Thursday, July 16, 2009

K-m Olive Vs 5D Pixel Peeping

Since last time I pixel peeped the K-7 Vs the 5D, the same methodology and the same two Pentax lenses are used again to measurbate! But this time is my new K-m Olive Vs my old 5D.

The following pictures have been taken at almost the same time and at the same place:-

K-m Olive:


5D:


The test conditions and camera settings are as follows:-

K-m Olive: Factory default settings unless otherwise specified, Bright Custom Image (Saturation -2, Hue 0, Contrast 0, Fine Sharpness 0), Av exposure mode at f/8, FA 28/2.8 (Photodo MTF Score 3.8), AF-S, ISO 100, direct in-camera JPEG, all EXIF data preserved.

5D: Factory default settings unless otherwise specified, Faithful Picture Style (Sharpness 3, Contrast 0, Saturation 0, Tone 0), Av exposure mode at f/8, FA 43/1.9 Limited (Photodo MTF Score 3.6), MF according to EOS's focus indication, ISO 100, direct in-camera JPEG, all EXIF data preserved.

The Field/Angle of View of Both Cameras are the Same.

The following are the 100% crops from the above two pictures, with 5D's crops further downsized to 88% (linear) to the same viewing size for easier comparison:-

K-m Olive Crop 1:


5D Crop 1:


K-m Olive Crop 2:


5D Crop 2:


K-m Olive Crop 3:


5D Crop 3:


Well, I think the K-m Olive images are obviously having a higher image fidelity than those from the production K-7 (actually I tested two units - no difference) and it approaches the level of details of the 5D at low ISO, whilst the K-7 has not much improvement even at the lowest ISO speed of 100. Nevertheless, the K-m images at Sharpness 0 are having a higher level of sharpening than that of 5D (which is ranged from 0 to 7, 3 is just less than the middle, but I had to opt). But no matter how, the resolution is preserved and the image details are there, for both cameras.

And, you may note about the colour differences of the two pictures from my 5D and K-m. Actually, the 5D produces a bit more accurate colours but the K-m's one seems looking a bit more attractive. The real scene is somewhere in between, but more close to the 5D's one. (The reality usually are not as beautiful, believe me! That's why some people don't want to see the truth! ;-D )

As a short final remark, for what I have used/tested the K-m before, the in-camera Jpegs are not as detailed, but yet still better than the K-7, I am afraid and very honestly speaking. It seems that the new Samsung sensor inside the K-7 would be the true limiting factor here, otherwise the K-7 would have been much better. But without good PQ/IQ, what's the point of a "better" camera?? (At the end of the days, I am afraid that the PQ/IQ of the K20D could be even better! Oh, No... :-()

100 Comments:

Anonymous said...

In terms of image quality against camera value, you have got a pretty good deal going there with the k-m as the images from the two cameras (Pentax k-m & Canon 5D) are not that much different from each other, in fact the k-m images seem a lot more similar to what that scene would have looked to the naked eye.

If I were you I’d sell that 50D and use the money to buy a EOS 500D, 50D or a D90, D5000 and start debating the shortcomings of other (unspoken of) brands.

Keep on whining in the free world!

Anonymous said...

Very interesting photos. Keep your Pentax glass and use it. Why keep your Canon when the Km is so close?

This post has certainly cured any interest I had in changing to a Canon 40D.

Anonymous said...

BTW, I notice the K7 versus Canon 5D shots were completed with the K7 at f8.

According to Canon's own literature, APSC sensors are diffraction limiting around F 7 with 15 mp, F 9 with 10mp and F 11 with 6MP.

The K7 would perform, according to this theory, better at F5.6 than F8.

Olympus DSLRs with 10 MP perform better around F5.6 for a similar reason: sensor size and pixel numbers are linked to diffraction.

Digicams with their tiny sensors start to diffraction limit around F 3.8 according to pixel numbers again.
More is okay if you pay attention to F stop!

An interesting comparison, Pentax Km to Canon 5D, whose larger sensor is not diffraction limiting with its megapixel size until around F10.

Mystic said...

I've read all your articles about K7 faults, and in many cases I agree with you. I was looking for an upgrade from k20d to k7, but hesitating because of IQ, so far from the pictures that I saw all over the internet, I also think it's too noisy. the market nowadays is harsh, and such things as step backward in high ISO image quality to my mind is huge mistake.
I wouldn't hesitate and buy a new K7 if IQ was on par with k20d, however now.. the main thing, why I bought Pentax - Image quality, is worse on the newer model, so.. I'll wait for the K7super or something.. in the meantime i've learned how to properly use k20d and i'll use it until pentax makes improved k7.

thanks RH for your critical, yet in most ways truthful articles.

by the way, will you keep the Km?

Michael said...

... funny, I'm new to DSLR, coming from compacts, and opted for the K-m, mainly for a) it compact size and b)the high availiability of primes from Pentax.
Now I learn, that this little gem beats some more expensive DSLRs to the ground, funny. And moreover, its crippled, but not that much as say Nikons D60, wich even lacks bracketing, mirrorlockup and a dedicated focusmotor... couldn't believe this.
Seriously, how often do you really print larger then 30x40(cm) so the resolution matters that much?
And in respect to the diffraction limits: Thats the major tradeoff of APSC we have to bear in mind, moreover as we have so few diffraction limiting lenses out there.

Anonymous said...

Amazing photos when you consider the price difference between the Km and 5D.

Makes me wonder about all the fuss over full frame, especially as was said, how often do we print larger than 30*40cm?

However, I would like to see the K7 shot again against the Canon at lower f stops.

How about it Ricehigh?
Is it possible to redo the test?

Manolo said...

Even the K20D will render better results than a 5D, particularly when used with a prime lens.

I think in the end, full frame will only be a cheer for pixel peepers as they will have to invest a lot more time examining images as their life goes by.

Right now I'm heading out into sunny weather, going all shutter happy... gotta take some pics folks! That's what photography it's all about.

Manolo

Canon Marketing HK said...

Unfortunately Rice high will not be able to run the test, at least for what's left of July, as this will required approval from our finance dept in order to cover for the costs of having to rent another K-7.

However we will be more than glad to help RH provide you with another hilarious test next month.


We're all running tight budgets this summer.

RiceHigh said...

> by the way, will you keep the Km?

Of course, actually for each camera that I bought, there must be some good reasons and they had to pass my "preliminary" tests and be satisfactory for what I found.

> However, I would like to see the K7 shot again against the Canon at lower f stops. Is it possible to redo the test?

My last test is more favourable to the K-7 than the 5D actually as I knew that my FA28 is sharper at f/8 than f/5.6 whereas my FA 43 is sharper at f/5.6 than f/8. As such, re-doing the test at f/5.6 possibly will give more difference and it really doesn't help.

I am sure shooting raw will help, but noise will then be bundled. To remove the noise while maintaining reasonable details level, heavy processing during RAW conversion is the only way to go, which is almost impossible to be done realtime at the camera.

Manu said...

Amazing! You *do* take pictures of the real world! Where's the charts? ;-)

Seriously on that kind of scenes you won't see that much difference between a 10.2MP APS-C and a 12MP FF. Even a 10MP FZ50 with its tiny sensor (1/1.8") was barely indistinguishable from a K10D. You can also look at the small sensor Canon G10, you'd be surprised by the IQ. Do prints and the difference look even less.

But I'm entertained by the way you bias your opinions, now the K-m is the king of the IQ. Way to go Rice ;)

Anonymous said...

The K20D applies noise reduction to RAW-files - the K-7 doesn't. NR in JPEG is on the K20D a double NR, but single NR on K-7. Then the sharpening algorithms between the cameras are different and the K-7 also has a stronger AA-filter that means less sharpness but also less problems with moire.
The K-7 has lower colour noise in the shadows.
It is debatebal if the K-7 has worse image IQ than the K20D, it depends on how you count. The lack of NR in the K-7 means that it gives more data to work with when post processing, so those that do post processing can achieve better results with the K-7. And if you shoot RAW, you do post processing. That is the whole point with RAW.
It is useless to compare "straight through" conversions of RAW since RAW shooter do adjust the photos, that is the whole point with it.
K-7 is directed to more advanced photographers than the K20D, and as such it offers more data for the advanced post processer to give a better result in the end.

ALso note the improvements in white balance, metering, focus accuracy and reliability with the K-7 and the K-7 wins hands down in terms of IQ over the K20D.

It is normal for high-end DSLR's to apply less sharpening than simpler models, so images from high-end DSLR's tends to look more soft than more consumer friendly models. But, again, the idea is that the advanced photographer that buys a high-end DSLR are more likely to post process images than the beginner or entry level user. Less processing in the camera means more data to work with when post processing. K-7 applies less processing even in JPEG's than the K20D. Even if the K-7 has the same image modes as the K20D, the algorithms and settings are different and more subtle on the K-7.

Just like the K10D was "soft" compared to the, say, K100D - to allow for better post processing.

For advanced photographers this is the right decision, but may not be the right decision for entry level users that only wants to shot at default settings. However, for those entry level users there is the K-m...

Anonymous said...

K-7 is simply the best Pentax camera ever. Its plain to see. Those jpeg comparisons are silly. The REALITY is this: when shooting jpeg, you would not think of blowing it up to huge sizes. When printing large, you would not shoot jpeg (doing it would be a stupidity). Speaking from a PRACTICAL viewpoint, there is simply NO REASON to have the highest quality in jpeg because of small print sizes. K-7 is perfectly created with this in mind. It is a PRACTICAL camera. KUDOS, PENTAX!

Anonymous said...

Concerning not reshooting the K7 versus Canon 5D test: irrespective of the merits of the 28mm lens being sharper at F5.6 than the 43mm at F8, it is, according to Canon, the sensor, not just the lens, that is diffraction limiting according to Mp numbers: APSC: 6MP: F11, 10 MP: F8/9, 15 MP: around F7.

The test is simply not valid, Ricehigh.

Please reshoot so we can know for sure at F5.6. The Pentax is theoretically hampered compared to the Canon at sensor level, irrespective of lens differences.

Anonymous said...

RE: For advanced photographers this is the right decision, but may not be the right decision for entry level users that only wants to shot at default settings. However, for those entry level users there is the K-m...

==========

Thanks for a good post - I happen to agree with you. A professional does not want to be forced to deal with imaging compromises in place for non-pro's.

My issue here, purely and simply, is the price of the camera. I don't see a mad rush to video amongst ANY legacy-mount bases. This is very much a point-of-sale attraction for move-ups from P&S who already have movie mode. That makes the price a hurdle to overcome.

Here's a new review of K-7, where it tops the competition's first two lower end new models by either 1 or 2 points - nice, but not something that drives buying decisions with that minimal difference. Look at the prices:

http://www.infosyncworld.com/reviews/digital-cameras/pentax-k-7/10401.html

Pentax K-7 87% $1300
Nikon D5000 86% $730
Pentax K2000 85% $700

Ironic that it's being judged against the K-M (K2000). There are some new models not listed, but you get the idea ...

Here, as earlier, PRICE is the topic. Please spare me the litany about the camera's capabilities. I'm pretending to be someone WITHOUT PK lenses - and since I'm 90 percent M42 in terms of Pentax, that's not a hard task for me.

