All Forum Comments
Comment by Tyr posted on Up or Down at 02/03/2011 - 15:51
Perfect now, and rather surreal.
Comment by Tyr posted on It only hurts when I'm larfin' at 02/03/2011 - 15:47
sterretje wrote:
I used PEF files on the K10D and the K100D. As I stated earlier, my versions of UFRAW did not support the K5 PEFs. So I switched to DNG on the K5. And below is the result of the conversion in UFRAW.
Clearly visible is a pinkish band on top; there is also a small black band at the bottom. There are some other funnies
The jpg from the camera is 4928x3664 pixels (according to spec)
The dng is 4992x3284 in UFRAW and 4950x3284 in darktable.
I think the pink band is part of the NR process and the black is unrecorded pixels. Because even though it is the same 16MP Sony sensor as in the D7000 it has a slightly different sized image.Tyr wrote:
DNG is an Adobe 'open' standard for digital negatives (RAW files). The resolution is unimportant as any DNG software can handle any DNG. No need for specific versions, and that is the whole point. You never need to worry about compatibility if a new camera supports DNG.
I know it's open, I know it's not supposed to matter.DNG is an Adobe 'open' standard for digital negatives (RAW files). The resolution is unimportant as any DNG software can handle any DNG. No need for specific versions, and that is the whole point. You never need to worry about compatibility if a new camera supports DNG.
I used PEF files on the K10D and the K100D. As I stated earlier, my versions of UFRAW did not support the K5 PEFs. So I switched to DNG on the K5. And below is the result of the conversion in UFRAW.
Clearly visible is a pinkish band on top; there is also a small black band at the bottom. There are some other funnies
The jpg from the camera is 4928x3664 pixels (according to spec)
The dng is 4992x3284 in UFRAW and 4950x3284 in darktable.
Quote:
K5 DNGs don't seem to be handled properly, but that might apply to all DNGs (never checked).
What I was trying to indicate with the latter part of the sentence is that I did not test DNG on the other cameras; UFRAW might show the same behaviour with those (or not).K5 DNGs don't seem to be handled properly, but that might apply to all DNGs (never checked).
Comment by Tyr posted on Linux image apps roundup at 02/03/2011 - 15:42
Yeah, but I do use the weather sealing and silent SDM.
You wouldn't put an F1 car off road now would you? I'll just take my tank.
You wouldn't put an F1 car off road now would you? I'll just take my tank.
Comment by Tyr posted on K5 / KX / K10 which 2 would you keep and why? at 02/03/2011 - 14:28
sterretje wrote:
Thanks
I must update UFRAW as my current versions (0.13 ubder Linux and 0.17 under Windows) don't support K5 PEFs.
K5 DNGs don't seem to be handled properly, but that might apply to all DNGs (never checked).
DNG is an Adobe 'open' standard for digital negatives (RAW files). The resolution is unimportant as any DNG software can handle any DNG. No need for specific versions, and that is the whole point. You never need to worry about compatibility if a new camera supports DNG.Thanks
I must update UFRAW as my current versions (0.13 ubder Linux and 0.17 under Windows) don't support K5 PEFs.
K5 DNGs don't seem to be handled properly, but that might apply to all DNGs (never checked).
Comment by Tyr posted on Linux image apps roundup at 02/03/2011 - 14:26
Dr. Mhuni wrote:
link
link
Actually you will find that at 16mm F4 the 16-50 is better PLUS they state that they tested a bad sample of the 16-50.Tyr wrote:
I find there is a big difference between the 16-50 and 16-45. The 16-50 is sharper by a fair bit, faster, weather sealed and quiet. The long end is not as good as the wide. It is amazingly sharp from 16-24 and drops off slowly from there.
That's strange as from what I've read about the 16-50 people tend to say it is good from about 24mm. Similarly, I've never heard anyone complain about the sharpness of the 16-45. Perhaps sample variation can account for your experience with both, Tyr. I know tests don't tell the whole story (and what I've said is based mostly on users feedback), but the Photozone stats seem to indicate that the 16-45 is the sharper lens throughout the range:I find there is a big difference between the 16-50 and 16-45. The 16-50 is sharper by a fair bit, faster, weather sealed and quiet. The long end is not as good as the wide. It is amazingly sharp from 16-24 and drops off slowly from there.
link
link
Field curvature is the problem with the 16-50 compared to the 16-45.
Comment by Tyr posted on K5 / KX / K10 which 2 would you keep and why? at 02/03/2011 - 10:55
Yep, that is what they did.
Comment by Tyr posted on Pentax and Samsung at 02/03/2011 - 10:52
Samsung's sensors were not good enough and Pentax's mount didn't have enough market share.
Samsung probably gave up on K-Mount when they looked at m4/3s and wanted to beat it with their own system.
NX still have below average sensors.
Samsung probably gave up on K-Mount when they looked at m4/3s and wanted to beat it with their own system.
NX still have below average sensors.
Comment by Tyr posted on Pentax and Samsung at 02/03/2011 - 09:43
Just don't overdo it like I did...
That is liquid behind the low pass. There is a gap, not directly bonded which could be part of the reason why the K10D is a PF monster with fast lenses.
That is liquid behind the low pass. There is a gap, not directly bonded which could be part of the reason why the K10D is a PF monster with fast lenses.
Comment by Tyr posted on Sensor Clean (wet) at 02/03/2011 - 08:55
Dr. Mhuni wrote:
I've never used one, and I know that many people love the 16-50. However, someone here - was it Pentax Dan - did a thorough comparison test of the 16-45 & 16-50 a while back, and the 16-45 more than held its own. Given that the 17-70 is an improvement on the 16-45 in every way bar barrel distortion, then I think you already have a more than adequate wide to medium zoom.
I find there is a big difference between the 16-50 and 16-45. The 16-50 is sharper by a fair bit, faster, weather sealed and quiet. The long end is not as good as the wide. It is amazingly sharp from 16-24 and drops off slowly from there.Rataegeoff wrote:
The DA*16-50 is one lens I haven't checked out thinking that maybe the 17-70 was already a suitable step up from the K10s kit lens.
Personally, I'd say that the DA*16-50 was a bit of a red herring. The DA17-70 is a good lens which apparently performs better wide (though not at 16), is significantly less bulky (and fits 67 not 77mm filters) and has a handy extra 20mm. The 16-50 is supposed to be the better performer longer (though not after 50mm:wink.The DA*16-50 is one lens I haven't checked out thinking that maybe the 17-70 was already a suitable step up from the K10s kit lens.
I've never used one, and I know that many people love the 16-50. However, someone here - was it Pentax Dan - did a thorough comparison test of the 16-45 & 16-50 a while back, and the 16-45 more than held its own. Given that the 17-70 is an improvement on the 16-45 in every way bar barrel distortion, then I think you already have a more than adequate wide to medium zoom.
Comment by Tyr posted on K5 / KX / K10 which 2 would you keep and why? at 02/03/2011 - 08:04
Nice shot!