Site Sponsors
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 201 to 250 of 281

Thread: Testing out a Pentax K5

  1. #201
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Godfrey
    Well - a good jpg engine is designed around the sensor and the firmware, not something that Adobe / Phase / Apple do. Careful control of the settings together with experience can produce great results, sometimes ones not easy to reproduce with 3rd party RAW programs.

    I always shoot RAW, but I recognise that lots of others don't, and produce splendid photographs - each to his own.

    However, I rather dislike the snobbery which goes with the 'I always shoot RAW' philosophy - Don't you?
    Jono,

    my shooting RAW instead of JPEG goes back very long. I used to only shoot JPEG, even back in my E1 days, and I must even acknowledge that the JPEG output of the E1 was (is) stunning. Having said that I then started to really play around with RAW. I did this first with C1 then with LR and finally Aperture. I almost never used the camera vendor sold RAW software. And I found over the years that - what most others find - RAW gives you much greater freedom compared to JPEG. So this is the reason why I am using RAW exclusively today. Whenever I try JPEG out of camera, I immediately see artefacts etc, which I almost never do when processing JPEGs from RAWs from one of the above mentioned programs.

    Why do it in camera with rather limited processing capabilities if you can do it much more sophisticated in post processing with much more capabilities. I consider it as an advantage that some companies rely just (or almost heavily) in post processing products, as this gives them a lot of experience (obviously) compared to the vendors, who might have for sure more experience with their own camera/sensor setup, but actually I can only say this for Hasselblad and Phocus and actually in this case you have again only RAW files coming out of the Blad.

    I agree that here are some camera vendors who are producing excellent JPEGs but I think you can count them on the fingers of one hand And the same limitations for changing something in your images after they are out of camera are still there. Creative filters? Well ok, they are nice and I like to play around with them, but then again I can achieve all this and much more in post processing in PS. So why bother and waste my time with camera built in JPEG engines?

    But of course everybody has different needs and preferences. In my case (and I think also in yours) the preference seems to be RAW anyway.

    The one thing which strikes me is if there are tons of comparisons from out of the camera JPEGs, as I said already above, this outcome is (has) to be based on very limited resources from in camera. What one gets there can be good in certain conditions, but in general you are limiting the possibilities of a sensor and lens and camera combo significantly. Plus you tweak what will be the result in terms of different camera built in optimizations. And then you start comparing? All my history as an engineer tells me that this is wrong, because one saying is still true, even in the most advanced and digital days - "who measures a lot, measures just nonsense" translated to JPEGs "who plays around with camera built in processing and changes the output and then compares compares just nonsense".

    Sorry for this lengthy reply, but one cannot just forget reality.

  2. #202
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Peter
    Well, of course Thomas and I are not a statistical sample, and I agree there are some good reviews of this lens, but both Thomas and I found the 18-55 to be pretty uninspiring. Maybe we were unlucky with our samples?

    On the other hand, I don't generally believe in magic, and a 28-80 equivalent lens for 100 which is really good seems to me to amount to magic!

    Actually, I don't believe in a good quality 18-135 lens for 500 either!
    So let me hope I am getting a better sample

    Of course I agree that a standard kit zoom is very rarely a good solution - at least what my experience tells me - independent of which vendor you take.

    But hope dies last will keep you updated.

  3. #203
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    OT: Raw vs JPEG rant

    I gotta admit, that I have grown really sick and tired of people that look at JPEG shooters as non professional, non serious or that they don't know what they are doing.

    I could easily reply to such remark with "the problem with RAW shooters is that they don't' have the skills to shoot right and get it right the first time" but would be as silly and ignorant to say as the other. So I am going to assume this is said out of ignorance more than any condescending "I am right and you haven't seen the light."

    Now, getting that out of the way, I want to mention a few brief things to dispel a bit of the myths presented. This is not a complete list, nor am I trying to persuade anyone to change what works for them, but I find compelled to debunk some of the implied propositions.

    The first one is- three are indeed many pros that shoot JPEG. You can look around on the web and you will find them. I am not talking about amateur weekend photographer or such, I am talking about real professionals here making their living out of photography with published work.

    The second- let's think this through for a moment: why on Earth would Nikon bother to put a JPEG engine in their USD MSRP $8,0000 full frame D3x? Likewise, why would Canon bother likewise to put one in the EOS 5 Mark II or Mark III (more expensive). Why would Olympus spend a huge amount of cash pushing the JPEG engine they have to do stuff like vector analysis along edges so the colors don't bleed into another while doing the Bayer Color Filtered Array interpolation on the E-3? Why bother no?

    These cameras I mentioned aren't low end (in particularly the Canon high end and Nikon high end model cited). Why would they even bother?

    Now coming from my own experience because I get looks like "the problem is that you haven't shot RAW so you don't know what you can do yet" often, I actually shot RAW for the first year to year and a half (maybe two years) with my e-300 and then e-330. The e-300 because the JPEG engine was killing details, such was that engine. The e-330 was the "turn around point" where I realized for many shots, I was simply wasting my time. I could get what I wanted, right out there and then.

    The implication that because I like shooting in JPEG I am not serious about photography is so misplaced that I don't know where to begin, but hopefully this post is a start.