Anonymous said...

HA-HA.
K-m is sharper.

tigrebleu said...

Strange... The reviewers at dpreview stated that the K-m produced "soft JPEGs".

They don't look soft on your samples, that's for sure! And the FA 28mm isn't the sharpest lens out there, which makes it more remarkable...

Although the K-m is producing much more artifacts and is more contrasty than the Canon 5D (which increases the perception of sharpness), it's still sharper than the 5D's output at similar pixel count.

Amazing...

Anonymous said...

If I would be mean I would complain about the terrible sharpening artifacts of the Km. Look at the mountain ridge crops. The Km produces a stark sharpening band at the treeline (dark line). The 5D however faithfully reproduces the scene. But I actually don't really see the point of comparing FF with Crop and two different lenses. Who knows where the differences come from!

RiceHigh said...

> But I actually don't really see the point of comparing FF with Crop and two different lenses.

To maintain the *same* Field/Angle of View, two "different" lenses have to be used as the actual sensor size differs.

The "point" is I have essentially the same camera and tool in hands with the same FoV, and set the same ISO speed and Av, which is the best closest matching shootout scenario. Do note that the sensor size should be *transparent* to the *user* in this case.

Anonymous said...

The infosynworld review is very pleased with both the Km and the K7.

It places the Km's performance ahead of the Olympus E620 by a narrow margin, and the latter is much more expensive.

It also states plainly that the K7 offers features and asjustments far in excess of either, and its video performance is, although not magnificent, acceptable and better in low light than the Canon.
Its offers much more than the comparatively-priced Nikon D90 and Canon 50D in terms of build quality and adjustments.
And it takes all the old Pentax lenses.
So Canon will take Nikon and Pentax lenses with adapters.
Will it take Canon FD lenses without adapters the way Pentax takes its lenses?
I don't think so.
As for lens prices, it depends where you live as to whether Pentax is much cheaper or nearly the same as Olympus, Canon or Nikon lenses.
And according to Dpreview, Canon 40D has superior Live view performance and is equally sharp, in spite of 50D's extra 5 megapixels.
At least Pentax has better performance and adjustments than Km overall, whereas the Canon 50D is no better than the Kiss/Rebel in performance and essential adjustments overall.
And VR lenses are more complex and according to Ken Rockwell's comparison of the Nikon 18-55 non-VR and VR lenses, worse flare performance.
Pentax in-body SR means one set of lenses.
Every Canon and Nikon twin lens kit has two quite different prices for non-VR and VR lens options. And the difference is quite high.

Anonymous said...

RE: Pentax in-body SR means one set of lenses.
Every Canon and Nikon twin lens kit has two quite different prices for non-VR and VR lens options. And the difference is quite high.

===========

But the overall performance of OIS, especially with ring-USM, explains the cost difference - and to a pro who risks missing shots, it's worth it.

http://www.dpreview.com/...sreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/page3.asp

"It's no great surprise to see Nikon's VR system performing well here. Whilst it doesn't quite seem to deliver the 4 stops which Nikon claim in our hands, it comes pretty close, especially at 200mm. The key difference here is not so much the yield of critically sharp shots at slow shutter speeds, as the hugely increased chances of getting usable shots with only mild blur, which would be completely impossible in the absence of stabilisation.

At 18mm, therefore we see an 80% chance of getting usable results at 1/6 sec; at 50mm, an 80% chance of getting usable results at 1/13 sec; and at 200mm, an 80% chance as low as 1/25sec. Even at slower speeds a stop slower than these, you'll get 'keepers' hand held if you're prepared to take multiple shots. This therefore greatly increases the lens's versatility in low-light conditions (or indeed any other situation where a slow shutter speed would be desirable)."

In terms of USABLE results, these are far ahead of S/S. What's odd to me (or perhaps not) is that the only plaudits that I encounter for S/S come from those who are vested in it - but reviews should be objective.

Anonymous said...

Re VR lenses and usable shots:

Why pay so much for an occasional missed shots when with Pentax Sony and Olympus in-built shake reduction you don't have to.
Equally, those who proclaim VR lenses are likely to have spent money on them.
But their benfits if any over inbuilt SR should not be overstated without anobjective test.
Personally, I've never seen one.
And non-professional dslr owners have even less reason to pay extra for Canikon VR lens system: their income doesn't benefit fom it.

Anonymous said...

RE: Why pay so much for an occasional missed shots when with Pentax Sony and Olympus in-built shake reduction you don't have to.

----------

Because the professionals who buy OIS lenses cannot afford missed shots of a news or sporting event. They also have an FPS rate 2 to 3 times what Pentax has, which offers a better safety margin. The K-7's FPS depends upon the circumstances of its use, since there always seems to be a bottleneck slowing down the workflow.

High-end cameras with OIS and ring-USM lenses are designed NOT to be brought down by bottlenecks to the point of too-poor performance.

Pentax is designing "up" off older models, and they cannot possibly improve everything. Sensor-shift makes the use of the internal mic sub-optimal (being kind here) for sound video.

Let's take DPREVIEW on the Nikon OIS:

http://www.dpreview.com/...sreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/page3.asp

"It's no great surprise to see Nikon's VR system performing well here. Whilst it doesn't quite seem to deliver the 4 stops which Nikon claim in our hands, it comes pretty close, especially at 200mm. The key difference here is not so much the yield of critically sharp shots at slow shutter speeds, as the hugely increased chances of getting usable shots with only mild blur, which would be completely impossible in the absence of stabilisation.

At 18mm, therefore we see an 80% chance of getting usable results at 1/6 sec; at 50mm, an 80% chance of getting usable results at 1/13 sec; and at 200mm, an 80% chance as low as 1/25sec. Even at slower speeds a stop slower than these, you'll get 'keepers' hand held if you're prepared to take multiple shots. This therefore greatly increases the lens's versatility in low-light conditions (or indeed any other situation where a slow shutter speed would be desirable)."

---------

Let's start with DPREVIEW's Nikon OIS lens test example:

http://www.dpreview.com/...sreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/page3.asp

"It's no great surprise to see Nikon's VR system performing well here. Whilst it doesn't quite seem to deliver the 4 stops which Nikon claim in our hands, it comes pretty close, especially at 200mm. The key difference here is not so much the yield of critically sharp shots at slow shutter speeds, as the hugely increased chances of getting usable shots with only mild blur, which would be completely impossible in the absence of stabilisation.

At 18mm, therefore we see an 80% chance of getting usable results at 1/6 sec; at 50mm, an 80% chance of getting usable results at 1/13 sec; and at 200mm, an 80% chance as low as 1/25sec. Even at slower speeds a stop slower than these, you'll get 'keepers' hand held if you're prepared to take multiple shots. This therefore greatly increases the lens's versatility in low-light conditions (or indeed any other situation where a slow shutter speed would be desirable)."

===========

Now, the K200D:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk200d/page13.asp

"With anti-shake switched on the improvement is immediately visible although you still only get 100% sharp shots at 1/100th sec. On the plus side even at shutter speeds as slow as 1/6th sec you get 50% usable shots. The system gives you an advantage of approximately 2 stops but tends to work more efficiently at very slow shutter speeds. This is a reasonable result but not outstanding. It is also not even close to the the 4 stops that Pentax claims its anti-shake is capable of."

The graphic shows identical results for IS OFF/IS ON at 100th, so it's adding zero. But the OIS lens would have allowed STABILIZED VIEWING, AE, AND AF before the shot.

At 1/6th you throw out half the shots. If that were your car starting half the time, would you recommend it?

If you check their graphics for 1/25th and slower. the number of shots with VERY HEAVY BLUR is INCREASING - so what is S/S actually providing? Why do things get progressively worse as the speed gets slower?

The AF for all of these prior to K-7 is near-indentical.

Anonymous said...

Apology for the duplicate paste-in on Nikon

I had to get the phone, and double pasted the Nikon piece. I meant to add directly the K200D clip.

Anonymous said...

RE:
But their benfits if any over inbuilt SR should not be overstated without anobjective test. Personally, I've never seen one.

======

And you never will; because you're not actually looking for that answer.

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/vr/index.htm

The world is round. We have satellite photos. We have GPS systems, and people in orbit.

But the Flat Earth Society is still in business, and proud of it.

Your point is simply to tie up the time of those making an actual point, in the hopes that they will just surrender.

Somehow, the points about the INABILITY of S/S to allow scanning; or pre-viewing a stabilized image for the benefit of AE and AF as well as the shooter;, or inability to handle those long lenses that pro's and nature-shooters prefer never seem to get brought up.

S/S has exactly two things going for it - it will stabilize (more or less) a hot stove if you could stick it on the camera, and it's cheap.

Over 80 percent of DSLR sales are for OIS cameras, taking OIS lenses as part of their kit. The buyer can step up to a better lens, but they are starting with excellent optics and capabilities.

http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Lenses/Lens-Test-Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS

"SQF performance was in the Excellent range at all focal lengths, indicating high degrees of sharpness and contrast. In DxO Analyzer 2.0 tests, we found Visible barrel distortion at 18mm (0.55%) -- above-average control for a sub-$200 kit lens and far better than the non-IS version of the lens. At the mid-range zoom settings, distortion at infinity was controlled to a degree even some pro zooms can't match: Imperceptible barreling at 35mm (0.02%) and Imperceptible pincushion distortion at 55mm (0.06%)."

Anonymous said...

Refurbished Pentax DSLR's at Best Buy

http://cameradeals.1001noisycameras.com/2009/07/refurbished-pentax-dslrs-at-best-buy.html

If you are a fan of factory-refurbished DSLRs, and you are looking for a K-mount dSLR or two at a low price, Best Buy is currently offering a trio of Pentax dSLRs as follows:

+ factory refurbished Pentax K100D body only for $280

+ factory refurbished Pentax K200D body only for $380

+ factory refurbished Pentax K10D body only for $400

Manu said...

OIS vs SR, read this one:
http://www.slrgear.com/articles/is_olympuse520/IS_Test_Olympus_E-520_SLR_Body.htm

"Overall, the Olympus E-520 delivered really excellent IS performance, easily on par with the best lens-based systems we've tested to date"

It would be interesting to see how Pentax and Sony compare here.

With OIS, yes the VF is stabilized and it can somewhat help AF (a bit) and AE (not at all, really does brightness change that much when framing, even with a long lens?).

But there is also the downside of OIS:
- Adds complexity to the lens design (more expensive, less reliable)
- Cannot be added to any lens (a few primes, some zooms, ever wondered why the Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8 are not stabilized at their price point?)

Anonymous said...

I am aware of that interview, and the firestorm that ensued on the Web

Stabilizing a 4/3 sensor is mechanically a lot simpler than stabilizing an APS-C:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SensorSizes.svg

M43 is 225mm area, and APS-C is 329mm or 370mm based on maker. Using 329mm, the image area to be stabilized is about 1.46x as large - so it's not a parallel measurement. It's a major difference in terms of magnification to get to the same-sized print. 8x10 inches is about 203mm x 254mm, or 51,562mm. That's about 60x a 35mm (FF) sensor, or 156x the APS-C, or 229x the M43.

