Pentax as first DSLR?

Started Jul 17, 2013 | Discussions
Alex Sarbu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,648Gear list
Like?
Re: Actually you are wrong
In reply to Ivan Gordeli, Jul 23, 2013

Ivan Gordeli wrote:

kikivrany wrote:

I always keep in mind that DOX compared in some tests 8Mp down sample files when I look at there results. There are a lot threads about it.

They do it to offer a meaningful comparison for practical print sizes. Basically it means that for print sizes up to 12x18 (inches). So unless you print bigger than that, it is a very good comparison.

The problem is that they're not printing, even though they're calling that "print"; they're simply scaling the results with some factor. Also, they're not measuring things like detail in their tests. DXOMark is a limited value synthetic benchmark.

Some sort of normalization is required, though, when comparing cameras with different pixel count. With them, a simple downscaling could be enough.

Furthermore for the particular example of 16MP APS-C and 13MP full frame sensor it doesn't matter much if you normalize to 8MP or not, you can see it by looking at screen level graphs and compare them to the normalized ones (actually there is a small difference further in favor of the 5D by not normalizing). This is because the difference in MP count is small (16 vs 13) (the 16MP APS-C sensor has ~ only 1/2 stop noise advantage due to more megapixels if you normalize).

I can't follow your conclusion, even with the DOX results...let's look for that at ISO 100 or simple at ISO higher than 3200.

At ISO 100 the SNR, Tonal range and color sensitivity are about the same for all 3 cameras. Noticeable advantage for the Pentax is in dynamic range (2 stops more), this advantage is quickly decreasing with increasing ISO and by ISO800 5D passes the K-30.

The normalized results are better for the APS-C cameras, except for SNR (unsurprisingly, as AFAIK the shot noise should be significant in those measurements). The overall score is higher for the APS-C cameras, and actually the K-5 IIs and the K-5 II are rated higher than any Canon FF model. Are you sure you want to continue using DXOMark data? Strange things are happening, with synthetic benchmarks.

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ivan Gordeli
Forum MemberPosts: 70Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax as first DSLR?
In reply to Alex Sarbu, Jul 23, 2013

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Ivan Gordeli wrote:

As I have said, IMHO you underestimate how good a 8-year old camera may be. All the technological advances that you correctly point out below, they do matter, sure. However in many cases they don't. Yes, the cameras are faster, but you may not need fast at all (for landscape work for instance). The resolution is higher, but you will only benefit from it if you print (very) large or evaluate at 100%. The AF may be better, though why would someone who uses MF all the time care?

Are you trying to build a specific scenario in which using the 8-year old camera makes sense? If you don't need this, if you don't need that...

No, I am pointing out obvious counterexamples to your statements, as you know in logic it is enough to present 1 counterexample to disprove a statement

The specific scenarios are not that specific in fact:

  • resolution advantage:large size printing: how many people do actually print larger than 12"x18"? (and both camera are quite capable of printing even bigger than that), the difference in MP count is very small, I would expect the resolution to be close
  • AF, speed (fps) do not matter for a variety of work. For instance for any type of studio or landscape or architecture work. How specific is that? Not to mention the K-5 is not exactly what people say is a good AF tool and I do not know 5D AF performance to compare
  • high ISO: dxomark data seems to suggest 5D is as good and maybe slightly better high ISO performance.

So in fact it is quite hard for me to think of any situation where 5D would be lacking compared to the K-5, but I didn't have to, to make my point is enough to point out 1 single example where the 5D is better or equal.

My point is it all depends on the type of work you do and your style. For some applications and some people the older camera may be still as good if not better.

But most of all, we are not simply comparing 2 cameras of the same class. We compare 2 tools with different sensor size which implies quite different visual rendering of the subject. This difference is IMHO much more important than the difference in resolution etc.

Is it? In the paragraph above you were talking about "the type of work you do and your style". Now you're deciding this is important no matter what?

There is no contradiction at all if you read it carefully. The first paragraph says what is BETTER depends on your style and the type of work you do while the second one acknowledges the differences are IMOPRTANT.

But it may be important in others.

I have never claimed otherwise.

How would you know it's not important, for the OP?

Only OP himself can decide for him what works for him. I don't have to guess what is important for him and what isn't. Each one of us can only share our perspective and it is up to OP to decide what is relevant for him.

And keep in mind you're on Pentax SLR Talk... not the best place to hype old Canon cameras

this forum would benefit a lot from a more brand-neutral POV. At least it would be nice if it tolerated an opinion of Pentax users themselves (as long as it is presented in a reasonable way)

That was to prove the technology is evolving in the DSLR world; which I did. The K-500/K-50/K-30, with their 7D-level viewfinders, for about $600... that's good progress, by the way.