    Another very common misconception: "oh but JPEGS are 8bits and raws are 12, now 14 bits (for the Pentax, Canon, NIkon, not for Olympus/Panasonic). That's true but that completely ignores some very important details:

    #1. JPEGS are non linearly encoded in those 8bits per sections/blocks that are fairly small. RAW data is linear. What this means is that say you have a gradient of 6 tones of red, on RAW you only have what you have for representing them at the bit level. Which 12 or 14 it is obviously quite a bit. For JPEG at first one may think "wow not enough" but since the JPEG encoding allocates those bits in that say "red region" of data, all of a sudden it just works.

    #2. Think again this through: All the pictures that you are showing on the web that you are so proud of (if you are) from RAW, that people are going "ooh and ahh" are JPEGS. So certainly the format can take it/do it with probably what are extremely 0.001% mathematical case-exceptions, which are probably so far away from a photograph that are meaningless anyway.

    Now, again, I am not trying to persuade anyone. I actually shoot still my weddings in RAW and depending on the camera - I do shoot them in RAW (like Panasonic LX5 and Sigma DP2, but not because of the format, but because of their JPEG engine). I started to shoot the E-620 in JPEG and wasn't too happy with the noise in shadows so now I shoot it in RAW for low light, in good daylight sometimes still jpegs.

    I was doing portrait shots for an actor in LA once and I did two sessions. The first I shot all in RAW. The 2nd, seeing that I wasn't getting anything better out of the RAW was all in JPEG. And we all got what we wanted.

    @Godfrey- about your comment about a computer being 1,000 times faster/better than the one in the camera- not so fast. The computers have general purpose processors. The cameras have custom processors. Try encoding AVCHD 1080p video at 60p in realtime like the new GH2 on an intel core 2 duo computer and see how fast that goes. Custom hardware can be many times faster than a general purpose CPU. Like Jono also mentioned, those engines and pipeline are tuned for the sensor (hopefully!). In the case of Olympus it sure seems like it.

    So please let's stay from this "jpeg vs raw" and consider that different people have different preferences, wants and needs. In the end show your photographs and let that speak for itself.

    ----- END of RAW vs JPEG rant


    So going back to the Pentax, I did try processing the DNG's. I find I can get say good color very easily with the Olympus RAW converter, I found myself with some of the shots having a bit of a harder time with the Pentax, but the shots that were posted recently look very promising. I want to make clear the shots that Jono posted are very helpful also because while some lack some of the "presence" I alluded to, they sure show great DR and tonal rang, plus dark deep shadows. Something I miss from Olympus in their current models (thus part of why i am looking at the Pentax amongst other reasons).

  4. #204
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    [QUOTE=ptomsu;270344]Jono,

    my shooting RAW instead of JPEG goes back very long. I used to only shoot JPEG, even back in my E1 days, and I must even acknowledge that the JPEG output of the E1 was (is) stunning. Having said that I then started to really play around with RAW. I did this first with C1 then with LR and finally Aperture. I almost never used the camera vendor sold RAW software. And I found over the years that - what most others find - RAW gives you much greater freedom compared to JPEG. So this is the reason why I am using RAW exclusively today. Whenever I try JPEG out of camera, I immediately see artefacts etc, which I almost never do when processing JPEGs from RAWs from one of the above mentioned programs.

    Why do it in camera with rather limited processing capabilities if you can do it much more sophisticated in post processing with much more capabilities.
    Because some of us get exactly what we want and need in JPEG. Why then for us to bother? I am glad a RAW workflow works for you. It's not the only valid workflow for people who consider their photography as serious.


    I agree that here are some camera vendors who are producing excellent JPEGs but I think you can count them on the fingers of one hand
    I agree but that doesn't change the validity of a JPEG shooter photographer.

    And the same limitations for changing something in your images after they are out of camera are still there. Creative filters? Well ok, they are nice and I like to play around with them, but then again I can achieve all this and much more in post processing in PS. So why bother and waste my time with camera built in JPEG engines?
    Who said that JPEG shooters are using "creative filters" all the time or such?

    But here's another reason too: because many of us get what we want and need, and prefer to spend time photographing rather than sitting in front of a computer post processing.

    But of course everybody has different needs and preferences. In my case (and I think also in yours) the preference seems to be RAW anyway.
    Exactly.

    The one thing which strikes me is if there are tons of comparisons from out of the camera JPEGs, as I said already above, this outcome is (has) to be based on very limited resources from in camera. What one gets there can be good in certain conditions, but in general you are limiting the possibilities of a sensor and lens and camera combo significantly. Plus you tweak what will be the result in terms of different camera built in optimizations.
    But that's certainly an issue for someone who is looking for a good JPEG engine right? I mean if that's one of the things they want, then it's valid comparison. It's not comparing the camera model potential, but it's comparing the camera model vs his or her needs (which in the end matter most).

    And then you start comparing? All my history as an engineer tells me that this is wrong, because one saying is still true, even in the most advanced and digital days - "who measures a lot, measures just nonsense" translated to JPEGs "who plays around with camera built in processing and changes the output and then compares compares just nonsense".
    I don't understand how you make a jump from the first analogy to the next. In fact, one could say that pointing out shooting a raw vs a jpeg goes more with someone who is measuring than someone doing art.

