DxO Labs have recently launched their very interesting new website, the DxOMark.com, solely for ultimate measurebations on DSLRs (well, they say those are "measures" but I think "measur(e)bation" should be a better term in describing what they are doing! ;-)).
In this website, what you can see are only cold figures, but with no photos of any, except the images of those DSLRs under test! What I do like most are those cold figures are really cool, and most importantly, scientifically obtained and meaningful.
I bet this site will be the most popular measurebators' paradise after the old classic (but outdated) lens measurebation site Photodo.com (the old site).
Putting aside the new aggregate sensor performance mark they have created, the most important thing they have created and published is the comprehensive and up-to-date "Image Quality Database". In this database, you will see all the crucial performance figures, which are presented in a clear and professional manner but yet these are easy-to-read and also come with a concise and easy-to-understand explanation on each part for what have been done and what the figures represent. The "Compare cameras" facilitiy is really cool and it is very handy for comparing different cameras just with a few mouse clicks.
For example, they measure the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) for each available ISO speed instead of just measuring the noise level (as what DPR have been doing for years which IMO is just almost meaningless as I have said this for long). The SNR is measured on a 18% grey target which IMO is again very sensible. The DxO Labs do measure also the Dynamic Range for *each* ISO speed and so do the actual sensitivity of each ISO against as rated. They also measure the Tonal Range and Colour Depth which I must agree are two very important image quality performance parameters in reallife.
Besides, the ISO noise performance scale/mark is sensibly designed. They called this as the "Low Light ISO" in their front summary page for the camera performances and comparison. This mark is just the essential highest ISO number which the SNR has dropped to a predefined threshold where image quality has become unacceptable.
Here is the direct comparison between the Pentax K20D Vs Samsung GX-20 Vs Nikon D90. It would be quite interesting to note that the Samsung GX-20 actually has slightly better image quality in every critical IQ performance aspect and thus undoubtedly it has a slightly higher overall "sensor mark" over the K20D. However, as it can be seen the Nikon D90, which has the latest technology and enhancement, wins both the K20D and the GX-20 quite significantly (except the colour depth where very slight differences can be counted), no matter for the DR, SNR and Low Light ISO and etc. To be fair, the D90 wins also its big brother but predecessor D300 and thus it is clear that the D300 has no bright future and will be obsolete very soon as positioned by Nikon just in the recent half year, i.e., for APS-C DSLR, the hotcake is the D90 (which has the movie mode, too) and the true up-market advanced amateur model of Nikon is just the 135 Full Frame D700!
As for the sensor size, larger format sensor DSLRs always win smaller sensor format DSLRs, overall speaking. Just look how poor the results the 4/3 DSLRs are (Pana and Oly regardless, model regardless, latest or older) and then look back how good or better the results for 135 Full Frame DSLRs, I think there is nothing arguable, anymore.
Well, I think it's time for me to stop here and let all you folks to start measurebating and compare endlessly! Oh well again, welcome to the paradise of measurbation or JUST the Hell for Photographers (or even at the level below the Hell!)! Bye and see you later in this Hell, maybe forever!! ;-p (But please don't worry. Actually, there will be no problem - all those DxO professionals as well as those so-called DPR "technical writers" will be there with all you folks, and actually should be all of Us - which should including Me, of course!)
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Some More New K-m Tests and Samples
DCHome.net Pentaxian yobboy published his another two K-m tests on the ISO performance, P-TTL exposure accuracy and SR effectiveness as follows (Posts in Traditional Chinese, use Babelfish to translate if needed):-
1. ISO and SR Tests:
http://www.dchome.net/viewthread.php?tid=593140&extra=page%3D1
Some of his (more important, I think) comments:
- No big problem for exposure accuracy in general, in dark environment it tends to overexpose, by around +0.3 to +0.7EV;
- Auto WB is Neutral and better than that of the K20D which tends to be "warmer";
- Camera consumes very little battery "power" (actually it should be "energy", in engineering sense :-)), AA lithiums still go strong and battery indicator still shows full after 700 shots, some with flash and quite some playbacks and reviews have been executed;
- The "AF" button on the back can be customised into an "AE lock" button (there is no AE lock button as printed);
- ISO 100 and 200 excellent, 400 good, 800 okay, 1600 still usable after NRed or viewed in small size, 3200 similar to 1600 but with colour changes noticeable;
- Details retained well for high ISO speeds, but NR has no significant visible effect in reducing noise.
My observation is that owing to his test pics are of high contrast and main subjects are somehow overexposed whilst the dark areas are just too dark or black in colour, we cannot see more noise as it should be even in the crops (and for the full pictures, these are just somehow rather small in size to judge better). However, it should still be noticed that it's better NOT to use the NR function, no matter in "weak" or "strong", as it could change the colours (which is obvious, as seen from the posted test shots, strong setting changes the colour more - become cooler and less saturated) but however the noise level differences are not that obvious (as this has also been pointed out by the tester).
The SR, as tested very briefly, worked quite well.
2. P-TTL and second SR Tests:
http://www.dchome.net/viewthread.php?tid=593611&extra=page%3D1
Again, his more important comments are:
- AF responsiveness at low light is good, provided that there are at least some contrast/texture for the AF system to lock on;
- There is no difference in AF speed with SDM lenses;
- The optical quality of his DAL 18-55 kit lens is inferior to that of the DA 18-55 and DA 18-55 II in his opinion;
- Just discovered that the K-m do NOT have the cable release socket, somehow disappointed;
- The SR seems to be improved and more effective than that in previous Pentax DSLRs;
- P-TTL system in K-m looks more stable than that in other previous Pentax DSLRs.
My remarks: His test on the re-bouncing flash with P-TTL with different angles and from the left and right shows that the exposure levels are somehow different but the variation and results IMO are acceptable (shots do look somehow dark in general, anyway). There is no drastic change between P mode and Av mode. However, IMO his test target and scene may not be a good one as the objects are either black or white, which could somehow fool the metering system. (Well, maybe the tester intentionally to do so, for selecting some more tricky objects, who knows? ;-))
Also, the SR test with the DA* 50-135 looks good for the results.
Now, let's move on to another site, for a few of other interesting (yet again direct) sample photos produced by the K-m, see this Blog of a professional photographer:-
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/quist-ography/article?mid=93
The digtal filter effects look quite promising to me, especially for the posted "E to C" (the effect obtained for slides to be processed by C-41 instead of E-6 in the old film days, especially popular in Taiwan), paintbrush effects which simulate the pastel and water colours. Anyway, I can see that the photographer intentionally to arrange the model to dress in dark clothing and with a pure white background that would make the results more perfect. But I think the camera does do a nice job here as I would comment that the results just look quite nice and are better for what I could get with some PC software in doing similar image processing jobs which I have tried before.
