http://www.gigalyon.com/en/

Utterly stupid resolution... but huge fun

Matt

Layers are your friend

Here are some (old) tutorials I wrote on layers:
* http://www.photon.me.uk/PS/ps_layers_tutorial_1.htm
* http://www.photon.me.uk/PS/pslayerstutorial.htm

Also, Googling for sky replacements:
* http://www.essential-photoshop-elements.com/replace-the-sky.html
* http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/pselements/ss/replacedullsky.htm

(But those Googled results I would personally use Layers to remove the dud sky rather than erasing!! Using a layer and mask allows you to tweak any nasty transitions.)

BTW, which version of Elements?

Matt

That was the first thing I checked! I compared previously capture K5 Mk1 images on the K5IIs screen.

The screen shows more contrast and better wide angle viewing, but the images from the mk1 were as they were

Will try and get some sample shots up soon!!

Matt

It does depend on the flash and camera you are using!

But in general, flash compensation can be found in two places:

1. In the flash menu of the camera (just press the down button and the flash compensation is there)

2. On the flash gun itself


(Slight digression...)

It's also worth pointing out that the Pentax exposure system works as follows:

i. The ambient light is metered and adjusted with the Exposure compensation value.

ii. From there, the camera's flash compensation is applied

iii. Finally, the flash gun itself applies its own compensation (if available).

If you like, the exposure compensation sets the base-line, and the two flash compensation values are added/subtracted from that base-line. It does allow you to use the Slow Sync flash mode, enter -1 in the Exposure Compensation and +1 in the Flash Compensation to get a 'properly' exposed image but with the balance of light more in favour of the flash (pushing the ambient into the background) - typically used in outdoor fashion stuff in the setting sun

HTH!
Matt

Surely it's the same!

i.e. 1mm in real life corresponds to 1.41mm on the sensor.

How that relates to what you can fit into the shot (which obviously will be less on the Q than the 110) I'd have to get me thinkin' head on

EDIT: Wikipedia Sensor Sizes and Film Formats to the rescue!

110 film = 17mm x 13mm
Q sensor = 6.17mm x 4.55mm

So, 110 is about 2.75x wider than the Q (and also a different ratio!)

It'll be fun to see your results!
(I shoved a really cheap macro/wide angle converter on the front of the Q prime lens and the results were stupidly close! Huge fun though )

Matt

Pretty sure it's much higher than 8000x
The NAND Flash chips usually have a 100,000 endurance. If the SSD does static-file wear levelling then it might be half that.
(I've worked with NAND flash at the chip level for over 12 years)

More than enough
Matt

My K5 had AF adjustments all over, and stilll in some lights it was wrong.
The MkII just works. It's almost like having new glass too!

Will try and post some shots and RAW files soon so you can have a look and play.

Matt

Unfortunately, some of John's images do show motion blur
DPreview was helpful (especially in RAW), but wasn't real-world. Based on the differences there I was happy to take a gamble on the 's'.

Perhaps it's a bit like bokeh in some ways. There is definitely a very agreeable 'something extra' to the output from camera. I need to pin down exactly what that is and find pairs of images that can represent the differences.

We're all like it in our family... and we call it something else

Matt

When I initially tried with the FA50/1.4 & DA*50-135 it was really a huge difference - compared with what I was used to from the K5. Comparing those images with images already on the card from the K5 the difference is definite and very welcome That difference is still there, and I can't put it all down to differences in conditions (given that I know full well how the K5 did perform).

The difference is trying out with all lenses, in a variety of circumstances. I can't say that you'll always see an improvement - since it depends on optics, conditions and technique. YMMV.

The comments today are tempered with the fact that the K5II may also have some minor improvements over the K5 - and obviously I can't test that personally.

What I can say is that the K5IIs is producing images that give me the "Wow" factor much more than the K5. As my comments reflect, some of that "wow" is down to other improvements in the Mk2, that may not be attributed to just the lack of AA filter. Now I'm not going to have a K5IIs and a K5II to compare like-with-like... unless you'd like to loan me one!

So far I've not printed anything - everything's been pixel-peeping. When I've done large format prints to compare the whole workflow I'll let you know

Judge as you see fit - Emporer's New Clothes or not - I'm happy with the upgrade

Matt


PS. In that context, it's "there Matt", not "their Matt"

Ok...

I've had a couple of days shooting with the K5IIs.
All good

* Focus is much, much more definite. The Mk1 was kind of "ooops, back a bit, hang on, forward a touch... yeah", whereas the Mk2 is "ziiip, focus". It knows where it's going and doesn't usually fiddle about Obviously there are conditions where it'll hunt a bit, but it really is like night & day. Even in cloudy conditions with the FA50/1.4 it knows where the focus point is.

* Focus accuracy is a revelation. f/1.4 in all lighting (that I can see in!) is just on-the-nail. That alone makes the MkII worth the upgrade (for me at least). Obviously there's going to be no difference between K5II and K5IIs in regard to focus accuracy.

* Difference with the K5 under many circumstances is negligible. Same sensor, same basic resolution. Tricky to tell 100%, but with the DA*16-50 I've got shots at ISO100 where you couldn't tell K5 from K5IIs (obviously conditions weren't exactly the same).

* With the FA50/1.4 and DA*50-135 there is a discernible difference in texture detail. I love the fine detail from trees etc.

* At high ISO it does appear there's more fine detail. Shot a load of images at Dover Castle in the range ISO3200 to ISO5000 with the DA*16-50 (around f/2.8 to f/4). Really pleased with the results. That said, I suspect there have been some subtle improvements in electronics - and DXO Mark seems to confirm that - and again, the K5II may have the same edge compared to the original K5. (Note: although it's the same sensor, the ADC electronics, power supply, etc may be improved a touch). The noise level is stupidly low and easily controllable.

Soooo....

My experience thus far is that the K5IIs does have an edge, but probably not by much. At around 17% more in money, I'd reckon at least a similar amount in acuity... given the optics are up to the job. Of course, you have to have the lenses that have very high MTF lenses, like the 50/1.4, and DA* series.

If you've not got the expensive glass - I'd say get the K5II and some new glass and you'll be happy. If you've got the glass and have the skill & experience (and don't mind the cost), then the K5IIs is luverly!

(Always happy to compare K5II vs K5IIs with the same setup and lenses if anyone's passing by...)

Matt