•  Previous
  • 1
  • ...
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5(current)
  • 6
  • 7
  • ...
  • 10
  • Next 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Pentax FF K1 DSLR is out: Ephotozine Review!
#41
You're funny.

 

By the way, I'm directly affected by those limitations, not merely using them to pretend that some system is no good (not selling, etc.). Still, Pentax is the better choice for me.

 

I decided to start with the 28-105, which according to ephotozine is excellent for a "kit" zoom:

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/hd-pe...view-29352

 

In addition, there's the DA 70mm which I'll be able to use without restrictions (or so it seems). Good; I really like that lens.

I was uninspired when I've got the DA* 60-250mm instead of the DA* 300mm, as the latter is a FF lens. But I have alternatives right now, the aforementioned DA* 300mm and the brand new D FA 150-450mm (the DA 560mm, another FF lens, is way too expensive for me).

The problem is on the wide side, there are no modern primes; one must go for older designs, or zooms. The Tamron starts from 15mm, but it's quite large and heavy and a bit overkill for me... however, 28mm is still wider than 21mm on APS-C so I'm good until 2017.

 

FTR, Pentax has a site for checking which lenses (FA and newer) are FF compatible:

http://k-1-lab.com/en/

 

P.S. Klaus, any chance of starting Pentax K FF tests? Smile

#42
  It will be interesting to see a PZ test of the Pentax 28-105mm general zoom FF lens, it has been getting good mentions around town..That would need however, a commitment from Klaus to purchase a K1 body as there's little hope of a loan K1 from JoJu.

 

  Official response from you Klaus?

 

 

 

Nice to see a balanced view from you Kunzite!

 

 

  Just as a matter of general indication of what pixel shift is capable of even on the K3 click on this link;

 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4007191

 

 

How much better "could" the K1 be?

 

Any argument about the how good the K1 camera is, looking at those K3 macro images, is just automatically;

 

Null and Void


 

    Some of the best macro images I have ever seen!

 

 Edit---  I suppose I should qualify that with....from an APSc sensor!    end edit.

Dave's clichés
#43
 A bit oversharpened, those macro images (stair stepping, or aliasing).  And artistically not near the best I have seen. 

But the pixel shift plus already has been shown in the text crops we looked at before.

#44
Quote: A bit oversharpened, those macro images (stair stepping, or aliasing).  And artistically not near the best I have seen. 

But the pixel shift plus already has been shown in the text crops we looked at before.
I'm not talking about test shots BC.   Are you sure you it's because you are not used to that level of sharpness from Canon's sensors?   Tongue  B)

 

 It is from a 24Mps "APSc" sensor without an AA filter, in my macro K3 shots I would see a certain amount of that. (not that I could see it here)  looking at those images it's very notable that the noise is extremely low, the basic K3 isn't a noise queen!

 

    As for the artistic side of things, I think the TOG was going for a flat everything in focus plane here, just to be able to get PS shots without disturbing these critters is a feat of "softly softly catchy monkey" and with the dew thrown in for good measure "all tack sharp"! 

 

  I think it calls for a round of Bravos to be quite honest!

Dave's clichés
#45
Quote:I'm not talking about test shots BC.   Are you sure you it's because you are not used to that level of sharpness from Canon's sensors?   Tongue  B)

 

 It is from a 24Mps "APSc" sensor without an AA filter, in my macro K3 shots I would see a certain amount of that. (not that I could see it here)  looking at those images it's very notable that the noise is extremely low, the basic K3 isn't a noise queen!

 

    As for the artistic side of things, I think the TOG was going for a flat everything in focus plane here, just to be able to get PS shots without disturbing these critters is a feat of "softly softly catchy monkey" and with the dew thrown in for good measure "all tack sharp"! 

 

  I think it calls for a round of Bravos to be quite honest!
I clicked on the link you gave, that is what I commented on. Nothing says "best macro images I have never seen" there  Tongue

Not artistically, not sharpness wise (stair stepping/aliasing). Not even subject wise.

