All Forum Comments
Comment by MattMatic posted on Ullswater Today - K-5iis and K-3 at 11/12/2013 - 09:56
Robert,
There are two distinct steps in the firmware upgrade process.
One: get the .bin file on the SD card
Two: power up the camera while holding MENU
For you, without an SD card reader, step one involves powering up the camera normally, hooking to the PC, and copying the .bin file to the root of the camera's SD card (i.e. NOT under the DCIM directory, but at the same level as the DCIM directory)
Once you've copied the file over you can do the step Two
When you power up holding the MENU button you will find the camera cannot be seen by the PC.
HTH!
Matt
There are two distinct steps in the firmware upgrade process.
One: get the .bin file on the SD card
Two: power up the camera while holding MENU
For you, without an SD card reader, step one involves powering up the camera normally, hooking to the PC, and copying the .bin file to the root of the camera's SD card (i.e. NOT under the DCIM directory, but at the same level as the DCIM directory)
Once you've copied the file over you can do the step Two
When you power up holding the MENU button you will find the camera cannot be seen by the PC.
HTH!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Updating firmware at 10/12/2013 - 11:40
Well, I've just done as Smeggy suggested and compared the K5IIs and K3 using the DNG files from Imaging Resource.
My process:
* Download the K3hSLI51200NRAD.DNG & K52ShSLI51200NRAD.DNG files
* Import into Lightroom with the "None" profile setting
* Set both Camera Calibration to "Embedded" (important!)
* Adjust the K5IIs image as I would expect for a print
* Copy the Sharpening & NR settings onto the K3
* Export both at 402dpi 18x12" (my ProAM export)
* Load the resultant K5IIs image into PS and add the K3 on a layer above
My results show that the K3 is no worse than the K5 at ISO51200. In some ways it is better in that the grain is finer and there is some extra sharpness. Not a lot in it, but certainly not worse IMHO.
I had previously compared ISO6400 for both - since I regularly shoot between ISO3200 and ISO6400. Again, I would be perfectly happy with either output (and my customers would be none the wiser). Personally I'd say that's impressive given the finer pixel density and greater resolution!
It's also worth pointing out that the DNG embedded colour profile isn't that great. Using the QPcard profile for the K5IIs gives a nicer rendition for sure - but that's useless for comparison purposes as I don't have a K3 to profile
Regarding the OP question... my work from the K5IIs+DA* lenses often trumps the work of pros using FF. Would my work with a FF be better still? Can't say - maybe it would be better still - but the expense and weight of FF lenses are prohibitive for my work
The focus accuracy on the K5IIs was a massive step up from anything previous. Given the other improvements in the K3, and (to my mind) the small change in IQ at real-world print sizes at high ISO along with 50% more pixels, I'd have no hesitation in upgrading...
...just wish my bank balance would allow me to
Matt
My process:
* Download the K3hSLI51200NRAD.DNG & K52ShSLI51200NRAD.DNG files
* Import into Lightroom with the "None" profile setting
* Set both Camera Calibration to "Embedded" (important!)
* Adjust the K5IIs image as I would expect for a print
* Copy the Sharpening & NR settings onto the K3
* Export both at 402dpi 18x12" (my ProAM export)
* Load the resultant K5IIs image into PS and add the K3 on a layer above
My results show that the K3 is no worse than the K5 at ISO51200. In some ways it is better in that the grain is finer and there is some extra sharpness. Not a lot in it, but certainly not worse IMHO.
I had previously compared ISO6400 for both - since I regularly shoot between ISO3200 and ISO6400. Again, I would be perfectly happy with either output (and my customers would be none the wiser). Personally I'd say that's impressive given the finer pixel density and greater resolution!
It's also worth pointing out that the DNG embedded colour profile isn't that great. Using the QPcard profile for the K5IIs gives a nicer rendition for sure - but that's useless for comparison purposes as I don't have a K3 to profile
Regarding the OP question... my work from the K5IIs+DA* lenses often trumps the work of pros using FF. Would my work with a FF be better still? Can't say - maybe it would be better still - but the expense and weight of FF lenses are prohibitive for my work
The focus accuracy on the K5IIs was a massive step up from anything previous. Given the other improvements in the K3, and (to my mind) the small change in IQ at real-world print sizes at high ISO along with 50% more pixels, I'd have no hesitation in upgrading...
...just wish my bank balance would allow me to
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on Moving to full frame at 09/12/2013 - 12:29
Having played a bit more...
I'd say the MX-1 comes up from the compact side, whereas the Q is down from the SLR side of things.
Both have a lovely finish, but by way of a quick comparison:
MX-1
- No option to save the last image as RAW
- Fewer colour modes ("Portrait" mode is my favourite!)
- Heavier
- No hot shoe (not a big issue TBH)
- More difficult to change SD card (probably use USB cable to MX-1)
+ Dual axis spirit levels
+ Flippy LCD
+ Super close 1cm macro
+ 4x zoom
+ Faster AF (at least it feels that way!)
+ Face detection (including smiles & blink detection)
Q
- Slightly lower IQ
- Slower AF
- Requirement to clean sensor (mine is set to clean on startup)
+ Save last shot as RAW very useful!
