All Forum Comments
Comment by ChrisA posted on Full Frame - Here we go again at 28/12/2011 - 12:47
Mike-P wrote:
Hows the AF on the 17-70mm now?
Ok with +7.Hows the AF on the 17-70mm now?
Comment by ChrisA posted on Boxing day 2011 at 28/12/2011 - 12:23
grahamwalton wrote:
Rugby ?
Getting warmer Rugby ?
Here's another clue..
[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/Christmas%202011/IMGP0690.jpg[/IMG]
Comment by ChrisA posted on Boxing day 2011 at 28/12/2011 - 11:47
walkeja wrote:
Leamington Spa?
Nope, but warmish Leamington Spa?
Comment by ChrisA posted on Boxing day 2011 at 28/12/2011 - 11:38
davidstorm wrote:
I think this may be because it has a CCD sensor (not CMOS like the K-x) and this type of sensor gives pictures a more organic quality. I've seen similar opinions of the K10 - what do others think?
I moved to the K-5 from the K10D in August, so that's my only frame of reference.I think this may be because it has a CCD sensor (not CMOS like the K-x) and this type of sensor gives pictures a more organic quality. I've seen similar opinions of the K10 - what do others think?
Without knowing what you mean by 'organic', I'd say this...
I much prefer the K-5 images. Quite apart from the hugely improved dynamic range, noiselessness, and better auto-WB, they seem more natural to my eye.
Comment by ChrisA posted on K-X to K-5 upgrade worthwhile? at 27/12/2011 - 23:50
thespirit3 wrote:
Apart from the extreme ISO shots I thought the K-X actually looks as good, if not better.
Really?Apart from the extreme ISO shots I thought the K-X actually looks as good, if not better.
I compared K-5 (ISO 100, Fine sharpness) with K-x, and the K-5 one is quite a lot better.
However, the differences at the edges are much greater than the diffrences in the centre. This suggests to me that the lenses are having a significant effect on the results.
I think you have to be extremely wary before you base a buying decision on a comparison like this.
You should really play with them both before deciding. And don't just compare IQ - compare handling and controls too. You have to live with the thing, after all.
Comment by ChrisA posted on K-X to K-5 upgrade worthwhile? at 27/12/2011 - 23:25
alun wrote:
No idea where it is, but was the shot with your K5?
Yes. For those without EXIF Viewer:No idea where it is, but was the shot with your K5?
K-5 (17-70), 1/3s, F5, ISO 1000, 28mm.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Boxing day 2011 at 27/12/2011 - 22:48
Out and about with the 17-70 last night.
[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/Christmas%202011/IMGP0655-850-3.jpg[/IMG]
Here's a clue where I was:
[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/Christmas%202011/IMGP0689.jpg[/IMG]
Any guesses?
C&C appreciated on the church picture.
[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/Christmas%202011/IMGP0655-850-3.jpg[/IMG]
Here's a clue where I was:
[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Public/Christmas%202011/IMGP0689.jpg[/IMG]
Any guesses?
C&C appreciated on the church picture.
Comment by ChrisA posted on Boxing day 2011 at 27/12/2011 - 22:42
Daydreamjay wrote:
You are correct that the testing is conclusive.
But not peer-reviewed You are correct that the testing is conclusive.
Give us an idea of the EV values you're actually using, the focal length, the distance from subject, and the apertures, and I expect there are a few here that would be up for attempting to duplicate your conditions.
Since without actually returning it, you can't check this bit on your own:
Daydreamjay wrote:
...I suspect that it isn't a fault with my camera and therefore returning it will not sort the problem...
...I suspect that it isn't a fault with my camera and therefore returning it will not sort the problem...
Comment by ChrisA posted on Completely Dejected (auto focus K5) at 27/12/2011 - 20:24
... now displays K-5 DNGs correctly.
3.8 showed them way too dark, and with a nasty coloured 10 (approx) pixel multi-coloured stripe down the right hand side.
3.9 now seems Ok.
Thought some people might like to know
3.8 showed them way too dark, and with a nasty coloured 10 (approx) pixel multi-coloured stripe down the right hand side.
3.9 now seems Ok.
Thought some people might like to know
Comment by ChrisA posted on Picasa 3.9.0 at 27/12/2011 - 19:55
And a raft of other improvements.