    Sorry for this lengthy reply, but one cannot just forget reality.
    Reality is, many pro photographers do shoot JPEG and they have valid reason. The only reality here is that for you a JPEG workflow is not good. Well yeah, keep shooting raw. Nothing wrong with that.

  5. #205
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    For the record....

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    @ Raist

    Maybe I did understand something wrong in your posts, but I understand you are most times using JPEG out of camera?

    In this case you loose most of the capabilities of great DSLRs today. And actually then you do not need a DSLR, there are very good bridge & P&S cameras around which can do at least as good JPEGs as DSLRs.

    Comparing colors from camera JPEG output - well this is not something serious - sorry.

    Ever tried a decent post processing workflow - whatever you like - Aperture, Lightroom, Capture One etc ????

    PS: I actually hope I am wrong with my assumptions ....
    #1. I have tried Bible Pro, LightZone, Aperture (which I use and is my main DAM application), Olympus Master/Studio/Viewer, Silky Pix, OS-X built in RAW support (which is kinda like saying Aperture though more limited), Bible Pro 4 & 5, Light Room 2.x and latest 3.3+, dcraw, Raw Therapee, Sigma PP (though that's only for Sigma cameras but I use it), Capture One (a while back though), Nikon's "Jr. View" converter. Maybe I am missing one or two more.

    #2. I am comparing both JPEGS (for the Pentax) and RAWS (DNG's).

    #3. No, there aren't point and shoots that do as good of a JPEG engine as a DSLR. Unless you consider Olympus Pens point and shoots.

    #4. I use most of the time JPEG out of the camera when I feel the JPEG engine in the camera is up to it. Traditionally this has been with the Olympus e-330, e-420, E-3. If I had an E-5 I would probably be using JPEG most of the time with some exceptions. If I had a Fuji S5 Pro I would be using almost near always JPEG. Their JPEG engine is even a notch better than Olympus' but they so far had thrown the towel on DSLR's. Crossing fingers that X100 has a good JPEG engine.

    #5. I started to shoot in RAWS and over time switched to JPEG.

    --- Hope that sets my context straight :-)

    - Raist

  6. #206
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Jono, I don't how how I missed it but this is more of the red I want to see (from a shot you posted previously):



    (the shirt)

    - Raist

  7. #207
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    @raist

    I do understand most of your points, I even understand that you prefer shooting JPEG as I do shooting RAW - right?

    I do not have any religion about RAW or JPEG, the only thing I cannot like is to compare the capabilities of cameras on behalf of their JPEG engines, which I BTW found is also common practice in many reviews, as we all know the limitations or better said already applied PP to images when they come out of camera. Sorry, but this is not a test for a camera.

    I would rather like people say "this is a review of Camera xyz based on their JPEG" engine and compared to another cam and their JPEG engine. And then you could say "this JPEG engine is compared to this RAW ENGINE ..." ETC.

    What I do not like in these comparisons is that you have to read through tons of lines (posts) etc in order to find out that someone has done a review (or a comparison) based ob just the JPEG engine.

    This si basically all WRT to JPEG vs RAW for me.

    BUT - I am willing to learn, I only had used the E1 JPEG engine I was satisfied with because then I started shooting RAW. I did not try most of the great JPEG cams you mentioned. Obviously you also have a Pentax DSLR? With a great JPEG engine?

    I will try the JPEG on my K5 and see if I still need RAW (DNG). Maybe it is a good hint to look again into JPEG.

    Will see!

    Thanks for the great exchange of thoughts!

  8. #208
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    @raist

    I do understand most of your points, I even understand that you prefer shooting JPEG as I do shooting RAW - right?

    I do not have any religion about RAW or JPEG, the only thing I cannot like is to compare the capabilities of cameras on behalf of their JPEG engines, which I BTW found is also common practice in many reviews,
    True and I agree. In fact I have been mentioning that on dpreview. But I am comparing the JPEGS of the Pentax because for me JPEGS are important, so I want to know how it does. You may notice that I am actually comparing both JPEG and DNG"s (raws, not just JPEG).

    as we all know the limitations or better said already applied PP to images when they come out of camera. Sorry, but this is not a test for a camera.
    For those who need or want to do PP that's cool. For me, I want to know how the JPEG does because If I can avoid doing PP, the better. As for comparing cameras it is *valid for my needs*. I am not trying to compare the technical potential of the camera or sensor- yes, if I was doing that I would do that in RAW. But since I am purchasing this camera for me & my needs and wants, I want/need to know how the JPEGS do (and I am not discarding how it does in RAW anyway. I am comparing both).

    So yes, comparing the JPEG engine, as part of *my comparison* is entirely valid. You are not buying me the camera nor am I buying the camera for you.

    BUT - I am willing to learn, I only had used the E1 JPEG engine I was satisfied with because then I started shooting RAW. I did not try most of the great JPEG cams you mentioned. Obviously you also have a Pentax DSLR? With a great JPEG engine?
    No, I don't have a Pentax DSLR. That's why I am researching all of this. I can say though JPEG engines (Olympus) has come a long long long long way from the E-1's.