That means that the S/S on M43 would have to be about 1.5 times as good as the comparable APS-C system just to stay even in any test for an equal-sized print. Now you know why people prefer FF cameras.

The review is claiming around 2.5 stops, against the manufacturer's claim of 4 stops - this is the typical S/S overstatement. The DSLR OIS modern lens does a consistent as-advertised 4 stops. I disagree with the reviewer's generalization about:

"very much on par with the best lens-based IS systems we've looked at."

I don't know which OIS lenses he's tested. but in my math, 4 stops is 1.48 times better than 2.7. This is not insignificant; so to me, I think that his generalization is sheer puffery, belied by his own numbers on the Olympus. If he tested an OIS lens yielding 3 stops, he'd be correct - but modern lenses are 4 stops.

Anonymous said...

Also from YOUR link - it is NOT just about the number of stops. These are from that same site:

"One difference we did notice with the E-520 vs. lens-based IS systems we've tested is that it achieved greater shake reduction at shorter focal lengths than at longer ones. Most lens-based systems we've tested trend in the other direction, showing more improvement at longer focal lengths."

(I've said much the same - the real OIS payoff comes with longer f/l's, particularly in pre-shot viewing, AF and AE)

"One notable difference between sensor-based and lens-based IS systems is the impact both have on the viewfinder image: A lens-based IS system will stabilize the image in an optical viewfinder, as well as reduce image blur in the final photos. The same is true of a sensor-based IS system when you're operating with a camera in Live View mode, where the viewfinder image is taken directly from the camera's main image sensor. WHEN USING AN OPTICAL VIEWFINDER, THOUGH, A SENSOR-BASED IS SYSTEM DOESN'T STABILIZE THE VIEWFINDER IMAGE AT ALL. AS A RESULT, IT MAY FEEL AS THOUGH A SENSOR-BASED IS SYSTEM ISN'T DOING AS MUCH FOR YOU AS A LENS-BASED ONE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING THROUGH THE VIEWFINDER. IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS LACK OF STABILIZATION OF THE VIEWFINDER IMAGE COULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO ACCURATELY FRAME YOUR SHOT."

(This is NOT a minor consideration for those shooting wildlife or sports)

(Check his own forum)

http://forums.slrgear.com/index.php?showtopic=395

"but in any case Motor Trend doesn't publish 1/4-mile times for cars based on what their secretary can do in them. They hire pro drivers. And even then, if the guy dumps the clutch and loses traction for so long that the run is a second slower than normal, they just dump that run. Work with the best 3 or 5 results at each speed. Relative to 1/FL, your shooters should be seeing at least 3 stops benefit at the longer FLs (50mm & up) from lens-based IS and maybe 1 stop at most from body-IS with the occasional 2 or 3 stop shot. Lens-IS should be a no-contest winner."

(While I admire his efforts, his use of 2 shooters rather than an objective method is not what I'd consider scientific - one guy gets a cold or gets tired; and there goes his measuring apparatus. In the forum, he notes that his "shaky" guy is improving from the experience he's getting - which is MY point as to why S/S is overrated for normal lenses in the hands of someone with actual years of experience. All in all, his concept of "scientific" in no way matches what DPREVIEW is doing)

Anonymous said...

Pentax people you really are a funny bunch. When Rice states anything critical of Pentax you all gang up against him like he is some criminal. Nevermind he may have a point! You don't want to hear it. Then he says something ludicrous but pro-Pentax and everyone is happy again! Little children aren't we?

Sorry to bust your bubble, but this "test" is a sham. First of all of you are soooo pleased with the superior Pentax IQ, yet all I see is an image which could be slightly out of focus and no sharpening, and another one with horrible sharpening artifacts.

In any case, Rice, who, throughout the K-7 wait period was always screaming that images were not to be trusted unless they were the original RAW files, now posts this tiny images and expects us to believe we can tell something from them. Well, how where they shot? Were the cameras on a tripod? Did he focus bracketed? Are they both sharpened or not? RAWs? of default JPGs?

This is BS of a test. But Rice said what you all wanted to hear, that an ASP-C Pentax is better than a full-frame Canon, so nobody questions shit. You are all so full of it.

Anonymous said...

The site is actually a sub-site of Imaging Resource under a separate URL.

They are using TWO people - one allegedly SHAKY and one STEADY. Looking around the Web, they raised a big stink among the non-Olympus crowd with their analysis. Frankly, getting in the neighborhood of 2.5 stops with S/S at LOW speeds is not hard; and their results are as expected. They are measuring a smaller-masss sensor than APS-C - but that sized sensor needs more enlargement to get to the same print size than APS-C.

The SHAKY guy is getting better at his work - but he is GETTING FEEDBACK on his abilities from the testing, and learning how to shoot better, as a result. That means that his SHAKY results will over time get closer to the STEADY guy's results, and the average benefit will actually go DOWN a bit accordingly.

Science, this is NOT. It's observation of rats in a maze, where one is trained and the other is learning.

The author got carried away - as though the best OIS lens he ever tested was 3x. As DPREVIEW reports, the Nikon tested is very close to 4x. He does not include the crop factor of M43 in terms of getting to the same print size as the APS-C. The explains himself what OIS offers that S/S cannot.

He is making statements that DPREVIEW absolytely refuses to make, as they have to be brand-neutral and technology neutral.

Frankly, I think that he did the puffery to get the site noticed by the S/S people. The rest of the review does not justify it. Olympus claims 5 stops and gets half of that, and they dropped S/S for EP-1 video.

Anonymous said...

How DPREVIEW tests stabilization

The newbie site is claiming, more or less, that THEY plan to be the "objective" one by "finally" tackling the OIS vs. SS issue. The result was a statement that got them picked up in some of the rumor site for being outrageous (not that it ever happens inadvetantlty to Ricehigh; but he does not make statements just to see them carried elsewhere. That's how politics works today)

DPREVIEW from the Nikon test, and no doubt it's pretty much boilerplate:

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-200_3p5-5p6_vr_afs_n15/page3.asp

"We've generally found the stabilisation units in SLR lenses to be pretty effective in real-world use, and to quantifiy this, we subjected the 18-200mm to our studio image stabilisation test, using the wideangle and telephoto settings plus one mid-range focal length (50mm). With its effective focal length range of 27-300mm, we'd normally expect to be able to get good results handheld at 1/50 sec at wideangle, and 1/400 sec at telephoto without image stabilisation. The subject distance for these tests was approximately 2.5m.

We take 10 shots at each shutter speed and visually rate them for sharpness. Shots considered 'sharp' have no visible blur at the pixel level, and are therefore suitable for viewing or printing at the largest sizes, whereas files with 'mild blur' are only slightly soft, and perfectly usable for all but the most critical applications."

They also have advanced graphs, improved in more recent tests. These are plotted by percentage of 100% as:

VERY HEAVY BLUE
HEAVY BLUE
MILD BLUR
SHARP

There are rollovers for several different focal lengths below the graph for both ON and OFF, allowing direct comparisons.

Slrgear has Heckle and Jeckle, and some graphing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckle_and_Jeckle

... or perhaps, the Katzenjammer Kids.

Anonymous said...

Interesting: body shake versus lens shake: lens shake =more money, and according to Ken Rockwell's review of the Nikon 18-55 VR versus non VR kit lens, the extra elements contribute to more flare in the VR version.

VR lenses are more complex, more expensive, have more optical compromises, most likely, and long-term reliability?

Okay if there's one or two stops advantage for professionals. Maybe.

But how many non-professionals benefit from additional expenditure that could go to an accessory flash or another lens with Sony, Pentax and Olympus?

Sony full frame users must be amused that they don't have to shell out for VR lenses.

Canon and Nikon make good gear (I own one) but SR is an Achilles Heel that they have had to make expensive modifications to fix on every lens. One or two zooms for the average punter? Maybe that's affordable. But it's clear why there is no avalanche of VR prime lenses for Nikon and Canon.

Pentax prime lens owners, for whatever reason, old or new, are quite simply lucky. And Minolta owners too.

Anonymous said...

RE:

But how many non-professionals benefit from additional expenditure that could go to an accessory flash or another lens with Sony, Pentax and Olympus?

======================

The first is a question worth considering, and a question worth considering is always a good question to ask.

These lenses will last a good long time, so the additional cost has to be amortized against "lost opportunity cost". A landscape is not going anywhere; but your kid in a football game won't be in a TV instant replay. That's why Canon uses that example in TV ads.

Today's lens purchases with that less-than-a-grand camera are two zooms - the old Pentax LBA notion of 10 primes is passe. That's why I try to be TODAY's buyer, not yesterday's. An 18-55mm, and something reaching out to, say, 250mm or 300mm, are all that these people need - they even resent carrying those.

That's why a 20x stabilized megazoom is popular.

Today it's a one-time 2-lens DSLR buy, often bundled with the body, since the maker is willing to take a hit on margins to make a larger sale. Pentax does the same thing on cheap bodies to pump up revenue.

The total cost of OIS is simply exaggerated in today's market in the minds of those used to cheap lenses, which don't even compare in utility with what comes with a moderately-priced DSLR today.

There are also mix/match kits with an OIS body and OIS normal-zoom, and a less expensive non-OIS zoom, which the buyer can trade up from laterl or even at point of sale in this economy. This one has been 200 days in the Amazon Top 100.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Rebel-XS-70-300mm/dp/B001EH5YAE/ref=pd_ts_p_34?ie=UTF8&s=photo

$650 out the door. The price cut is because it does not have movie mode. Those lenses will allow the buyer to simply do a body-only buy for video; or substitute an OIS long zoom if they decide that they need it. Ain't choice great?

Here's similar with a better camera for $789. 335 days in the Top 100 - read the reviews. The buyers understand that it's a kit, and that they can later buy other pieces, including high-end OIS lenses. Check the reviews.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-12-2MP-18-55mm-70-300mm/dp/B0018AD4HM/ref=pd_ts_p_23?ie=UTF8&s=photo

Want to bet that the dealer will give you a break on a strobe at the same time?

The 2 or 2.5 stop S/S stabilization is generally with a lens of 1 or 1.5x magnification - the S/S capability falls off with a 5x magnification; just as it differs at different shutter speeds. OIS gives you better stabilization with long lenses. Even that flaky review admitted that.

Someone shooting sports would have the option to swap up from the Tamron at time of purchase to, say, this OEM one that lists at $299:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=15700

Pentax lenses are no longer cheap, so that tilts the balance as well.

Anonymous said...

RE: Sony full frame users must be amused that they don't have to shell out for VR lenses.

===========

Actually, "amused" is not what leaps to mind. "Thinking cheap" is what leaps to mind. A pro working with OIS is not going to worry about such things, and the FF market is really a pro (or pro-level) market that Sony would just LOVE to penetrate. IMO they've been deluding themselves about this for the last 3 years. A pro with OIS won't give that up - it's like asking a mechanic to give up their tools.

The Sony non-OIS lenses are not cheap, by the way. The bodies are well priced in order to move lenses, and the legacy Konica and Minolta people have their old lenses, just as the PK crowd does.

