes....but that was just mean.
I apologize.

By all means let me have your views when you have had time to assess the images.

I would go further and suggest that the *istDs is good for prints at A3 as well as A4. Don't forget that the correct viewing distance for an A3 print would be double that for an A4 to get the same effect.

Viewing distance is actually a very important aspect of print presentation, but that is for another thread I think.

In response to the last two posts, firstly as I explained I do use the right tool for the job (my 67 or Sinar). Secondly rather than a riddle to suggest I take poor photographs and blame my equipment, I think the fact that I am very pleased with the results from my 5x4 or 10x8 would simply indicate I just expect high quality results.

I am a loyal Pentax user which is why I am using the best lenses Pentax has to offer on my DSLR, to attempt to get as close as I can to the quality I need.
I love the size, looks, weight, versatility, controls and menus of my Ds but it just does not offer the quality I need for large prints. I am annoyed that in order to do professional work using a DSLR I am forced to use Canon or Nikon because Pentax are comfortable accommodating the budget market.
Pentax are soon to be launching their 4th amateur DSLR and we are yet to see even a hint of a pro DSLR camera on the horizon. I just wish they would follow lead on their competitors by having an amateur, semi-pro and pro camera to cater for everyone’s needs.

Why are you feeling the "need" to use digital in your professional work? If the 67 works and gets the job done to the quality you expect... why do you need a 35mm format DSLR to match that quality?

Anyway, just wait for the digital 645 (is it out yet?) and spend your money on that rather than a Canon or Nikon.

I dont believe at all viewing distance is a factor unless your in the cinema where it is completely blurred if your up-close (due to the tiny film size). However with photography you can go right upclose to even the largest prints and feel the texture.
For those of you that have visted Jeff Wall at the tate modern you would know what I mean, looking at tiny details such as blades of grass on a print 15 feet by 10 thats what using 10x8 or 5x4 cameras is about.

The viewers distance from the print should not be determined by the format of camera you use!

Ps. John where is the exhibition where your prints are being shown? As nice as it is to view your images on screen nothing beats viewing prints.