    I will try the JPEG on my K5 and see if I still need RAW (DNG). Maybe it is a good hint to look again into JPEG.

    Will see!
    Just use what you want and like. I am not trying to convince you to stop using RAW. I would be willing to use RAW's on the Pentax if I have to, but would be nice to shoot a lot of JPEGS if I see the engine is up to it.

    Thanks for the great exchange of thoughts!
    Cool.

  9. #209
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Looks like this is *a lens to get*

    http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensrevi...acro-Lens.html

    Like what I am seeing in those shots....

    - Raist

  10. #210
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Thomas,

    what do you call the kit zoom? Was it the

    SMC DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL WR ???

    This is actually a newly designed lens and described as very sharp in lot of reviews. I will get it with my K5 anyway, so I will be able to let you all know my findings.

    Peter
    yes 18-55 WR. My sample soft specially at 50-55mm f5.6.
    The sony kitlens which comes with the A55 for example seems much better.
    The 16-50 at f4 is better than the 17-55 at f8 in my experience.
    But maybe my copy was a bad sample.

  11. #211
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    It's done.

    Tomorrow I should have it along with the WR Kit lens + DA 70 for a start + case for the pancakes. My goal is to get the 21 and eventually 35mm macro DA limiteds.

    For weddings I hope I an do with the kit lens for now- well see. If not that's a bunch of cash to spend for the DA* Gold. If there is a Tamron/Sigma equivalent that someone here trusts that is good (Tamron over Sigma), let me know.

    I am doing this as also a trial. If it doesn't work for me, it's going back to the Amazon jungle :-)

    - Raist

  12. #212
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: It's done.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Tomorrow I should have it along with the WR Kit lens + DA 70 for a start + case for the pancakes. My goal is to get the 21 and eventually 35mm macro DA limiteds.

    For weddings I hope I an do with the kit lens for now- well see. If not that's a bunch of cash to spend for the DA* Gold. If there is a Tamron/Sigma equivalent that someone here trusts that is good (Tamron over Sigma), let me know.

    I am doing this as also a trial. If it doesn't work for me, it's going back to the Amazon jungle :-)

    - Raist
    I am sure you will enjoyit.
    I think the 35 macro DA is my favorite lens so far. You can do a lot with just that lens.
    70 Limited is great too for portraits.

  13. #213
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Before I forget: thanks everyone for helping out...

    getting data that I needed/wanted.

    Thanks all of you.

    going back to my reply: I am thinking eventually if I keep all this, the 35 DA Limited Macro, and the 21mm DA Limited. That way I have three primes with varying degrees of focal lengths and a macro.

    I saw some shots of that macro and blew me away (pentaxforums). You are right, you can do landscape, macro, portrait with it and it apparently is mega sharp.

    The only reason I didn't order those is because- Amazon had the 21 and the macro at an absurd price. Saw BHphoto has a far more reasonable price (one of the lenses is $300 USD cheaper!!!!!). So if this initial combo works then I am ordering the other lenses.

  14. #214
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Godfrey
    Well - a good jpg engine is designed around the sensor and the firmware, not something that Adobe / Phase / Apple do. Careful control of the settings together with experience can produce great results, sometimes ones not easy to reproduce with 3rd party RAW programs.
    Mostly irrelevant ... designing image processing around specific sensor and hardware constraints is usually beneficial in terms of producing good results quickly in the scope of limited computing resources. It generally does not provide image quality advantages.

    I always shoot RAW, but I recognise that lots of others don't, and produce splendid photographs - each to his own.

    However, I rather dislike the snobbery which goes with the 'I always shoot RAW' philosophy - Don't you?
    Same here.

  15. #215
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Mostly irrelevant ... designing image processing around specific sensor and hardware constraints is usually beneficial in terms of producing good results quickly in the scope of limited computing resources. It generally does not provide image quality advantages.

    Same here.
    Then perhaps you may want to consider that what you are saying is what applies to you because again, there are pros/cons on both sides and they also vary per photography domain, wants and needs of each individual photographer. The whole "doesn't provide image quality advantages" can be even debated when you look at the impact shooting in one or the other does, but again that varies per individual/domain and need.

    - Raist

  16. #216
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Then perhaps you may want to consider that what you are saying is what applies to you because again, there are pros/cons on both sides and they also vary per photography domain, wants and needs of each individual photographer. The whole "doesn't provide image quality advantages" can be even debated when you look at the impact shooting in one or the other does, but again that varies per individual/domain and need.

    - Raist
    Right with you here Ricardo.
    Each to his own . . . . and there are advantages all the way around.

    Just this guy you know

  17. #217
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Right with you here Ricardo.
    Each to his own . . . . and there are advantages all the way around.
    Sorry, I don't understand what his statement said as differentiated from what I said.

  18. #218
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Sorry, I don't understand what his statement said as differentiated from what I said.
    Well Godfrey. It seemed like you said " raw is best" and Ricardo said that it depended on what you wanted. That's fairly different?