If you're that S/S manufacturer, having people's old lenses to deal with keeps them in the mount - but I don't see it attracting newcomers in numbers to offset defections to those two OIS makers with over 80 percent of the market. You also lose those NEW lens sales that Canon and Nikon thrive on, and their profits allowing you to make OIS lenses in high volume.

That's why Pentax had to raise lens prices, aggravated by exchange-rate factors.

A Sony NON-OIS 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 is $529 at Best Buy (SKU: 7909276)

A Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS in Google Shopping is $495

http://www.ibuydigital.com/product/?54645&camp_id=209

That's the power of selling in volume, and huge market share.

Anonymous said...

RE:

Pentax prime lens owners, for whatever reason, old or new, are quite simply lucky. And Minolta owners too.

============

No, they're stranded. Anyone can "get lucky" picking up older lenses on EBay. Ask me how I know that. Then, ask me if I'd like that money back on 90 percent of them.

At some point I'll crumble and let go the M42 SMC's, including my two 85mm Super Tak f/1.9's and the 85mm SMC f/1.8, and the 105mm SMC f/2.8, and the 135mm SMC f/2.5. I'm sure I also have the 85mm Auto Tak in 9+ condition. I treasure the
55mm SMC f/1.8, likely the sharpest normal that they made.

I also have a "10" 50mm f/1.4 EBC Fujinon, and more.

Imagine the nice DSLR all of that buys me, with OIS lenses. The good news is that the prices of those M42 lenses rise; while the prices of the digitals will continue to drop.

Now all I need is the time to make use of the DSLR, and to become as proficient as I am with my 12 Fujica ST701's - and to find something that would provide AF a fraction as good as the ST701 allows for MF with that bright screen and great microprism.

Anonymous said...

(Since you brought that up)

RE: "But it's clear why there is no avalanche of VR prime lenses for Nikon and Canon."

Because adding VR to a lens requires making the lens larger, and for a compact prime, it makes no sense to enlarge the barrel. Why does this answer never suffice? There's no one stamping their feet for short primes of 1x magnification with VR in those mounts. With zooms you work quicker, since you can stand in one spot and change perspective. The optics are excellent.

For a ZOOM, which is the typical first-lens purchase with OIS, it's no problem finding lenses stabilizing down to 18mm.

The problem that the Pentax users have is a complete inability to see past what they have, in terms of where today's market is. It's what's done Pentax in, as well, you you make a lovely couple.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2178/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-16-85mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR.html

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2176/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-55mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-VR.html

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2179/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-18-105mm-f%252F3.5-5.6G-ED-VR.html

Anonymous said...

Leaving you with a puzzle -

For those avid about pancake vintage primes, which will adapt to anything taking M42:

There's an existing 50mm that's extremely tiny, and is based on a famous German formula. They're easy to find, but the shipping might cost you. They take quite good pictures; but of course are preset - that's fine for a DSLR.

Which lens am I referring to?

There's an example of it on the Galactinus Web site mounted on a 350D, with his usual nice images.

Happy hunting.

Anonymous said...

And Pentax lenses are better than Canon and Nikon anyway, because they have the best lens coating that Nikon and Canon licensed years ago. But don't execute as well. Funny about the different gradings of Canon lenses: standard and 'L', VR, Non-VR, metal mounts, plastic mounts.
Same as Nikon.

Even the M42 SMC Taks are better than today's Canikon VR Fisher Price toys in lens coatings.

My, don't the Canikon fanboys get upset if their toy's shortcomings are pointed out?

Anonymous said...

Ken Rockwell's latest review of the Canon 18-55 IS lens: "I'm an IS addict, but IS is only useful if you like to shoot still subjects hand-held in dim light. It's not useful if you shoot flash or moving subjects, and with a normal-range lens, not that big a deal in any case."

Enough said of built-in VR in Canon and Nikon lenses: an expensive technological bandaid and useless for moving subjects.

Anonymous said...

(This is an example of what happens when someone is dumb, and does not do their research - or deliberately obfuscates. Note particularly what I changed to CAPS.)

----

RE: Enough said of built-in VR in Canon and Nikon lenses: an expensive technological bandaid and useless for moving subjects.

=======================

You missed the link to the Nikon lens embedded right in the story, but condemned Nikon in the same breath. That's because you went into it trying to prove something, instead of reading what was there. Why not give others the link? Unless, you were concerned that others might see what you might have deliberately hidden?

------------

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/18-55mm-is.htm

Recommendations

I prefer the optics of the (Canon) non-IS 18-55mm. I'd get that instead, for less money, or shoot Nikon with their optically superior 18-55mm and 18-55mm VR lenses.

For more money, the larger and heavier 18-200mm IS is also better.

( --- links to --- )

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm

This $180 Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens is a winner. It works perfectly. There isn't much it can't do well. For under $200, this could be the only lens you'd ever need. In some very subtle ways its optics can outperform the more expensive 16-85mm VR and 18-200mm VR lenses.

This 18-55mm VR focuses closer than either of the more expensive lenses, weighs less, is smaller and has less distortion at the long end. So there.

The 18-55mm VR has superb optics in a plastic mount for light weight and low cost. What you lose for paying less than one-third the price is durability, instant manual-focus override and zoom range.

Its diaphragm works perfectly on my D3 at 11 frames per second.

Guess what? If you destroy this 18-55 VR after the five-year USA warranty expires, buy a another new one and you're out a total of not much more than half the price of the 18-200 VR or 16-85 VR. It's not likely to break with normal use: I've made 10,000 shots or more with my non-VR 18-55mm pictured below.

The worst thing is you might break the mount and drop an expensive heavy camera like the D2Xs if you pick them up by grabbing the lens. (no problems with lightweight cameras.)

The 18-55mm VR feels perfectly matched to the weightless D40, D40x, D60 or D80. It doesn't feel bad on my D3, either. It's light but solid. The zoom ring is damped perfectly.

This 18-55mm VR is the same as the ridiculously good 18-55mm II kit lens, with the addition of Vibration Reduction (VR).

I'M ADDICTED TO VR, SINCE WITH VR I CAN SHOOT WITHOUT A TRIPOD EVEN IN THE DIMMEST LIGHT. VR HELPS MAKE REMARKABLY SHARPER PHOTOS WHEN HAND-HELD BETWEEN 1/4 AND 1/30 SECOND.

THIS VR VERSION IS A TINY BIT BIGGER THAN THE NON-VR 18-55MM II, AND WEIGHS TWO MORE OUNCES (60G). THIS 18-55MM VR IS STILL FEATHERWEIGHT AND TINY.

Anonymous said...

(Someone else seemed to have the same selective comprehension problems, or is deliberately lying)

RE: according to Ken Rockwell's review of the Nikon 18-55 VR versus non VR kit lens, the extra elements contribute to more flare in the VR version.

VR lenses are more complex, more expensive, have more optical compromises, most likely, and long-term reliability?

==================

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm

I'M ADDICTED TO VR, SINCE WITH VR I CAN SHOOT WITHOUT A TRIPOD EVEN IN THE DIMMEST LIGHT. VR HELPS MAKE REMARKABLY SHARPER PHOTOS WHEN HAND-HELD BETWEEN 1/4 AND 1/30 SECOND.

(The best "proof" you can offer someone asking for it is when you get to use their own references.)

Here's his own link in that story to the non-VR, and in this review, he says nothing about flare:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55-ii.htm

======

BUT!: here's his ENTIRE reference to flare on the 18-55mm in ANOTHER link; not some selected verbiage that the fan-bot propagandists like to utilize while offering no relevant link.

Look at HIS final sentence, now presented in CAPS:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm

Flare and Ghosts

Excellent. Modern lenses have pretty much eliminated this. I really have to go out of my way and risk blindness trying to excite this.

Here's a shot directly into the afternoon sun:

(image on the link)

Below are images with two stops more exposure. I cropped to show just the bottom 2/3 of each. Each is made with the same manual exposure of 1/500 at f/11, ISO 200, at 18mm. All were run naked (no filters).

(2 images on the link)

The cheapest and simplest 18-55mm AF-S II is the best. This VR version is almost as good. The more expensive 16-85mm and 18-200mm lenses are different: they have veiling flare as well as ghosts.

This will vary with focal length setting and position of the sun or other light sources.

DON'T WORRY ABOUT THIS. I HAD TO GO OUT OF MY WAY TO GET ANY OF THESE TO FLARE.

Anonymous said...

Re: those concerned about deliberately obfuscating or misleading: and so the 18-55 Nikon VR lens had less flare than the non-VR version?

And Ken still says that VR is important using hand held shots of motionless subjects but in a normal 18-55 lens is no big deal. Seems like Ken has moderated his original rave review of the Nikon 18-55 VR when addressing the Canon IS 18-55. Funny how some Canon posts including Dpreview say that the Canon IS version is better than the original, but Ken doesn't think so.

Seems like some Canikon users are making a big deal of paying for something Pentax, Sony and Olympus users get for free. And confusing themselves in the process.

And their (mis)leading point is?

Manu said...

Hey VR addicts, where's the 17-55 f/2.8 VR ? the 24-70 ? the 14-24 ? Oh yeah, I hear the old argument, not needed for short focal lenghts. Really? At 70mm or 85mm (55mm APS-C) you need at least 1/70s or 1/85s to get a sharp shot with consistency. I have many examples where SR is even useful at 12mm... Unless you all shoot in sunny daylight ?!?
Nikon has no stabilized fast lenses below 70mm, that's a huge disadvantage in my book.

Anyway I think it's a bad idea to put the two systems against each other because this "either or" proposition is only imposed by manufacturer when the best solution is to have access to both systems. And this is starting to appear now for In-body IS, Sigma for example has released a 18-250mm optically stabilized for Pentax and other mounts...

Anonymous said...

THIS PUTS THESE THREE 18-55 POSTS IN TIMELINE – KEN’S OWN WORDS IN REFERENCE TO EACH, WITH LINKS. THERE IS NO CURE FOR THE PENTAX PUPPETS AND THEIR ATTEMPTS TO RESCUE THEMSELVES FROM THEIR OWN CONFUSION, BUT THIS LINK GROUPING PUTS IT IN PERSPECTIVE. HE COULD NOT COMMENT ABOUT THE VR UNTIL NIKON PRODUCED IT, AND IT’S THE THIRD LENS IN SEQUENCE.

---

AF-s 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6G ED older version of above 05 October 2005
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm

As of December 2006, this Nikon 18-55mm lens has been superceded by the almost identical Nikon 18-55mm II.

RECOMMENDATIONS: This lens is no longer in production. Get today's 18-55mm II if you're buying new. Today's 18-55mm II appears to be the same lens with different cosmetics. The rest of this was written several years ago for this original, discontinued lens.

---

AF-s 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6G II ED Best basic digital lens 16 November 2006

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55-ii.htm

This lens was introduced as a kit lens along with the Nikon D40 on November 16th, 2006. It replaces the previous 18-55mm AFS lens, which has been a favorite recommendation of mine for its low price and great performance.

News: December, 2007: This lens now comes in a Vibration Reduction (VR) version.

---

AF-s 18-55mm f/3.5 - 5.6G VR 20 November 2007

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm

This $180 Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens is a winner. It works perfectly. There isn't much it can't do well. For under $200, this could be the only lens you'd ever need. In some very subtle ways its optics can outperform the more expensive 16-85mm VR and 18-200mm VR lenses.

