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: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
With ISO 51600 on the K-5, no one would ever need IS anymore unless it's pitch black Smile



And a 100% crop of the above:



For me, the most outstanding thing of the K-5 is the fact that there's hardly any banding. Even with ISO 51600 pushed 4 stops I saw nothing serious...


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
With ISO 51600 on the K-5, no one would ever need IS anymore unless it's pitch black Smile

Laughing Peter, but let's settle for amazing high ISO + IS to be the ultimate low light package.
if that girl holds still IS enables us, as we all know, to go 2, maybe 3 ISO steps lower, and however amazing ISO 51600 is, the ISO 12800 or ISO 6400 result would be decidedly better!
IS + ISO 51600 Shocked ..looks like new territory to me


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Funny that pictures now considered “ruined” by noise are cleaner than film ever was at similar ISO. And similarly a camera with “unusable” high ISO today is better than any manufacturer's similar camera was a few years back.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spot, this shot at ISO51600(!) is amazing!!

Arkku wrote:
Funny that pictures now considered “ruined” by noise are cleaner than film ever was at similar ISO. And similarly a camera with “unusable” high ISO today is better than any manufacturer's similar camera was a few years back.

That's what I have said many times. But then there is a difference between grain, eps. with b&w film and colour noise which is much more disturbing than luminosity noise.
Almost no colour noise and very little luminosity noise would make the "perfect" image. If there is no noise at all, it often seems to "sterile" - for me.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
Funny that pictures now considered “ruined” by noise are cleaner than film ever was at similar ISO. And similarly a camera with “unusable” high ISO today is better than any manufacturer's similar camera was a few years back.


And no-one talks about the difference attitudes towards noise of the various programmes we use at our computer to watch the photo's. I see a clear difference between many programmes, Irfanview being among the programmes emphasising noise.
If you print a photo the noise magically disappears. My 20x30 prints of even my ISO 3200 photos made with my old istDs hardly have a trace of noise. In contrast to the same photo on screen.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The above is all true, of course, no denying that.

However... Remember the shot of the lady a few posts back? Click here to see the denoised version (1-pass denoise and some simple PP).

WARNING!!! DON'T CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW IF YOU HAVE NO INTENTIONS TO BUY A PENTAX K-5!!!!

http://www.bertin.ca/tmp/K-5/ISO/K5__9935_MED_1.jpg

Cool


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ok, now who will need such high isos ? Apart if you like shooting darkness, but everyone can do it, just leave the cap on Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:
Ok, now who will need such high isos ? Apart if you like shooting darkness, but everyone can do it, just leave the cap on Wink


For me, there's some fun in the fact that I can continue shooting in the rain (because the K-5 and some of my lenses are weather sealed) and even when it's nearing absolute darkness. This opens up a whole dimension of new photo opportunities without the need to use a tripod...


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
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


Exactly.
The girl was walking, not really fast, but fast enough for not allowing 1/100 shutter time to freeze the foot completely.
If I had to shoot at 1/50, the whole figure would be blurred and the picture unuseable.
(it is useful to recall that with fast walking or arm waiving or head turning humans, 1/250 is the speed threshold that I consider safe from experience. With running people I never go under 1/500 unless I am after a motion blur effect)

Image stabilization in my very personal and very humble opinion is one of the most useless marketing tricks. I consider it practically useless, except for still subjects in the dark or for very long teles, for which I would use a tripod or any available support anyway.

The only real use I can think of for IS is the situation where you are, like, in vacation, with no access to a tripod, and you want to shoot a night landscape or a group of friends in a room with a weak light bulb, and can not find a bench or a wall or a tree around to use. Which, means practically never, because in those occasions I was always able to find some support to use. (Not to mention the fact that in vacation I would never have a bulky reflex camera system with me).


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
For me, there's some fun in the fact that I can continue shooting in the rain (because the K-5 and some of my lenses are weather sealed) and even when it's nearing absolute darkness. This opens up a whole dimension of new photo opportunities without the need to use a tripod...



That's a personal esthetic choice. For me i prefer to play with light : )

oh by the way i watched the pic in the link above, well even "denoised" the pic , or some parts in it like on the right of the woman's mouth looks really awful, melted pixels soup. It's not too criticise the Pentax or something, just check it on the image, i'm not making things up.

Ok those are very high iso, for me it's unusable as are advertised 100 000 isos on some cameras, it's just marketing. You can't make a proper pic at those settings, at least by now.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hexi wrote:
Spotmatic wrote:
For me, there's some fun in the fact that I can continue shooting in the rain (because the K-5 and some of my lenses are weather sealed) and even when it's nearing absolute darkness. This opens up a whole dimension of new photo opportunities without the need to use a tripod...



