The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
how about some street (night) life with the K-5....
- Thread starter raist3d
- Start date
P
photogerald
Guest
That is impressive! Can you tell me a bit about how the AF performed in these light levels? Was the AF assist lamp enabled?
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
These remind me of all the oooohs and aaaahs that appeared when ISO6400 shots from the D3 were first shown a couple of years ago, and "that's why we need full frame" and "crop cameras will never be able to do that".
And I thought, "Hey, it's technology, it will evolve." Remember the IBM 3380 2.52GB HDD? I was at the receiving end of one of those, some time during the early eighties, while Big Blue received a cheque of more than $100,000 for each unit. Sometimes, I try to calculate the price per GB compared to all the tiny, little memory cards that float around on my desk, but I always give up. Too many zeroes
Incidentally, the company I worked for then made telephones, you know the kind that was attached to the wall with some kind of wire so you wouldn't lose it. They don't anymore of course. They couldn't be used to take photos with. But in a few years, phones can be used to take photos at a zillion ISO as well, and they'll make some software that emulates shallow DOF, straight out of the camera (it will come as an art filter on the Olympus E-9 first, and everybody will laugh, until two years later, when it's available on Canon EOS 1Ds Mark XVII).
And all of our Pentaxes and Olympuses and Nikons and stuff will be obsolete, but we don't care do we? Because it's so much more fun with real things than with tiny plastic gadgets that break, and even if they cost less to buy than any repair of the Pentax, we still like that feeling.
So I should buy that K5, right, even if I have umpteen cameras already, and a zillion lenses, but none that will fit on a Pentax. It doesn't need to make sense, does it?
Just thought I had to say this.
And I thought, "Hey, it's technology, it will evolve." Remember the IBM 3380 2.52GB HDD? I was at the receiving end of one of those, some time during the early eighties, while Big Blue received a cheque of more than $100,000 for each unit. Sometimes, I try to calculate the price per GB compared to all the tiny, little memory cards that float around on my desk, but I always give up. Too many zeroes
Incidentally, the company I worked for then made telephones, you know the kind that was attached to the wall with some kind of wire so you wouldn't lose it. They don't anymore of course. They couldn't be used to take photos with. But in a few years, phones can be used to take photos at a zillion ISO as well, and they'll make some software that emulates shallow DOF, straight out of the camera (it will come as an art filter on the Olympus E-9 first, and everybody will laugh, until two years later, when it's available on Canon EOS 1Ds Mark XVII).
And all of our Pentaxes and Olympuses and Nikons and stuff will be obsolete, but we don't care do we? Because it's so much more fun with real things than with tiny plastic gadgets that break, and even if they cost less to buy than any repair of the Pentax, we still like that feeling.
So I should buy that K5, right, even if I have umpteen cameras already, and a zillion lenses, but none that will fit on a Pentax. It doesn't need to make sense, does it?
Just thought I had to say this.
P
photogerald
Guest
That's a lovely kitchen you have Jono, lots of character (it's an old house I'm guessing?).
ptomsu
Workshop Member
You are completely right - at least with most what you sayThese remind me of all the oooohs and aaaahs that appeared when ISO6400 shots from the D3 were first shown a couple of years ago, and "that's why we need full frame" and "crop cameras will never be able to do that".
And I thought, "Hey, it's technology, it will evolve." Remember the IBM 3380 2.52GB HDD? I was at the receiving end of one of those, some time during the early eighties, while Big Blue received a cheque of more than $100,000 for each unit. Sometimes, I try to calculate the price per GB compared to all the tiny, little memory cards that float around on my desk, but I always give up. Too many zeroes
Incidentally, the company I worked for then made telephones, you know the kind that was attached to the wall with some kind of wire so you wouldn't lose it. They don't anymore of course. They couldn't be used to take photos with. But in a few years, phones can be used to take photos at a zillion ISO as well, and they'll make some software that emulates shallow DOF, straight out of the camera (it will come as an art filter on the Olympus E-9 first, and everybody will laugh, until two years later, when it's available on Canon EOS 1Ds Mark XVII).
And all of our Pentaxes and Olympuses and Nikons and stuff will be obsolete, but we don't care do we? Because it's so much more fun with real things than with tiny plastic gadgets that break, and even if they cost less to buy than any repair of the Pentax, we still like that feeling.
So I should buy that K5, right, even if I have umpteen cameras already, and a zillion lenses, but none that will fit on a Pentax. It doesn't need to make sense, does it?
Just thought I had to say this.
But isn't it just wonderful to see what technology can achieve today and what one can expect in near and mid term and long term future (although it gets a bit vague the more out you look like your Canon EOS 1DS MKXVII).
Yes, this K5 shows me what is possible today and I would say in terms of high ISO performance it blows away my 3 years old D700 and it might be even on par with the D3s (I do NOT want to get into any fights and comparisons here please!).
Somehow the K5 makes me really think about all my Nikon FF gear and if I will really need this in the future? As if I have such a nice compact camera with some great small primes (which you can NEVER expect from Nikon or Canon or Sony for their FF bodies) and also some obviously great zoom lenses, I will most probably not need the Nikon FF gear any longer.