Pentax always offered best viewfinders in its class and often above its class as with the K-500/K-50/K-30. And yes, the progress here is great, you can now get an entry level dSLR with top-of-the line viewfinder. It could be a deal breaker for many!

However the viewfinders in FF are another step above that, including the viewfinder in 5D, once gain 8-year-old model. The whole point was that we are comparing a APS-C SLR to a FF SLR.

I would go for a Pentax 135 DSLR though, just for the better viewfinder (sure, that won't be the only benefit). I'm in no hurry... but my eyes are not getting better.

You are only proving my point. Just the benefit of a better viewfinder may be worth going for the 5D.

I was arguing against UnexpressiveCanvas' claim that it's "way more advanced" (well, he believed Pentax was still using SAFOX II ) He obviously cared a lot.

I made sure to state in my first comment I do not agree with everything UnexpersiveCanvas has said. He did go a bit overboard IMHO with claiming that 5D is still unmatched by anything out there (including the later 5D Mks). But I find your responses to him equally "overboard" when you claim the 5D is hopelessly outdated.

The risk is not as high as you think it is IMHO. If you have experience buying used and knowledge about the camera and take the right precautions when buying, the chances of something going wrong are not that high. I personally think the chances of being in trouble are probably less than getting a brand new model with serious defects.

If you can easily afford to replace the camera if it breaks, the risk isn't high; but if you are on a tight budget... warranty becomes important. If you buy it because you can't afford a newer FF body and want to keep it for a while, be prepared for when it will die.

  • it is easier to afford to replace a cheaper camera
  • either warranty or getting a cheaper camera both are valid solutions. of course it depends a lot on how you use your camera. I know many people buy brand new and many of them never take advantage of the warranty and many of them replace their camera every year or 2, for such people obviously buying used would be more budged conscious solution
  • there is always the risk your camera will die and the risk may be higher with an older camera, this is reflected in the price difference too.

I can't afford a new FF body. Any camera will die someday. I'd rather have a $500 body die on me than a $2000 one. Of course it depends on how much you shoot. It will take me 18+ years to reach the number of actuations my shutter is rated for. Even if I buy an old camera with half of its resource gone, it is still 9+ years. In my practice (and also my friends experience) the camera was replaced for other reasons than failure due to malfunction. So I wouldn't worry about that.

How about people who don't need nor want a 135-format digital camera? They don't have to pay $2000 for one, and could get by using a $500-600 brand new APS-C DSLR.

I have never objected the obvious, if you do not need/want something there is no reason to buy it (for whatever low price in fact)

And don't ever assume your camera will patiently wait for it's expected shutter MTBF. Because it's MTBF, and because that's not the only thing which can fail.

Of course. With an old camera such as 5D you have a lot of information out there on how reliable and long-lasting it is and you can make an informed decision, this partially offsets the risks of getting old.

And as I have said, none of my friends were forced to replace their SLR body due to (any type of) failure so the risks may be not as high for my amount of use. I am sure the picture among pros may be totally different.

-- hide signature --

"Notes on Photography" blog http://gordeli.wordpress.com/

 Ivan Gordeli's gear list:Ivan Gordeli's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 Pentax K-5 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ivan Gordeli
Forum MemberPosts: 70Gear list
Like?
comment on dxo data relevance
In reply to Alex Sarbu, Jul 23, 2013

Alex Sarbu wrote:

The normalized results are better for the APS-C cameras, except for SNR (unsurprisingly, as AFAIK the shot noise should be significant in those measurements). The overall score is higher for the APS-C cameras, and actually the K-5 IIs and the K-5 II are rated higher than any Canon FF model. Are you sure you want to continue using DXOMark data? Strange things are happening, with synthetic benchmarks.

1. better only for dynamic range (which is quite important of course), everything else is (marginally) better in 5D at least at ISO above 400.

2. I never look at the overall score. Especially it makes little sense when you compare cameras of different scope (such as APS-C vs FF)

3. I take the dxomark data with a great deal of skepticism for a variety of reasons. As you point out APS-C Pentax rank higher than Canon FF, in fact even within a single manufacturer you will find that dxomark often ranks lower end cameras higher than higher end (even when the sensor size is the same and generation is the same). It only proves the obvious fact that dxomark data is not the whole picture.

What dxomark shows is that Pentax and Nikon make dxo-friendly SLRs

-- hide signature --

"Notes on Photography" blog http://gordeli.wordpress.com/

 Ivan Gordeli's gear list:Ivan Gordeli's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 Pentax K-5 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kikivrany
Senior MemberPosts: 2,812
Like?
a comprehension question
In reply to kikivrany, Jul 23, 2013

Hello again Ivan Gordeli

I have a comprehension question:

Would I be able to push a 5D picture, made at ISO 1600 up to ca 10000 ISO,

like I did in this picture, which I made with the K5 at 8000ISO and pushed it up a little ?