The blogger also says that she will be invited to speak in a product press in December for the local Pentax agent (so she is official, anyway!).
Whilst the toy-camera digital filter function (those like what Lomo cams produce) can be found in the official K2000 user/owner's manual, I cannot find that "E to C" function, that is just a mystery to me. I just wonder if this function is unique in the K-m but not existent in the K2000? Btw, that "E to C" final results look very real to me, especially when I can compare some protrait shots made in "E to C" which I have myself.
Finally, if you want to see more real end-users' K-m samples, I suggest you could follow this growing flickr link:-
http://www.flickr.com/groups/pentaxkm/
1. ISO and SR Tests:
http://www.dchome.net/viewthread.php?tid=593140&extra=page%3D1
Some of his (more important, I think) comments:
- No big problem for exposure accuracy in general, in dark environment it tends to overexpose, by around +0.3 to +0.7EV;
- Auto WB is Neutral and better than that of the K20D which tends to be "warmer";
- Camera consumes very little battery "power" (actually it should be "energy", in engineering sense :-)), AA lithiums still go strong and battery indicator still shows full after 700 shots, some with flash and quite some playbacks and reviews have been executed;
- The "AF" button on the back can be customised into an "AE lock" button (there is no AE lock button as printed);
- ISO 100 and 200 excellent, 400 good, 800 okay, 1600 still usable after NRed or viewed in small size, 3200 similar to 1600 but with colour changes noticeable;
- Details retained well for high ISO speeds, but NR has no significant visible effect in reducing noise.
My observation is that owing to his test pics are of high contrast and main subjects are somehow overexposed whilst the dark areas are just too dark or black in colour, we cannot see more noise as it should be even in the crops (and for the full pictures, these are just somehow rather small in size to judge better). However, it should still be noticed that it's better NOT to use the NR function, no matter in "weak" or "strong", as it could change the colours (which is obvious, as seen from the posted test shots, strong setting changes the colour more - become cooler and less saturated) but however the noise level differences are not that obvious (as this has also been pointed out by the tester).
The SR, as tested very briefly, worked quite well.
2. P-TTL and second SR Tests:
http://www.dchome.net/viewthread.php?tid=593611&extra=page%3D1
Again, his more important comments are:
- AF responsiveness at low light is good, provided that there are at least some contrast/texture for the AF system to lock on;
- There is no difference in AF speed with SDM lenses;
- The optical quality of his DAL 18-55 kit lens is inferior to that of the DA 18-55 and DA 18-55 II in his opinion;
- Just discovered that the K-m do NOT have the cable release socket, somehow disappointed;
- The SR seems to be improved and more effective than that in previous Pentax DSLRs;
- P-TTL system in K-m looks more stable than that in other previous Pentax DSLRs.
My remarks: His test on the re-bouncing flash with P-TTL with different angles and from the left and right shows that the exposure levels are somehow different but the variation and results IMO are acceptable (shots do look somehow dark in general, anyway). There is no drastic change between P mode and Av mode. However, IMO his test target and scene may not be a good one as the objects are either black or white, which could somehow fool the metering system. (Well, maybe the tester intentionally to do so, for selecting some more tricky objects, who knows? ;-))
Also, the SR test with the DA* 50-135 looks good for the results.
Now, let's move on to another site, for a few of other interesting (yet again direct) sample photos produced by the K-m, see this Blog of a professional photographer:-
http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/quist-ography/article?mid=93
The digtal filter effects look quite promising to me, especially for the posted "E to C" (the effect obtained for slides to be processed by C-41 instead of E-6 in the old film days, especially popular in Taiwan), paintbrush effects which simulate the pastel and water colours. Anyway, I can see that the photographer intentionally to arrange the model to dress in dark clothing and with a pure white background that would make the results more perfect. But I think the camera does do a nice job here as I would comment that the results just look quite nice and are better for what I could get with some PC software in doing similar image processing jobs which I have tried before.
The blogger also says that she will be invited to speak in a product press in December for the local Pentax agent (so she is official, anyway!).
Whilst the toy-camera digital filter function (those like what Lomo cams produce) can be found in the official K2000 user/owner's manual, I cannot find that "E to C" function, that is just a mystery to me. I just wonder if this function is unique in the K-m but not existent in the K2000? Btw, that "E to C" final results look very real to me, especially when I can compare some protrait shots made in "E to C" which I have myself.
Finally, if you want to see more real end-users' K-m samples, I suggest you could follow this growing flickr link:-
http://www.flickr.com/groups/pentaxkm/
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
More K-m Sample Pics by Users
At the flickr, you can find this K-m sample photos gallery as uploaded by a Japanese new K-m user:-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/h4ck/sets/72157608417034275/
The EXIF data are partially retained but these can be inspected only if the "original" size is viewed (those "original" photos are downssized anyway, they are not really un-retouched).
The lens used cannot be seen as in the EXIF under the latest version of Pentax Photo Browser (version 3.51) as the EXIF field has already been dropped, but I guess the lens used should be the DA 40/2.8 prime, by reading other EXIF data fields.
I notice that the photos are with better colour reproduction this time than what it could usually be seen for what produced by previous Pentax DSLRs even with the same lens. Well, as for the exposure, it can be seen that the exposure compensation now is within a reasonable limit of +/-0.3EV and the frequency of requiring exposure compensation is not as high as before for all other Pentax DSLRs. Btw, by considering the number of shots made and posted, I regard the exposure of the sample photos are proper, at least for this set of photos (as seen from the EXIF, in-camera Jpegs were shot).
Indeed, a more accurate and fool-proof metering and exposure system could be even more crucial for a DSLR targeted for beginners, as they are used to shoot with P&S DCs which are even more fool-proof. If Pentax really make it this time, it would mean that their upcoming DSLRs can be better as they finally have been able to get rid of their most persistent and the evilest devil which has been with them for more than half decade, IF it is really the case! Nonetheless, it is still subject to verification as I am really still very suspicious if Pentax could really nail it this time..
