All Forum Comments
Comment by BigJacko posted on All my Pentax gear now for sale as I'm switching brand at 19/07/2010 - 23:20
To answer the OPs original question (from a K-x owner's perspective), I'd say a definite 'yes'. The K-x is easily the most sophisticated SLR I've ever used (and I'd consider myself 'experienced', though not with dSLRs, till now). Unless your d-i-l was using a very recent analogue SLR, I'd expect her to be blown away by the various processing modes, effects, wide-ISO ranges, bracketing, optical-previewing, live-LCD-view, face-recognition, on-screen histograms, blown highlight/lowlight warnings, in-camera jiggery-pokery and other such stuff, that can be done in the K-x.
And yes, it has some very simple 'point-and-shoot' modes too, but most importantly, it has all the serious manual (fully manual) modes that a pro would need.
IMHO, it has all the toys any experienced analogue amateur would dribble over, and some digital buffs too! The only things that (for me) would make this a truly pro camera would be a full-sized (35mm) sensor, and some lenses that were faster than the kit zooms (though the kit zooms can manage f3.5 and f4 at their close ends, which ain't bad for the price). But of course, with a pro spec, I'd expect to have paid several grand, rather than the circa £550 that I paid (for the twin lens kit).
My only hesitation in recommending it, would be the intended application. If it's going to live on a boat all its life, my gut tells me that weather sealing would be a good idea. But of course, if insurance is available, or if low purchase price is crucial, then a weather-sealed camera is going to be unnecessary/impossible. In that case, I would definitely say you'd be hard-pushed to beat the K-x, for the money. And she'll have *lots* of fun with it. I'd almost be prepared to guarantee it'll do as much, if not way more, than any analogue SLR she might've had a few years ago. I know that compared to my old analog Pentax ME Super (a classic of its time), the K-x plays 'homo-sapien' to the ME Super's 'neanderthal'.
Good luck choosing, but I think it's a no-brainer, really.
And yes, it has some very simple 'point-and-shoot' modes too, but most importantly, it has all the serious manual (fully manual) modes that a pro would need.
IMHO, it has all the toys any experienced analogue amateur would dribble over, and some digital buffs too! The only things that (for me) would make this a truly pro camera would be a full-sized (35mm) sensor, and some lenses that were faster than the kit zooms (though the kit zooms can manage f3.5 and f4 at their close ends, which ain't bad for the price). But of course, with a pro spec, I'd expect to have paid several grand, rather than the circa £550 that I paid (for the twin lens kit).
My only hesitation in recommending it, would be the intended application. If it's going to live on a boat all its life, my gut tells me that weather sealing would be a good idea. But of course, if insurance is available, or if low purchase price is crucial, then a weather-sealed camera is going to be unnecessary/impossible. In that case, I would definitely say you'd be hard-pushed to beat the K-x, for the money. And she'll have *lots* of fun with it. I'd almost be prepared to guarantee it'll do as much, if not way more, than any analogue SLR she might've had a few years ago. I know that compared to my old analog Pentax ME Super (a classic of its time), the K-x plays 'homo-sapien' to the ME Super's 'neanderthal'.
Good luck choosing, but I think it's a no-brainer, really.
Comment by BigJacko posted on K-x also for experienced photographers? at 19/07/2010 - 22:44
Maybe I'm being dim - but speaking as a fellow K-x owner (who's quite stunned by the low level of noise, and generally excellent low-light/high-ISO capabilities of his own K-x)... I'm not sure I can quite see the noise you're referring to.
That's not to say it's not there, mind. You could be spot on (and I'm still relatively new to my K-x, and have no experience of other dSLRs - only old film SLRs, and various digital compacts).
The matter is complicated by the fact that on Picasa, when I download the last pic as suggested, it gives me an image which is 1600×1063 pixels. Clearly, that doesn't match the 4288×2848 suggested in the panel to the right of the image in Picasa - so evidently, it's hard to make an accurate judgement of what you might be seeing. All I know for sure is that I'm not seeing the original - so all bets are off!
Just out of curiousity, what mode are you shooting in - RAW or JPEG? And what file-save quality and size settings have you chosen? The JPEG compression will make a heck of a difference to artefact 'noise' - but that's not really 'noise' in the 'sensor noise' sense of the word. The K-x is renowned (according to stuff I've been reading very recently) for having very low sensor noise at high ISO, compared to the K200D, et al.