    Just this guy you know

  19. #219
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Well Godfrey. It seemed like you said " raw is best" and Ricardo said that it depended on what you wanted. That's fairly different?
    I didn't. I have said, in this thread and elsewhere:

    - that a raw workflow has a finer degree of adjustability and more editabilty than in-camera image processing,
    - that there is no substantive advantage in image quality to in-camera processing compared to the fine control possible in a more powerful computer *,
    - that the advantages of in-camera processing with respect to tailoring to the sensor and hardware of the camera lie in optimizing for performance given the limited processing capabilities of camera hardware,
    - that a raw workflow suits my photography best **,
    - that others might consider the in-camera JPEG engine best for their particular needs/desires, for whatever reason.

    * ...which presumes an image processing application of appropriate quality and adequate skill by the user to take advantage of it.
    ** I didn't go into details as to why I consider that to be the case in this thread.

  20. #220
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    I'm with Godfrey here. Apart from the time and skill needed to do proper post processing, I don't see any advantages shooting jpeg with any camera. With a RAW file, it's always possible to end up with a result that gives the same visual impression as the in-camera jpeg, but the technical quality will, as far as my experience goes, always be better when starting with an uncompressed RAW. In addition, one has adjustment options that are never available with jpegs.

    But, sometimes, and now I include myself, getting to those results may require time and/or skills that are simply not available, and sometimes there is no point in spending the resources, since the OOC jpegs are good enough for the intended use of the photo.

    This is all highly individual of course, but being me, and having done rather a lot of mistakes through 54 years of imperfect human life, I would never dream of taking a photo not in RAW (or even buy a camera that can't take RAW photos), but I do sometimes take both, particularly with a new camera with files that are unknown to me, or when I or a client need files ready for publishing faster than I can deliver them from RAW. But sometimes, if I know that the best possible results are needed, and particularly if the photos are taken under demanding or stressful circumstances, and even if a client asks for the jpeg files for convenience, I refuse to deliver other than RAW files, simply because I owe it to the customer and to my own reputation not to have imperfect jpegs floating around. This is of course in cases when the client has his own photo post processing staff.

    I do see this from the point of view of a professional photographer, but any photo taken by any serious amateur or photo enthusiast may end up being published. So, I want any photo that i take to look its best, even if it's just an OOF photo of my feet, taken by accident while I'm trying to figure out why the bl***y flash doesn't work

  21. #221
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    You said you aren't saying it's better but you sure say that it's like the best way to get the best results or something, and surely you can't comprehend why (apparently) anyone would chose JPEG.

    Sorry but that sure reeks of "Raw is the best." It sure took several replies to acknowledge that this is after all best for you and your workflow.

    Also the reason you still give for computer performance still completely ignores the difference in custom hardware acceleration or hardware made for a specific domain.

    Maybe for example, if I said that focusing on getting it right instead of having to post process, is what develops the photographic eye, the photographic skills because after all, someone who is horrible with a camera in seeing light and composition can be a great retoucher and can't be called a great photographer. Now, if I said this, doesn't that comes across as perhaps suggesting that "JPEG is best?" (note, I am not saying I stand on this end per se, but I want to make a point here of what you are saying).

    I mean for example I could also say "shooting in JPEG and getting it right on the camera provides a medium of compelling photography that, doing post processing other than creating digital art, makes post for a lot of situations a waste of time *-

    *- assumes you have a decent jpeg engine and the skills as a photographer to pull this off"

    That doesn't sound a bit weird to you if I said that?


    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I didn't. I have said, in this thread and elsewhere:

    - that a raw workflow has a finer degree of adjustability and more editabilty than in-camera image processing,
    - that there is no substantive advantage in image quality to in-camera processing compared to the fine control possible in a more powerful computer *,
    - that the advantages of in-camera processing with respect to tailoring to the sensor and hardware of the camera lie in optimizing for performance given the limited processing capabilities of camera hardware,
    - that a raw workflow suits my photography best **,
    - that others might consider the in-camera JPEG engine best for their particular needs/desires, for whatever reason.

    * ...which presumes an image processing application of appropriate quality and adequate skill by the user to take advantage of it.
    ** I didn't go into details as to why I consider that to be the case in this thread.

  22. #222
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    [QUOTE=Jorgen Udvang;270862]I'm with Godfrey here. Apart from the time and skill needed to do proper post processing, I don't see any advantages shooting jpeg with any camera. With a RAW file, it's always possible to end up with a result that gives the same visual impression as the in-camera jpeg, but the technical quality will, as far as my experience goes, always be better when starting with an uncompressed RAW. In addition, one has adjustment options that are never available with jpegs.

    But, sometimes, and now I include myself, getting to those results may require time and/or skills that are simply not available, and sometimes there is no point in spending the resources, since the OOC jpegs are good enough for the intended use of the photo.
    [quote[

    So what you are saying is that for your needs and skills, you are with Godfrey. Cool.

    I do see this from the point of view of a professional photographer, but any photo taken by any serious amateur or photo enthusiast may end up being published. So, I want any photo that i take to look its best, even if it's just an OOF photo of my feet, taken by accident while I'm trying to figure out why the bl***y flash doesn't work
    Looks like for some professional photographers that is the case. Apparently for several other professional photographers JPEGS more than fullfill their needs and requirements.

    Looks like there are two sets of professional photographers on this- ones that shoot raw and ones that shoot JPEG. Oh another: ones that shoot both. Looks like all are valid paths depending on requirements, needs and preferences at the professional level.

