Some results are in at DPreview, the K1 shows the D810 how it's done!
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2055527036/...f=mainmenu
DPreview.:
In conclusion, the K-1 gives one of the best Raw dynamic range results we've ever seen, when shooting in single shot mode and absolutely outstanding results in circumstances where you can use the pixel shift mode. The multiple sampling of the same scene effectively gives a 2EV dynamic range boost, meaning it out-performs both the D810 and the 645Z by a comfortable margin. Less noise (though multiple captures) and multiple 14-bit values at every pixel mean it can give outstanding levels of DR wherever you can use the Pixel Shift mode.
How timely is that?
Quote:You mean the texts underneath the scales?
Sorry, I cannot agree. Sometimes I could a tint of magenta at the 5DR, but not really worse than Pentax. On the other side, the corner patterns of 5DR and a bit less so the D810 are compared to K1 simply excellent. I was looking first at the details of the feathers.
I don't see the reason to blow the RAW file up to 200MB, except for the ISO numbers above 12800 - there Pixel Shift has dramatic effect. But if I need to set up the camera on a tripod I can go down to lower ISO with CaNikon and have the same quality.
No, I clicked on the link you posted and see a white on black text, with letters getting smaller and smaller downward. The white letters start to show false colour (blue, yellow) with the 5DSR and D810, the K1 pixel shift shows just white, no false colour.
Quote:No, I clicked on the link you posted and see a white on black text, with letters getting smaller and smaller downward. The white letters start to show false colour (blue, yellow) with the 5DSR and D810, the K1 pixel shift shows just white, no false colour.
In fact the D810 produces the worst results out of the four images of print and by a large margin, a positive rainbow!
Well, well, hold your horses! If I look at the corners of the K1 pictures, I have to say Pentax is not quite capable to deliver the adequate glass - and 3rd party manufacturers like Zeiss (pulled back completely) or Sigma (only a couple of lenses for Pentax) are not filling the gaps.
So what good is a great body if the lenses are outdated?
I will never go back to Pentax, no matter what gimmicks they cram into the bodies. There are much more other cameras which are interesting for me. Not at least an upcoming Fuji MF.
Quote: In fact the D810 produces the worst results out of the four images of print and by a large margin, a positive rainbow!
Sorry, now you're talking shite!
The comparing cameras is in the link a Pentax 645 Z - that should be pretty good. Check some other Nikon or Canons then you'll see the D810 is far away from being "the worst". In fact, K1 also shows other colours when not pixel-shifted - and since pixel-shift has it's limits for free-hand photography, it's something nice to have.
Like I said, there's a Fuji round the corner and some new Sigmas are going beyond 40 MP, also without AA-filter. K1 to me is a nice idea, years too late, with limited glass choice - have fun in going exotic...
I know your done and dusted with Pentax JoJu, fair enough!
But Pentax surely deserves some credit here? I'm for the most part shooting Nikon now and probably selling my Pentax gear, because of a question of space on my boat and running two systems, but what Pentax have achieved and at the price they have achieved it, coupled with what DPreview have cited as a 2 stop advantage of DR is not a lot short of remarkable!
I reserve my right to give them credit for it!
Yes, all the AA-less sensors, when not pixel shifting, will show falls colours worse than "AA-filtered" sensors. And false detail, and fake sharpness. That is the nature of aliasing.
So, cudos to Pentax to give the camera an option that actually can deliver higher quality results, even if you can't always use/expoilt that function.
And cudos to Canon for not giving in to the weird AA-less fad.
Cudos alround BC!  Not to forget the K1's electronic moiré filter and it variable settings! Also we will see how the PS hand-holding claims pan out!
Now I'm going to sit and wait for the reviews to come out.. the Nikon D5 and the D500 have just been reviewed by The Camera Store, and also by Tony Northrup...glowing reviews all round.
The angry photographer is shouting from the houses about how good the D500 is and how bad the D5 is!
TCS has an on going review of the K1 which should be out soon, .
There should soon be a lot more known about the camera!
Quote:I know your done and dusted with Pentax JoJu, fair enough!
But Pentax surely deserves some credit here? I'm for the most part shooting Nikon now and probably selling my Pentax gear, because of a question of space on my boat and running two systems, but what Pentax have achieved and at the price they have achieved it, coupled with what DPreview have cited as a 2 stop advantage of DR is not a lot short of remarkable!
I reserve my right to give them credit for it!
Sure, also Pentax is sticking to DNG. (or WAS sticking?)
Which would make it far easier to get a proper RAW converter, although the camera is quite new. No other manufacturer was as early as Pentax to use DNG as RAW format, in theory this would increase the choice of RAW-converters and improve the long time ability to archive those files.
But Adobe is wellknown for changing to "better" business concepts. "Better" for them, that is. So I would not bet too much on that part.
If one repetively calls about "fake" or false" sharpness, one shoudl also be able to name "true" sharpness, And I stick to xcall both of these terms bullshit - no digital reproduction technique ever can record the analogue reality 1:1 - all of those need to fool the human eye/ear. But who would ever cover a high end microphone by a plastic bag to remove the "false" sharpness of the recorded sound against munching the noises together? To me it appears as a very cheap excuse not being able to nake the sensors work otherwise, without this tiny blur filter. ^_^
False detail: Detail that is not really there, but appears due to the arbitrary edges of pixels and the subsequent aliasing.
Fake sharpness: Defined edges that are not there in reality, just the effect of the same on/off edges of pixels, aliasing.
That is logically and demonstrably false/fake.
Not showing aliasing is then not fake. You can argue that there is detail that is not shown, sure. But that is ALWAYS the case. The more one would zoom in, there more detail there is to be found. But not an argument against AA-filters.
In audio, there always are AA-filters too. Else you get aliasing. Same thing. It has nothing to do with analogue versus digital either, as your straw man argument seems to suggest....
It appears you still do not understand sampling theory, and how using an AA-filter is not an excuse for anything.
|