Yet, there is another latest new K-m user from Hong Kong who has written a short user report again with some direct-out-of-the-camera but downsized Jpeg photos here:-
http://www.dchome.net/viewthread.php?tid=592410&extra=page%3D1
(Text in Traditional Chinese)
Full K-m album of the user here: http://s289.photobucket.com/albums/ll215/yobboy0213/
Unfortunately, the EXIF data are all removed during the course of resizing but I do like much the image quality of the pictures which his K-m reproduced, particularly the first food shot which is of great 3d feel, nice WB and high fidelity, even it was most likely taken under artificial lighting.
Besides, I summarise his initial impression and comments in his above post as follows:
- Lighter than both K200D and K20D, not very light actually but the balance is good and the camera felt stable;
- Camera felt rigid and solid, especially compared against other entry level DSLRs (as Pentax entry level DSLRs all used to be :));
- Auto Focus is far better, lower light response is better than the K20D, so far AF is accurate (with the 18-55L and DA 21/40/70);
- But unfortunately there is no focus point indication (those red lit rectangles in the past);
- Auto White Balance seems to be improved, better than the K20D;
- LCD display too bright and yellowish by default but fortunately can be adjusted, Brightness: -1, Tone: M7, B7 are now set;
- Tend to overexpose by +0.3 to 1EV, but to be verified and confirmed;
- No test on noise control, but feel good so far, to be advised later;
- Image style and taste more like K10D than others (maybe owing to the same Sony CCD sensor used);
- Has never used an entry level DSLR with so many available settings, the "Help" button can be customised/turned into the "RAW" button, K20D type custom WB, highly customisable ISO settings, wireless flash trigger by the camera (by the built-in RTF?), dynamic range expansion and etc.
- Final comment: the new K-m with his DA pancake lenses is a set of great travelling gear with good mobility - a joy to use.
So far I am quite interested to acquire a K-m (if I really get it, I shall tell all you folks if it really performs, be better/debugged/improve, or whatever you like to say, or those reported better stuff are just myths created by the honeymoon period effect). However, I am still with some serious concerns and thus hesitation to get the K-m, on the other hand, as the K-m lacks a remote cable switch jack and also less importantly for the lack of focus point indication of any kind for the AF point it selects. The inability to use a cable switch just makes the Bulb mode, which is a must for shooting fireworks and longer time exposure, virtually useless.
( More official reference links for the lack of those features:-
K-m FAQ: http://www.pentax.jp/english/imaging/digital/slr/k-m/faq.html
The claim of SR don't comsume energy and battery power in one of the FAQ is really a joke, though. If so, the Physics of the whole Universe will have been changed and not be the same!
K2000 Owner's Manual: http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/K2000_IB.pdf )
http://www.flickr.com/photos/h4ck/sets/72157608417034275/
The EXIF data are partially retained but these can be inspected only if the "original" size is viewed (those "original" photos are downssized anyway, they are not really un-retouched).
The lens used cannot be seen as in the EXIF under the latest version of Pentax Photo Browser (version 3.51) as the EXIF field has already been dropped, but I guess the lens used should be the DA 40/2.8 prime, by reading other EXIF data fields.
I notice that the photos are with better colour reproduction this time than what it could usually be seen for what produced by previous Pentax DSLRs even with the same lens. Well, as for the exposure, it can be seen that the exposure compensation now is within a reasonable limit of +/-0.3EV and the frequency of requiring exposure compensation is not as high as before for all other Pentax DSLRs. Btw, by considering the number of shots made and posted, I regard the exposure of the sample photos are proper, at least for this set of photos (as seen from the EXIF, in-camera Jpegs were shot).
Indeed, a more accurate and fool-proof metering and exposure system could be even more crucial for a DSLR targeted for beginners, as they are used to shoot with P&S DCs which are even more fool-proof. If Pentax really make it this time, it would mean that their upcoming DSLRs can be better as they finally have been able to get rid of their most persistent and the evilest devil which has been with them for more than half decade, IF it is really the case! Nonetheless, it is still subject to verification as I am really still very suspicious if Pentax could really nail it this time..
Yet, there is another latest new K-m user from Hong Kong who has written a short user report again with some direct-out-of-the-camera but downsized Jpeg photos here:-
http://www.dchome.net/viewthread.php?tid=592410&extra=page%3D1
(Text in Traditional Chinese)
Full K-m album of the user here: http://s289.photobucket.com/albums/ll215/yobboy0213/
Unfortunately, the EXIF data are all removed during the course of resizing but I do like much the image quality of the pictures which his K-m reproduced, particularly the first food shot which is of great 3d feel, nice WB and high fidelity, even it was most likely taken under artificial lighting.
Besides, I summarise his initial impression and comments in his above post as follows:
- Lighter than both K200D and K20D, not very light actually but the balance is good and the camera felt stable;
- Camera felt rigid and solid, especially compared against other entry level DSLRs (as Pentax entry level DSLRs all used to be :));
- Auto Focus is far better, lower light response is better than the K20D, so far AF is accurate (with the 18-55L and DA 21/40/70);
- But unfortunately there is no focus point indication (those red lit rectangles in the past);
- Auto White Balance seems to be improved, better than the K20D;
- LCD display too bright and yellowish by default but fortunately can be adjusted, Brightness: -1, Tone: M7, B7 are now set;
- Tend to overexpose by +0.3 to 1EV, but to be verified and confirmed;
- No test on noise control, but feel good so far, to be advised later;
- Image style and taste more like K10D than others (maybe owing to the same Sony CCD sensor used);
- Has never used an entry level DSLR with so many available settings, the "Help" button can be customised/turned into the "RAW" button, K20D type custom WB, highly customisable ISO settings, wireless flash trigger by the camera (by the built-in RTF?), dynamic range expansion and etc.
- Final comment: the new K-m with his DA pancake lenses is a set of great travelling gear with good mobility - a joy to use.
So far I am quite interested to acquire a K-m (if I really get it, I shall tell all you folks if it really performs, be better/debugged/improve, or whatever you like to say, or those reported better stuff are just myths created by the honeymoon period effect). However, I am still with some serious concerns and thus hesitation to get the K-m, on the other hand, as the K-m lacks a remote cable switch jack and also less importantly for the lack of focus point indication of any kind for the AF point it selects. The inability to use a cable switch just makes the Bulb mode, which is a must for shooting fireworks and longer time exposure, virtually useless.
( More official reference links for the lack of those features:-
K-m FAQ: http://www.pentax.jp/english/imaging/digital/slr/k-m/faq.html
The claim of SR don't comsume energy and battery power in one of the FAQ is really a joke, though. If so, the Physics of the whole Universe will have been changed and not be the same!