    - Raist

  23. #223
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Please don't let this turn into a RAW vs JPEG fight as I don't want to have to lock the thread.

  24. #224
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    yes 18-55 WR. My sample soft specially at 50-55mm f5.6.
    The sony kitlens which comes with the A55 for example seems much better.
    The 16-50 at f4 is better than the 17-55 at f8 in my experience.
    But maybe my copy was a bad sample.
    Yesterday also ordered the DA70 - could not resist, was a pretty good price and I will need a portrait lens anyway

    And XMAS is coming

  25. #225
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    Please don't let this turn into a RAW vs JPEG fight as I don't want to have to lock the thread.
    Yes indeed - one thing we should all be wise enough to agree on is that these arguments go nowhere!

    Just this guy you know

  26. #226
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Yesterday also ordered the DA70 - could not resist, was a pretty good price and I will need a portrait lens anyway

    And XMAS is coming
    HI Peter
    I hope you'll be very happy together (that's a brink I'm teetering on too). . . when does it all arrive

    Just this guy you know

  27. #227
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Peter
    I hope you'll be very happy together (that's a brink I'm teetering on too). . . when does it all arrive
    It should arrive all this week - camera kit and DA 70. I am looking really forward to this cam.

  28. #228
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    I do see this from the point of view of a professional photographer, but any photo taken by any serious amateur or photo enthusiast may end up being published. So, I want any photo that i take to look its best, even if it's just an OOF photo of my feet, taken by accident while I'm trying to figure out why the bl***y flash doesn't work
    Hi Jorgen
    Ricardo is a professional as well.

    However - enough of this silly argument - you have made a deep philosophical point here, which needs illustrating:

    Picture of feet whilst pointing camera down trying to work out how to use the bloody flash.
    FWIW this was taken in a vaporetto between Venice and Burano.

    One of my favorites . . . . three points of difference:
    1. I did see it before I pressed the shutter
    2. it's not my feet - but the principle is the same.
    3. it's not oof


    Just this guy you know

  29. #229
    Administrator Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Prescott, Arizona
    Posts
    4,492
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    367

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Jorgen
    Ricardo is a professional as well.

    However - enough of this silly argument - you have made a deep philosophical point here, which needs illustrating:

    Picture of feet whilst pointing camera down trying to work out how to use the bloody flash.
    FWIW this was taken in a vaporetto between Venice and Burano.

    One of my favorites . . . . three points of difference:
    1. I did see it before I pressed the shutter
    2. it's not my feet - but the principle is the same.
    3. it's not oof

    Nice, Jono
    Actually for those who have been there, the location is almost obvious.
    -bob

  30. #230
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    I'm with Godfrey here.
    So, I want any photo that i take to look its best, even if it's just an OOF photo of my feet, taken by accident while I'm trying to figure out why the bl***y flash doesn't work
    Like this?
    Last edited by retow; 10th March 2012 at 23:46.

  31. #231
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob View Post
    Nice, Jono
    Actually for those who have been there, the location is almost obvious.
    -bob
    Thank you Bob - yes indeed, and the trip to Burano is something of a necessity too (not just for the colours, but also for the griddled squid).

    Just this guy you know

  32. #232
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    6,955
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1145

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Hey this one was a work of art....and they aren't my feet.


  33. #233
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by TEBnewyork View Post
    Hey this one was a work of art....and they aren't my feet.
    I'm very pleased to hear it!

    Just this guy you know

  34. #234
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    It should arrive all this week - camera kit and DA 70. I am looking really forward to this cam.
    Is this the pancake? (the one I just got?)

    - Raist

  35. #235
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Yes indeed - one thing we should all be wise enough to agree on is that these arguments go nowhere!
    I agree. I am not interested in having an argument. Everything I've stated has been articulated clearly and specifically. If others choose to mis-interpret or mis-understand it in preference to promoting their opinion, that's their issue.

    Don't mis-represent your interpretation as my statements.

  36. #236
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Is this the pancake? (the one I just got?)

    - Raist
    I think so - how do you feel about it?

    Just this guy you know

  37. #237
    photogerald
    Guest

    Re: So after looking long and wide...

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Sort of both. I normally don't do post processing, but mainly out of camera with different JPEG settings images just come out with great color. I do believe you are right when you say the lenses, yes, lens matters for sure for that contrast/sharpness and seems like Olympus got that nailed down.
    Firstly, sorry it has taken a while for me to get back to you - things sort of got busy.

    But anyways, this helps me better understand where you're coming from.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    No doubt, yeah, a lot of it has to be the lens.
    Yup.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    MUUUUUCH better. They have that "crisp 'here' presence" that I felt many of the other shots in a way were lacking (though Jono's DA 77 Limited shot of the Kid's portrait 'has it'). The color is much better too, though one color keeps bugging me:

    It's that red/pink/magenta set of colors. Reds tend to be affected by sky reflections and tend to go magentaish (talking in general now, but looking at the colored hat, there's some colors there around the pink that seem a tad off somehow). If the hat was truly that way then fine.