That's a personal esthetic choice. For me i prefer to play with light : )

oh by the way i watched the pic in the link above, well even "denoised" the pic , or some parts in it like on the right of the woman's mouth looks really awful, melted pixels soup. It's not too criticise the Pentax or something, just check it on the image, i'm not making things up.

Ok those are very high iso, for me it's unusable as are advertised 100 000 isos on some cameras, it's just marketing. You can't make a proper pic at those settings, at least by now.


Wait, did you just denoise the last picture, which was already denoised?

Please try it yourself with the DNG file. It's here: http://www.multiupload.com/C0K00L2HMK


PostPosted: Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ludoo wrote:
orangehexagon wrote:
Why this hatred towards Canon ergonomics?


Try a Pentax camera, then get back to me on this. Smile


Okay, I've spent a little time with the K-x now and have to disagree, instead of smacking myself in the face when I want to change aperture with Canon (moot point using MF lenses) I now smack myself in the face every time I want to change shutter speed!


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
William wrote:
ludoo wrote:
orangehexagon wrote:
Why this hatred towards Canon ergonomics?


Try a Pentax camera, then get back to me on this. Smile


Okay, I've spent a little time with the K-x now and have to disagree, instead of smacking myself in the face when I want to change aperture with Canon (moot point using MF lenses) I now smack myself in the face every time I want to change shutter speed!


William what's your problem with changing shutter speeds on your K-x?

Orio wrote:

Image stabilization in my very personal and very humble opinion is one of the most useless marketing tricks. I consider it practically useless, except for still subjects in the dark or for very long teles, for which I would use a tripod or any available support anyway.


Amazing how opinions, experiences may vary..

With all due respect, Orio, saying that stabilization is 'practically useless' and 'one of the most useless marketing tricks' in my very humble opinion deserves your very own words ( Smile ) as response, quote: 'But really the kind of arguments that are being offered lately are on the borderline of laughable' even: 'Why do I have the impression that more and more simple excuses are brought instead of solid arguments?'

That language problem in the Canon's menu I had pointed out and to which you responded with these words may be a minor nuisance, not an important point ( though it kind of was all important to me, since it disabled me from using the menu ) but after all, as I later verified, it is a solid fact.

To negate the usefulness of IS, which since years has been shown and proven by innumerable tests and personal experiences, that IMHO truly deserve such words.
Seriously, I find it quite stunning having to, and thus feel hesitant to elaborate on the usefulness of image stabilization. Where to start?

Orio wrote:
The only real use I can think of for IS is the situation where you are, like, in vacation, with no access to a tripod, and you want to shoot a night landscape or a group of friends in a room with a weak light bulb, and can not find a bench or a wall or a tree around to use. Which, means practically never, because in those occasions I was always able to find some support to use. (Not to mention the fact that in vacation I would never have a bulky reflex camera system with me)


Most certainly the majority of photographers who have IS available, including me, regard and value IS as an amazingly effective and useful tool with many applications.

Taking photos of people during parties, in bars, restaurants, on the beach, being out at night, where ever it was, and that without tripod and definitely not only during vacations, is a HUGE field of photography, for many the single most important! To capture the atmosphere, that is using natural lighting, no flash, a reflex camera with it’s good high ISO performance is the camera of choice! - though me too, specially for this use too, prefer the less bulky ones Wink

Even in situations where one may think that IS won't help because for not freezing movement as e.g in concert photography IS often enables a shot which would not have been possible without.

Though useless in the specific situation of freezing object movement, it expands the choices of average 3 stops lower ISO resp. smaller aperture for no less than, and for most this will be the vast majority, all other handheld photographic situations!

best regards,
kuuan


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have to disagree with Orio over image stabilisation. I found that it has helped a lot with static night time scenes and telephotography. It is a lot easier to handhold a slow telephoto lens like the Tair-3s.

Kuuan, my problem is that due to the location of the shutter speed wheel, I wear glasses and use my left eye for the viewfinder. I have to remove the camera from my face otherwise my nose gets in the way of my finger. The green button comes in handy to get me most of the way to correct exposure.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

Taking photos of people during parties, in bars, restaurants, on the beach, being out at night, where ever it was, and that without tripod and definitely not only during vacations, is a HUGE field of photography, for many the single most important! To capture the atmosphere, that is using natural lighting, no flash, a reflex camera with it’s good high ISO performance is the camera of choice! - though me too, specially for this use too, prefer the less bulky ones Wink
Even in situations where one may think that IS won't help because for not freezing movement as e.g in concert photography IS often enables a shot which would not have been possible without.
Though useless in the specific situation of freezing object movement, it expands the choices of average 3 stops lower ISO resp. smaller aperture for no less than, and for most this will be the vast majority, all other handheld photographic situations!
best regards,
kuuan


Freezing movement is not "specific situation", it's most situations where life is involved.

You say that taking pictures during parties and venues is a huge field of photography and for many the single most important.