EDIT:  It might be not the best example for a good ISO compare, because it's easy to use the NR on this picture, but I promised not to post the pictures in the internet, so that's why I used this shadow-picture.

best regards kikivrany

-- hide signature --

carpe noctem

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alex Sarbu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,648Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax as first DSLR?
In reply to Ivan Gordeli, Jul 23, 2013

Ivan Gordeli wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Ivan Gordeli wrote:

As I have said, IMHO you underestimate how good a 8-year old camera may be. All the technological advances that you correctly point out below, they do matter, sure. However in many cases they don't. Yes, the cameras are faster, but you may not need fast at all (for landscape work for instance). The resolution is higher, but you will only benefit from it if you print (very) large or evaluate at 100%. The AF may be better, though why would someone who uses MF all the time care?

Are you trying to build a specific scenario in which using the 8-year old camera makes sense? If you don't need this, if you don't need that...

No, I am pointing out obvious counterexamples to your statements, as you know in logic it is enough to present 1 counterexample to disprove a statement

I'm afraid you don't even understand my statements, to begin with.

The specific scenarios are not that specific in fact:

  • resolution advantage:large size printing: how many people do actually print larger than 12"x18"? (and both camera are quite capable of printing even bigger than that), the difference in MP count is very small, I would expect the resolution to be close

People who aren't printing, or are printing small don't actually need a FF camera, don't you think? There is no such thing as a generalized FF need, I hope you agree.

  • AF, speed (fps) do not matter for a variety of work. For instance for any type of studio or landscape or architecture work. How specific is that? Not to mention the K-5 is not exactly what people say is a good AF tool and I do not know 5D AF performance to compare

In the studio what helps Canon is not the image quality (better at low ISO with the modern APS-C cameras), but the larger accessories range than Pentax; flash triggers, for example. In landscape, Pentax should have a slight advantage.

  • high ISO: dxomark data seems to suggest 5D is as good and maybe slightly better high ISO performance.

OK... though the DXOMark data doesn't tells us much. I "blame" the shot noise for that, and there's nothing the smaller formats could do about it.

So in fact it is quite hard for me to think of any situation where 5D would be lacking compared to the K-5, but I didn't have to, to make my point is enough to point out 1 single example where the 5D is better or equal.

And all will be good, as long as you don't use your camera outside that 1 single example. Then it becomes debatable again.

My point is it all depends on the type of work you do and your style. For some applications and some people the older camera may be still as good if not better.

But most of all, we are not simply comparing 2 cameras of the same class. We compare 2 tools with different sensor size which implies quite different visual rendering of the subject. This difference is IMHO much more important than the difference in resolution etc.

Is it? In the paragraph above you were talking about "the type of work you do and your style". Now you're deciding this is important no matter what?

There is no contradiction at all if you read it carefully. The first paragraph says what is BETTER depends on your style and the type of work you do while the second one acknowledges the differences are IMOPRTANT.

Important to whom?

But it may be important in others.

I have never claimed otherwise.

Not even when you say what is "much more important"?

How would you know it's not important, for the OP?

Only OP himself can decide for him what works for him. I don't have to guess what is important for him and what isn't. Each one of us can only share our perspective and it is up to OP to decide what is relevant for him.

And keep in mind you're on Pentax SLR Talk... not the best place to hype old Canon cameras

this forum would benefit a lot from a more brand-neutral POV. At least it would be nice if it tolerated an opinion of Pentax users themselves (as long as it is presented in a reasonable way)

Actually there's nothing brand-neutral in basically claiming no Pentax camera should ever be bought, because the 5D is so much better.

We are Pentax users; we made our choice. Last thing we want to hear is pro-Canon propaganda.

That was to prove the technology is evolving in the DSLR world; which I did. The K-500/K-50/K-30, with their 7D-level viewfinders, for about $600... that's good progress, by the way.

Pentax always offered best viewfinders in its class and often above its class as with the K-500/K-50/K-30. And yes, the progress here is great, you can now get an entry level dSLR with top-of-the line viewfinder. It could be a deal breaker for many!

However the viewfinders in FF are another step above that, including the viewfinder in 5D, once gain 8-year-old model. The whole point was that we are comparing a APS-C SLR to a FF SLR.

I saw quite a few reflex viewfinders in my life, some much better than the 5D one. You don't have to explain it to me.

I would go for a Pentax 135 DSLR though, just for the better viewfinder (sure, that won't be the only benefit). I'm in no hurry... but my eyes are not getting better.

You are only proving my point. Just the benefit of a better viewfinder may be worth going for the 5D.

Or, it might not. It would push me toward a Pentax FF DSLR, though.

