Thanks to all who looked. My responses to several messages are assembled and interspersed below.
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:32 PM, Igor Roshchin wrote: > Here is just one example at ISO-3200: > http://42graphy.org/misc/tango_IR00058.jpg > (slight LR processing, including very slight NR). > ------------------- Mon Dec 3 21:39:52 EST 2012 Paul Stenquist wrote: > Nice shot. The k7 autofocus was comparable to that of the K5, so it > sounds like your k5 II is considerably better then either. The > engineering emphasis was reportedly on low light focusing, so your > experience is in sync with that. Looking forward to your take on > daylight autofocus. Paul, Thank you. I hope I am not imagining the AF improvements I've seen. I am definitely impressed by the ISO. ------------------- Mon Dec 3 23:19:53 EST 2012 knarftheriault at gmail.com wrote: > That's a ~great~ picture! > > cheers, > frank I appreciate you being FRANK about it. :-) ------------------- Tue Dec 4 09:06:09 EST 2012 Bruce Walker wrote: > That's just such a great shot, Igor. Well done! Thank you, Bruce! ------------------- Mon Dec 3 23:22:16 EST 2012 Jack Davis wrote: > I've decided the "moire" I was seeing is the screen texture. Never > mind! Jack: No, there is no moire. ------------------- Tue Dec 4 00:04:40 EST 2012 Boris Liberman wrote: > Igor, few points... > > 1. I've had both K-7 and K-5. I even thought that K-7's AF was ever so > slightly better to that of K-5 although it appeared that my opinion was > contrary to the common view on the matter. I thought that my K-7 was > ever so slightly more decisive in low light while my K-5 was just a bit > more accurate. I might be imagining it... My impression is completely subjective, and I haven't done any measurements, whatsover. It just seemed to me that the AF was ready by the time I was ready to shoot. (Larry, - this comment is relevant to what your hopes are.) > > 2. I humbly suggest that you (and we along the way) revisit your > impressions after a month of medium to heavy use. Often initial > impressions fade and are replaced by more experienced ones, simply > because of the variety of shooting situations that you would have > experienced. But of course! :-) > > 3. In terms of low light IQ - K-5 (and its derivatives) are probably > second to none on the market right now except big boys such as Nikon > D800 which is entirely different price league and stuff... That's exactly my point. And not just price league, but also size league. D4 is huge, compared to K-5IIs. Actually, one great improvement over K-7 was a larger dynamic range at high ISOs. > > 4. I've had a chance to shoot with D700 for quite a bit - including one > wedding where I was just playing with someone else's camera. D700 beats > crap out of K-5. But it has to be 24-70/2.8 top of the lines Nikkor and > rather dim light for crap to start getting beaten out of... Otherwise, > K-5 is pretty darn fine. I've tried it in combination with Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S, Nikon 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor Lens , Nikkor 70-200mm VR II f/2.8G, ED, AF-S, and Nikkor 16-85mm VR f/3.5-5.6, AF-S IIRC, 24-70 and 85 were those I used the most. The quality was great. But I decided not to go that route for the size and the weight of the camera. Not everything was ideal this weekend. But I think I've got very close this past weekend with K-5IIs + 50-135/2.8 and 77/1.8. I was missing a bit on the wide end, as my 17-70/4 is good for the flash work but it is a bit too slow for the low light without flash. I don't have brand loyalty. Evidently, I have a typical for many buyers desire to confirm for myself that I made the right decision on buying this camera. In my case, this can create a "bi-modal" bias: 1. positive, and 2. overly sensitive to any little glitch. At this point I haven't had much of #2, even though not everything is ideal. I had quiet a few misses.[*] Having said that, even though I knew Pentax menues better, it took me more effort to set things to where I wanted them to be, compared to the same with D700. > Finally, it is very fine photograph and you nailed it in terms of focus > accuracy, exposure, etc... Thank you. > > I am glad you've gotten a great new photographic instrument now - I hope > to see more of your pictures... It is not the instrumentation that limits the amount of pictures developed and displayed, but the time available. [*] About misses I had. 1. Focusing in 11-segment AF mode was sometimes choosing the wrong object. Switching to the center-point AF helped. 2. Some shots had focus that is good but not perfect. I am not sure if this was the effect of motion of the subjects, motion blur from hand-holding the camera, or the AF error. I don't jump in claiming the latter. 3. A few streaks of lu.. totally off-the-wall AWB choices. For several shots in a row, the camera was choosing a completely wrong WB when set to AWB. E.g. it went extremely yellow in, I suspect, incandescent, light. I had seen it once or twice with K-7 (over almost 3 years of use), - and it still puzzles me why it happened. And of course, some of the problems were due to the 5'9"-long cushion between the camera and my eyes. Cheers, Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