+ More colour options
+ Front selector dial is 'creative' (and I like this a lot)
+ Smaller
+ Hot shoe
+ Fractionally better quality feel to controls
+ "Cute" factor
As John suggests, if money were not an issue, then the Q7 would be excellent! But the MX-1 was almost half the price A firmware upgrade on the MX-1 to add a "save-to-RAW" option (and additional colour modes) would go most of the way for me.
Both delightful to use, with the Pentax UI which is so comfortable, they are approaching photography from slightly different angles. Both capable of excellent results!
Matt
I'd say the MX-1 comes up from the compact side, whereas the Q is down from the SLR side of things.
Both have a lovely finish, but by way of a quick comparison:
MX-1
- No option to save the last image as RAW
- Fewer colour modes ("Portrait" mode is my favourite!)
- Heavier
- No hot shoe (not a big issue TBH)
- More difficult to change SD card (probably use USB cable to MX-1)
+ Dual axis spirit levels
+ Flippy LCD
+ Super close 1cm macro
+ 4x zoom
+ Faster AF (at least it feels that way!)
+ Face detection (including smiles & blink detection)
Q
- Slightly lower IQ
- Slower AF
- Requirement to clean sensor (mine is set to clean on startup)
+ Save last shot as RAW very useful!
+ More colour options
+ Front selector dial is 'creative' (and I like this a lot)
+ Smaller
+ Hot shoe
+ Fractionally better quality feel to controls
+ "Cute" factor
As John suggests, if money were not an issue, then the Q7 would be excellent! But the MX-1 was almost half the price A firmware upgrade on the MX-1 to add a "save-to-RAW" option (and additional colour modes) would go most of the way for me.
Both delightful to use, with the Pentax UI which is so comfortable, they are approaching photography from slightly different angles. Both capable of excellent results!
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on MX-1 or original Q??? at 06/12/2013 - 13:06
There you go:
Comment by MattMatic posted on O-GPS1 Astrotracer function is phenomenal! at 04/12/2013 - 16:42
Couldn't resist having a go
Quick Photoshop light pollution killer...
* Duplicate the image (Ctrl-J)
On the top layer do the following:
* Use Gaussian blur with a very large value (e.g. 50 pixels)
(You should see a completely smooth and featureless image)
* Change the layer's blend mode to "Difference"
(You can dial the layer opacity back a bit to let a bit of feature through)
* Now tweak with levels if required
Voila! (Worked a treat on the West Yorkshire image)
Quick Photoshop light pollution killer...
* Duplicate the image (Ctrl-J)
On the top layer do the following:
* Use Gaussian blur with a very large value (e.g. 50 pixels)
(You should see a completely smooth and featureless image)
* Change the layer's blend mode to "Difference"
(You can dial the layer opacity back a bit to let a bit of feature through)
* Now tweak with levels if required
Voila! (Worked a treat on the West Yorkshire image)
Comment by MattMatic posted on O-GPS1 Astrotracer function is phenomenal! at 04/12/2013 - 15:11
The Q with a regular flash (AF360 or AF540) is just silly
With a wireless trigger it's ok.
The Q + 8.5 standard lens is teeny tiny and very light.
The MX-1 is much heavier, but initial impressions are very positive! Images are very detailed and extremely pleasing. ISO1600 is surprisingly good too!
The flippy screen is great - will be excellent for street and candid (and I see John has just posted such on epz) - and the lens is lovely. Very nice range and useful 1cm Macro mode.
Was initially worried about the response of the levered-zoom control (compared to 'hands-on' zoom of the Q 5-15). But it works very well indeed. Dual axis spirit levels are also helpful.
The MX-1 and Q are quite different beasts, but it does look like the IQ of the MX-1 is better
Matt
With a wireless trigger it's ok.
The Q + 8.5 standard lens is teeny tiny and very light.
The MX-1 is much heavier, but initial impressions are very positive! Images are very detailed and extremely pleasing. ISO1600 is surprisingly good too!
The flippy screen is great - will be excellent for street and candid (and I see John has just posted such on epz) - and the lens is lovely. Very nice range and useful 1cm Macro mode.
Was initially worried about the response of the levered-zoom control (compared to 'hands-on' zoom of the Q 5-15). But it works very well indeed. Dual axis spirit levels are also helpful.
The MX-1 and Q are quite different beasts, but it does look like the IQ of the MX-1 is better
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on MX-1 or original Q??? at 04/12/2013 - 11:25
ilovesaabs wrote:
baad link...
It worked this morning baad link...
Actually the whole of WEX has gone offline it appears
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on WEX secondhand. at 04/12/2013 - 10:46
Why not butcher a broken Pentax mount camera and make a DIY version?
I have a very beaten up K10D that may just do the job...
Where's Don????
I have a very beaten up K10D that may just do the job...
Where's Don????
Comment by MattMatic posted on Light blaster at 20/11/2013 - 09:15
Appreciate the comments David
Very useful to know how the K3 handles and where each camera excels.
Matt
Very useful to know how the K3 handles and where each camera excels.
Matt
Comment by MattMatic posted on K-3 Vs. K-5iis at 13/11/2013 - 14:19
Amazed that was with the DA L 55-300!
I'm loving my K3 too but also wish I still had the K5IIs
Matt