I was arguing against UnexpressiveCanvas' claim that it's "way more advanced" (well, he believed Pentax was still using SAFOX II ) He obviously cared a lot.

I made sure to state in my first comment I do not agree with everything UnexpersiveCanvas has said. He did go a bit overboard IMHO with claiming that 5D is still unmatched by anything out there (including the later 5D Mks). But I find your responses to him equally "overboard" when you claim the 5D is hopelessly outdated.

I never made that claim. I only said it's old, and that APS-C cameras progressed in many significant ways.

The risk is not as high as you think it is IMHO. If you have experience buying used and knowledge about the camera and take the right precautions when buying, the chances of something going wrong are not that high. I personally think the chances of being in trouble are probably less than getting a brand new model with serious defects.

If you can easily afford to replace the camera if it breaks, the risk isn't high; but if you are on a tight budget... warranty becomes important. If you buy it because you can't afford a newer FF body and want to keep it for a while, be prepared for when it will die.

  • it is easier to afford to replace a cheaper camera

A good APS-C camera can be found for about the same price, brand new and with a warranty.

  • either warranty or getting a cheaper camera both are valid solutions. of course it depends a lot on how you use your camera. I know many people buy brand new and many of them never take advantage of the warranty and many of them replace their camera every year or 2, for such people obviously buying used would be more budged conscious solution
  • there is always the risk your camera will die and the risk may be higher with an older camera, this is reflected in the price difference too.

I can't afford a new FF body. Any camera will die someday. I'd rather have a $500 body die on me than a $2000 one. Of course it depends on how much you shoot. It will take me 18+ years to reach the number of actuations my shutter is rated for. Even if I buy an old camera with half of its resource gone, it is still 9+ years. In my practice (and also my friends experience) the camera was replaced for other reasons than failure due to malfunction. So I wouldn't worry about that.

How about people who don't need nor want a 135-format digital camera? They don't have to pay $2000 for one, and could get by using a $500-600 brand new APS-C DSLR.

I have never objected the obvious, if you do not need/want something there is no reason to buy it (for whatever low price in fact)

And don't ever assume your camera will patiently wait for it's expected shutter MTBF. Because it's MTBF, and because that's not the only thing which can fail.

Of course. With an old camera such as 5D you have a lot of information out there on how reliable and long-lasting it is and you can make an informed decision, this partially offsets the risks of getting old.

Not really... it still didn't reached the point in which its electronics would start to fail en masse.

And as I have said, none of my friends were forced to replace their SLR body due to (any type of) failure so the risks may be not as high for my amount of use. I am sure the picture among pros may be totally different.

I know such cases, though.

I'm not saying this must be a deal breaker; it's just a risk which should be considered.

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alex Sarbu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,648Gear list
Like?
Re: comment on dxo data relevance
In reply to Ivan Gordeli, Jul 23, 2013

Ivan Gordeli wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

The normalized results are better for the APS-C cameras, except for SNR (unsurprisingly, as AFAIK the shot noise should be significant in those measurements). The overall score is higher for the APS-C cameras, and actually the K-5 IIs and the K-5 II are rated higher than any Canon FF model. Are you sure you want to continue using DXOMark data? Strange things are happening, with synthetic benchmarks.

1. better only for dynamic range (which is quite important of course), everything else is (marginally) better in 5D at least at ISO above 400.

We can go on looking at virtually identical charts, but my point is DXOMark's inability to properly evaluate image quality.

2. I never look at the overall score. Especially it makes little sense when you compare cameras of different scope (such as APS-C vs FF)

I do it for fun and bragging rights

3. I take the dxomark data with a great deal of skepticism for a variety of reasons. As you point out APS-C Pentax rank higher than Canon FF, in fact even within a single manufacturer you will find that dxomark often ranks lower end cameras higher than higher end (even when the sensor size is the same and generation is the same). It only proves the obvious fact that dxomark data is not the whole picture.

While their measurements apparently are correct, it's important to know exactly what they're testing - which is only few, very specific parameters.

What dxomark shows is that Pentax and Nikon make dxo-friendly SLRs

I doubt we'd want to use a true DXO-friendly camera.

-- hide signature --

"Notes on Photography" blog http://gordeli.wordpress.com/

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yardcoyote
Senior MemberPosts: 2,943Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax as first DSLR?
In reply to Roland Karlsson, Jul 23, 2013

Thanks!  I actually understood that explanation!  Not that it brings me any closer to being able to afford a FF body, but now I have a coherent reason for wanting one.

 yardcoyote's gear list:yardcoyote's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Pentax K-30 Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ivan Gordeli
Forum MemberPosts: 70Gear list
Like?
Re: a comprehension question
In reply to kikivrany, Jul 23, 2013

kikivrany wrote:

Hello again Ivan Gordeli

I have a comprehension question:

Would I be able to push a 5D picture, made at ISO 1600 up to ca 10000 ISO,

like I did in this picture, which I made with the K5 at 8000ISO and pushed it up a little ?