So - maybe best to start by documenting the problem better, and then see if there's a way to have the actual taken image checked/downloaded, rather than a snap-of-a-snap(-of-a-snap, possibly). Every bit of 're-JPEGging' will potentially introduce yet more noise and make comparison impossible.
It might also be helpful if you can zoom in on a particularly 'iffy' area that you think is bad, so that the experts here can judge it (and I certainly don't put myself into that category, I hasten to add!)
Good luck,
That's not to say it's not there, mind. You could be spot on (and I'm still relatively new to my K-x, and have no experience of other dSLRs - only old film SLRs, and various digital compacts).
The matter is complicated by the fact that on Picasa, when I download the last pic as suggested, it gives me an image which is 1600×1063 pixels. Clearly, that doesn't match the 4288×2848 suggested in the panel to the right of the image in Picasa - so evidently, it's hard to make an accurate judgement of what you might be seeing. All I know for sure is that I'm not seeing the original - so all bets are off!
Just out of curiousity, what mode are you shooting in - RAW or JPEG? And what file-save quality and size settings have you chosen? The JPEG compression will make a heck of a difference to artefact 'noise' - but that's not really 'noise' in the 'sensor noise' sense of the word. The K-x is renowned (according to stuff I've been reading very recently) for having very low sensor noise at high ISO, compared to the K200D, et al.
So - maybe best to start by documenting the problem better, and then see if there's a way to have the actual taken image checked/downloaded, rather than a snap-of-a-snap(-of-a-snap, possibly). Every bit of 're-JPEGging' will potentially introduce yet more noise and make comparison impossible.
It might also be helpful if you can zoom in on a particularly 'iffy' area that you think is bad, so that the experts here can judge it (and I certainly don't put myself into that category, I hasten to add!)
Good luck,
Comment by BigJacko posted on Serious noise in low light at 19/07/2010 - 22:21
johnriley wrote:
...what do other marques with CMOS sensors do? If they all have NR permanently on then we have the inklings of an answer anyway.
Good tack, John. Alas, my knowledge of what the other marques do with CMOS (or even which ones have CMOS rather than CCD) is nil, currently. I might try and find out, though....what do other marques with CMOS sensors do? If they all have NR permanently on then we have the inklings of an answer anyway.
Don't get me wrong - I do think your original answer is perfectly valid. Steve Luck's book - The Practical Illustrated Encyclopedia of Digital Photography (which I highly recommend, btw - £5 in the remainder bookshops, if you can find a copy) says this of CMOS vs CCD:
Quote:
"Historically, CCDs, which are the more common of the two types, were more efficient at gathering light and tended to produce higher quality images, while CMOS sensors were cheaper to manufacture and were more energy efficient."
When I read that after reading your comment, I thought about posting it here in support. 'Cheap' and 'lower image quality' (implied) might well manfest themselves as 'noise'."Historically, CCDs, which are the more common of the two types, were more efficient at gathering light and tended to produce higher quality images, while CMOS sensors were cheaper to manufacture and were more energy efficient."
However, his next paragraph undercut me:
Quote:
"In recent years, manufacturers of both systems have worked hard to improve their systems and it is now difficult to say that one works significantly better than the other."
- so I held back from posting either, till now."In recent years, manufacturers of both systems have worked hard to improve their systems and it is now difficult to say that one works significantly better than the other."
johnriley wrote:
Have you e-mailed Pentax to ask the question?
No, not yet, but I am quite happy to do so, if nobody else has (hence the question earlier about any replies from Pentax). Would you recommend anyone in particular, or just hit them at the UK Customer Service email, and hope that it gets passed to the right person in the firm? Have you e-mailed Pentax to ask the question?
Cheers,
Comment by BigJacko posted on K-x Bulb mode write-time slow? at 19/07/2010 - 21:46
johnriley wrote:
Point taken, John (and thanks for responding - both times). Quote:
*(notwithstanding John Riley's input... but with respect, he didn't really seem to know, did he?)
I was avoiding being dogmatic...*(notwithstanding John Riley's input... but with respect, he didn't really seem to know, did he?)
But does this mean it's something the mag might consider worth of at least a query to Pentax HQ, in order to find the pragmatic answer?