 

That is what my reaction was about  :unsure:

 

And about Canon aliasing... The 5DSR has more than enough capability there. Silly AA-less fad... As strange as the shadow pulling fad.

#46
Quote:I clicked on the link you gave, that is what I commented on. Nothing says "best macro images I have never seen" there  Tongue

Not artistically, not sharpness wise (stair stepping/aliasing). Not even subject wise.

 

That is what my reaction was about  :unsure:

 

And about Canon aliasing... The 5DSR has more than enough capability there. Silly AA-less fad... As strange as the shadow pulling fad.
Fair enough BC!

 

  I was very impressed as far as IQ at any rate, not the best as in artistic or even subject material, however I'm a bit of a sharpness freak.... K3 AA less, D7100 AA less, D750 has of course an AA filter, I think it must be fairly weak, but frankly I wish it didn't.

 

 I rarely see aliasing and when I do it doesn't bother me, it seems a pity to throw away some of a lens's bite!
Dave's clichés
#47
That is the thing, you don't throw away a lens' bite with an AA-filter, you fabricate bite without AA-filter. And  it never is a real bite.  The bite you get is the bite from the hard edges of the square pixels in the pixel grid.

 

I like the Canon approach better: AA-filter (sometimes a bit weak, but oh well), to prevent the "fake bite" and then apply some advanced deconvolution in the RAW processor (DPP) (or even in-camera in the new 1D-X mark II) to overcome lens weakness or diffraction softening. 

#48
An AA-filter was more than necessary with Sensors around 4...6 MP (and less, of course), because alasing was very prominent.

 

These days with 36 MP and more for FF - what is a reason to keep a softening filter in front of a sensor? I cannot imagine one. As each photography is influencing reality in a lot ways (bringing 3D into 2 dimensions, altering colour, redefining ambivalent light or taing the picture entirel with artificial light) I also cannot a single reason why an AA filter should provide more "reality". I also don't accept the idea of the "pixel-level bite", because you never ever will see a "real" pixel - you just see waht's the monitor doing with it or how precise a printer can define it, but never ever you will see the form of a pixel coming out of a printer at normal printing conditions (meaning, not printing a 500% crop on A3).

 

That's kind of a reasoning to keep or stick with old techniques. Thought to the end, we would still paint mammoths on cave walls, if we don't like progress in taking pictures. Tradition is the passing on the flame, not the adoration of the ash (that was from Mahler, I believe). Same goes for the "shadow pulling fad" - just because Canon is less competent there, it doesn't have to be a bad thing not to blow off the highlights and get a good share of more information - if one wants it.

 

As for the macros: As long as I don't have any better samples of butterflies in the morning with water drops to enlarge the facet eyes, I keep my mouth shut. It's inspiring for me. I just wondered, if the eye itself with all the facets was not so detailed because of pixelshift or because one needs to come much closer?
#49
JoJu, every time you write in regards to AA-filters you keep showing a lack of the underlying theory. 

 

And then there is the odd remark about the shadow pulling fad, linking it not not blowing highlights? Strange.

 

A typical "normal" scene has 7-8 stops of DR, in "normal contrast". 

That gives a lot of room in 10 or 11 stops of DR in RAW. 

When i mention the odd shadow pulling fad, I am of course not talking about highlights. I am talking about the nonsense of pulling shadows 3, 4, 5 stops "to see detail".

 

Unattractive images that result are indeed an odd fad. 

 

fad


<div>
<div><i>noun</i>
 
<ol class="">[*]

<div style="margin-left:20px;">
<div style=";">
<div>an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze.
</div>
</div>
</div>

</ol></div>
</div>
#50
"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?
  
  •  Previous
  • 1
  • ...
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5(current)
  • 6
  • 7
  • ...
  • 10
  • Next 


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)