I am not the best person to ask, since I have no first-hand experience with the 5D. My guess is it will be quite possible to do. It is just 2.5 stops push. Of course in this picture there is not much details in the shades, so should be even easier.

I would recommend searching the web for specific examples. I've heard reports of successful 4 stops push on 5D, however this must strongly depend on the scene and how you expose originally of course.

Here is an exampe of 5D image at 3200 pushed to ISO 12800 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14155191

Here people discuss pushing ISO with 5D. Their technique is to set EV compensation to -2 and then push by 2 stops then you get correct exposure. This way ISO3200 is the maximum achievable ISO on 5D. Better though IMHo is deliberately underexpose in full manual mode as much as you want, shoot at ISO1600 and then push as much as you want in PP and use NR too. Then there are other techniques of getting the most out of the camera such as stacking several images, or even stacking several images from the same raw file (pushed to different levels).

Bottomline, I'm pretty sure one can achieve usable ISO 12800 equivalent with any (8 year old or newer) dSLR. How hard it will be that is another question. If you are a master of PP, then it shouldn't be too hard.

But then again, other people may tell you they can't push above ISO 3200.

Another example I have found: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreas_helke/5153077920/

-- hide signature --

"Notes on Photography" blog http://gordeli.wordpress.com/

 Ivan Gordeli's gear list:Ivan Gordeli's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 Pentax K-5 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ivan Gordeli
Forum MemberPosts: 70Gear list
Like?
so true!
In reply to Alex Sarbu, Jul 23, 2013

Alex Sarbu wrote:

I doubt we'd want to use a true DXO-friendly camera.

So true!

-- hide signature --

"Notes on Photography" blog http://gordeli.wordpress.com/

 Ivan Gordeli's gear list:Ivan Gordeli's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 Pentax K-5 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kikivrany
Senior MemberPosts: 2,812
Like?
Re: Thanks again !
In reply to Ivan Gordeli, Jul 23, 2013

Ivan Gordeli wrote:

kikivrany wrote:

Hello again Ivan Gordeli

I have a comprehension question:

Would I be able to push a 5D picture, made at ISO 1600 up to ca 10000 ISO,

like I did in this picture, which I made with the K5 at 8000ISO and pushed it up a little ?

I am not the best person to ask, since I have no first-hand experience with the 5D. My guess is it will be quite possible to do. It is just 2.5 stops push. Of course in this picture there is not much details in the shades, so should be even easier.

I would recommend searching the web for specific examples. I've heard reports of successful 4 stops push on 5D, however this must strongly depend on the scene and how you expose originally of course.

Here is an exampe of 5D image at 3200 pushed to ISO 12800 http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=14155191

Here people discuss pushing ISO with 5D. Their technique is to set EV compensation to -2 and then push by 2 stops then you get correct exposure. This way ISO3200 is the maximum achievable ISO on 5D. Better though IMHo is deliberately underexpose in full manual mode as much as you want, shoot at ISO1600 and then push as much as you want in PP and use NR too. Then there are other techniques of getting the most out of the camera such as stacking several images, or even stacking several images from the same raw file (pushed to different levels).

Bottomline, I'm pretty sure one can achieve usable ISO 12800 equivalent with any (8 year old or newer) dSLR. How hard it will be that is another question. If you are a master of PP, then it shouldn't be too hard.

But then again, other people may tell you they can't push above ISO 3200.

Another example I have found: http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreas_helke/5153077920/

-- hide signature --

"Notes on Photography" blog http://gordeli.wordpress.com/

Hello Ivan Gordeli

Thank you very much for your good answer and for put in the links with example.

It look's like it works.

Now I did also ask, because I find for my K5 up to now not the right answer, if it's equal to make a shot at ISO 1600 and push it later up to two stops, or taking at once the right higher ISO.

I personally think that it is better to use the correct ISO on a K5.

Now I'm not a camera maker, but I think this way:

When the signal from the sensor get to the AD, is always better to match the signal levels to the input levels of the AD. That happens via the gain.

Now you and also others write, that at for example ISO 1600 the camera do not use more gain, it do gain later via software, and one argument here for an indices is that the cameras NR get in work.

I for myself think that must not be a hint. I really think that my K5 do use more gain when I use a ISO higher than ISO 1600 to get better level results for the AD. But because there is at this level even with this gain a visible noise in the signal, they use a NR.

All in all that mean for me that I try to use the correct ISO to get for the AD a good signal level.