K2000 Owner's Manual: http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/K2000_IB.pdf )
Sunday, October 26, 2008
K-m Sample Photos Carnival (as at Oct. 26)
Here is a summary of the K-m sample photo galleries or links that I could find so far:-
My observations and comments? Yes, as follows:-
1. Colour reproduction looks good and accurate for "Natural" and "Portrait" image tone settings, but not so for the "Bright" mode or anything else (Look at URLs #1 to #5);
2. Focusing accuracy seems to be fairly accurate (and they did use AF mostly) (Look at URLs #1 and #2);
3. Exposure accuracy with ambient light, for those pictures of which the EXIF data have been shown, *seems* to be improved as most of the photos with normal scenes are *now* without (the need of) exposure compensation (and they mostly used the "Pattern" metering) (Look at URLs #1, 2, 3 and 6);
4. Noise control and level at high ISO are very good in my opinion, with good amount of texture and details retained. The most favourable thing is that the noise really looks film grains alike, with more visible luminance noise rather than chroma (colour) noise, which just mean very usable images and high image quality up to ISO 1600 (Look at URLs #2);
5. Flash exposure accuracy (in this case with the AF540FGZ flashgun, in P-TTL mode), is yet unsatisfactory and there is a great tendency of underexposure. Just look at the flash photos in URL #6, all photos required a +0.5 or +1 EV exposure compensation so as to make the photos to look properly exposed as by the flash. Besides, the image quality and skin tone produced by the K-m, 540 flash and the DA*50-135 do both just look somehow mediocre and indeed it is just nothing is to be excited about. (Despite that the photographer is an experienced one who has very good skills in taking portraits for girls). So, does the P-TTL underexposure tendency and exposure inaccuracy just a ghost that Pentax could never get rid of??
6. The only sample made by the new DA*55/1.4 lens seems to re-produce very favourable colours and skin tone (Look at URL #3, and direct link for the pic here). In fact, I have missed this favourable genuine Pentax tasted colour response which I like for long since the birth of those DA "Pentax" digtial lenses (most of the time, look here for why and what's different).
Well, there will surely be more full-sized, un-retouched and original K-m sample photos to be come (no matter by end-users or by reviewers), I shall report back here later when I find something new, interesting or special, which are worth my further reporting, if any. And, I do hope I can confirm more firmly most of my findings above when more un-retouched/straight-out-of-the camera sample photos are posted.
| Item No. | URL | Source | Full Size? | EXIF? | Language |
| 1. | http://www.pentax.jp/japan/imaging/digital/slr/k-m/ex.html | Official | Yes | Yes | Japanese |
| 2. | http://www.focus-numerique.com/test-73/Pentax-K-m-test-exemples-photos-15.html | Reviewer | Yes | Yes | French |
| 3. | http://pentaxplus.jp/k-m/gallery/index.html | Official | No | Yes | Japanese |
| 4. | http://pentaxplus.jp/k-m/gallery/01.html | Official | No | No | Japanese |
| 5. | http://pentaxplus.jp/k-m/gallery/02.html | Official | No | No | Japanese |
| 6. | http://www.dchome.net/viewthread.php?tid=584867&extra=page%3D1 | User | No | Yes | Chinese (Traditional) |
My observations and comments? Yes, as follows:-
1. Colour reproduction looks good and accurate for "Natural" and "Portrait" image tone settings, but not so for the "Bright" mode or anything else (Look at URLs #1 to #5);
2. Focusing accuracy seems to be fairly accurate (and they did use AF mostly) (Look at URLs #1 and #2);
3. Exposure accuracy with ambient light, for those pictures of which the EXIF data have been shown, *seems* to be improved as most of the photos with normal scenes are *now* without (the need of) exposure compensation (and they mostly used the "Pattern" metering) (Look at URLs #1, 2, 3 and 6);
4. Noise control and level at high ISO are very good in my opinion, with good amount of texture and details retained. The most favourable thing is that the noise really looks film grains alike, with more visible luminance noise rather than chroma (colour) noise, which just mean very usable images and high image quality up to ISO 1600 (Look at URLs #2);
5. Flash exposure accuracy (in this case with the AF540FGZ flashgun, in P-TTL mode), is yet unsatisfactory and there is a great tendency of underexposure. Just look at the flash photos in URL #6, all photos required a +0.5 or +1 EV exposure compensation so as to make the photos to look properly exposed as by the flash. Besides, the image quality and skin tone produced by the K-m, 540 flash and the DA*50-135 do both just look somehow mediocre and indeed it is just nothing is to be excited about. (Despite that the photographer is an experienced one who has very good skills in taking portraits for girls). So, does the P-TTL underexposure tendency and exposure inaccuracy just a ghost that Pentax could never get rid of??
6. The only sample made by the new DA*55/1.4 lens seems to re-produce very favourable colours and skin tone (Look at URL #3, and direct link for the pic here). In fact, I have missed this favourable genuine Pentax tasted colour response which I like for long since the birth of those DA "Pentax" digtial lenses (most of the time, look here for why and what's different).
Well, there will surely be more full-sized, un-retouched and original K-m sample photos to be come (no matter by end-users or by reviewers), I shall report back here later when I find something new, interesting or special, which are worth my further reporting, if any. And, I do hope I can confirm more firmly most of my findings above when more un-retouched/straight-out-of-the camera sample photos are posted.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Who were Telling the Truth?
In April, it was reported that a Samsung high-ranking official disclosed that they were "actively pursuing development of a full-frame CMOS sensor. But now just about six month later, yet another more senior official of Samsung played down "rumours" that Samsung was developing a full-frame sensor in another interview. So, after all, who was telling the truth in this case?
"Coincidently", same thing happened at the Pentax side. In June, the Pentax China Head disclosed that a full-frame Pentax DSLR is under planning. But then just in September (3 months later), an even higher ranked Pentax official said that they had no plan for a full frame DSLR, at Photokina! Yet again, who was telling the truth?
Do you think that the policy, project plans etc. could be changed so quickly and drastically within a company (or just an organisation, anyway)? It is very unlikely, frankly. So, who were telling the truth, then? Well, my guess is that it can be either two or all four! If two, either the former Pentax and Samsung officials or the latter two were telling the truth. But, why it can be all four??