Or are you not allowed to ask potentially 'difficult' questions? Having had colleagues working on an old official N*n**n*o magazine in the past, I'm aware there are sometimes invisible lines drawn that determine how far one can probe into company decisions...
Regards
Comment by BigJacko posted on K-x Bulb mode write-time slow? at 19/07/2010 - 19:11
I'm intrigued... given that we're all here on a Pentax-supported 'official magazine' forum, can anyone tell me whether the PU magazine team have challenged Pentax about this inability to turn off the Noise Reduction issue?
/nostalgia mode on/
I was Technical Editor on a couple of national computer magazines back in the dark ages (ST Format / Amiga Format), plus freelance for various others in review/technical roles - and this kind of question would've been just the sort of thing that would've been bounced at Atari/Commmodore for an 'official statement'. And if the reasons behind the decision were clear and precise, an in-depth feature (into the subject-at-hand, the problems resulting, and the solutions or reasons for lack thereof) would've been next, dealing with it in as interesting and educational way as possible.
/nostalgia mode off/
The point is, clearly, many, many people out there are bemoaning the fact that the later Ks don't allow NR to be switched off above 30sec, and that all these people seem (a) aware of the possibility of noise being an issue, but are prepared to do their own dark frame preparation and subtraction to counter it and (b) don't like being restricted in their choice of how to use the kit they've paid for.
An option in the firmware would seem like a piece of cake solution - but it's not forthcoming for any of the cameras it affects. Which at the very least, begs the question: why? I'm perfectly prepared to accept that there might be a deeper reason why this simply isn't possible... but I'd like to know it, first!
So... Pentax User Mag crew... please give me a reason to take out a subscription to your paper mag, because I'm on the fence at the mo'. I buy a lot of paper mags already, and (without casting any individual aspertions) many of them offer a lot of the same stuff as each other, and it'd be hard to slot a fag paper between them in terms of 'unique selling points'. But in theory, PU Magazine's USP should be that it has the edge in getting close to 'official sources', shouldn't it? Or does it just rewrite press-releases and act as a shop-window? I hope the former - so, please - go sic Pentax, and ask them why (if you haven't already), and don't stop till you get the skinny! You'll have my utmost respect (and a new sub), and the same from a lot of other readers, no doubt.
And forgive me if you think I'm being deliberately contentious. I'm not - really honestly. I'm merely looking at angles. It's just that with a subject like this, which causes widespread fury around the net, it seems strange that nobody from the mag team* has popped up yet and said "Oh, yeah, this old chestnut... It comes up a lot. This is why: /insert sensible sounding technical reason here for why a 'turn-off' option is pointless/impossible/" Which in turn made me wonder if the mag team knew the answer... and if not, then heck... it's a half-page of a future issue done and dusted in no time, eh? Every hack likes an article that writes itself, eh?
Regards
*(notwithstanding John Riley's input... but with respect, he didn't really seem to know, did he?)
/nostalgia mode on/
I was Technical Editor on a couple of national computer magazines back in the dark ages (ST Format / Amiga Format), plus freelance for various others in review/technical roles - and this kind of question would've been just the sort of thing that would've been bounced at Atari/Commmodore for an 'official statement'. And if the reasons behind the decision were clear and precise, an in-depth feature (into the subject-at-hand, the problems resulting, and the solutions or reasons for lack thereof) would've been next, dealing with it in as interesting and educational way as possible.
/nostalgia mode off/
The point is, clearly, many, many people out there are bemoaning the fact that the later Ks don't allow NR to be switched off above 30sec, and that all these people seem (a) aware of the possibility of noise being an issue, but are prepared to do their own dark frame preparation and subtraction to counter it and (b) don't like being restricted in their choice of how to use the kit they've paid for.
An option in the firmware would seem like a piece of cake solution - but it's not forthcoming for any of the cameras it affects. Which at the very least, begs the question: why? I'm perfectly prepared to accept that there might be a deeper reason why this simply isn't possible... but I'd like to know it, first!
So... Pentax User Mag crew... please give me a reason to take out a subscription to your paper mag, because I'm on the fence at the mo'. I buy a lot of paper mags already, and (without casting any individual aspertions) many of them offer a lot of the same stuff as each other, and it'd be hard to slot a fag paper between them in terms of 'unique selling points'. But in theory, PU Magazine's USP should be that it has the edge in getting close to 'official sources', shouldn't it? Or does it just rewrite press-releases and act as a shop-window? I hope the former - so, please - go sic Pentax, and ask them why (if you haven't already), and don't stop till you get the skinny! You'll have my utmost respect (and a new sub), and the same from a lot of other readers, no doubt.