...and for yardcoyote: I hope you don't mind, that I do drift fare away from the original topic of your thread.

best regards kikivrany

-- hide signature --

carpe noctem

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ivan Gordeli
Forum MemberPosts: 70Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax as first DSLR?
In reply to Alex Sarbu, Jul 23, 2013

Alex Sarbu wrote:

People who aren't printing, or are printing small don't actually need a FF camera, don't you think? There is no such thing as a generalized FF need, I hope you agree.

First statement - I don´t think so. printing big or not is about image quality, while FF is not just about that.

Second statement - I do agree of course. Most people do not need FF, as a matter of fact most people do not need any SLR. In fact most people do not need any camera at all. What most people do need IMHO to take good pictures is invest into learning first of all - by far bigger effect on our pictures than  anything else.

My point is it all depends on the type of work you do and your style. For some applications and some people the older camera may be still as good if not better.

But most of all, we are not simply comparing 2 cameras of the same class. We compare 2 tools with different sensor size which implies quite different visual rendering of the subject. This difference is IMHO much more important than the difference in resolution etc.

Is it? In the paragraph above you were talking about "the type of work you do and your style". Now you're deciding this is important no matter what?

There is no contradiction at all if you read it carefully. The first paragraph says what is BETTER depends on your style and the type of work you do while the second one acknowledges the differences are IMOPRTANT.

Important to whom?

Good question. I would like to claim that sensor size difference is more important than (associated) image quality to anyone who knows what they need. In the sense that one picks the format based on other than IQ reasons. However I have to admit this claim is to strong and I am willing to accept that this importance also depends on the user.

What I was really trying to say is that the tools (FF and APS-C) are different and these differences are (may be) important, though if this difference implies one is better than another depends on the photographer. Another thing I was trying to claim is that different sensor size and its implications on DOF are moreimportant to anyone than the resolution and other image quality differences. The last part is probably too strong of a statement

But it may be important in others.

I have never claimed otherwise.

Not even when you say what is "much more important"?

If you like to pick on semantics, I can only add that stating that "A is more important than B" does not imply that "B is not important"

And keep in mind you're on Pentax SLR Talk... not the best place to hype old Canon cameras

this forum would benefit a lot from a more brand-neutral POV. At least it would be nice if it tolerated an opinion of Pentax users themselves (as long as it is presented in a reasonable way)

Actually there's nothing brand-neutral in basically claiming no Pentax camera should ever be bought, because the 5D is so much better.

We are Pentax users; we made our choice. Last thing we want to hear is pro-Canon propaganda.

Obviously I have never claimed no Pentax camera should ever be bought.

  • I am the living proof I do not think like that since I have bought a Pentax camera myself
  • In my original recommendation to the OP I have in fact proposed to go Pentax

All I have claimed is that the 5D is a viable option if one is interested in full frame at all (and obviously Pentax is not, simply because it doesn't have a FF in the line up.)

Depends on who is "us". I definitely would like to see more input by brand-neutral people or even from reasonable fans of other systems to have a bigger picture to be able to make a better choice for myself. It doesn't annoy me especially when people offer balanced and well supported opinions. I know different things work for different people and I can decide myself what works best for me based on a variety of info. If the info is irrelevant to me I simply ignore it.

-- hide signature --

"Notes on Photography" blog http://gordeli.wordpress.com/

 Ivan Gordeli's gear list:Ivan Gordeli's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 Pentax K-5 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
audiobomber
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,434Gear list
Like?
Re: K 85mm f1.8
In reply to yardcoyote, Jul 23, 2013

yardcoyote wrote:

I'm already thinking good thoughts about the Sigma AF 50 mm f 2.8 EX DG macro, shorter brother of the 70mm recommended above. Reviews tell me that's the equivalent of 80mm in 35mm-speak.

Not quite. You must have been looking at a Canon mount, their sensor is 1.6X crop,

50mm X 1.6 = 80mm equivalent focal length.

Pentax uses a 1.5X crop sensor: 50mm X 1.5 = 75mm equivalent FL.

-- hide signature --

Dan

 audiobomber's gear list:audiobomber's gear list
Pentax K-3 Sony a6000 Pentax K20D Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 +15 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Ivan Gordeli
Forum MemberPosts: 70Gear list
Like?
analog signal enhancement on K-5
In reply to kikivrany, Jul 23, 2013

kikivrany wrote:

Now I did also ask, because I find for my K5 up to now not the right answer, if it's equal to make a shot at ISO 1600 and push it later up to two stops, or taking at once the right higher ISO.

Well it is not exactly equal. Theoretically shooting at ISO 1600 and pushing in PP should give you more control over the final result than shooting at the "appropriate" ISO first place. Because you have more control over NR. As has been discussed many times K-5 sensor uses digital amplification of noise starting with ISO 3200, so you could do it as well in PP (even better, you have more "latitude" when postprocessing the image from ISO 1600, as you have more opportunities if you want to use that raw file and make several different push-ups from it and stack them or restoring the details in shadows with a curve and compressing the highlights).

