Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 15, 2006, 1:42 PM   #81
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
BTW it looks like a banner year for thegear junkies, lots of new 10MP DSLRs and finally a digital Leica, very high cool factor there (along with a big price tag).
Yeah, do read about it>>>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06...8previewed.asp

Code:
oh and D70 is best because reviews say that, end of story.
So? It is not important to note that? What happens if the review said that camera xis not so good, so the cameramust be good then? (In your understanding?)

So what happens if the review said that camera y is good? "It must be un-true" :roll:

Code:
It is really hilarious that users like Benjamin look with such scrutiny upon cams like Pentax or Nikon and yet do not apply the same scrutiny when it comes to dear old Canon, when in fact he has not yet seen or found out that the D50 whiped the floor with the 350D (for several reason [ISO,handling,price,ergonomy,feel]) and now is unsure of whether the D80 will do good ISO-wise but supposes from the start that the 400D is already a champion in that field. From the posts I've seen on dpreview forums, the 400D ISO1600 shots look awful in comparison to the D80 (much more chroma noise when the D80 has more film-like and less noise much more pleasing to the eye). Anyway...

I will be waiting for some serious reviews before I commit my money to some brand or the other but the fact is that spec-wise, the K10 is THE winner of the 10MP enthusiast dSLRs.
I already statedbefore that the ISO 1600 performance of the EOS 400D still needs to be proven>>>
Code:
so far only the EOS 400D is looking good but still yet to be proven.

So is the shots of the Nikon D80 at ISO 1600 looking awful to me with all those detail lost, NR artifacts, detail smugging, and water color effects of the Panasonic models. (Just to a lesser extend only)

If less noise is always a winner to you, I don't think anythingcan beat the Panasonic cameras at boosted ISO because they are totally noise-free;thanks to the noise reduction.

Code:
D80 has more film-like and less noise much more pleasing to the eye).
The problem with the Nikon D80 is that; in the first place, it is applying too much NR to it's images by default already. Shots taken without NR also have visible lost of details and NR works.

Code:
the K10 is THE winner of the 10MP enthusiast dSLRs.

I agree that spec wise it seems like the winner, but we do need to see the quality.

Code:
the D50 whiped the floor with the 350D (for several reason [ISO,handling,price,ergonomy,feel])


The Nikon D50 is great ISO wise and has the lowest noise levelsamong all. However, it applies NR at higher ISOs and I had begun to noticed some NR artifacts in it's images as well as the smooth plastic like look. (Results from noise reduction)

D50 ISO 1600 test shots>>>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D50/D50LL1607.HTM

Without NR.>>>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...0LL1607XNR.HTM

The images of the Nikon D70s athigh ISOs arecrisper and more well defined because it doesn't uses NR to remove the image details for the sake of clean images. Anyway,thenoise characteristics of the D70s are more film like grain (Monochromic); that is more pleasant to the eye. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page17.asp

D70s ISO 1600 test shots>>>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...D70SLL1607.HTM

Without NR.>>> (Not much difference considering thatNR. was already very conservative in the first place)

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...SLL1607XNR.HTM (All 2second exposures)

The high ISO performance of the CANONEOS 350D is good and there is nothing wrong with that. It is one of the top together with the Nikon D50 and the D70s. (currently)




Code:
When reading Benjamins inputs, for some reason the expression "backseat driver" keeps popping up in my mind. Don't really understand why.
Care to elaborate on that?











BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 2:52 PM   #82
Senior Member
 
ejbrusselsprout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 137
Default

re. ira's last: aye.
ejbrusselsprout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 3:07 PM   #83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wigan, UK
Posts: 568
Default

I wonder why there's so much hassle about high iso noise? is anyone using high iso exclusively? except sport photographers? have you ever used iso 1600 or 3200 film? or you just talk about noise in 1600 or 3200 for the sake of it? do you think there's much difference between 8x10 prints from different DSLR at iso 400? I bet you couldn't say which one is form Nikon or Canon or Pentax. or the point is just to say: your camera sucks and mine is better? I don't use iso 1600 and hardly ever 800. not because it's noisy or without deatils or sharpness, only because I never had, and for low light I have 50mm f1.7 which can handle that (btw. it's 20 years old and fits my Pentax without any adapters, sharper than anything you can buy for Nikon for 40$).


gfurm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 3:28 PM   #84
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
I wonder why there's so much hassle about high iso noise? is anyone using high iso exclusively? except sport photographers? have you ever used iso 1600 or 3200 film? or you just talk about noise in 1600 or 3200 for the sake of it? do you think there's much difference between 8x10 prints from different DSLR at iso 400? I bet you couldn't say which one is form Nikon or Canon or Pentax. or the point is just to say: your camera sucks and mine is better? I don't use iso 1600 and hardly ever 800. not because it's noisy or without deatils or sharpness, only because I never had, and for low light I have 50mm f1.7 which can handle that (btw. it's 20 years old and fits my Pentax without any adapters, sharper than anything you can buy for Nikon for 40$).




I use high ISO a lot indoors (Under incandescent lightings) to freezemotions and to prevent blurry shots in the first place. I noticed that ISO 400 just isn't enough, ISO 800 is only just sufficient (But still blurry shots); I guess I will be needing ISO 1600 which will be just right considering it is twice as sensitive as ISO 800. If the ISO 1600 can be as high quality as possible (In ISO 1600 terms), itwill be a great criteriafor mesince every bit of quality will countduring such a situation. Especially true for someone like me who will always view the images at 100%.

Is your Pentax lens auto-focus? Nikon has a 50mm F/1.8 AF prime selling for US $100 and it has great sharpness and lens quality compared to the rest.