Well, if no one was actually lying (who dared? why needed?) then it could be very likely that someone were intentionally playing with the words so that the full-frame bubble was burst *in the meantime* just because *in the meantime* Pentax and Samsung are just unable to deliver such a full-frame body and DSLR system. Remember what Nikon were telling the world just less than two years right before the sudden arrival of the full-frame D3? Still remember? It seems that history could be re-happening and if we look back in what Nikon said and what Samsung/Pentax have now told us, anything sound so similar and too familiar? (Of course I have my own wishful thinking and imagination here so that some people should just choose to "ignore" me! ;-))
"Coincidently", same thing happened at the Pentax side. In June, the Pentax China Head disclosed that a full-frame Pentax DSLR is under planning. But then just in September (3 months later), an even higher ranked Pentax official said that they had no plan for a full frame DSLR, at Photokina! Yet again, who was telling the truth?
Do you think that the policy, project plans etc. could be changed so quickly and drastically within a company (or just an organisation, anyway)? It is very unlikely, frankly. So, who were telling the truth, then? Well, my guess is that it can be either two or all four! If two, either the former Pentax and Samsung officials or the latter two were telling the truth. But, why it can be all four??
Well, if no one was actually lying (who dared? why needed?) then it could be very likely that someone were intentionally playing with the words so that the full-frame bubble was burst *in the meantime* just because *in the meantime* Pentax and Samsung are just unable to deliver such a full-frame body and DSLR system. Remember what Nikon were telling the world just less than two years right before the sudden arrival of the full-frame D3? Still remember? It seems that history could be re-happening and if we look back in what Nikon said and what Samsung/Pentax have now told us, anything sound so similar and too familiar? (Of course I have my own wishful thinking and imagination here so that some people should just choose to "ignore" me! ;-))
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Yet Another New K-m Preview
A new K-m Preview is out today at the DC page of the Japanese Impress Watch, here it is:-
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/10/15/9420.html
The article shows us something new and interesting, say:-
1. The bright green power LED indicator does actually indicate also the power level, namely, strong, weak and empty. With the deletion of the top monochrome LCD status indication panel, I think this design is just clever and brilliant as it is simple but yet provides very clear and easy-to-see indication to the user/operator;
2. Battery type can now be entered into the camera or the user can still let the camera to "Auto Detect" the battery type in use. The supported battery types (of the 4 AA batteries) are namely: NiMH, Alkaline or Lithium. It seems that Pentax have finally done something to improve the power stability when they had to insist on the AA battery solution in their lower level DSLRs but which has been proven to be ultra problematic for almost half a decade. Well, my MZ-S battery grip did use to have a battery type selector as it is told in the user manual that it must be selected for the proper operation of the camera. Now, Pentax could only re-think and re-introduce such an essential feature after 7.5 years. Huh? But Late is better than None, anyway! And also let's wait and see if the problem is really completely resolved!
3. A few more screen shots for camera's recording functions, playback options and digital filter / color setting options etc.
Furthermore, there is a shutter sound wave (.wav) file which is available for download in the page. The first time I downloaded it and heard its sound did make me feel really excited for its light touch and smoothness, which just doesn't look like any previous Pentax DSLRs and it would be an improvement over its predecessors. But however, I noticed very shortly about the file name of "5D2_01" for the wav file which is just highly suspected that it is the sound of the 5D MkII instead and the editor has very probably been mistaken.
So, I just browsed through the front page and then go to their 5D MkII Preview page and it is confirmed that my suspection is correct, i.e., the "K-m sound file" is just the 5DMkII one! :-( Now, I just hope that the editor can make the correction and put a true K-m sound file for my measurbation, like I did myself for those, very soon! Anyway, I have already measured the overall system lag time of the 5D MkII to be 105 ms which is indeed 27 ms longer than the original 5D but nonetheless is still faster/shorter than that of any of Pentax DSLRs ever tested and published for the timings. My 5D MkI produces clunky large shutter/mirror sound, though, although it is yet faster.
Update (Oct. 16):
The editor has noticed the error and made the correction already. There are now two sound file links in which the wave files should be the K-m's ones this time: One for the Single frame mode and the other for Continuous shooting mode, the direct links are as follows:-
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/static/2008/10/14/tansha.wav
(Single frame mode: ~2.1MB)
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/static/2008/10/14/rensha.wav
(Continuous shooting mode: ~3.3MB)
From the two sound files, I have measurebated the following actual performance figures of the K-m:-
1. Actual shooting rate/frequency is only at 2.87 frames per second (well below and much worse than the claimed Spec. of 3.5 fps);
2. A maximum of 10 frames can be shot up to in a chain (doubled and better than the official Spec., which is 5 only);
3. The system time lag (shutter lag) is measured to be 114 ms or 0.114 second (the best figure I have ever seen for an entry level Pentax DSLR - not bad for an entry level DSLR indeed).
I would comment that it just sounds to be smoother for both mirror up and down actions which are now having a lighter touch or simply gentler (for what it was recorded and as it seems to be - the actual noise level cannot be judged exactly, though). Well, well done, Pentax! (I still would say for that part, but the lower fps is yet something which I do not wish to see..)
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/review/2008/10/15/9420.html
The article shows us something new and interesting, say:-
1. The bright green power LED indicator does actually indicate also the power level, namely, strong, weak and empty. With the deletion of the top monochrome LCD status indication panel, I think this design is just clever and brilliant as it is simple but yet provides very clear and easy-to-see indication to the user/operator;
2. Battery type can now be entered into the camera or the user can still let the camera to "Auto Detect" the battery type in use. The supported battery types (of the 4 AA batteries) are namely: NiMH, Alkaline or Lithium. It seems that Pentax have finally done something to improve the power stability when they had to insist on the AA battery solution in their lower level DSLRs but which has been proven to be ultra problematic for almost half a decade. Well, my MZ-S battery grip did use to have a battery type selector as it is told in the user manual that it must be selected for the proper operation of the camera. Now, Pentax could only re-think and re-introduce such an essential feature after 7.5 years. Huh? But Late is better than None, anyway! And also let's wait and see if the problem is really completely resolved!
3. A few more screen shots for camera's recording functions, playback options and digital filter / color setting options etc.
Furthermore, there is a shutter sound wave (.wav) file which is available for download in the page. The first time I downloaded it and heard its sound did make me feel really excited for its light touch and smoothness, which just doesn't look like any previous Pentax DSLRs and it would be an improvement over its predecessors. But however, I noticed very shortly about the file name of "5D2_01" for the wav file which is just highly suspected that it is the sound of the 5D MkII instead and the editor has very probably been mistaken.