So assuming you expose well (i.e. do not clip highlights while maximizing the signal) shooting at ISO 1600 should be better.

As for me I do not bother with it, as I do not enjoy posprocessing. I do not hesitate to shoot at ISO 6400 and I do not even bother with processing the RAW file and quite often satisfied with the straight-out-of-the-camera JPEG. Also I rarely worry about things like detail in shadows/maximizing the dynamic range and tend to shoot under favorable light instead. The point is, you can't do much if the light is bad first place. You can get a technically acceptable shot, but artistically it is not what I would bother about. I'd rather wait for the right conditions even if it takes forever for an artistic shot. If I just need a (family) snapshot I would use ISO 6400 without worrying I am not using my camera ability to the max.

I personally think that it is better to use the correct ISO on a K5.

Now I'm not a camera maker, but I think this way:

When the signal from the sensor get to the AD, is always better to match the signal levels to the input levels of the AD. That happens via the gain.

Now you and also others write, that at for example ISO 1600 the camera do not use more gain, it do gain later via software, and one argument here for an indices is that the cameras NR get in work.

I for myself think that must not be a hint. I really think that my K5 do use more gain when I use a ISO higher than ISO 1600 to get better level results for the AD. But because there is at this level even with this gain a visible noise in the signal, they use a NR.

All in all that mean for me that I try to use the correct ISO to get for the AD a good signal level.

There was quite a lot of info posted on this topic and it convinced me personally that after ISO 1600, it is just digital enhancement. If you want I can dig up some of the relevant links and post for you.

As for me it didn't bother me too much as I am not a pixel-peeper or image quality fanatic. I believe that 95% of the value of the shot is your artistic ability and 4.99% is composition and proper use of conditions (light etc). The remaining 0.01% is for image quality (maybe I am exaggerating a bit)

-- hide signature --

"Notes on Photography" blog http://gordeli.wordpress.com/

 Ivan Gordeli's gear list:Ivan Gordeli's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F717 Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS3 Pentax K-5 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF)
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
ronniemac
Junior MemberPosts: 30Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax as first DSLR?
In reply to yardcoyote, Jul 23, 2013

I'll cut to the chase without techno talk.  First SLR was the Pentax MX, when digital evolved I only bought point and shoot or bridge cameras until I took the plunge into DSLR when I bought a K-5.  For me it is a fantastic camera, a joy to use, weather resistant, and fully functional.  I use my old lenses as well as having now 5 lovely new ones.  Like the MX, the K-5 is compact, well built and has a fantastic pentaprism viewfinder.

The K-30 and K-50 have ALL these advantages, but are a little more user friendly and less costly. The K-30/50 is a winner, or consider the K-5 which has now been massively reduced in price.

Simple!

Happy days!

 ronniemac's gear list:ronniemac's gear list
Pentax X-5 Pentax *ist D Pentax K-x Pentax K-5 Pentax Q +117 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kikivrany
Senior MemberPosts: 2,812
Like?
Re: analog signal enhancement on K-5
In reply to Ivan Gordeli, Jul 23, 2013

Ivan Gordeli wrote:

kikivrany wrote:

Now I did also ask, because I find for my K5 up to now not the right answer, if it's equal to make a shot at ISO 1600 and push it later up to two stops, or taking at once the right higher ISO.

Well it is not exactly equal. Theoretically shooting at ISO 1600 and pushing in PP should give you more control over the final result than shooting at the "appropriate" ISO first place. Because you have more control over NR. As has been discussed many times K-5 sensor uses digital amplification of noise starting with ISO 3200, so you could do it as well in PP (even better, you have more "latitude" when postprocessing the image from ISO 1600, as you have more opportunities if you want to use that raw file and make several different push-ups from it and stack them or restoring the details in shadows with a curve and compressing the highlights).

So assuming you expose well (i.e. do not clip highlights while maximizing the signal) shooting at ISO 1600 should be better.

As for me I do not bother with it, as I do not enjoy posprocessing. I do not hesitate to shoot at ISO 6400 and I do not even bother with processing the RAW file and quite often satisfied with the straight-out-of-the-camera JPEG. Also I rarely worry about things like detail in shadows/maximizing the dynamic range and tend to shoot under favorable light instead. The point is, you can't do much if the light is bad first place. You can get a technically acceptable shot, but artistically it is not what I would bother about. I'd rather wait for the right conditions even if it takes forever for an artistic shot. If I just need a (family) snapshot I would use ISO 6400 without worrying I am not using my camera ability to the max.

I personally think that it is better to use the correct ISO on a K5.