But wait, same can be true (and I am pretty sure will soon be true) for FF DSLRs. Just think about a sensor with the resolution and capabilities of the K5 but FF in a Nikon D800 or D4X or whatever other beast ..... This would bring then something like 35-40MP and there we are - in MF territory! But with much smaller, lighter gear and with much more lens choices and all for much less money compared to MF digital.
There is that trend this is clear. What will MF vendors then do? Go to 80-120MP? Should we dare to say no? Will the MF lenses be capable of handling this resolutions - I doubt - but who knows. Will anyone need these resolutions? I mean really need it? I doubt as well but who knows
I think everybody needs to set some reasonable individual limit - at least for the time being and hopefully for the next future - and then just try to stay in these borders as more or smaller or whatever will not make to much sense. Currently the K5 and lenses is setting a very demanding border even for serious pro photography I guess, so it will be interesting to see when this will and can be topped seriously so that the next change makes sense (or can be argued to make sense)
P
photogerald
Guest
I had to look this up. One of these 3380's would *not* fit in my clothes closet!And I thought, "Hey, it's technology, it will evolve." Remember the IBM 3380 2.52GB HDD? I was at the receiving end of one of those, some time during the early eighties, while Big Blue received a cheque of more than $100,000 for each unit. Sometimes, I try to calculate the price per GB compared to all the tiny, little memory cards that float around on my desk, but I always give up. Too many zeroes
I'll make it easier for you - don't fight the urge.
Actually I think the K-5 will be a camera that I'll be content with from an IQ standpoint for the next 5 years, at least (I'm no pro so future improvements to features such as AF tracking won't matter to me). I really think we are getting close to the physical limits of current sensor technology. My understanding is that the improvements to DR and high-ISO performance seen in the K-5 and D7000 are due to measures on the sensor to reduce noise - both by having the ADC on-chip as well as the built-in NR (the kind that cannot be applied in PP). Of course there's probably some revolutionary new sensor tech around the corner that will promise a quantum leap in IQ. But will initial implementations really be better, or affordable for that matter (remember when LCD displays first came out)?For what I do, the resolution as well as DR (14 stops @ ISO80/100!) of the K-5 easily exceed my needs (and also exceed what I could get from 35mm film). So I'm just waiting for early production issues to get found and resolved, and the price to come down a bit before pulling the trigger. I'll admit that the upcoming Sigma SD1 does look intriguing, but I have my doubts as to whether it will live up to expectations (naturally, if it does I'll have to re-evaluate things).
Of course, the improvements we've seen here will get applied to the next crop of FF sensors. FF will always be ahead (and MF will be ahead of FF), there's no getting around "bigger is better". But for me, APS-C really is good enough.
P
photogerald
Guest
The following is an interesting comparison from someone who shoots with both a K-5 and D3s:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=37040208
As you can see, for this fellow both cameras fill a need in his photography.
This is exactly the niche that Pentax is targetting (and also which Olympus tried to do so as well). Ironically, some Pentax users don't seem to realize this and spend all their time complaining about lack of this or that zoom vs. Canon/Nikon (grass is greener syndrom).
Exactly - we can expect the same sensor improvements to show up in the next round of FF bodies.
Actually, MF places less demands on lens quality. And I believe that most digital MF bodies/backs are actually cropped so they are benefiting from the sweet spot of the lenses, which are quite good to begin with. The following is a stunning demonstration of the capabilities of digital MF (cropped-645) - I am left in awe everytime I look at the 100% crops (especially the corner crop):There is that trend this is clear. What will MF vendors then do? Go to 80-120MP? Should we dare to say no? Will the MF lenses be capable of handling this resolutions - I doubt - but who knows. Will anyone need these resolutions? I mean really need it? I doubt as well but who knows
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=37092009
Do I need this kind of resolution? Of course not, but this really satisfies the closet pixel-peeper in me. :grin:
I totally agree with this, and was the point I was trying to get at in my last post.I think everybody needs to set some reasonable individual limit - at least for the time being and hopefully for the next future - and then just try to stay in these borders as more or smaller or whatever will not make to much sense. Currently the K5 and lenses is setting a very demanding border even for serious pro photography I guess, so it will be interesting to see when this will and can be topped seriously so that the next change makes sense (or can be argued to make sense)
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Hey, it's in England. All houses on that island are old :ROTFL:
(Just envious. I really, really wish I had a kitchen like that.)
P
photogerald
Guest
I know, I'm envious too!
I do like the high ISO performance of the K5 and find it very good.
However in some of my comparisons with the D700 I can not confirm that it would be on par with the D700. At least not in shaddow noise where I would rate the D700 at least one stop better.
I prefer the Pentax color, I prefer the small body and the small lenses. I like in camera shake reduction but these are the only (but important) points where I prefer the K5.
The D700 does have better high ISO, faster and more accurate AF, larger viewfinder and more fast lenses available (24,28,35,50,85 f1.4, 105,135,200 f2.0) and also the better midrange zoom (24-70 is just much better).
Wether the lenses of the K5 are fast enough, or the AF of the K5 is good enough is probably a question of personal needs and taste. It is for me for many applications where the small size and quiet shutter etc. of the K5 are more important. I wouldnot go so far and say the K5 is as much a low light camera as the D700 or even D3s are.
Regarding sensor sizes and MF etc. I am not sure yet and want to do some comparisons but I do believe that MF also shows a different transition between the sharp plane and the unsharp/OOF areas. More smooth.
So it is not just about resolution.
Other things are size of viewfinder - my Hy6 with a 110/2.0 is a different world if you wanted to manually focus.
SO I am not sure yet if you get the same look with a D4x with 40 MP like you would get with a MF back (I dont think you would). Of course the high MP would be an advantage for large prints.
However in some of my comparisons with the D700 I can not confirm that it would be on par with the D700. At least not in shaddow noise where I would rate the D700 at least one stop better.
I prefer the Pentax color, I prefer the small body and the small lenses. I like in camera shake reduction but these are the only (but important) points where I prefer the K5.
The D700 does have better high ISO, faster and more accurate AF, larger viewfinder and more fast lenses available (24,28,35,50,85 f1.4, 105,135,200 f2.0) and also the better midrange zoom (24-70 is just much better).
Wether the lenses of the K5 are fast enough, or the AF of the K5 is good enough is probably a question of personal needs and taste. It is for me for many applications where the small size and quiet shutter etc. of the K5 are more important. I wouldnot go so far and say the K5 is as much a low light camera as the D700 or even D3s are.
Regarding sensor sizes and MF etc. I am not sure yet and want to do some comparisons but I do believe that MF also shows a different transition between the sharp plane and the unsharp/OOF areas. More smooth.
So it is not just about resolution.
Other things are size of viewfinder - my Hy6 with a 110/2.0 is a different world if you wanted to manually focus.
SO I am not sure yet if you get the same look with a D4x with 40 MP like you would get with a MF back (I dont think you would). Of course the high MP would be an advantage for large prints.
I am wondering about the autofocus. While I did in very low light I am not super convinced the AF is super good, but it's hard to asses without a reference on hand n the same light. I know that Nikon seems to be the AF king from everything I have heard of good sources and my super duper short experience with it.
I get a hunch the Olympus E-5 has better AF than the Pentax but not sure. Would like to try the E-5 in the same dark situation and see how much it hesitates or not.
I get a hunch the Olympus E-5 has better AF than the Pentax but not sure. Would like to try the E-5 in the same dark situation and see how much it hesitates or not.
When the lamp comes up, it helps a lot.
On these levels with some contrast it can be ok but sometimes takes longer
I actually used live view and contrast AF. It worked great and it's still pretty fast. I discovered tonight there's a level where live view will just refuse to get focus- when it's really low light/dark around. Makes sense.
I am still not entirely convinced the AF is all that though not bad. I wonder how the E_5 compares, I think it would do better.
jonoslack
Active member
HI Chaps - well, thank you!
The house is around 1690 . . . . . but the kitchen was built in 1990 (together with our bedroom). Floor by me, cupboards by me and Sim (reclaimed oak), Table by Djuna Barnes (around 1700) everything else by Emma except for the chaos (joint effort). We like it too!
jonoslack
Active member
HI Tom
Actually, I agree with most of what you say here, just a comment or so:
I no longer have a D700, but looking at old shots, I'd have said that they were about par, the D700 maybe having less noise in the shadows, but the K5 probably having better colour at high ISO.
Actually, I agree with most of what you say here, just a comment or so:
Have you been looking at shots from each at 100%? I think I've probably asked this before, but looking at a 12mp file at 100% ain't the same as looking at a 16mp file at 100% - a mistake I've made before.
I no longer have a D700, but looking at old shots, I'd have said that they were about par, the D700 maybe having less noise in the shadows, but the K5 probably having better colour at high ISO.
Don't disagree about the AF, and although the 24-70 is much better . . . erm each of the 16-50's I had were just as good on one side (but not the other). I think it would be possible to get a really good 16-50 - I just couldn't be bothered to keep taking them back, I might easily try again in a while.
Do you have an A900? because that's the most obvious difference between that and the Nikons (smoother transitions on the Sony - both in terms of oof, and even more obviously in terms of colour gradation.)
I quite agree here - different format sizes have a different look about them. It's the best reason to have one of each for different purposes!
jonoslack
Active member
HI Ricardo
Whilst I don't have a rocket focus camera to compare with, I've found the K5 to be very reliable and pretty quick (even in very low light).
I turned off the focus assist light, because it pi$$ed people off, and seemed not to help much. with the 35 limited, the 16-50, and now with the 18-135, the focusing seems to be really fast and sure, right down to light levels where one wouldn't really bother. Of course, it's not as sophisticated as Nikon's AF, and probably not as fast either, but I'm certainly getting a very low oof rate.
P
photogerald
Guest
In any case it sounds like it's a huge improvement over previous Pentax bodies. Some of those in Pentax land have an inferiority complex regarding AF performance (specifically, low-light and continuous), so it's refreshing to hear a different viewpoint.
P
photogerald
Guest
Very cool! I had meant to comment on the cupboards (specifically the fixtures).