Although I definitely disagree with that, I will not contest your sentence.

I see the "party photography" as a two way situation:

A) if you take snapshots, people moves, always faster than a 1/50 shutter speed that is the typical handheld speed for reflex cameras. So IS is useless, because you always need at the very least a 1/125 even for slow moving people - and 1/125 is a speed at which you can always photograph with a fast lens and a decent DSLR camera with no need for IS.

B) If you taked posed photos, then you also have the time to find some support to use - be it a wall, a chair, a table, a clothes hanger, whatever. So while IS may relief from the need to dedicate one minute to find a support -talk about lazy photographer- I don't see a real need for it.

Either way, I find it useless. It is my opinion that IS is marketed at people who autofocus because they are too lazy to manual focus and who IS because they are too lazy to learn steady camera handling technique and to find available supports.
This is perfectly legit, but I think it does not change the nature of the IS which is basically the same of face recognition and other amenities: offering automation that goes beyond the really useful (as sometimes good implemented AF can be) and into the realm of marketing gadget (as face recognition is).

FInally, in explaining my opinion I stated that it's very humble and very personal. Maybe you have not noticed so please go back and notice. Therefore I find the energy of your polemic reply quite excessive. I did not try to market my opinion as absolute truth, all the opposite.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

That language problem in the Canon's menu I had pointed out and to which you responded with these words may be a minor nuisance, not an important point ( though it kind of was all important to me, since it disabled me from using the menu ) but after all, as I later verified, it is a solid fact.


Solid fact? You do use a Japanese language camera, what do you pretend if you don't know Japanese? People who don't know Japanese ask the shop to sell them an English set camera. Or, consult the English manual, find where the language menu is, and change the setting. Or, if they got hold of the camera in a strange way where they don't have access to the printed manual, they go online, find the PDF of the manual, and consult it.
In any case, they verify that there is a language setting, before they state publicly as a truth that Canon cameras do not have a language setting.
Because all Canon cameras do have a language setting, and that, is a solid fact.

Last edited by Orio on Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:22 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio my personal photographic history and reality is as follows:

I use 99,5% of the time manual focus lenses
I have practiced steady camera handling techniques and achieved sharp photos with remarkable slow shutter speeds without IS
When I started to have IS I first thought it to be quite useless

by now, after some 9 months of having IS, I very highly appreciate and value the extra leverage and possibilities it gives me.

best regards,
Andreas


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
Orio my personal photographic history and reality is as follows:

I use 99,5% of the time manual focus lenses
I have practiced steady camera handling techniques and achieved sharp photos with remarkable slow shutter speeds without IS
When I started to have IS I first thought it to be quite useless

by now, after some 9 months of having IS, I very highly appreciate and value the extra leverage and possibilities it gives me.

best regards,
Andreas


That is fine, I respect your opinion, so why don't you respect mine?


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
kuuan wrote:

That language problem in the Canon's menu I had pointed out and to which you responded with these words may be a minor nuisance, not an important point ( though it kind of was all important to me, since it disabled me from using the menu ) but after all, as I later verified, it is a solid fact.


Solid fact? You do use a Japanese language camera, what do you pretend if you don't know Japanese? People who don't know Japanese ask the shop to sell them an English set camera. Or, consult the English manual, find where the language menu is, and change the setting. Or, if they got hold of the camera in a strange way where they don't have access to the printed manual, they go online, find the PDF of the manual, and consult it.
In any case, they verify that there is a language setting, before they state publicly as a truth that Canon cameras do not have a language setting.
Because all Canon cameras do have a language setting, and that, is a solid fact.


Orio everything I had said about Canons offered in Japan and the difficulty in finding how to switch to English, if set to Japanese, is factual truth.
I never said that Canons do not have a language setting or anything of that regard. You must have misread my statement.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

Orio I never said that Canons do not have a language setting.
You must have misread my statement.
Everything I had said about Canons offered in japan is factual truth.


So, they are sold with Japanese set as language. Where's the big deal, since they are sold in Japan?
If I had to buy anything in Japan (from cameras to watches to computers) the first thing I would ask the seller is if he provides instructions in English.
If I don't ask, then I can only blame myself.
And in any case, this is really such a meaningless issue. Every one who is too lazy to consult a manual in order to operate a camera that he does not know and has never used before, does deserve what ever difficulties he finds in operating the camera. It is my opinion, that if someone does not want to spend one minute looking at a manual, he should better restrain himself to point and shoot fixed focus cameras. Serious photography, like any other serious hobby, requires the minimum legal amount of dedication.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
kuuan wrote:

Orio I never said that Canons do not have a language setting.
You must have misread my statement.
Everything I had said about Canons offered in japan is factual truth.