And forgive me if you think I'm being deliberately contentious. I'm not - really honestly. I'm merely looking at angles. It's just that with a subject like this, which causes widespread fury around the net, it seems strange that nobody from the mag team* has popped up yet and said "Oh, yeah, this old chestnut... It comes up a lot. This is why: /insert sensible sounding technical reason here for why a 'turn-off' option is pointless/impossible/" Which in turn made me wonder if the mag team knew the answer... and if not, then heck... it's a half-page of a future issue done and dusted in no time, eh? Every hack likes an article that writes itself, eh?
Regards
*(notwithstanding John Riley's input... but with respect, he didn't really seem to know, did he?)
Comment by BigJacko posted on K-x Bulb mode write-time slow? at 19/07/2010 - 11:23
Bad form to follow-up one's own post, I know... but I hadn't realised we'd got to a second page until I posted my reply above! Whoops.
Thanks are also due to flossie for the tip-off about the el-cheapo Remote Control. Ordered and (hopefully) on its way.
Having said that, I'm still going to buy a 'pukka' one from my local independent camera shop - partly because I'd already got him to back-order one and call me when it arrives (and I'll feel bad if I blow him out at that point), and partly because he's such a flippin' good shopkeeper who consistently does me internet-beating discounts - and I really don't want to see him go unsupported! Lost too many good shops round these parts because the 'big-boys' vaccuum up all the trade with p***poor service. /soapbox mode off/
But yeah - it does make sense to have a second, cheapy, "lose-able" remote for those treks across fields at dead of night, or in the hissing rain! Ta for the tip.
Thanks are also due to flossie for the tip-off about the el-cheapo Remote Control. Ordered and (hopefully) on its way.
Having said that, I'm still going to buy a 'pukka' one from my local independent camera shop - partly because I'd already got him to back-order one and call me when it arrives (and I'll feel bad if I blow him out at that point), and partly because he's such a flippin' good shopkeeper who consistently does me internet-beating discounts - and I really don't want to see him go unsupported! Lost too many good shops round these parts because the 'big-boys' vaccuum up all the trade with p***poor service. /soapbox mode off/
But yeah - it does make sense to have a second, cheapy, "lose-able" remote for those treks across fields at dead of night, or in the hissing rain! Ta for the tip.
Comment by BigJacko posted on K-x Bulb mode write-time slow? at 17/07/2010 - 12:36
Some very interesting input into this thread - thanks everyone for the comments. It led me to do a lot more reading-up on DFS (which I'd not heard of before, I must confess), and the K-x. Of course, the same questions about "why didn't Pentax let us disable it over 30s?" have come up time and time again, but with no answer. So mote it be!
Thanks again are due to Chris for the tip-off about Registax. As luck would have it, I think I already own a copy, thanks to Sky-at-Night magazine cover CD from last year that I had laying around!
The one curious thing that strikes me is that nowhere can I find an 'official' comment from Pentax - even in the form of someone re-posting an email from them - which might explain why there's no option to disable DFS. Is it worth me emailing them directly, do you think? Or is that historically a waste of time?
Thanks again are due to Chris for the tip-off about Registax. As luck would have it, I think I already own a copy, thanks to Sky-at-Night magazine cover CD from last year that I had laying around!
The one curious thing that strikes me is that nowhere can I find an 'official' comment from Pentax - even in the form of someone re-posting an email from them - which might explain why there's no option to disable DFS. Is it worth me emailing them directly, do you think? Or is that historically a waste of time?
Comment by BigJacko posted on K-x Bulb mode write-time slow? at 17/07/2010 - 12:12
@Amoringello - yup, you're right. It's the same on the K-x. Just tested it to find out.
Settings:
Manual mode,
Shutter = Bulb,
Aperture = f32,
ISO200 selected,
Manual-focus (MF) set on, focus set to infinity,
11pm(ish) darkness,
IR-Remote-triggered shutter in 'one-push-to-open, one-push-to-close' drive mode.
Most importantly, Custom menu p2, item 13 (Slow Shutter Speed NR) set to mode 2 = Off.