So, I just browsed through the front page and then go to their 5D MkII Preview page and it is confirmed that my suspection is correct, i.e., the "K-m sound file" is just the 5DMkII one! :-( Now, I just hope that the editor can make the correction and put a true K-m sound file for my measurbation, like I did myself for those, very soon! Anyway, I have already measured the overall system lag time of the 5D MkII to be 105 ms which is indeed 27 ms longer than the original 5D but nonetheless is still faster/shorter than that of any of Pentax DSLRs ever tested and published for the timings. My 5D MkI produces clunky large shutter/mirror sound, though, although it is yet faster.
Update (Oct. 16):
The editor has noticed the error and made the correction already. There are now two sound file links in which the wave files should be the K-m's ones this time: One for the Single frame mode and the other for Continuous shooting mode, the direct links are as follows:-
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/static/2008/10/14/tansha.wav
(Single frame mode: ~2.1MB)
http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/static/2008/10/14/rensha.wav
(Continuous shooting mode: ~3.3MB)
From the two sound files, I have measurebated the following actual performance figures of the K-m:-
1. Actual shooting rate/frequency is only at 2.87 frames per second (well below and much worse than the claimed Spec. of 3.5 fps);
2. A maximum of 10 frames can be shot up to in a chain (doubled and better than the official Spec., which is 5 only);
3. The system time lag (shutter lag) is measured to be 114 ms or 0.114 second (the best figure I have ever seen for an entry level Pentax DSLR - not bad for an entry level DSLR indeed).
I would comment that it just sounds to be smoother for both mirror up and down actions which are now having a lighter touch or simply gentler (for what it was recorded and as it seems to be - the actual noise level cannot be judged exactly, though). Well, well done, Pentax! (I still would say for that part, but the lower fps is yet something which I do not wish to see..)
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
DA 18-55 on Full Frame
I have taken some test shots with the Pentax DSLR kit lens DA 18-55 on my (K)5D. Indeed, quite some Pentaxians have been wondering and questioning about how those DA lenses could produce if they are used on Pentax film SLRs. However, only just several Pentaxians had actually tried to do some tests and shot through the viewfinder or to scan exposed films and presented the effect(s) publicly before. Now, I think this series of my shots will show exactly how this Pentax standard kit lens will behave when it is put on a full frame (digital) camera. Look at the projected images below:-
@ 18mm (at f/4.5)
@ 20mm
@ 24mm
@ 28mm
@ 35mm
@ 45mm
@ 55mm (at f/8)
Remarks:
1. All images were taken with one f-stop closed down from wide opened;
2. All images were taken in M exposure mode with 1/8" Tv at ISO 800. As such, the tele images came out to be (at most 1.5 stops) darker, so as to exaggerate the vignetting effect at the tele side, for easy inspection.
Well, now you can see the contracted image circle(s) at the wide side of this digital kit zoom which is designed for the APS-C sensor format. As a side note, the infamous (de-)centering defect of (the DA/DA*) Pentax lenses has once again been verified. Just look at the images produced at the wider angles, it can be more easily seen that the projected image circles have been shifted to the right, that is, the optical center of my lens at those focals is actually yet mis-aligned to the left (when I am facing the back of my camera). But the even more strange thing is that when the lens is zoomed to the tele side, the de-centering is reversely shifted to the left (for the images produced, just look at the (positional differences of the) corner vignettings). In fact, the only symmetric image I could get is the one shot at 35mm. Huh? What? How come? Why?? :-0
So, some people may question if the sensor of my 5D and/or the mount/adaptor is/are just mis-aligned. But what I can tell is Not. It is simply because my Pentax F Fisheye Zoom produces symmetric images when at 17mm where a little bit of the built-in lens hood can be shot (for the technical reason for why it has to be, look here for the details). Just see this test picture:-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/RiceHigh/FF%20Fisheye%20and%2043%20Limited%20on%205D/IMG_6954s.jpg
After all, the QC or simply quality difference(s?) between Pentax lenses that were made in Japan against those are / were made in Vietnam (or just nowadays) has yet been verified.
@ 18mm (at f/4.5)
@ 20mm
@ 24mm
@ 28mm
@ 35mm
@ 45mm
@ 55mm (at f/8)
Remarks:
1. All images were taken with one f-stop closed down from wide opened;
2. All images were taken in M exposure mode with 1/8" Tv at ISO 800. As such, the tele images came out to be (at most 1.5 stops) darker, so as to exaggerate the vignetting effect at the tele side, for easy inspection.