I can find plenty of informations for the Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 AF if I want to; and they are all easily available at good sites. I can read about the quality, usablity, and issues with the lens at http://www.slrgear.comand http://www.photozone.de- I don't find any for Pentax. (The Pentax lens section at http://www.slrgear.com looks dead!)

In general, I could find plenty of informations for Canon or Nikon lenses (That undergoes testing)but not for Pentax. How can I spend my money on somethingwithout knowinghow it relates to the other lenses???

For example, I know that the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D have superior MTF even wide opened,negligible distortions even wide opened, very low vignetting even wide opened, extremely low CAs even for a fix focal lens, and shows beautiful bokeh (out-of-focus blur). http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_18/index.htm

Because of the available informations, I know that the Nikkor 85mm is a great lens to have.

On the other hand; the Nikkor AF 20mm f/2.8 D is not looking that good. Thanks to the information, I just save myself US$485. http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

I won't buy a lens without knowing it first.









BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 3:51 PM   #85
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

The reviews I read stated that the bokeh on the Nikon 50mm 1.8 is so bad that situations where it would be critical to the image use of the Nikon 1.8 should be avoided.

They stated that is was very sharp, but the lens is made in China, and the build quality is not the best.

The Pentax FA 50mm 1.4 has good bokeh, is well built and extremely sharp just like the Nikon, but the superior build quality will cost you about $59 more than the Nikon.

I am not sure why you are hanging out here since you obviously feel Nikon is the way to go, other than to troll for hostile responses to your pro Nikon posts.

We all like the Pentax cameras and lenses we use and I personally have little interest in information about some other manufactures camera gear.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 4:06 PM   #86
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
The reviews I read stated that the bokeh on the Nikon 50mm 1.8 is so bad that situations where it would be critical to the image use of the Nikon 1.8 should be avoided.

Where is your source? Just blatantly stating something is useless without sources. Where is "even" one of "the" reviews?

According to photozone's test; the lens isn't bad at all>>>

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_18/index.htm

Bokeh is subjective but the 50mm F/1.8 Nikkor does it well in my opinion.


Code:
The Pentax FA 50mm 1.4 has good bokeh, is well built and extremely sharp just like the Nikon, but the superior build quality will cost you about $59 more than the Nikon.



Where is the proof again. Where you got this informations from.

I can't seems to locate any reviews for Pentax lenses.

BTW, the Pentax 50mm f/1.4 SMC P-FA cost $220.00 (No test or proper reviews).

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/316/cat/45

I will be curious to know where you got those informations from.



BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 4:17 PM   #87
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Can I elaborate on "back seat driver"? Well, singing to the deaf might be a waste, but I'll try.

Benjamin! You have very strong and detailed opinions on a variety of equipment of at least five different brands. Your opinionsare based on what you read in reviews, and sometimes you simply draw conclusions out of ... of... outer space?

12 days ago you wrote this about a camera that you had never seen:

"22 bit image processing. Sounds impossible with today's technology. :roll: Dust and weather sealed body. Fora camerakit that cost 1000 USD? :roll:"

Might be me that hava a problem with understanding symbols, but I interpret the emoticons as "how stupid is a person who believes in this?"

Well, how did it turn out? What more do you have to tell us? That you have read?

Most members of this forum actually owns and uses Pentax gear. Some with an experience that goes back more than thirty years. They are behind the steering wheel. I value their opinions on Pentax gear. You waste my time.

Go buy a Nikon. There are a lot of forums and clubs for Nikon-owners. Full stop.

Kjell


bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 4:22 PM   #88
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Code:
"22 bit image processing. Sounds impossible with today's technology. :roll: Dust and weather sealed body. Fora camerakit that cost 1000 USD? :roll:" 

Might be me that hava a problem with understanding symbols, but I interpret the emoticons as "how stupid is a person who believes in this?"

Well, how did it turn out? What more do you have to tell us? That you have read?

That was because I couldn't locate any proofs about the camera. I am the type that needs solid enoughinformations to back myself up.

In fact, the camera wasn't even launched yet (that time) that waswhy I could be uncertained. It clearly shows that I am not too quick to believe in things unless there are solid enough informations to back it up.

Code:
Benjamin! You have very strong and detailed opinions on a variety of equipment of at least five different brands. Your opinionsare based on what you read in reviews, and sometimes you simply draw conclusions out of ... of... outer space?



True, that indicates that I am not bias considering that I also look at 5 other different brands...not just Pentax. There is little for me to get impressed by Pentax considering how little informationsI've gotfrom Pentax save the TTL viewfinder quality and the 11 focus points.


In all honesty, I got more informations regarding Pentax's high ISO performance and JPEG quality than anything else (From the resources I have). I won't comment on thefocus speed and auto WB though.







BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 4:35 PM   #89
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
That was because I couldn't locate any proofs about the camera. I am the type that needs solid enoughinformations to back myself up.

In fact, the camera wasn't even launched yet (that time) that's why I could be uncertained. It clearly shows that I am not too quick to believe things unless there are solid enough informations.
Quote:
The camera may not have been launched but your comments were.

Here we were just indulging in speculation on the information we had, we were not drawing conclusions and the info was from fairly reliable sources. We, as owners of Pentax cameras, were taking part in the same activity as any interest group would before a big announcement.

Have you ever stopped to look around at the other posts here? If you spent more time being a part of discussion, and less time tossing quotes from reviews to refute what we are discussing, you may find you will be considered a welcome part of this forum. You would also spend less time explaining yourself. You do not have to hold a contrary position to be part of a discussion.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 15, 2006, 5:29 PM   #90
Senior Member
 
ennacac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,198
Default

http://www.radugrozescu.com/photo-te...-8-review.html

There you go!
It seems strange that you throw reviews up to contradict those of us that have actually used the equipment, while you won't take the time to do it yourself, basically calling us liars.

Tom
ennacac is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 AM.