    The flower shot as far as "presence" looks great. There still seems to have a hair of greenish cast (I have noticed this btw on many Pentax shots).
    You obviously know your colours. I can't really comment on this, as I haven't bothered to calibrate my PC monitor. But you're probably right.

    I will say that the K20D and K-7 are rather unforgiving of exposure errors - you can easily blow highlights and at the other end things will end up dull and the shadows noisy (if you try to boost the exposure in PP). However, when you get it right, you can achieve the results I've shown here. Obviously with the K-5 you will be able to achieve these results more consistently, thanks to its much improved DR (the DR of the K-5 @ ISO800 betters the DR of the K20D/K-7 @ ISO100!).

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    The shot of the kid holding the toy camera- the skin color seems a bit "Nikon brown" to me and the red seems to have this "dirty red" aspect to it which isn't quite right- but if this was tungsten light it's understandable. Though I will say I have seen this set of colors I told you more often than not with the Pentax. It's almost like in some colors it's a Panasonic variant (though it does better than Panasonic usually does).
    You are right - the skin tone is definitely off on this one, and the red isn't that right either. Like I said, ISO800 and poor flourescent lighting (check out the exposure settings) - not a good example to back up my case.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    But as far as "crisp presence" most of these shots "have it", this is what i was talking about. So where's that A* Pentax lens? Is that a film legacy lens?
    Yes, it's a legacy (manual focus) lens, but it was (and still is) the best 135mm Pentax prime. Yes, "crisp presence" is a good way of describing the results from this lens.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    If you are ok with this, could you send me one DNG/RAW file to play with- just a snap, not a masterpiece. Something with colors/contrast/light range like the purple flower or that hat, etc. If you can't / don't have time/ whatever I understand and I give you thanks for showing me these...
    I'm not sure if you're still interested, given that you already got your K-5, but if want to play around I can gladly send you the RAW file for the flower hat shot.

  38. #238
    photogerald
    Guest

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Ok I was able to tweak some of the jpegs to match more the color I would like to see (flower & shot with hat). This is looking promising. Ah man system switch = $$$ :-) But then E-5 = $$$.
    Would you mind showing me these? I'm curious to see what you came up with.

  39. #239
    photogerald
    Guest

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    Question for Jono and other Pentax shooters:

    If I was pull the trigger I am thinking the following lenses:

    - WR kit lens just to have something weather sealed and a starter standard telephoto. Eventually I would have to get whatever decent standard telephoto exists, and if that means the DA* Gold one, so be it (how's that one btw? Anyone knows? STAR 16-50MM F2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM)
    You'll probably end up getting rid of the kit lens, but if you do get it with the body as a kit, you can sell it later and not lose money.

    I'm personally not that enthused about the DA*16-50/2.8. See:

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showth...t=21353&page=2

    I am liking what I see from the new DA18-135 WR DC, however. As well as the new DA35/2.4 (not to be confused with the DA35/2.8 Ltd Macro).

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    - DA 70 F2.4 Limited (I find a bit of a bummer this can't also be a macro lens, ah well)
    I got this lens a few months back - I absolute love it.

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    - Completely split between the DA 15mm F4 limited vs the 21mm F3.2 Limited.

    Seems like the 21mm (* 1.5 = 31.5mm equiv) is closer to a normal standard street life lens. I don't see myself ever getting the F2.8 40mm DA Limited- too much of a "standard" view...
    These both have their fans. I've seen some really nice results from the DA15 Ltd (there are some large threads on dpreview and pentaxforums with many sample images). Going by results on photozone.de, the 15 and 21 have about the same resolution, with perhaps the 15 being a bit better when you stop down. The 21 does have higher distortion, however, which seems counterintuitive. I guess it does come down to your needs WRT focal length.

  40. #240
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Finally my K5 with Kit lens (18-55WR) arrived!

    After setting it up and playing around for a little while I only can say so far - I AM OVERWHELMED!!!

    1) I tried the lens, it needs no adjustments, feels very solid as the camera and seems to be a good sample.

    2) I tried so far only DNGs and imported in LR3.3. Colors are outstanding, I understand now what you all mean by different to Nikon - although I must say I find colors also much better and different to Sony.

    3) The camera is nice, small, feels very rugged and the menues are fine for me.

    4) I set the AUTO ISO from 200-6400 and so far all ISO values including 6400 work VERY WELL:

    I am so excited! Many thanks to all of you who followed with me through my rather demanding selection process. I think I did the right thing.

    Will keep you all updated and for sure upload some samples.

    Peter

  41. #241
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by photogerald View Post

    I'm personally not that enthused about the DA*16-50/2.8. See:

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showth...t=21353&page=2

    I am liking what I see from the new DA18-135 WR DC, however.
    Hi Gerald
    Well, after my second 16-50 was more de-centred than the first, I've conditionally given up on it and swapped it for an DA18-135 and a 15 limited (I'll blame you if they aren't good).

    First impressions are that it's soft at the corners at 135 below f7.1, but I think I expected that (I don't expect miracles, just consistency!). It's delightfully small, and feels pretty solid.

    The sad thing about the 16-50, was that it's definitely sharp at some corner point in the frame at all focal lengths and all apertures - just not in all of them at the same time

    More later when I've had time to try the 18-135.