This 18-55mm VR focuses closer than either of the more expensive lenses, weighs less, is smaller and has less distortion at the long end. So there.

The 18-55mm VR has superb optics in a plastic mount for light weight and low cost. What you lose for paying less than one-third the price is durability, instant manual-focus override and zoom range.

Its diaphragm works perfectly on my D3 at 11 frames per second.

Guess what? If you destroy this 18-55 VR after the five-year USA warranty expires, buy a another new one and you're out a total of not much more than half the price of the 18-200 VR or 16-85 VR. It's not likely to break with normal use: I've made 10,000 shots or more with my non-VR 18-55mm pictured below. The worst thing is you might break the mount and drop an expensive heavy camera like the D2Xs if you pick them up by grabbing the lens. (no problems with lightweight cameras.)

The 18-55mm VR feels perfectly matched to the weightless D40, D40x, D60 or D80. It doesn't feel bad on my D3, either. It's light but solid. The zoom ring is damped perfectly.

THIS 18-55MM VR IS THE SAME AS THE RIDICULOUSLY GOOD 18-55MM II KIT LENS, WITH THE ADDITION OF VIBRATION REDUCTION (VR). I'M ADDICTED TO VR, SINCE WITH VR I CAN SHOOT WITHOUT A TRIPOD EVEN IN THE DIMMEST LIGHT. VR HELPS MAKE REMARKABLY SHARPER PHOTOS WHEN HAND-HELD BETWEEN 1/4 AND 1/30 SECOND.

Anonymous said...

(Lies, lies, and more lies)

-----

RE: And Ken still says that VR is important using hand held shots of motionless subjects but in a normal 18-55 lens is no big deal.

---

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55mm-vr.htm

THIS 18-55MM VR IS THE SAME AS THE RIDICULOUSLY GOOD 18-55MM II KIT LENS, WITH THE ADDITION OF VIBRATION REDUCTION (VR). I'M ADDICTED TO VR, SINCE WITH VR I CAN SHOOT WITHOUT A TRIPOD EVEN IN THE DIMMEST LIGHT. VR HELPS MAKE REMARKABLY SHARPER PHOTOS WHEN HAND-HELD BETWEEN 1/4 AND 1/30 SECOND.

(He is talking about VIBRATION REDUCTION and the 18-55 in ONE SINGLE PARAGRAPH)

Anonymous said...

Pentax, Sony and Olympus owners are so far ahead. And when did this become a forum when those who express a preference for Pentax have to pass an evidence test to please the Canonikon people?

The point is Ken Rockwell both praises and then says no big deal about VR lenses in normal focal length in different posts. As for having to justify personal opinions of others' posts by meeting some rigid non agreed referencing code, get real!

VR lens are a marketing catch-up by Canikon which are not critical in normal focal lengths, but are nice to have.

Pentax Sony and Ollie owners get this technology for free, with every lens. Canikon owners have to pay for it with every lens they demand it for. Canon and Nikon benefit financially, the buyers don't.

Anyone who doubts the ability of Pentax to produce cost-effective DSLRS need only look at Ricehigh's comparison of the Pentax Km against the Canon 5D, above.
Indeed, why pay more for Canikon?

Anonymous said...

(More defenseless propaganda from the frustrated saddled with a 5-6 percent DSLR share. Not only are they confused, but they want to spread that confusion, like some form of photographic amnesia.

Ricehigh is trying to provide information, opinions, and a forum for open discussion – but the propagandists simply cannot accept the plight of Pentax as it now exists. He should ALSO be taking about Samsung, as that’s where the future of PK will end up. Yet, if they read some of this nonsense, perhaps Samsung will just give up on PK, period. How do you market to a user base that includes some who think that you have to yell “Whoa!” when you stop a car; and appetently don't know the first thing about engineering and marketing compromises based on cost?)

-----------

RE: “Hey VR addicts, where's the 17-55 f/2.8 VR ? the 24-70 ? the 14-24 ? Oh yeah, I hear the old argument, not needed for short focal lenghts. Really? At 70mm or 85mm (55mm APS-C) you need at least 1/70s or 1/85s to get a sharp shot with consistency. I have many examples where SR is even useful at 12mm... Unless you all shoot in sunny daylight?!? Nikon has no stabilized fast lenses below 70mm, that's a huge disadvantage in my book.”

---------------

(That guy should write science fiction.)

This is what Nikon offers in wide’s.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page

For their high-performance bodies with fast AF systems with 51 points, and VERY fast USM and VR, the f/3.5 aperture is a fraction of the PRODUCTION COST of f/2.8 lenses; which would also be a lot HEAVIER. The DOF issue is minimal compared to longer tele zooms, where they offer some f/2.8's – but CANON specializes in those long IS lenses, because they have the sales volume advantage and the user base for them. Nikon is making stronger inroads in the prosumer market.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=140

Nikon has faster wide zooms, but adding VR to those would add to the diameters and mass; AND WOULD ADD BULK AND EXPENSE THAT NO ONE IS ASKING FOR IN TRADE FOR VR.

These are professionals expecting stabilized viewing, panning, and high-end AF performance on lenses where magnification of image is a factor, and a high FPS rate for insurance. None of which Pentax offers.

Professionals KNOW how to hand-hold low-magnification lenses. Only the amateurs seem to rely on support for hand-holding short lenses; and Pentax addresses that lower-end demographic. And Pentax has to live with the fact that they cannot produce or sell higher-margin modern lenses with fast AF using ring-USM that would compare with the major makers.

What’s left for Pentax to compete on is optical performance and build quality – something that attracted me to M42, in the first place. But that’s no longer enough for today’s market, with computer-designed optics available for all makers. Nikon has plastic barrels (which Ken likes on the 18-55) and metal barrels – pay the money, and take your choice.

Those faster Nikon W.A.’s include:

AF-S DX NIKKOR 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED
AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED
AF-S NIKKOR 14-24mm f/2.8G ED
AF-S Zoom-NIKKOR 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED
AF Zoom-NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED

The SUPER-wide lenses are VERY expensive to engineer, and going for a larger aperture than f/3.5 on the 10-24 would make it too expensive, and FAR too bulky. Adding VR would make it even larger.

Companies who actually make money in selling cameras don’t engineer for what’s not required. This has been Pentax’ problem for years – working on the 645D and other money-wasters, and having to sell out to Hoya as a result of that failed strategy. That; and some portion of the user base stuck in 1983’s techniques.

Reading this nonsense reminds me of why Canon and Nikon owners look down upon the Pentax brand – not the equipment; but those USING the equipment.

Anonymous said...

My own farewell to Pentax:

Earlier, I iterated just a portion of what I own in M42. I also have PK, but just a fraction of the M42's.

I would rather be part of a user base that was not clinging to some anachronism for stabilization, and spent their time attempting to falsely justify it to people who live in THIS century.

I would rather have the option of choosing lenses from micro-USM to ring-USM, with diversity of price, and ease of local purchase.

I would rather have equipment that I can rent in the case of expensive lenses; and I can then own only what I need. I have Calumet nearby, and they have many of the more exotic Nikon and Canon lenses for rental. I want something that can be assured of repair or replacement, and a brand that I KNOW will exist in 5 years.

I want a brand where I have a choice in third-party advanced lenses - because that competition holds down the OEM prices. Sane with accessories.

I want a brand that is constantly upgrading their existing systems like DIGIC-4; and can afford to do that because they are ACTUALLY SELLING CAMERAS AND MAKING MONEY AT IT.

Based on my own liking for portraits, and lack of need for long teles, either Nikon or Canon would work. I've been concerned about adapting M42's; but upon reflection, that's silly. Just sell them; and use the money for better Nikon or Canon gear. I'd rather get a great portrait lens with AF and OIS, and be done with it.

For long shots, I can tote an FZ-28, and get perfectly good results - and less risk of a hernia.

I'm wrapping up a year-long very extensive project by end of July, and entering into a new partnership in an entirely new business in August - and I am looking forward to the change. Once things settle down, I can re-inventory what I have, and arrange for EBay or private sales. That will clear the decks for a pro camera, and by then the improved movie mode cameras will be here to choose from.

GH1 has a huge advantage with that lens and automation, but their own Mega OIS is better for movies than stills - it's video-cam technology.

I am anxious to see what Samsung comes up with in the NX.

Owning Pentax at this point is off my table; with the side benefit of joining into more rational discussions as well, in some instances. I have no desire to incur film costs any longer, with the large-image Photo-CD's.

In effect, some really dumb posts (or perhaps posts put up just to obfuscate?) have convinced me that Pentax has no future.

Recommended reading - "The Marching Morons", by Kornbluth.

Anonymous said...

Re 'more defenseless propaganda' you fail to make the case for Canikon even more.
What a convoluted defence of of an expensive duet of dslr brands.

Lenses are the real long term investment in slrs, not the bodies which like computers, are now regularly changed.

Imagine the original Canikon buyers who now have a collection of non-VR lenses. A sad state.

Then consider the Sony, Pentax and Ollie owners whose lenses are now even more functional. Who gets the better return on their investment?

Game over. Oh, btw, imagine the Km versus Canon 5D results above if Ricehigh had activated SR on the Km.

Anonymous said...

RE: Then consider the Sony, Pentax and Ollie owners whose lenses are now even more functional. Who gets the better return on their investment?

----------------

Those who would think it through and buy modern equipment, so that they had the utmost opportunity to use their own stills for great photography, with a totally modern feature set including faster AF and FPS rates, and superior image processing via internal systems - and the option of superior high-ISO performance, neatly obliterating the 2 stops of S/S benefit below 1/100th. They can then enjoy 3-4 stops of stabilized viewing, panning, and movie-making - including walking around to follow the subject, instead of standing there like someone nailed to the floor in order to maintain stability.

Those looking for a wide selection in lenses, including 3rd party; all with modern AF systems and IS/VR as options.

Those not trying to justify 10 year old technology decisions in a new century; based solely on the fact that they now own obsolete equipment that they are desperate to justify owning at a time when over 80 percent of DSLR sales are OIS systems, and Pentax' earlier corporate decisions have made them near-irrelevant to the current non-legacy buyers. For every body sold to those move-ups, think of it as 2 OIS lenses, on average. And once they have OIS capability, it becomes their choice as to whether to buy it in additional lenses. The more who buy it, the lower the prices go.

Then, look at current lens prices for Pentax.

Those willing to walk down the street without the past tied to their ankles.

Those willing to give up the past, and move to the future, with video mode rapidly becoming more common; and that same video mode demanding OIS.

Those who realize that Pentax cannot provide sound-video without a supplemental external mic, which ends up sitting right above their relatively noisy zooms. Anyone test that yet? Or are they still benchmarking video with primes?

Those that realize that Olympus voluntarily moved away for S/S for video, after taking the trouble to redesign and lighten their existing technology for the lighter hybrids.

And, of course, those who don't want to deal with some portion (not the entire user base, but some virulent minority) who sit here defending technological dead-ends at a time when new cameras are appearing by the boatload, and new form factors as well.

Anonymous said...