Well, now you can see the contracted image circle(s) at the wide side of this digital kit zoom which is designed for the APS-C sensor format. As a side note, the infamous (de-)centering defect of (the DA/DA*) Pentax lenses has once again been verified. Just look at the images produced at the wider angles, it can be more easily seen that the projected image circles have been shifted to the right, that is, the optical center of my lens at those focals is actually yet mis-aligned to the left (when I am facing the back of my camera). But the even more strange thing is that when the lens is zoomed to the tele side, the de-centering is reversely shifted to the left (for the images produced, just look at the (positional differences of the) corner vignettings). In fact, the only symmetric image I could get is the one shot at 35mm. Huh? What? How come? Why?? :-0
So, some people may question if the sensor of my 5D and/or the mount/adaptor is/are just mis-aligned. But what I can tell is Not. It is simply because my Pentax F Fisheye Zoom produces symmetric images when at 17mm where a little bit of the built-in lens hood can be shot (for the technical reason for why it has to be, look here for the details). Just see this test picture:-
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/RiceHigh/FF%20Fisheye%20and%2043%20Limited%20on%205D/IMG_6954s.jpg
After all, the QC or simply quality difference(s?) between Pentax lenses that were made in Japan against those are / were made in Vietnam (or just nowadays) has yet been verified.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Sample Photos of Full Frame Fisheye and 43 Limited on 5D
Further to my last blog entry, here is the sample photo gallery for some test photos taken with my film lenses, the Full Frame (not with a dark circle) Fisheye Zoom F 17-28/3.5-4.5 and the FA 43/1.9 Limited on my new K-mount 135 Full Frame DSLR, the "Cantax" "K5D":-
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v313/RiceHigh/FF%20Fisheye%20and%2043%20Limited%20on%205D/?start=all
A few more footnotes about the shooting conditions/settings as well as my observations and comments on the final image quality (for the last listed point):-
1. All pictures were taken in Large Fine Jpeg file mode at a full resolution of 12.8 MPs (4368 x 2912);
2. A -0.5EV exposure compensation was applied for most pictures (as both lenses on 5D overexposed by a half-stop most of the time - all the exposures were accurate and consistent thereafter);
3. Most samples were taken at aperture values ranged from f/4 to f/8 with the most usual used aperture at f/5.6 (and around f/5.6 for the Fisheye Zoom);
4. The K5D was able to focus at apertures not smaller than f/8 on bright objects but with best sensitivity at f/4 or faster. The focusing accuracy and hit rate are both considered to be very high (as you can actually see from the samples);
5. All uploaded pictures are down-sampled to 2048 x 1365 and saved at Jpegs at 90% quality level with Irfanview. No anything else is processed and edited, the EXIF is retained also;
6. The totally dark corners as seen in a few samples of the Fisheye Zoom on the K5D is caused by the rotated built-in lens hood for what the adapted Pentax lenses are all now rotated to the left in about 20 degrees (owing to the consideration to avoid the aperture coupler of K-mount lenses in conflict with the bottom part of the EF-S mount of Canon APS-C bodies so that the K-couplers need not to be removed but can still be adapted). As this Pentax Fisheye Zoom is of 180 degrees in the Angle of View, the original built-in lens hood is designed to be in a pedal / flower shaped rectangular form and thus the upright position is critical. I have already found out a way to adapt in the fisheye zoom with less rotation but slight modification to the adaptor is required and I shall buy another adaptor to do the modiffication shortly. The widest setting for what the full vision of the Fisheye Zoom is not blocked by its lens hood is at around 19mm (With modification to the adaptor, it can be further improved down to 18mm and thus close to the ideal 17mm with full 180 degree AOV);
7. The optical quality of the Fisheye Zoom and the 43 Limited on the 5D are both really really *Amazing*, as I surely knew that they are, for years I used them in the Pentax film age. To list a few:-
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v313/RiceHigh/FF%20Fisheye%20and%2043%20Limited%20on%205D/?start=all
A few more footnotes about the shooting conditions/settings as well as my observations and comments on the final image quality (for the last listed point):-
1. All pictures were taken in Large Fine Jpeg file mode at a full resolution of 12.8 MPs (4368 x 2912);
2. A -0.5EV exposure compensation was applied for most pictures (as both lenses on 5D overexposed by a half-stop most of the time - all the exposures were accurate and consistent thereafter);
3. Most samples were taken at aperture values ranged from f/4 to f/8 with the most usual used aperture at f/5.6 (and around f/5.6 for the Fisheye Zoom);
4. The K5D was able to focus at apertures not smaller than f/8 on bright objects but with best sensitivity at f/4 or faster. The focusing accuracy and hit rate are both considered to be very high (as you can actually see from the samples);
5. All uploaded pictures are down-sampled to 2048 x 1365 and saved at Jpegs at 90% quality level with Irfanview. No anything else is processed and edited, the EXIF is retained also;
6. The totally dark corners as seen in a few samples of the Fisheye Zoom on the K5D is caused by the rotated built-in lens hood for what the adapted Pentax lenses are all now rotated to the left in about 20 degrees (owing to the consideration to avoid the aperture coupler of K-mount lenses in conflict with the bottom part of the EF-S mount of Canon APS-C bodies so that the K-couplers need not to be removed but can still be adapted). As this Pentax Fisheye Zoom is of 180 degrees in the Angle of View, the original built-in lens hood is designed to be in a pedal / flower shaped rectangular form and thus the upright position is critical. I have already found out a way to adapt in the fisheye zoom with less rotation but slight modification to the adaptor is required and I shall buy another adaptor to do the modiffication shortly. The widest setting for what the full vision of the Fisheye Zoom is not blocked by its lens hood is at around 19mm (With modification to the adaptor, it can be further improved down to 18mm and thus close to the ideal 17mm with full 180 degree AOV);
7. The optical quality of the Fisheye Zoom and the 43 Limited on the 5D are both really really *Amazing*, as I surely knew that they are, for years I used them in the Pentax film age. To list a few:-
- The flare control is superb, which I have never been able to see any Canon lenses (L or not) can attain that level of flare resistance and retain image clarity with strong light source / contrast in frame. Just look at the sample on board of the boat of which the camera was pointed directly to the morning Sun (which has been burnt in the picture for that part, of course);
- The resolution is amazing and with all that Canon crispness and sharpness, accurate colours (in "Neutral" Picture Style). Clipping of colour channel(s) is minimum - just look at the red boat shots and those for the flowers;
- The corner sharpnesses are yet amazing for both lenses on 5D. CAs and Purple Fringings are minimal even for the Fisheye Zoom. There is little corner blur nor obvious vignetting neither (far better than anything produced by the DA Fisheye Zoom on any Pentax APS-C DSLR bodies (which have far too more all the above problems mentioned which are actually not found with my 5D/Pentax F Fisheye Zoom combo);
- The resolution of the FA 43 Limited on 5D, for just shooting at just f/5.6 or f/6.7 is stunning! The super ever large image file size says it all (I have never been able to see such high resolution neither with my EF 50/1.8 nor my EF 24-105/4 L)! Just inspect this sample yourself! (Of course, to get this super high resolution and image fidelity, a very accurate "AF" system is crucial);
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Preview: Cantax K5D Full Frame! ;-)
Since Pentax have just told the world in the Photokina that they will not have a 135 Full Frame DSLR forever, I have opted not to wait them anymore (as they told us to do so, clearly). I have managed to build my own Full Frame K-mount DSLR model just within an hour, which can adopt many of my old excellent Pentax film glass. Here it is!
More to come! (Modifying procedures, things to note and cautions to take, detailed comments on system accuracies (so far so good!), sample photos with various Pentax lenses and etc.!)
P.S. My special thanks to Steven Lin, who has kindly offered me a helping hand and updated his already excellent blog article on the topic (in Traditional Chinese), for the sake of even more clear instructions on the modifications.
Update: Compatibility List of Pentax Full Frame AF Lenses on Canon 5D Body
More to come! (Modifying procedures, things to note and cautions to take, detailed comments on system accuracies (so far so good!), sample photos with various Pentax lenses and etc.!)
P.S. My special thanks to Steven Lin, who has kindly offered me a helping hand and updated his already excellent blog article on the topic (in Traditional Chinese), for the sake of even more clear instructions on the modifications.
