Opticallimits

Full Version: The Pentax FF K1 DSLR is out: Ephotozine Review!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Quote:"Fad" is your verdict, BC - nobody else calls it fad, if an underexposed picture has some rescue (="save my ass, I never see that place again in this light") capacities. But of course, you just don't know how to take an underepxosed picture neither on purpose nor accidentally?  ^_^

 

The theory of AA and how to bend the reality to make it fit to your theory - really, you're not remotely believing I want to get strapped into some AA-lowpass-filter-weirdness? As it's plain logic that adding elements which are supposed to blurr light beams will not increase sharpness? Keep your theory, no sensor these days is benefitting from AA-filters. Yes, aliasing-effects need to be filtered before the sensor records the scene - but if the resolution goes high enough, the aliasing effects decrease as well in frequency as in visibility. You'd have a hard time to provoke aliasing in real life photography.

 

Matter of fact, I don't care if a camera has or has no AA filter, it's the results which matter. but I never saw a better picture WITH an AA-filter. A very good sample are comparisons from D800 and D800E. It's very clear, that the D800's AA-lowpassfilter not only costs sharpness but also contrast. A second AA-lowpassfilter neutralizes the effects of the first. So, as it is no real "no AA-filter camera", one wonders why Nikon took a standard sensor and added another filter to neutralize the effects of the sensor's AA-filter? If there's no bad effect, then why waste the money to neutralize it?
I was talking about the odd shadow lifting fad, and you bend it into lifting exposure to save a messed up image? Not exactly the same thing, now is it.

 

Again a whole lot of nonsense written about aliasing, you simple do not grasp the subject.

You do not even understand what Nikon did with the D800E. 

Quote:I was talking about the odd shadow lifting fad, and you bend it into lifting exposure to save a messed up image? Not exactly the same thing, now is it.

 
I would not use the word fad to describe lifting the shadows in shots of extreme contrast, eg. shooting an interior with bright light shinning through windows and doors. To be able in PP to produce an image so as to not have a featureless dark interior set against a blown out outside world may be recently possible,..... but it isn't a fad..... it's here to stay...not even the most perfect exposure could achieve it straight off the bat!

Quote:I would not use the word fad to describe lifting the shadows in shots of extreme contrast, eg. shooting an interior with bright light shinning through windows and doors. To be able in PP to produce an image so as to not have a featureless dark interior set against a blown out outside world may be recently possible,..... but it isn't a fad..... it's here to stay...not even the most perfect exposure could achieve it straight off the bat!
Lifting shadows many stops indeed enables a lot of bad photos, that is true. And bad photos always have been made and always will be made. Point taken  Wink
Almost perfectly wriggled Houdini, but not quite!  B)

A few years ago someone gave the same argument of sunny outdoors and a dark indoor scene, with his example. Result: boring indoor scene not interesting to anyone (think family vacation albums boring) with the idea that outside is pretty overcast and strange because the contrasts do not work at all.

Care to give your examples?

I'll have to dig some out but with shadows only lightly brought up in post....however DPreview's test shots using the D750 in an indoor aircraft hanger at Duxford are a better example than I could show.

 

Although as the K3's PS didn't images impress, I get the impression I will be on hiding to nothing here!

It appears like Pentax still sucks a lot where AF is concerned. The K1 review by dpreview is out.

Guest

I'm not sure which sucks more, the K-1's AF or the DPReview's "test" Wink

OTOH nobody should buy the K-1 primarily as a sports camera; but do I have to say that?

Pentax amde much ado about the new AF system, so it is good that they tested it. Sure, DPReview's tests of non-Sony and non-Nikon cameras always are a bit iffy.

Guest

Not so much ado - on the K-1's Features section, it's on page 5 of 6 Wink

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/p...re/05.html

 

They do try some marketing, but that's excusable. I think the consensus between users is that there's some improvement over the K-3II (I can't personally confirm this because I had no K-3 series cameras)

It's an advanced camera launched at entry level prices, after all. It's launch price is lower than that of the 6D (in 2012) and D610 (2013).

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10