(Slight typo fix)

Those that realize that Olympus voluntarily moved away !FROM! S/S for video, after taking the trouble to redesign and lighten their existing technology for the lighter hybrids.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps, now we can understand why Pentax closed their museum ...

They have their user base for that.

Anonymous said...

Canikon fanboys pay more and have to justify longer in wistful conclusions about Sony, Olympus and Pentax owners.

It's no wonder Canikon are pursuing liveview so ardently: they can't build enough eye-relief into the viewfinder for some of their long-nosed followers.

Bottom line: Canon and Nikon image quality is not superior.
Didn't you see Ricehigh's comparison above? Or are Canikon fanboys as blind as they are willing to invest in second-rate lens technology?

Anonymous said...

(This discussion could relate to some heat issues on the K-7, and S/S - where Canon has no such issue to deal with. Westfall of Canon has a monthly excellent tech-tips column dealing with pro-level issues, now including video related. This is from July's tips).

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0907/tech-tips.html

(Q) I am concerned about the potentially detrimental effects Movie Mode may have on my gear, specifically Lens IS and CF Cards. If Lens IS is running continuously for the duration of a movie, is that an issue for the lifespan of the IS unit? Do you recommend that IS should be turned off during Movie Mode to conserve its life? Also, my 5D Mark II makes CF Cards very hot, especially when using Movie mode. Is this likely to cut down the lifespan of the CF Cards?

(A) According to Canon Inc., it's not a problem to run the Image Stabilizer function of an IS lens during movie recording. In fact, they encourage the use of IS for handheld shooting of movies and stills. And use of IS for movie recording has no significant effect on the lifespan of the IS mechanism. However, if you use a tripod while recording movie clips, in most cases you'll lose the benefits of image stabilization. Under those conditions, it's best to shut off the IS during tripod use. This will also reduce power consumption, thus extending battery life. Canon recommends that microdrives should not be used for movie recording because of heat buildup issues, but there are no recommendations against the use of chip-based CF cards, except the need to use a card that can write data at a rate of at least 8 MB per second. Canon does not manufacture its own CF cards, so you should consult your CF card manufacturer for official recommendations about their products.

Anonymous said...

The Canon 18-55 IS doesn't work with some earlier Canon dslrs. Like the 10D.

And Nikon D40 through D60 owners can't use screw-driven autofocus lenses in autofocus mode.

Add in VR non-VR confusion and Canikon sounds more like ConfuSion.

The Pentax museum is big. The bigger museum is the Canon and Nikon outdated lens museum, from FD and F mounts to be found in cupboards, drawers and landfill everywhere.

Whose innovative now?

Anonymous said...

A journalist on stabilization in 1998; when Canon had it on film cameras. The case for benefits today is the same; and Pentax, Olympus, etc. had no such technology to bring forward to the DSLR. It was sensor-shift or oblivion.

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue9805/cameracorner.htm

"Last year, Canon introduced the 300mm f.4 stabilized lens. This heralds the era of the new "revolutionary" optics.

The stabilizer contains two tiny solid-state gyro sensors that are installed in the lens elements. Unlike old fashioned gyros that were large, heavy, externally mounted devices that require ample power and a lengthy delay for warm up, Canon's image stabilizer mechanism fits in the the lens. It is powered by the camera, and becomes fully functional within a second of activation. Sensors can detect angular velocity changes in the relationship of the camera to the subject. When the sensors detect yaw and pitch, they pass angular velocity signals to a 16-bit microprocessor that in turn controls a magnetic coil that shifts a group of lens elements parallel to the focal plane in direct response to the direction and degree of movement. Canon's image stabilizer technology reduces the effects of camera/lensmovement by up to two full shutter speeds compared to conventional hand-held photography.

This technology allows the photographer to hand-hold a 300mm lens and get sharp images at shutter speeds as low as 1/30th of a second."

What this means is that the news photographer who had been lugging around a 300mm f.28 can now drop half the weight and go to the new lens that does the same thing as far as capturing the image.

By adding a 1.4x telextender you can have a 450mm f5.6 lens deliver an image - previously capturable only at 1/125th of a second?at 1/20th of a second (especially, if using a light unipod).

Granted, this does not apply to sports photographers, who still need all the speed they can get from an optic. But, for the average news photographer, it means a lot less weight.

By lowering the shutter speed needed to capture the image, the iris can be dropped down into ranges never before used. Now, the photographer can hold both the foreground and background when using a long lens.

As news photography moves to digital, the weight and clutter that the photographer carries to assignments is increasing dramatically. Look at wire service photographers today. They carry a full kit of cameras and long lenses; PLUS a backpack that holds a powerbook, and all the paraphernalia needed to transmit the pictures they shoot.

Suddenly, we are talking about adding a video camera to all this other equipment in order to service the needs of the new multimedia publishing we will all have to deal with. How on earth, are we going to carry it all?

The answer is: the basic camera package must be reduced dramatically. It is this need that the stabilized lenses addresses.

Now, let me tell you what I carry today on the same assignment: 2 camera bodies (a spare in my luggage), a Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 stabilized lens, a 300mm f4 stabilized lens with a 1.4x telextender, a 50mm f.1.8, a strobe, a unipod, and an Optura video camera, with a vice clamp and audio cable in a case.

This package, which gives me total multimedia capability is half the weight of the first kit."

-----------

(Much more detail in the link - but in fact, an OIS lens can replace several others for the working journalist. And this was 1998, when the pro realized the OIS lens advantages)

Anonymous said...

RE: The Canon 18-55 IS doesn't work with some earlier Canon dslrs. Like the 10D.

And Nikon D40 through D60 owners can't use screw-driven autofocus lenses in autofocus mode.

===========================

Progress happens - any mass-market producer that sacrifices current technology on the altar of their ancient user base is doomed.

Pentax has literally nowhere to makes sales to but that base, and is forced to kow-tow to them; while of course not making the revenue that they should from sales of lenses with those modern features that draw higher profit margins; including USM. They likely have no license for it either. Samsung might be a different story for PK's future.

Sometimes, a change of management can do wonders for a brand. Anyone who banks on existing customers for their livelihood, and thereby rejects modern industry standard tech, has a real problem.

Instead, Pentax resorted to raising the price of 2005-era lenses made to retrofit some 6 MP camera that not a soul would buy today, outside the legacy devotees.

Screw drive is old tech with noise and vibration unacceptable for video, but those who insist on it have plenty of old "stills" bodies to use it on. For the majors, those were the bodies discarded when the makers moved to a modern lens mount and platform.

The M43 consortium added contacts to their mount expressly for video, but today's DSLR makers still have that decision to make. Can they optimize video and keep their current lenses? Likely so; but that failure to address AF and AE for video mode will need to be answered. IMO the majors can add mount contacts while permitting the current lenses to maintain function. I see no reason for additional mount changes to accomodate any new tech causing some gross discard of existing glass.

That said, Pentax' decision to allow ancient glass to operate has robbed its user base of more modern technology. Nikon and Canon had the guts to do it, because they want to attract NEW owners. Most of their existing base is perfectly happy to accept a 5-year timeframe for major changes. This is not 1973.

Anonymous said...

Nikon user discussion on the old lenses:

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Tpsr

In order to use your "older auto focus lenses," you can try the D80 (discontinued) or D90 (current). The D200 is also a possibility and that can even meter with manual-focus AI/AI-S lenses. Depending on how much money you want to spend, there are many different options.

So far there are 4 low-end Nikon DSLRs that do NOT have an AF motor inside the body so that they can only AF with AF-S (and AF-I) type lenses that have the AF motor in the lens. Obviously there has to be an AF motor somewhere for AF to work. Those four are the D40, D40x, D60, and D5000.

The D80 and D90 will work fully with older Nikon AF lenses. The D200,D300,D700 would be similar to the F100 in size, shape, texture and weight if that is what you meant by handling. They also will function with older Nikon AF lenses as well as the manual focus AI lenses.

(Ah, choice. That's what you get with a company that offers a large model range)

Anonymous said...

So much for a happy band of old Canon and Nikon owners.

Wise companies try to avoid abandoning their customer base because in the long run, 'people stick to those who stick to them.'
Leica, still struggles, but still alive.

The advantages of in-lens motors are of real benfit to sports shooting journos and newsmen. No problem.

For amateurs and weekend shooters there is no real benfit of this type of complexity.
Autofocus works or it doen't. That's what most people need.

It's a shame amateur Canon and Nikon owners have to amortise development costs for pros to no real benefit.

Anonymous said...

RE: The Canon 18-55 IS doesn't work with some earlier Canon dslrs. Like the 10D.

=======================

http://jimdoty.com/Digital/10d_20d/10d_20d.html

"The EF-S lenses won't work on Canon film bodies (even if the lens is modified)."

(That's FILM bodies; and 10D came out in 2003. SO WHAT??? Anyone who has not bought a Canon lens since 2003 is not worth their energy - something that Pentax should have learned.)

"GOOD LENSES ARE FOREVER (more or less), DIGITAL BODIES ARE TEMPORARY. If you have a good collection of lenses that you like, find a digital body that will work with your current lenses. If your lenses are orphaned without a good digital body to use them on, then a Canon 20D and some Canon EF or EF-S lenses would serve you well."

(i.e., work with the present, not the past. Movie mode will make a lot of things obsolete, and some brands along with it)

Anonymous said...

RE: Wise companies try to avoid abandoning their customer base because in the long run, 'people stick to those who stick to them.'
Leica, still struggles, but still alive.

===========

Now you're comparing Pentax and Leica? Is that something akin to Chevy vs. Ferrari?

What kind of ego trip does Pentax have you on?

Leica-brand is still alive, because it's a high-value classic with a devoted and well-deserved user base. Those people can well afford other cameras for vacations.

Pentax is a commodity with excellent lenses. It shared the M42 mount with many competitors; and that caused a lot of lenses to be built by 3rd-party to satisfy that base.

Now, Pentax has 6 percent of the market. 3rd-party makers make a living elsewhere with much more expensive lenses.

Leica is riding the wave because of the Panasonic connection.

http://gizmodo.com/5316483/panasonic-lumix-lx3-vs-leica-d+lux-4-or-how-to-charge-300-more-for-the-same-camera

Leica has a new digital on the way:

Look at this beast:

http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/07/14/leicas-s2-medium-format-dslr-up-close-and-personal/

"For those pros out there working in print, medium format is king. Portable yet powerful, they can be deployed anywhere. With large but not crowded sensors, they provide excellent sharpness and color fidelity with reasonable exposure times. Of course, they do cost upwards of twenty grand. Leica’s S2 is an evolution of the medium format: a medium-format sensor in a DSLR body, a sort of spiritual big brother to the Sigma DP2, which has a DSLR sensor in a point-and-shoot-esque body.

Unlike the DP2, however, the S2 isn’t likely to suffer from its change of form; Leica is too good for that. It’s still not in production, but a few prototypes were available for handling at a recent Foto Care event in New York.

It’s a near-final prototype, which means everything’s more or less where it’s going to be but functionality and features aren’t quite at a complete stage (pricing is also “not final” but it’s expected to be around $20k). It handles like a DSLR but takes 37.5-megapixel pictures on its 30×45mm Kodak CCD sensor. I’m a little put off by the small LCD and featureless appearance, but even a 5″ screen would be inadequate for checking a 37.5-megapixel photo."