Results:
Exposure less than 30s (even one sec less) - immediate live-mode preview for 1sec (as set), and write to SD card. Camera instantly reusable.
Exposure greater than 30s (even one sec more) - dark frame exposure of the same length, plus about another 10-15 sec (presumably to do the Noise Subtraction maths), then live-mode preview and write to SD card.
So, yeah... bit of a bummer, but not the end of the world. At least I know what it's doing and why, and I guess I can live with that. I guess I'd best have a second camera handy during meteor shower time then, eh? 15-min effective 'downtime' after a 15-min exposure could be a long time to miss out on any action, eh?
I wonder if anyone's raised this with Pentax... it would seem to be a bit silly that this behaviour is not overrideable. What do the astrophotography community make of the K-x, given this 'feature', I wonder?
Still - grateful to all for the explanations and info, though. Thanks muchly.
Settings:
Manual mode,
Shutter = Bulb,
Aperture = f32,
ISO200 selected,
Manual-focus (MF) set on, focus set to infinity,
11pm(ish) darkness,
IR-Remote-triggered shutter in 'one-push-to-open, one-push-to-close' drive mode.
Most importantly, Custom menu p2, item 13 (Slow Shutter Speed NR) set to mode 2 = Off.
Results:
Exposure less than 30s (even one sec less) - immediate live-mode preview for 1sec (as set), and write to SD card. Camera instantly reusable.
Exposure greater than 30s (even one sec more) - dark frame exposure of the same length, plus about another 10-15 sec (presumably to do the Noise Subtraction maths), then live-mode preview and write to SD card.
So, yeah... bit of a bummer, but not the end of the world. At least I know what it's doing and why, and I guess I can live with that. I guess I'd best have a second camera handy during meteor shower time then, eh? 15-min effective 'downtime' after a 15-min exposure could be a long time to miss out on any action, eh?
I wonder if anyone's raised this with Pentax... it would seem to be a bit silly that this behaviour is not overrideable. What do the astrophotography community make of the K-x, given this 'feature', I wonder?
Still - grateful to all for the explanations and info, though. Thanks muchly.
Comment by BigJacko posted on K-x Bulb mode write-time slow? at 16/07/2010 - 23:08
Splendid responses, guys - thank you SO much!
I had wondered if it might be to do with the Noise Reduction processing, but I couldn't work out why it was taking so long. Now I get it it. What Chris says makes perfect sense (and explains why I thought I heard a second shutter sound... I didn't mention this above, because I thought my memory was playing tricks on me!)
Custom Menu p2, item 13 Slow Shutter Speed NR is, I presume, the beastie in question. I shall turn that off for Bulb work, hereafter.
Many thanks for the tips, and quick replies! Better than the best Customer Support, you are!
I had wondered if it might be to do with the Noise Reduction processing, but I couldn't work out why it was taking so long. Now I get it it. What Chris says makes perfect sense (and explains why I thought I heard a second shutter sound... I didn't mention this above, because I thought my memory was playing tricks on me!)
Custom Menu p2, item 13 Slow Shutter Speed NR is, I presume, the beastie in question. I shall turn that off for Bulb work, hereafter.
Many thanks for the tips, and quick replies! Better than the best Customer Support, you are!
Comment by BigJacko posted on K-x Bulb mode write-time slow? at 16/07/2010 - 16:02
Alas, I'm new to the forum, so I can't send you a PM yet.
I'm interested in the 50mm lens and the flash unit for my K-x.
I can pay by paypal or bank transfer - no problem either way. Paypal preferred, because you'll get it quicker, and thus I might get the items quicker too!
I would like for my father in law (who lives in Plymouth) to pick up in person or (if you'd prefer) for you to drop off in Central Park area of Plymouth (once I've called father-in-law to confirm that's ok with him). He's visiting us this weekend so it'd be good to have it with him this week.
What would be your best price in that situation?
You may be able to PM me directly (not sure) but I may still not be able to respond, in which case please feel free to bung me an email address or reach me on my-forum-name at my-forum-name dot com (substituting accordingly).
I will of course understand if you'd rather not deal with a relatively new forum-member. My parole officer says I'm quite trustworthy now, as long as I stay away from gold bullion and Princess speedboats (joke, btw... )
Hope to hear from you. Regards,