Update: Compatibility List of Pentax Full Frame AF Lenses on Canon 5D Body
Chinese Dragon Boat Race
Last Sunday, I went to a local Chinese dragon boat race event, brought along just with my Pentax K100D DSLR and a F* 300/4.5 and shot some photos, here is the album:-
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v313/RiceHigh/Dragon%20Boat%20Competition/?start=all
(Or playing the Slideshow here)
Whilst the K100D is surely not the fastest DSLR for its AF in the Pentax land, it does let me down each time (and actually made me annoyed) when I got it to do somewhat "action" photography with just a little bit more movements and changes of the subjects. I shot in the early afternoon and at that time it was slightly cloudy and is actually just slightly bright of the ambient environment.
As I have been used to the responsive, fast and accurate Continuous AF (and Single AF as well) of my Canon 5D and the EOS system now, the AF of the Pentax DSLR system is just a pain to great pain to use, including the latest K20D which frankly I have also coincidently used indoor in the evening of the same day in a dinner (and it hunted much).
The most annoying things for that Pentax AF is: 1. First of all: Hunting, for whatever AF mode it is in, and even the environment is somewhat bright. I used the same F* lens with my MZ-S for years - no problem!; 2. Second, the "Continuous" AF is not usable and is just a joke. It is even slower than the Single AF and actually it is just a looping Single AF but not a true continuous focusing action as taken by the camera (yes, it is NOT). The worst thing is that this "Continous AF" (or I would give it a new name - Pentax's unique "Continuous *looping* Single AF") will never give the photographer to release the shutter unless it is to complete one Single AF cycle!(What?) (and UNTIL it thinks that it has achieved a focus and then re-start another cycle again!). So, I was forced to use the Single AF, which is actually faster and with a higher "allowable" shutter release rate but then of course I got quite some out of focus photos then, for "improperly" using the Single AF for moving objects.
People may agrue that higher grade and/or latest Pentax "flagship" DSLRs should have better AF. However, just believe it or not, what I can tell is that it could be better but not much better. My opinion is simply that the old flagship K10D had similar ridiculous AF behaviours and the K20D was somehow debugged. But the problem is that even the K20D is NOT *much* better. Its AF just struggles for achieving focus even for Single AF in just a little bit dimmer environment indoor and the worst is it *still* front focuses for tungsten light source.
Also considering the longer system time lag of the Pentax DSLRs, they are not ideal for any action or sport photography. In fact, I found that I was the *only* Pentaxian in the dragon boat race event and all other shooters I saw were Canonians and Nikonians.
I tried the Canon 1D and 1DS at Canon's showroom last month when I took my Canon flash gun for repair. Indeed, they are really *amazingly* faaast, especially for the nearly non-existent system/shutter time lag, which is surely noticeably faster than my 5D, which is then again noticeably faster than all Pentax DSLRs I have used (including the K20D of course)! In fact, when those differences can be noticed, the time lag and system response timings could actually be quite significant as they are so obvious.
So, just after all these moaning and bashing (for what quite some particular Pentax fanboys which like to call me of being so from time to time), now think about the following two questions: 1. Was I able to take the photos? Yes. 2. But did I miss many photo opportunities? YES! So, I think this would answer many of the questions for those who like to attack me for either showing one or two of their "great" works or to ask me for my photos! (To those: there are nearly a hundred of photos shared and shown in my album above. Are these enough this time? :-))
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v313/RiceHigh/Dragon%20Boat%20Competition/?start=all
(Or playing the Slideshow here)
Whilst the K100D is surely not the fastest DSLR for its AF in the Pentax land, it does let me down each time (and actually made me annoyed) when I got it to do somewhat "action" photography with just a little bit more movements and changes of the subjects. I shot in the early afternoon and at that time it was slightly cloudy and is actually just slightly bright of the ambient environment.
As I have been used to the responsive, fast and accurate Continuous AF (and Single AF as well) of my Canon 5D and the EOS system now, the AF of the Pentax DSLR system is just a pain to great pain to use, including the latest K20D which frankly I have also coincidently used indoor in the evening of the same day in a dinner (and it hunted much).
The most annoying things for that Pentax AF is: 1. First of all: Hunting, for whatever AF mode it is in, and even the environment is somewhat bright. I used the same F* lens with my MZ-S for years - no problem!; 2. Second, the "Continuous" AF is not usable and is just a joke. It is even slower than the Single AF and actually it is just a looping Single AF but not a true continuous focusing action as taken by the camera (yes, it is NOT). The worst thing is that this "Continous AF" (or I would give it a new name - Pentax's unique "Continuous *looping* Single AF") will never give the photographer to release the shutter unless it is to complete one Single AF cycle!(What?) (and UNTIL it thinks that it has achieved a focus and then re-start another cycle again!). So, I was forced to use the Single AF, which is actually faster and with a higher "allowable" shutter release rate but then of course I got quite some out of focus photos then, for "improperly" using the Single AF for moving objects.
People may agrue that higher grade and/or latest Pentax "flagship" DSLRs should have better AF. However, just believe it or not, what I can tell is that it could be better but not much better. My opinion is simply that the old flagship K10D had similar ridiculous AF behaviours and the K20D was somehow debugged. But the problem is that even the K20D is NOT *much* better. Its AF just struggles for achieving focus even for Single AF in just a little bit dimmer environment indoor and the worst is it *still* front focuses for tungsten light source.
Also considering the longer system time lag of the Pentax DSLRs, they are not ideal for any action or sport photography. In fact, I found that I was the *only* Pentaxian in the dragon boat race event and all other shooters I saw were Canonians and Nikonians.
I tried the Canon 1D and 1DS at Canon's showroom last month when I took my Canon flash gun for repair. Indeed, they are really *amazingly* faaast, especially for the nearly non-existent system/shutter time lag, which is surely noticeably faster than my 5D, which is then again noticeably faster than all Pentax DSLRs I have used (including the K20D of course)! In fact, when those differences can be noticed, the time lag and system response timings could actually be quite significant as they are so obvious.
So, just after all these moaning and bashing (for what quite some particular Pentax fanboys which like to call me of being so from time to time), now think about the following two questions: 1. Was I able to take the photos? Yes. 2. But did I miss many photo opportunities? YES! So, I think this would answer many of the questions for those who like to attack me for either showing one or two of their "great" works or to ask me for my photos! (To those: there are nearly a hundred of photos shared and shown in my album above. Are these enough this time? :-))
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)