Anonymous said...

RE: "RE: Wise companies try to avoid abandoning their customer base because in the long run, 'people stick to those who stick to them.'"

-------------

Wise companies give existing customers a REASON to stick with them, aside from the fact that all of those lenses have nothing else to mount on.

Wise companies produce products that get people to discard the old in favor of the new while remaining brand-loyal; and that makes those buyers spend more for other things.

This is how Gillette operates. Is the latest whiz-bang razor better than the Mach 3 Turbo? If you think so, the new blades will be a higher ongoing expense. I still use Mach 3 Turbo, because it gives me what I need - and I can get a deal for OEM blades on EBay. I don't really care what Gillette does next.

Pentax likely hit that point with their base around 2005 - no impetus provided to trade up. They need new blood, but Nikon, Canon, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus have them shut out. So they pander to those whom they have, and hope that all of those lenses lock you in.

You guys make it easy for them by making excuses about their 2000 S/S technology, primarily because of that same collection of lenses. Pentax had no choice but to go with S/S; but the user base did by changing brands. Over time, that erosion is exactly what happened.

That leaves more and more of those remaining the most adamant in resisting change; so they have a louder and smaller base not spending enough.

You now have your bets solely on the K-7. Good luck with that.

Anonymous said...

Re: reading this nonsense reminds me of why Canon and Nikon owners look down upon the Pentax brand – not the equipment; but those USING the equipment.

Strange, not a 'gulp' or 'gasp' anywhere in a diatribe of Canikon stoogeism.

With such self-righteous arrogance, this would have to be a mouth-breather. After all, no-one with that much mucus in their nose could do otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Re: "My own farewell to Pentax"

As Ronnie Barker used to say:"And that's goodnight from him."

Recommended reading for you sir: "Wind in the Willows."

Enjoy your new-found freedom.

Assisted reflective reading, to gain perspective on this bold new move likely to bring happiness in all things photographic: "Mein Kampf."

Anonymous said...

A thread with a conversation on Pentax DSLR share from 2009:

Everyone pretty much accepts what's happened - at this point, it's like reversing gravity. Our nation's economic problems did not commence in 2009 - there were signs in 2007, and only a handful picked up on the tea leaves, like Prof. Roubini.

As time goes on, the facts surface, and you get discussions like this (below) right on the Pentax Forum. Punishing those for speaking up is no solution. The user base played Mikey (we'll eat anything) for years, so Pentax stopped aspiring for more. They thought that cheap cameras were the answer, even after Ned's own admission that they could not compete in the big-box market. They took their base for granted, and the base was happy to support them in that. This is co-dependence.

http://photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00RyEC

Note the final post:

"Pentax will always be a niche camera manufacturer; they simply don't have the deep marketing pockets of Canikon to reach the masses. I think the Pentaxian devotees will continue to support them so long as their products remain well designed and built, but if the Hoya corporate directives state stealing market share from "Canikon Machine" or else, we could all be in trouble."

(That was exactly Ned's point;, but what was the alternative?) Sony IMO is making that same error, but they have deep pockets to survive it)

Anonymous said...

RE: "Mein Kampf" as a reference for anything ...

Even for a Pentax board, that's downright dumb. If this joint has any standards left, tell that asshole where the line is.

We're talking about cameras, idiot.

Anonymous said...

Re Mein Kampf" as a reference for anything ...

In regard to personal (anal) physical focus points: yours may be uppermost in your mind (or being tracked in the hard-working innards of your VR lens) as you alternate between contemplating that or your navel.

However, I suggest you keep your personal attributes private. And everyone else's.

BTW, you really should learn to spell. Or is English a second language?

Anonymous said...

Hell. What a mess. Ricehigh, maybe you should rename this post: "Dr Who and the attack of the Canikons."

With that much technostuff, I'll stick to my humble K100D.

Abandon Phuwan said...

I'll wait for your K-m vs. K-7 comparison

RiceHigh said...

Having very very busy these days, I have no time to go through every posts and the points contained in the body SR/AS Vs in-lens IS/VR arguments.. (only could spend a few minutes online every day! :-()

However, no matter how, I think both do have their merits/shortcomings and actually they can supplement one and another and there should be no conflict at all. The body SR/AS makes every lens optically stabilised, no matter old and new without complicating the optical formula of a lens, although it cannot attain the best response and maximum protection that in-lens OIS and VR that can currently attain.

So, I hope my above conclusion (which is factual and quite fair enough, IMHO) can mark a full stop to the above war of arguments and actually the facts are just as simple as those as mentioned.

RiceHigh said...

> Abandon Phuwan said...
> I'll wait for your K-m vs. K-7 comparison

K-7 has lost the last shootout test against the 5D with the same lenses mounted (respectively).

With the same test methodology and setup, the K-m and 5D have performed fairly close enough although the results are somehow each to its own.

So, what does this imply? (when K-7 < 5D and K-m ~ 5D => (simply means) K-7 < K-m !)

Anonymous said...

But you wont' reshoot the K7 at f5.6 to better use the sensors' diffraction properties.

Manu said...

"Professionals KNOW how to hand-hold low-magnification lenses. Only the amateurs seem to rely on support for hand-holding short lenses".

That's the funniest statement in all the comments. Does this suggest that Nikon users are all Pros?

I'm not anonymous! said...

Who is this guy named "Anonymous"? He seems to control all the post over here. :)

Anonymous said...

So, everything is logic here. K-m is for amateurs, who shoot jpeg, and K-7 - for professionals, who shoot raw. Pretty normal.

Anonymous said...

I was interested in the Canon 5D but the K-m really holds its own against it in this test. As anyone with half a brain knows that the K-7 has better IQ than the K-m, I'll go for the K-7 now.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that Canon owners have been short-changed versus the Nikon in standard lenses: 18-55mm zooms. Take a look at Cameralabs Nikon D40 outdoor results test.

Then look at Cameralabs Pentax K10 outdoor results test using a wider ranging Pentax zoom.

For those who believe Pentax lenses are average compared to the opposition, this is pretty amazing.

Anonymous said...

> K-7 has lost the last shootout
> test against the 5D with the same
> lenses mounted (respectively).
...
> K-7 < K-m !)

K-7 has lost *your* shootout. That makes a difference. The K-m is crisp for sure, we are all happy it fits your personal needs.
Your K-7 vs 5D test is pure cr@p, but you are not honest enough to admit it. Or you are just dumb, but I don't believe so.
BTW, the K-m vs 5D test is cr@p too.

NotPhilbarton said...

But he sure is posting a lot in this thread.

ricehighfan said...

ricehigh is a dumb chimp

Anonymous said...

Just checked the local prices for Canon non-VR and VR(IS) twins lens kits with basic Rebel DSLR: VR or IS kit adds 20 percent to cost.

For Nikon D60 the same configuration adds 30 percent to cost.

Pentax Km with Pentax twin lens kits 10 percent cheaper than Canon and around 17 percent cheaper than Nikon D60.
Canon has Liveview, Nikon D60 doesn't.

Anonymous said...

and they still project moving images at cinemas at this century?!!!

What's the point?

Faster FPS gives you more bad pics faster, and in great numbers.
Faster AF gives you more in focus bad pics.
Better high ISO performance gives you clean bad pics in low light.

And the worst part about it is it could happen regardless of what camera brand you use.

But then again, better tech lets you get a lot of keepers.

What's the point?

Anonymous said...

Re kit lenses, in-built stabilisation, in-built focus motrs: an interesting review of the Pentax 18-55 kit lens by Dpreview.
Partial quote: ..."From the metal lens mount to the proper manual focus ring and excellent lens hood, this 18-55mm exudes an aura of quality which is markedly lacking from other manufacturers’ offerings; and perhaps due to the luxury of not having to include aperture and focus motors or an image stabilisation unit into the lens, Pentax have managed to buck the trend and produce a lens which feels solid and is a joy to use. And it's not just the mechanical construction which is refreshingly different, the optical quality is also very respectable indeed."

Anonymous said...

RE: and perhaps due to the luxury of not having to include aperture and focus motors or an image stabilisation unit into the lens

==========

Pentax had no choice - that stuff is in the body, period. It's not a "luxury" to be saddled with it inside a body with heat problems.

This is like saying that the original VW Beetle had the "luxury" of no radiator.

Pentax simply cannot afford to put out lenses with those benefits inside; and Canon does offer both metal and plastic barrels, depending on price range. You cannot offer a lens that no one in PK could make use of. DPREVIEW frankly bends over backwards to find nice things to say about S/S, but even they are running out of adjectives.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072207canonhybridIS.asp

TOKYO, July 22, 2009 — Canon Inc. announced today the development of Hybrid Image Stabilizer (IS), the world's first* optical Image Stabilizer which compensates for both angular camera shake and shift camera shake. The technology
will be incorporated in an interchangeable single lens reflex (SLR) camera lens planned for commercial release before the end of 2009.

Several different preventative methods and corrective procedures have been introduced to compensate for errors caused by camera shake. Canon began researching methods to compensate for camera shake in the 1980s. In 1995 Canon launched the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, the world's first interchangeable SLR
camera lens to feature a mechanism that compensates for optical camera shake.

Since then, the company has continued to produce a variety of interchangeable lenses with image stabilisation capabilities, and boasts a total of 21 such lenses in its current product lineup, including the EF 200mm f/2L IS USM which features up to 5-stops of blur correction.

Anonymous said...

RE: That's the funniest statement in all the comments. Does this suggest that Nikon users are all Pros?

------------

More straw-man crap.

What it implies is that people who spend $2000 for a lens, and make a living from it, KNOW how to hand-hold - or they use a support if they're able. This link is from the -video- side, but now that people want to shoot video with still cameras, it shows the tech that Canon already has in production for other sensors.

http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=794903

Mansion Mobile's seven Canon long-zoom HD field lenses include two DIGISUPER 100xs and five DIGISUPER 86xs models. The DIGISUPER 100xs (the world's first triple-digit zoom lens) and the DIGISUPER 86xs both feature Canon's unique second-generation built-in Image Stabilization (or Shift-IS) system , which helps enable camera operators to capture rock-solid imagery at telephoto distances.

"Canon's built-in Shift-IS Image Stabilization system is a very important feature, especially for working in sports and mobile production," explained Palmer. "Shooting in very windy conditions, from the top of large venues, and with rowdy crowds, will really make you appreciate Shift-IS. More importantly, the clarity, color quality and detail that come through these lenses are remarkable; they are going to perform very well for us."

Both lenses also feature Canon's exclusive Digital Servo System, which employs microcomputer technology to compensate for lens-focus breathing (the inadvertent alteration of field of view when operating the focus control) and other improved digital operational features for focus and zooming control. All of Canon's long-zoom field lenses deliver the precision and operational advantages that have made Canon the standard of excellence in sports and entertainment-events production. (Canon's 100xs and 86xs HD field lenses are also available in Auto Focus versions.)

Manu said...

"More straw-man crap."

Hey Phil "Anonymous" Barton, show me that 85mm f/1.4 IS.

The Canon Hybrid Image Stabilizer should be an eye opener. First that technology is already available in the K-7, secondly, it will take a while before Canon updates their "21 lenses" with this new technology. Oh and BTW, you'll have to sell your current lenses for a song since nobody will want old technology...

Now let's stop this in lens vs in body nonsense. Why choose when you could have both? If tomorrow Canon or Nikon would put IS in body, their fanboys starving for IS will suddenly switch to praise how great a technology it is...

Anonymous said...

Incredible. Dpreview publishes a positive lens review of the Pentax 18-55 lens and even they get criticised.

They 16-45 review by Dpreview is also very positive. Will Dpreview get stung for that too?

And what's wrong with making a solid lens with good optical quality?

The new Canon IS system seems to do no more than the Pentax in-body system which responds to movement vertically, horizontally and rotationally. And with every lens. If that upsets some people, so be it.

Anonymous said...

RE: show me that 85mm f/1.4 IS.

===============

The barrel and glass on that lens are very large, and it's a prime - only the zooms get IS. Pro's pay a lot of money for that lens, and are perfectly happy with it - these are most often used in studio on tripods, because it's extremely hard to keep a portrait subject in focus at about 6 feet with an f/1.4 aperture. Companies don't spend extra on things that no one asks for.

As to guesswork on anonymous posters - it's something that little shitheads indulge in. Many post here anonymously, and that should be respected - even assholes like you are entitled to privacy. I won't even tell you if you're right or wrong. None of your business. We should all be able to speak freely, and in your case, to make an ass of yourself.

Anonymous said...

SO many things wrong in one paragraph:

"The Canon Hybrid Image Stabilizer should be an eye opener. First that technology is already available in the K-7"

=====

The K-7 simply lets the sensor move by ONE DEGREE - that's it. It's designed to CORRECT the user's horizon.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/K7/K7A.HTM

" ... an Electronic Level function, which uses the Pentax K7's unique image stabilization system to actually rotate the sensor by plus or minus one degree to keep horizon lines straight. ..."

CANON: "The new Hybrid IS technology incorporates an angular velocity sensor that detects the extent of ANGULAR CAMERA SHAKE which is found in all previous optical Image Stabilizer mechanisms, as well as a new acceleration sensor that determines the amount of shift-based camera shake. Hybrid IS also employs a newly developed algorithm that combines the output of the two sensors and moves the lens elements to compensate for both types of movement. Hybrid IS dramatically enhances the effects of Image Stabilizer especially during macro shooting, which is difficult for conventional image stabilisation technologies."

(Pentax has NOTHING like Canon has)

===============

"Secondly, it will take a while before Canon updates their "21 lenses" with this new technology."

"New technology" is something that Pentax seems unfamilar with, based on 2003's SAFOX. On the other hand, Canon has been working with OIS as a concept for 25 years. Why would they update 21 existing lenses, rather than just create a range of new ones and phase them in gradually?

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/07/canons-new-anti-blur-lenses-will-be-available-this-year/

“The technology will be incorporated in an interchangeable single lens reflex (SLR) camera lens planned for commercial release before the end of 2009”.

"Canon is actively engaged in ongoing research and development of interchangeable SLR camera lenses incorporating Hybrid IS technology, and is aiming for the early commercialisation and inclusion of the technology in a wide range of products."

============

http://www.twice.com/article/316072-Canon_Reveals_Dual_Shake_Correcting_d_SLR_Lens_Tech.php

"The Hybrid IS technology is said to optimally compensate for angle and shift camera shake. Sudden changes in camera angle can significantly affect images taken during standard shooting, while shift-based shaking, which occurs when a camera moves parallel to the imaging scene, is more pronounced in macro photography and other close-range shooting.

The Hybrid IS incorporates an angular velocity sensor that detects the extent of angle-based shaking and is found in all previous Canon optical image-stabilizer mechanisms, as well as a new acceleration sensor that determines the amount of shift-based camera shake.

Canon also uses in the system a newly developed algorithm that synthesizes information from the two sensors to make optimal adjustments. This enhances the effects of image stabilization during shooting, including macro shooting."

=========

"Oh and BTW, you'll have to sell your current lenses for a song since nobody will want old technology..."

MY existing lenses are M42's. The new lenses will co-exist with their current OIS lenses, and will no doubt cost more. As usual, they'll be in zooms and long primes, not short primes that the pro's who can afford them are perfectly content with.

Anonymous said...

As to Anonymous calling Anonymous as possessing craniums of human debris and being anal because of being anonymous: shot yourself in the foot, I think

Anonymous said...

re Pentax has NOTHING like Canon has: I presume you're referring to the stellar performance of the Km compared to the 5D above?

Anonymous said...

(That last comment does not even make any sense - was there an actual thought behind it?)

"We should all be able to speak freely, and in your case, to make an ass of yourself."

(and, so you did ...)

===========

Now to the K-7 sensor problems as discussed on Pentax Forums:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/65879-k7-busted-sensor-strikes-production-body-11.html

"Think a bit...HoyaTax has issued a press release acknowledging there is an over heating issue...get it...it is not about pixel mapping, it's a design/component issue that even if pixel mapping made it go away visually, the flaw would still exist and reduce the lifespan of the body.

I wonder if Pentax will start with a longer warranty on their bodies as a result of this? Do that and add a few years to the lens warranties now that they prices are less attractive than even 2-months ago and it might help."

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/673482-post148.html

Originally Posted by Pentax Europe GmbH

Q: After I used video or live view for an extended period of time, and subsequently take still images, I'll find a bright stripe in the middle of the image.

A: We are aware of the issue. The reason is sensor heat. Both, live view and video cause stress for the sensor (German: "setzen den Sensor dauerhaft unter Spannung") which produces heat. Morever, ambient conditions like summer sun may produce extensive heat on the sensor.

If now a still image is shot after a correspondingly extensive use and matching ambient temperatures, then thermal noise across the center of the image may emerge. The next step of the camera would be the automatic shut-off.
The "noise stripe" will disappear after the cool down of the sensor.

Treat the camera (implying the sensor) the same as you would treat film: "store cool and dry".

http://photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00Ttug

Lindy Stone , Jul 11, 2009; 06:23 p.m.

So, is your K-7 a Beta Sensor loaner to chit~chat about or a K-7 with production sensor Justin?

I've been seeing and reading of some wacky results from both at pentaxforums, as I am sure you have too. Cock-eyed sensor installations, vertical banding lines, weird patterns at 1600 iso. Hopefully you got a good Beta Sensor K-7 or a good production version K-7 if you didn't buy it. If you did drop some full price coin on it, hopefully you got a stellar sample. I'm waiting till April or May 2010 to consider one at half off admission.

The K-7 is so well sealed yet the sensor generates heat in liveview and video. I wonder how a weather sealed dslr vents off the heat build up inside the camera?

Lindy

John-Paul Treen , Jul 11, 2009; 06:38 p.m.

Lindy, you'd imagine the Mag Alloy shield is a great heatsink!

On the other hand, those same threads you've been reading have been saying that a lot of the problems happen in high temp. This would tell me that the mag alloy is conducting the heat in pretty fast and the smaller internals don't have that much volume and get hot fast. Damn you, physics!

"Next up: Pentax K7-WC

NO! Not what you're thinking. I mean "water cooled.""

Anonymous said...

time to add a Peltier to the back of the sensor, then?

Manu said...

“Because it's extremely hard to keep a portrait subject in focus at about 6 feet with an f/1.4 aperture. Companies don't spend extra on things that no one asks for.”

You haven’t spend enough time on Canikon forums where they almost all wish for that feature. You haven’t used a 85 f/1.4 (with IS) to know what’s possible. I routinely use the 77 f/1.8 at speeds well below 1/30s and this gets on the nerves of many Canikon fanboys (especially the results). In short, you don’t know what you’re talking about. And Pros do that or don’t need this… Seriously… Who cares about the pros anyway? I guess similar arguments were used when AF appeared for the first time (“pros don’t need AF”).


“even assholes like you are entitled to privacy. I won't even tell you if you're right or wrong. None of your business. We should all be able to speak freely, and in your case, to make an ass of yourself.”

Yes, that’s the internet, hiding behind anonymity to insult anyone. Very nice. Anyway it was too easy to guess you are PhilBarton. On Dpreview you don’t miss any occasion to knock Pentax and your style on long posts with a lot of irrelevant quotes is unmistakable. Now you have found a new playground that fits you perfectly. You should write for RiceHigh.

Anonymous said...

C'mon everybody. Let's just let Ricehigh enjoy his new KM. He has finally found a camera that fits with his ability level (entry-level), and with his attention-seeking behavior, he should be really happy with getting so many comments. Let's all go out and take great pictures, and maybe Rice will be motivated to do the same.

Anonymous said...

The entire point of forums where no one needs to identify themselves is to be able to speak freely. This childish "gotcha" stuff is third-grade.

The problem here is NOT what Canon has, or does not. It's what Pentax is providing (or is not). Making references to other brands with MANY lenses on the market, and choosing one in particular, proves nothing.

The professional market is the target for portrait primes - even for advanced amateurs, the zooms cover the OIS requirements very well, and at the typical shooting apertures, are plenty good enough for detailed portraits. Since Canon is in the business of providing what people actually ask for (not whine about on forums), and the current 85mm is already owned by those who need it to make a living, they cannot justify the expense of an entirely new lens for the loud few. Or they use a tripod. OR, THE STROBE FREEZES THE ACTION.

With OIS, it would entail a totally new design with a moving element group, and very large glass - not smart in an an economy where people are reluctant to spend a lot for a small gain over what they have already.

The newer lenses are generally OIS; even the kit-level - except for small-size primes. They need sales volume to offset development; or else a big margin on each lens. They are in regular contact with professionals through their own blogs and other means, and likely pay little attention to forums designed to magnify issues, by their very nature.

A linked quote is irrelevant if you don't understand the import of it; or don't bother to read it.

You should instead take the time to reply to actual points raised, instead of erecting some other irrelevant straw-man to deflect.

Anonymous said...

Re: "The entire point of forums where no one needs to identify themselves is to be able to speak freely."

Final sentence: "You should instead take the time to reply to actual points raised, instead of erecting some other irrelevant straw-man to deflect."

I think he's saying: "I can speak freely but everyone else should link their reply to previous posts."

Translation: Self-indulgence and intolerance.

NotPhilBarton said...

Yep Phil Barton for sure!!!! And Phil it really doesn't take much guesswork.

==========================
"As to guesswork on anonymous posters - it's something that little shitheads indulge in. Many post here anonymously, and that should be respected - even assholes like you are entitled to privacy. I won't even tell you if you're right or wrong. None of your business. We should all be able to speak freely, and in your case, to make an ass of yourself."

Anonymous said...

The power of the 5D is in low light performance. In bright, wide angle and small aperture, any lame camera can beat the 5D.

Now crank the isos up when shooting indoor, that's where the 24x26 sensor shines.

By the way I posted a feeback concerning the batteries of the Km: Pentax Kmet ses piles (french)

Anonymous said...

(french)?
is that small or large fries?

Post a Comment

Related Posts

 
Creative Commons License
RiceHigh's Pentax Blog by RiceHigh is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.