    Just this guy you know

  42. #242
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    I am so excited! Many thanks to all of you who followed with me through my rather demanding selection process. I think I did the right thing.

    Will keep you all updated and for sure upload some samples.

    Peter
    Good Luck Peter
    I really hope you enjoy it as much as I am - a loveable little camera I think.

    Just this guy you know

  43. #243
    photogerald
    Guest

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    Finally my K5 with Kit lens (18-55WR) arrived!

    After setting it up and playing around for a little while I only can say so far - I AM OVERWHELMED!!!
    Great! I look forward to seeing your photos.

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    4) I set the AUTO ISO from 200-6400 and so far all ISO values including 6400 work VERY WELL:
    Just curious, why 200 at the low end (and not 80)?

  44. #244
    photogerald
    Guest

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Gerald
    Well, after my second 16-50 was more de-centred than the first, I've conditionally given up on it and swapped it for an DA18-135 and a 15 limited (I'll blame you if they aren't good).
    Uhh... [runs and checks to see if I've done any "fanboy pumping"]

    I think I'm innocent, but if you end up not liking the DA18-135 you could always send it to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    First impressions are that it's soft at the corners at 135 below f7.1, but I think I expected that (I don't expect miracles, just consistency!). It's delightfully small, and feels pretty solid.
    This corresponds to what I see on the comparometer thingy in this review:

    http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/...5mm_review.php

    If you compare the 18 and 55mm crops against the ones for the DA18-55, you can see how much better the DA18-135 is. The 135mm crops do look soft like you mentioned. Actually, I'm a bit surprised by how soft it is in the center @135mm and f5.6 - do you see this in your copy as well? Also, I wonder why they didn't include shots from the DA*16-50? That would've been an interesting comparison - maybe they couldn't find a good copy of the 16-50?

    So it looks like the DA18-135 gives excellent performance from 18-55mm (handily better than the DA18-55 kit), with very good performance up to 85mm. Somewhere beyond that on the road to 135mm things start to deteriorate, but nevertheless that's still an impressive usable range given the size of this lens.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    The sad thing about the 16-50, was that it's definitely sharp at some corner point in the frame at all focal lengths and all apertures - just not in all of them at the same time
    As this lens uses the same optical construction as the Tokina 16-50 in other mounts, I wonder if the Tokina also suffers from this decentering.

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    More later when I've had time to try the 18-135.
    I look forward to your comments.

  45. #245
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by photogerald View Post

    This corresponds to what I see on the comparometer thingy in this review:

    http://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/...5mm_review.php

    If you compare the 18 and 55mm crops against the ones for the DA18-55, you can see how much better the DA18-135 is. The 135mm crops do look soft like you mentioned. Actually, I'm a bit surprised by how soft it is in the center @135mm and f5.6 - do you see this in your copy as well? Also, I wonder why they didn't include shots from the DA*16-50? That would've been an interesting comparison - maybe they couldn't find a good copy of the 16-50?

    So it looks like the DA18-135 gives excellent performance from 18-55mm (handily better than the DA18-55 kit), with very good performance up to 85mm. Somewhere beyond that on the road to 135mm things start to deteriorate, but nevertheless that's still an impressive usable range given the size of this lens.



    As this lens uses the same optical construction as the Tokina 16-50 in other mounts, I wonder if the Tokina also suffers from this decentering.



    I look forward to your comments.
    Well, comments in another thread - actually, I didn't find the centre too bad, but there IS CA to contend with (very easily fixed in Aperture) I found that when you fixed the CA the resolution looked better as well

    Just this guy you know

  46. #246
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by photogerald View Post
    Great! I look forward to seeing your photos.



    Just curious, why 200 at the low end (and not 80)?
    ISO 200-6400 because 200 is the lowest you can choose.

  47. #247
    photogerald
    Guest

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    ISO 200-6400 because 200 is the lowest you can choose.
    Really? I'm pretty sure auto ISO can go down to 100 (and 80 if you enable the extended ISO in the custom menu).

    (By the way, there is some IQ benefit to shooting at ISO80 vs 100.)

  48. #248
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by photogerald View Post
    Really? I'm pretty sure auto ISO can go down to 100 (and 80 if you enable the extended ISO in the custom menu).

    (By the way, there is some IQ benefit to shooting at ISO80 vs 100.)
    Will look that up - thanks for the input

    Peter

  49. #249
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: So after looking long and wide...

    I'm not sure if you're still interested, given that you already got your K-5, but if want to play around I can gladly send you the RAW file for the flower hat shot.
    Yes, I am still interested, after all I don't have that lens :-) and I want to see what the camera can do.

    Thanks.

    - Raist

  50. #250
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,116
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Testing out a Pentax K5

    Quote Originally Posted by photogerald View Post
    Really? I'm pretty sure auto ISO can go down to 100 (and 80 if you enable the extended ISO in the custom menu).

    (By the way, there is some IQ benefit to shooting at ISO80 vs 100.)
    Probably a bit more extra shadow DR at the expense of a tiny bit of highlight. Given the Pentax already has bags of shadow DR, I don't mind using just 100. I guess 80 can come handy when I need that extra slow shutter speed.

    - Raist

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •