Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

I did it, switched the 5D for a K-x
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
To put more fuel on the fire: I expect the new APS-C Pentax K-5 to outperform the 5D MkII. Of course that's a bold statement but we'll see Smile

Having said that: I still miss the FF DOF. Crying or Very sad

Here's a resized K-5 sample from the Pentax website. The only thing I did was rotate the photo and resize it in Photoshop, NO sharpening was applied. The original was developed from RAW in-camera; a "reversal film filter" was applied in the process).

(original is here: http://www.pentax.jp/japan/imaging/digital/slr/k-5/image/ex_02.jpg)



PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
spot wrote:
I expect the new APS-C Pentax K-5 to outperform the 5D MkII

you should wake up spot and not only read pentaxforum
pentax was behind Canikon and now that they reach noise level of current crop sensor you dream already of 5DII Laughing


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
spot wrote:
I expect the new APS-C Pentax K-5 to outperform the 5D MkII

you should wake up spot and not only read pentaxforum
pentax was behind Canikon and now that they reach noise level of current crop sensor you dream already of 5DII Laughing


I must admit that I spend quite some time on Pentaxforums, yes Smile

But what you write is simply not true. When The K-x (entry-level Pentax) was tested by Dpreview they stated in the conclusion (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/page29.asp): "Its high ISO JPEGs are possibly the best of all current DSLRs with an APS-C size sensor; they certainly beat any of its direct competitors."

And elsewhere in the same test (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/page26.asp): "With this performance the K-x easily beats most other APS-C cameras when shooting JPEGs, including much more expensive models. If you need better low light performance than this, going full-frame is pretty much your only option."

That certainly must say something, coming from Dpreview, who always have trashed Pentax for its JPEG output and noise performance.

So Pentax has already gotten to that stage in early 2009. The Canon 7D was not even out at that time. But honestly I think you should put off your Canon glasses and start to look at the competition. Canon is getting lazy (proof: the 60D is SO underwhelming, what were they thinking?)


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
spot wrote:
Its high ISO JPEGs are possibly the best
the K-x easily beats most other APS-C cameras when shooting JPEGs

come on spot, I stopped using jpg years ago
this kind of review is for baby boomer
I have seen the recent K test where the hair nose slowly disappear as iso increase
and don't believe those 'no NR' samples, noise reduction is performed at raw level on recent sensor


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
spot wrote:
Its high ISO JPEGs are possibly the best
the K-x easily beats most other APS-C cameras when shooting JPEGs

come on spot, I stopped using jpg years ago
this kind of review is for baby boomer
I have seen the recent K test where the hair nose slowly disappear as iso increase
and don't believe those 'no NR' samples, noise reduction is performed at raw level on recent sensor


Of course, it's easy to diminish the JPEGs because it's for "baby boomers". I think you should put up a poll on this forum to ask who shoots mainly in JPEG, and who shoots mainly in RAW. You'd be surprised with the results, honestly. Also, you'd be surprised how many pro's actually shoot in JPEG. Especially news photographers never shoot RAW because they need the photos out FAST!

Anyway: I shoot in RAW myself but the JPEG output is really important in a market where more than 95% of people shoot JPEGs. Even the users of more advanced cameras like the 5D MkII. And I have met many of them.

But what I was trying to say since the beginning: you cannot wave Pentax away anymore, re-iterating that they are always lagging behind. Especially not in the field where the results are most important: in the IQ department. That they have not enough models on the shelf, or 10 variations of the same lens in the catalog, is a whole different matter.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
But what I was trying to say since the beginning: you cannot wave Pentax away anymore, re-iterating that they are always lagging behind. Especially not in the field where the results are most important: in the IQ department. That they have not enough models on the shelf, or 10 variations of the same lens in the catalog, is a whole different matter.


Poilu won't be convinced by solid arguments, it's useless. Smile

BTW, it's OT but I wholeheartedly agree with lucispictor above: driving fast you endanger the lives of others. And driving at your car's top speed is 10x dangerous, and crazy too: your car is not designed to brake, steer, or absorb bumps at that speed.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
spot wrote:
But what I was trying to say since the beginning: you cannot wave Pentax away anymore, re-iterating that they are always lagging behind. Especially not in the field where the results are most important: in the IQ department. That they have not enough models on the shelf, or 10 variations of the same lens in the catalog, is a whole different matter.

I am happy that Pentax got a great IQ, I wish they sell a lot to be able to make a FF
I am just careful with marketing tricks, every year manufacturer claim 1 stop better iso where it is mainly the NR software that get better
I am waiting to see more reviews but as I explained in my faq for crop, a crop sensor will never be FF


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
kuuan wrote:
it is not civil to accuse me of being a cheat, and it is not un-civil to defend myself stating that I find such an unfounded accusations unacceptable

I cannot not find evidence that one pic is better than the other, seems you have younger eyes than mine
the point of those samples was to show that internet pics at 1024 pixels are not enough to judge a lens or sensor
I apologize to restore your integrity in the public eye but I am sad that you still believe that crop sensor can be compared to full frame


poilu my eyes are not all that good too.
in the clouds in the area above the clocktower I can spot the lower resolution, almost pixelation in the first photo you uploaded.

Poilu thank you for your apology. I may have overreacted, but to tell you the truth, if another time someone, anyone unjustly but effectively says that I am a cheat very likely I will react similar again.

I recognize advantages of FF. All I say is that:
- for me personally the size ( and handling ) advantages of my camera outweigh the advantages of a FF. Because for my use, traveling and street shooting, the light weight and small and unobtrusive size are essential. Handling various FF cameras recently in a shop impressively reinforced me in this opinion, even though I would love FF for better use of my old lenses, better wide angle coverage and the more shallow dof. I hope that in future there will be the right FF camera for me, that is a much smaller and lighter camera as offered today, an EVIL?
- and that I enjoy shallow dof play even on my APS-C sensor camera.
besides, how fortunate for me that, as various test show, both DR and high ISO performance of my small APS-C camera are not far behind of what current FF cameras offer, that it's viewfinder is relatively good, that I prefer the handling of my camera over any of the FF cameras I have tried, and that it even stabilizes my 50 year old lenses, something which none of the current FF cameras is offering but what for me is an other effective advantage that I have been enjoying.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
I am happy that Pentax got a great IQ, I wish they sell a lot to be able to make a FF


They already have better than FF, the 645D.

And the K-x high ISO performance is tested, not a marketing trick.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ludoo wrote:
And the K-x high ISO performance is tested, not a marketing trick

I will be in Milan in January, we should meet for a iso duel Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
ludoo wrote:
And the K-x high ISO performance is tested, not a marketing trick

I will be in Milan in January, we should meet for a iso duel Very Happy


Wow Smile

Definitely give me a shout, at a minimum I can suggest you some places to eat/visit, and if you want I can show you around and we can have a drink together.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That sample is very impressive, can you see the fingerprint on her earring?

As for the k-x being one of the best crop cameras out there for high ISO performance, that is probably correct. If the K5 can do even better, great stuff, especially in such a compact package.

These are the top performing crop cameras from a high ISO point of view on DXOMark and their scores (score indicates highest ISO where output is clean):

1. Nikon D90 - 977
2. Nikon D5000 - 868
3. Canon EOS 7D - 854
4. Sony NEX 3 - 830
5. Canon EOS 60D - 813
6. Pentax K-x - 811
7. Sony a550 - 807
8. Sony NEX 5 - 796
9. Nikon D300S - 787
10. Canon EOS 550D - 784

But...to reach modern full frame levels is going to be quite difficult!

1. Nikon D3S - 3253
2. Nikon D700 - 2303
3. Nikon D3 - 2290
4. Nikon D3X - 1992
5. Canon EOS 5D Mk II - 1815
6. Canon EOS 1DS Mk III - 1663
7. Canon EOS 1DS MK II - 1480
8. Sony a850 - 1431
9. Sony a900 - 1415
10. Canon EOS 5D - 1368

Some may argue these tests are meaningless, but I've shot with a lot of cameras now and agree with everything I've seen so far.

Food for thought Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:

I use to drive Greece, Hungary, Austria, Germany, Italy always at 150km/h with max 180km/h, but only because my car cannot give more Crying or Very sad


Now you can't do this anymore on Italian highways, there is the so called "speed tutor" system, it measures average speed and like big brother, you can not avoid it.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Some may argue these tests are meaningless, but I've shot with a lot of cameras now and agree with everything I've seen so far.

Indeed, I am not impressed with what I have seen of the Nikon D3 in real use.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Some may argue these tests are meaningless, but I've shot with a lot of cameras now and agree with everything I've seen so far.

Indeed, I am not impressed with what I have seen of the Nikon D3 in real use.


As time evolves, I have noticed a discrepancy by what computer tests say and what my own eyes see. Maybe I have a different taste than those computers? Smile


PostPosted: Fri Oct 15, 2010 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
martinsmith99 wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:
Some may argue these tests are meaningless, but I've shot with a lot of cameras now and agree with everything I've seen so far.

Indeed, I am not impressed with what I have seen of the Nikon D3 in real use.


As time evolves, I have noticed a discrepancy by what computer tests say and what my own eyes see. Maybe I have a different taste than those computers? Smile


Laughing Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:


sorry Orio and sorry Canon, I must have overlooked it, that I didn't find the language menu point must have been entirely my mistake then.


not that it is anything much of importance, but to set the record right:
not to find where to set menu language to English, if the camera is set to Japanese, had not been my mistake.
What I had written earlier:

kuuan wrote:
...
I must admit however that I was not able to see the menu structure of the Canons for the simple reason that I could not read it. Language was set to Japanese, and unlike on Nikons and Pentaxes, which say 'languages' in English in the menu even if set to Japanese, on the Canons I tried I did not find any menu point saying 'languages'. To find in the menu where to set to English I would have needed to consult an instruction manual. Maybe a minor flaw, but is this really so with all the Canons?


turned out to be true, at least on Canon 60D ( I had no time to confirm it with the other Canons on display, but I am quite confident that it is just the same on the other, earlier models, and this is why I had failed to find it the last time while playing with those )
see the menu point which has to be found to set it from Japanese to English:



pushing that will lead to this:



where it can be set to English. btw. Canon 60Ds sold in Japan have only two languages to chose from, Japanese and English

cheers,
kuuan


PostPosted: Tue Oct 19, 2010 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:




Oops. I hope that noone ever does that to me or rather my cams!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Just try to work creatively on the depth of field... APS-C kills most of it. 4/3 format does kill even more.


+1

That's why I stay with 5D.

Last edited by WallyJr74 on Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:11 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ludoo wrote:


The 5D has awful ergonomics, weighs a ton...


Try Hasselblad. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ManualFocus-G wrote:

But...to reach modern full frame levels is going to be quite difficult!

…

Some may argue these tests are meaningless, but I've shot with a lot of cameras now and agree with everything I've seen so far.


One should remember that even though the “clean ISO” figures look a lot higher for full frame, the difference between 800 and 1600 is only one stop. Not that big a difference in my opinion, especially considering that the average camera on the full frame top ten is about a year older than the average camera on the APS-C top ten (due to much faster update cycles in mid- and entry-level cameras).

Not that one should expect APS-C cameras to reach full frame performance: less area, less light captured -> more noise even with equal technology. But really, all of the modern DSLRs are really good in their noise performance, and the figures show that the differences tend to be vastly exaggerated (in reviews as well as by users)…


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
ManualFocus-G wrote:

But...to reach modern full frame levels is going to be quite difficult!

…

Some may argue these tests are meaningless, but I've shot with a lot of cameras now and agree with everything I've seen so far.


One should remember that even though the “clean ISO” figures look a lot higher for full frame, the difference between 800 and 1600 is only one stop. Not that big a difference in my opinion, especially considering that the average camera on the full frame top ten is about a year older than the average camera on the APS-C top ten (due to much faster update cycles in mid- and entry-level cameras).

Not that one should expect APS-C cameras to reach full frame performance: less area, less light captured -> more noise even with equal technology. But really, all of the modern DSLRs are really good in their noise performance, and the figures show that the differences tend to be vastly exaggerated (in reviews as well as by users)…


One stop indeed, but I need that one stop indoors Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a lot of experience in shooting live action at night or in low light such as dusk.
One stop is a world of difference. One stop is the life saver. So many times. The picture in my avatar was taken at f/1.2 ISO 1600. It is nice and clear and action freezed. I sure could have taken it at ISO 800 with a noisier camera, but I would have motion blur in the subject. Or I could have used ISO 1600 on the noisier camera and freeze the action but at the cost of an image ruined by noise. To remain with the 5D MkII, if instead of the Planar 1.2/85 I had another excellent lens, the Pancolar 1.8/80, I would have been forced to use ISO 3200. And any 5D MkII user knows the difference between a 1600 ISO and a 3200 ISO on that camera.
So, one stop is like a gold mine for me. I would not have been able to take a picture that I love very much and consider amongst my best, if I didn't have that extra stop. This is worth for me more than any other consideration.
Of course I agree that in daylight sun use that one stop difference counts nothing.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sticking to the topic, Pentax APS-C cameras have built-in IS so you could have used a lower speed safely. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ludoo wrote:
Sticking to the topic, Pentax APS-C cameras have built-in IS so you could have used a lower speed safely. Smile


wouldn't help to 'freeze' the movement of the 'subject', resp. only if that 'angel' was moving as slowly as it seems Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7