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

Pentax and full frame
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Needing and wanting are two different things. If Canon can reliably squeeze more pixels into its FF sensor, it will do so because this will fuel the needs of those people who have this desire for more, more, more!

It's like horsepower in cars. No car maker in its right mind is going to state something like, "Oh, 200 hp is plenty" because its competitor is gonna come out with a car that has 250 hp, and then another competitor is gonna come out with one that has 300 hp, and before you know it, the car maker with the 200 hp car is looking at boosting performance or going out of business.

It isn't about need, it's about want.

The key word above is "reliably." Frankly, I was surprised when I saw that Canon backed off on pixel count with its G-series cameras, from 14-something with the G10 to 10-something with the G11 and G12, but from what I understand, they did this to clean up the high-ISO capabilities, so they had a solid reason for doing this. But I'll bet that doing so will cause the G10 to maintain a higher than normal resale value as a used item, too.

But getting back to Pentax -- and its competitors -- regarding FF cameras, whether SLR or EVF, I think it's gonna be all about competition and meeting consumer demand. And if that's the case, the results can be wildly unpredictable.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Joosep wrote:

Everything you stated is correct. But in very bad situations, 1/3 of a stop wont be enough for the AF sensor. Then back to MF ?


I don't know, I have no experience with, or (like I said) any particular interest in, these cameras. However, remember that the AF sensor can see the whole aperture of the lens, which is the important part for phase detect AF, just with less light. Personally I doubt AF will have issues due to this, have you heard actual reports otherwise?

(Of course the camera could theoretically fall back on main sensor contrast detect AF, as used by almost all live view cameras so it wouldn't be a downside in comparison to competitors—better AF 99% of the time, same AF for the remaining 1%? I don't know this is actually implemented, or even necessary—I suspect the phase detect AF will keep working longer than that even with less light, but again, I have no personal experience.)

Last edited by Arkku on Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:57 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hu, I like what Sony has done!
the NEX takes M39, Leica M lenses and all the rest, Canon FD, Konica, name it! - and that in this amazingly small form factor though with APS-C. From what I hear it is fun to use with manual lenses and it meters them amazingly well. I was told by a Sony employee that an EVF for the NEX is in the making.

The translucent cam may not be my thing, but I like it for offering something innovative which should have advantages for video, and because it will make more users aware of the many advantages, yes, I mean to say advantages of a good EVF! ( though sure it has disadvantages too )

I doubt Pentax will release a FF any time soon.
If they venture into a new kind of camera I expect them to go mirrorless first and I guess it would be APS-C.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Translucent mirror, in order to avoid the delay caused by the lifting of the traditional mirror?
But the solution already exists, it's called "rangefinder" - and no light loss! Wink Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Translucent mirror, in order to avoid the delay caused by the lifting of the traditional mirror?


The primary reason is phase detect AF in live view & video mode. Although I suppose they could design a translucent mirror that flips up, giving this advantage but not the faster fps, and no loss of light (but still losing OVF, which is the major issue by far).


PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
High ISO noise is the Achilles' heel of the 5D Mark II.


I thought the general opinion of the 5Dmk2 was that high ISO performance is it's strength. What I've gathered (especially from people who switched to the Sony A900/850) is that the 5Dmk2 suffers from noise banding even at ISO100, when you have to push the exposure even a little bit. The Sony FF's and no doubt the Nikons too, have cleaner low ISO images. I have seen only a glimpse of the shadow latitude of the Pentax K5, but it seems to be worlds apart from the 5Dmk2.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
Orio wrote:
High ISO noise is the Achilles' heel of the 5D Mark II.


I thought the general opinion of the 5Dmk2 was that high ISO performance is it's strength. What I've gathered (especially from people who switched to the Sony A900/850) is that the 5Dmk2 suffers from noise banding even at ISO100, when you have to push the exposure even a little bit. The Sony FF's and no doubt the Nikons too, have cleaner low ISO images. I have seen only a glimpse of the shadow latitude of the Pentax K5, but it seems to be worlds apart from the 5Dmk2.