So, they are sold with Japanese set as language. Where's the big deal, since they are sold in Japan?
If I had to buy anything in Japan (from cameras to watches to computers) the first thing I would ask the seller is if he provides instructions in English.
If I don't ask, then I can only blame myself.
And in any case, this is really such a meaningless issue. Every one who is too lazy to consult a manual in order to operate a camera that he does not know and has never used before, does deserve what ever difficulties he finds in operating the camera. It is my opinion, that if someone does not want to spend one minute looking at a manual, he should better restrain himself to point and shoot fixed focus cameras. Serious photography, like any other serious hobby, requires the minimum legal amount of dedication.


peace Orio!
it's just that I had handled Nikons, Pentaxes, Fujis, Ricohs, Olympus, Sigmas, Panasonics, I sure forget one or the other now, sold in Japan. All were set to Japanese, and on all it was easy to find where to set to English ( as their menu is clever enough to say 'languages' also in English, not only Japanese ) Canon was the only exception. This sure was an annoyance for me, but certainly it is of little relevance. I never said it was a big deal. Now feel sorry to have ever mentioned it as IMO it has caused undue emotions and words.

Orio wrote:
kuuan wrote:
Orio my personal photographic history and reality is as follows:

I use 99,5% of the time manual focus lenses
I have practiced steady camera handling techniques and achieved sharp photos with remarkable slow shutter speeds without IS
When I started to have IS I first thought it to be quite useless

by now, after some 9 months of having IS, I very highly appreciate and value the extra leverage and possibilities it gives me.

best regards,
Andreas


That is fine, I respect your opinion, so why don't you respect mine?


Orio I always have and will respect your opinion. Again and again I specifically mentioned that I see and don't dispute the advantages of a FF camera.
In return stout defenders of FF here not once have acknowledged the obvious size and price advantages of e.g. the K-x.
Even if I accept that you see IS to be practically useless, I cannot but dispute this opinion because I can show you a multitude of photos which, without it, I would not have been able to take.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm a strong defender of IS. I don't believe we should call photographers who never use a tripod or other means of camera support 'lazy'. Personally I have a strong aversion against tripods unless there's no way I could take a photo without one (such as when I work with my 500mm Sigma). Why? With a tripod, what would be the difference between you and a Victorian era photographer? I know for sure that when I use a tripod to photograph people, they will start pose and lose their spontaneity. With a tripod, in my shooting style, all I would get are staged photos. So, for me, it's nothing but handheld shots. If it's about capturing the right moment then there's really no time to put up a tripod or for searching for another means of support. This should not be mistaken for laziness!

But things are bound to change anyway. The ISOs get higher and of a better quality, diminishing the importance of IS and tripods. Please accept that fact.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 7:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:

In return stout defenders of FF here not once have acknowledged the obvious size and price advantages of e.g. the K-x.


I never denied the price advantages of a crop format camera and also it's usefulness when shooting telephoto snapshots with small lightweight lenses. I used to own one since 2003 until last week, always used them extensively, and I don't exclude to buy another one in the future if budget allows. They are very handy when shooting live action with tele lenses.

About the size, I don't agree that the size of a camera is determined by the sensor. I have evidence in support. I have a Leica M9 which sports a full frame sensor and it's smaller than what my 400D used to be and of similar size than some micro 4/3 cameras with sensor only half the size. And I used to have a 50D which was just as big as the 5DMkII.

I dispute the competitivity in image quality, because in my opinion (supported by scientific tests) there is no competition in that respect. I used the 400D together with the 5D, and the 50D together with the 5DMkII, and the difference in image quality was visible even without going to 100% view. The full frame is richer in shades, is more subtle, and has lots more dynamic range.

Then of course I will take one of your beautiful Asian pictures taken with a corp camera over most of the images taken with a full frame Canon or Nikon by tasteless amateur photographers. But cameras have nothing to do with that Wink


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my experience image stabilisation (when done in-camera so that it's actually available for a vintage lens user like myself) is one of the best technological advantages digital cameras have over film. No matter how good one's holding technique is, IS helps make it even better just like a tripod can make a shot even sharper despite being taken at an “easily hand-holdable” speed. If stabilisation is a gimmick then tripods are too: they serve the exact same purpose. (Yes, tripods do it better but great expense to convenience.)


PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
In my experience image stabilisation (when done in-camera so that it's actually available for a vintage lens user like myself) is one of the best technological advantages digital cameras have over film. No matter how good one's holding technique is, IS helps make it even better just like a tripod can make a shot even sharper despite being taken at an “easily hand-holdable” speed. If stabilisation is a gimmick then tripods are too: they serve the exact same purpose. (Yes, tripods do it better but great expense to convenience.)


Well, it you will prove to me that a hand-held image with IS is better than a tripod image with mirror lifted, I will convert myself to your credo!
(but still not buy a IS camera just because of IS) Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital SLR Cameras
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7