This comment about noise-banding on the 5D Mk II concerned me somewhat because the 5D Mk II is on my "I'll buy one of these eventually" list. Shocked And after doing a bunch of googling and peering at the underexposed areas of a bunch of images, I've come to the conclusion that this is the sort of non-issue that pixel-peepers live for. In other words, I will not lose any sleep over it. Really.

I think I would prefer to find some sort of exacting, scientific system of measurement that will do things like measure noise at various ISOs for various camera models -- AND THEN see actual photo examples to decide for myself whether these differences matter or not. And only then would I be willing to make a decision as to whether the camera would be worth purchasing.
.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
What I've gathered (especially from people who switched to the Sony A900/850) is that the 5Dmk2 suffers from noise banding even at ISO100, when you have to push the exposure even a little bit.


That is surely exaggerated. I can detect some noise in the shadow areas of 5DII images even at 100 ISO -which is not good, when you think that the first 5D has none-, but, I did never detect any visually recognizeable banding until ISO 3200.

Having that said, I expect a different noise performance from a camera like the 5DII. I hate to have to perform noise reduction at ISO 100. Unless you do local reduction (which takes time), the image will suffer. And at ISO 100, it definitely should not be an issue.
To counter that, I have adopted the habit of overexposing the 5DII by 2/3 stops, except in high contrast scenes. This creates RAW files that are still fully recoverable in the highlights, and boosts the quality in the shadows.
But that is not normal, it's not what it should be. I never had to do anything like that with the old 5D. In fact, the old 5D was really spoiling and a bad working habit, in that you could use it almost regardless of any histogram, and 90% of the time obtain a perfect photo from it.

Banding - like I said, it appears visibly to me at ISO 3200, but with careful denoising it can be eliminated and a usable photo obtained.
From 6400 ISO onwards, the banding is absolutely dominating the flat areas and annoying and totally (at least from my point of view) wasting the photo, unless it is a documentary photojournalistic type of photo (which I do not take), where taking the photo at all costs is what counts.

Like I wrote, I hope (or better said "expect", since it will be a discriminating factor for a possible purchase) from the upcoming 5DIII to be able to take a 6400 ISO photograph and handle it with just a simple noise reduction, without any banding issue, pretty much like what ISO 1600 is currently on 5DII.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 3:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well shoot, it seems like there's always a fly in the ointment at one point or another. So, I gotta ask -- the 5D II use the same sensor as the 1Ds Mk III, right? And if it does, does this mean that Canon's high-end flagship model has the same problem?

I've been doing some more googling on this subject and most of the images that are shown seem to me to be examples of people making huge issues out of things that were unheard of, or virtually non-issues back in the days when film still predominated. I have recently begun to consider that this latest generation of camera users -- who have never used film -- have no perspective as to what it takes to just to make an image. They are after perfection and anything short of it, even by the most negligible amount, is not acceptable.

I'm beginning to feel old . . .


PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My 5D mkII is my main camera for shooting microstock where pixels are peeped to a frightening degree by inspectors and I have never had a "noise banding" problem. The main source of rejection is that Canon L class lenses produce chromatic aberrations that are more visible on the larger files and which need special processing through the raw converter to clean up. You also need to watch out for camera shake which can make detail look mushy - even at speeds where you would not expect it on past experience. The size of the file multiplies every defect.

Another thing to consider is that even if someone can scrape together some examples of "noise banding" visible when viewing a 22MP file at 72dpi, then would it be visible if you shrank the file to 12MP, as with the old 5D? A 22mp file viewed at 72dpi is equivalent to a print seven feet wide and four feet high (or more than two metres by one if you prefer). Do you have a need for images where it is unacceptable to have defects in prints that size when viewing them from 18 inches away? I don't know anybody in the real world who would have an issue with that.

I have had very obvious and nasty banding when trying to shoot at night at around 6,400 ISO. If someone has a camera that performs perfectly at that film speed I would be interested to hear about it (but I'm sure I couldn't afford it).

(I'm sure I've read somewhere that there is a slight difference between the sensors on the MkIII and the 5DII, it was suggested the 5DII had the next generation of technology)


PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
From 6400 ISO onwards, the banding is absolutely dominating the flat areas and annoying and totally (at least from my point of view) wasting the photo, unless it is a documentary photojournalistic type of photo (which I do not take), where taking the photo at all costs is what counts.


What do you shoot at that speed? I mean you have loads of 1.4 lenses.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
Orio wrote:
From 6400 ISO onwards, the banding is absolutely dominating the flat areas and annoying and totally (at least from my point of view) wasting the photo, unless it is a documentary photojournalistic type of photo (which I do not take), where taking the photo at all costs is what counts.


What do you shoot at that speed? I mean you have loads of 1.4 lenses.


Trust me, a 6400 ISO that would work like the current 1600 ISO of 5DMkII would be greatly helpful in some extreme situations. For instance the photo series to which my avatar image belongs was taken at f/1.2 ISO 1600 and 1/100 shutter time, focusing was a discrete PITA and if you look closely some body parts like feet or hands show some motion blur due to slow shutter time. If I could use 1/200 shutter time and f/1.8 aperture at 6400 ISO my work would have been a lot easier.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mmm .. ever considered using a flash. They are pretty good and handy nowdays and you can't see from the picture that it has been taken with a flash.

Here is my current idol, about all of his pictures been taken with some kind of flash. http://portfolio.joemcnally.com/

Of course if the situation is such that you are not allowed to use a flash because it disturbs the feeling or can't position it correctly, then it is different.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
Mmm .. ever considered using a flash. They are pretty good and handy nowdays and you can't see from the picture that it has been taken with a flash.


On a scene like that depicted in Orio's avatar picture, a flash would produce quite a different result. A flash is a point source, which means that for every doubling of the distance between the flash and the subject you lose two stops of illumination. In a room, a bounce flash can help, sometimes a lot, but for outside scenes a flash is often quite hopeless if you want to get an even remotely natural looking picture. Considering Orio's picture, already the second girl would be much darker than the foreground girl, and the building in the background would be almost lost in the darkness. It is, of course, OK if you want to capture just the foreground girl. Personally, I rather tolerate noise and blur than the side-effects of using a flash. On those of my cameras which have a built-in flash, I have taped the flash closed just to make sure.

Veijo


PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The avatar is so small I can't see if it is in or out. Is she holding candles?

EDIT: but, yes, I agree, if you want to stop motion in a candlelight dance you must have iso 6400 Smile


PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
Mmm .. ever considered using a flash. They are pretty good and handy nowdays and you can't see from the picture that it has been taken with a flash.


Veijo already nailed it with his reply. With flash I would have gotten a frontally illuminated subject with almost black background. And all the poetic value of the image would have been lost.

I agree that is possible to obtain masterful photos with the use of flashes or strobes. But this requires a controlled set.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do you have the orginal set somewhere here? I would like to look at it more carefully but can't find it.

What McNally would have done is shouted: "Stop right there! I'll move my flash set 1 meter to the left, and don't make wrinkles to the costume, it was expensive!". His 'The moment it clicks' is really fun book to read.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PaulC wrote:

I have had very obvious and nasty banding when trying to shoot at night at around 6,400 ISO. If someone has a camera that performs perfectly at that film speed I would be interested to hear about it (but I'm sure I couldn't afford it).


After staring at several alleged examples of noise banding at some length I found on the web, it seems to me that it resembles posterization in the shadow areas, yes? I run into this sort of thing if I do too much processing on 8-bit images, but it's not always restricted to the shadow areas. If this is noise banding, then I've also noticed it from the digital signal I receive with my satellite TV service. Clear and obvious "banding" in the shadow areas, such that some scenes look as if they are "paint-by-number" paintings.

I was wondering the other day if digital photography had the equivalent to film's reciprocity failure. And I think I've found the answer: yes, and it is noise banding. This is very possibly something that will never be entirely eliminated. I hesitate to use the word "never" however, since it is negative infinity. But this may well be the price one pays if one insists on extremely high ISO numbers. Again it seeems to me that a bit of perspective is called for. 15 years ago, ISO 1600 was considered extremely fast. 10 years ago, the biggest complaint about digital image processors was their slow ISO speeds. Now, we've got folks insisting on ISO 12,800 and faster so they can, what? Take hand-held photos of the Orion Nebula?

After stumbling across "problems" such as this, it just further confirms my conviction that any serious modern student of photography must also read up on the history of photography and gain proficiency with film before even considering taking up a digital camera and using it in any serious fashion. Just so the student can have some perspective regarding the craft. Else, their complaints come across as peevish demands to perhaps old-fashioned and curmudgeonly old folks like me, who are used to, and have accepted, certain limitations that must be accepted for the sake of image quality.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Again it seeems to me that a bit of perspective is called for. 15 years ago, ISO 1600 was considered extremely fast. 10 years ago, the biggest complaint about digital image processors was their slow ISO speeds. Now, we've got folks insisting on ISO 12,800 and faster so they can, what? Take hand-held photos of the Orion Nebula?


I was thinking along similar lines today, after a few hours with my "new" Leica Digilux 2 (I will post a separate thread on it): it's a great camera but it's old, and the only practical ISO is 100. But strangely I found that almost liberating, and welcomed the needed attention to holding the camera steady (1/15 is perfectly doable) and using the built-in bounce flash creatively. DSLRs often make us lazy, and dumb.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is unbelievable that, for all brands, Pentax does not produce any decent full frame cameras and lenses Crying or Very sad

The brand has fallen a long way down since the 1970's Sad


PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eeyore_nl wrote:
It is unbelievable that, for all brands, Pentax does not produce any decent full frame cameras and lenses Crying or Very sad

The brand has fallen a long way down since the 1970's Sad


This is true. Actually about 20 years ago, I didn't think Pentax was gonna survive the move over to autofocus. But they did, and that switch is where Pentax took the real hit, IMO. But Pentax is not alone when it comes to being a respected camera maker who doesn't have an FF option. There's Olympus. You don't see them playing with any FF designs either. They're going the other way, in fact. And Kyocera (parent corporation for Contax/Yashica) has completely exited from the camera market altogether. Sadly that's what often happens when a big conglomerate buys out a smaller but deeply respected manufacturer. It's all about the accounting bottom line, and brand loyalty or tradition mean nothing anymore. So rather than work through a rough patch and meet the competition head-on, they fold up their tents and go home.

Perhaps there's some comfort in the fact that digital photography has some new players that didn't exist back in the days when film predominated. Such as Panasonic. Maybe P-sonic will step up to the plate and become more competitive against the big boys. Who knows? I knda doubt it, though.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@ Cooltouch:
banding is something that I see only in the latest Canon cameras. All digital cameras have high ISO noise, but only the latest Canons (amongst the cameras that I know) seem to have banding; for instance, the first 5D has bad 3200 ISO noise, but uniformly distributed. WHile the 5DII has less noise at 3200 ISO, but it tends to appear with banding shape. Which makes me think that banding is the result of the in camera noise reduction algorhythms, more than something like a "feature" of digital noise. If it was such a thing, it would show up in all cameras and brands.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
@ Cooltouch:
banding is something that I see only in the latest Canon cameras. All digital cameras have high ISO noise, but only the latest Canons (amongst the cameras that I know) seem to have banding; for instance, the first 5D has bad 3200 ISO noise, but uniformly distributed.


You can easily get banding out of a 5D or 40D, even at ISO 100, if you push the exposure one or two stops. The horizontal banding in dark areas can become very obvious.

I haven't shot my 5D at 3200 ISO yet, so I don't know how it looks with a proper exposure. If there are deep shadows will probably be banding. It was definitely there on my 40D at ISO 3200 (without pushing the exposure).

After a bit of searching, I've seen vertical banding on 5Dmk2 shots. That is something I've never seen on my 40D and 5D.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:

You can easily get banding out of a 5D or 40D, even at ISO 100, if you push the exposure one or two stops. The horizontal banding in dark areas can become very obvious.


Just to avoid misunderstandings: I was talking of noise banding, not colour banding (=posterization)


PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Just to avoid misunderstandings: I was talking of noise banding, not colour banding (=posterization)

So was I. Perfectly horizontal posterization would hard to get anyway. Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Official News and Announcements
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3