Now I'm not a camera maker, but I think this way:

When the signal from the sensor get to the AD, is always better to match the signal levels to the input levels of the AD. That happens via the gain.

Now you and also others write, that at for example ISO 1600 the camera do not use more gain, it do gain later via software, and one argument here for an indices is that the cameras NR get in work.

I for myself think that must not be a hint. I really think that my K5 do use more gain when I use a ISO higher than ISO 1600 to get better level results for the AD. But because there is at this level even with this gain a visible noise in the signal, they use a NR.

All in all that mean for me that I try to use the correct ISO to get for the AD a good signal level.

There was quite a lot of info posted on this topic and it convinced me personally that after ISO 1600, it is just digital enhancement. If you want I can dig up some of the relevant links and post for you.

As for me it didn't bother me too much as I am not a pixel-peeper or image quality fanatic. I believe that 95% of the value of the shot is your artistic ability and 4.99% is composition and proper use of conditions (light etc). The remaining 0.01% is for image quality (maybe I am exaggerating a bit)

-- hide signature --

"Notes on Photography" blog http://gordeli.wordpress.com/

Hello Ivan Gordeli

Thank you very much for your detailed answer !

Now , to be honest, the links to the topic would be great, but on the other hand I don't wont to take your time...so maybe when you have bookmarked them and it's easy to find them for you, it would be great when you could post this links, else I can try to find them with the DP search.

again thanks for your reply !

best regards  kikivrany

-- hide signature --

carpe noctem

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yardcoyote
Senior MemberPosts: 2,943Gear list
Like?
Re: K 85mm f1.8
In reply to audiobomber, Jul 23, 2013

Thank you-- that's important to know.  I was assuming APS-C was APS-C the way 35mm was 35mm.  This whole focal length issue is going to take some getting used to.

 yardcoyote's gear list:yardcoyote's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Pentax K-30 Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
yardcoyote
Senior MemberPosts: 2,943Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax as first DSLR?
In reply to ronniemac, Jul 23, 2013

You certainly sound like a happy Pentax person.  Would you be willing to name the 5 lenses you like so much?  I'm still debating whether to start with the kit zoom or buy a body and a prime to learn on.

(Just got back from shooting a whole afternoon at the fair with my point and shoot and I have to keep reminding myself to use the zoom!)

 yardcoyote's gear list:yardcoyote's gear list
Fujifilm X10 Pentax K-30 Pentax K-5 IIs Pentax smc DA* 55mm F1.4 SDM Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
paulkienitz
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,930Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax as first DSLR?
In reply to yardcoyote, Jul 24, 2013

yardcoyote wrote:

So what do you think of a K50 or K30 as a first DSLR? From looking at the specs, there is a lot to like about these cameras--

Yes, and unlike the cheap plasticy rebels, they're solid enough so that once you start using one, you can keep using it for a good long time instead of immediately feeling the pressure to upgrade, which is about all the basic C and N models are meant to do if you have any of the spirit of a real photographer.

It's true that if you're looking at a multi-year investment in a whole grand system, Pentax's future may be iffy, but if you're going to seriously worry about that kind of issue, you're probably wasting your time buying anything at the rebel level.

 paulkienitz's gear list:paulkienitz's gear list
Pentax Q Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 55-300mm F4.0-5.8 ED Pentax smc DA* 300mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Unexpresivecanvas
Senior MemberPosts: 1,075
Like?
Re: Pentax as first DSLR?
In reply to Ivan Gordeli, Jul 24, 2013

Ivan, probably this posting is kind of late as Yardcoyote seems to have made his/her mind re: Pentax APS-C and the discussion with Alex has become almost a two person discussion between the merits and limitations of the Canon 5D.

Sorry Yardcoyote by hijacking the thread in such a way and what follows are some closing remarks from my part, as after what I am going to say I feel probably there won't be too much to add later on. I hope you really enjoy the photographic experience of using the Pentax k-30. It seems to be an excellent aps-c product that follows in the tradition of the k-5 which I liked while I had it.

Yardcoyote started a thread asking for advise about a modern Pentax to buy given he/she owns some old K (and still useful) lenses. I suggested her/him a different path based on my experience of having moved from a k-5 to FF and still owning a Pentax Spotmatic SP-500 and a k01. Then, I am not strange to the aps-c world and as a matter of fact I also occasionally still use the Nikon D70 and the D80, which passed to both my sister and brother when I moved into Pentax k-5.

As one of the criteria of Yarcoyote was to have a camera that will give an experience similar to shooting film, it triggered in me the curiosity to recommend the Canon 5D as a possible alternative, as one of the first things I found when I borrowed a Canon 5D for the first time is that I felt like shooting with film again. Also for me, going back to full frame was an awakening experience, in terms of DOF, image quality and light rendering. Based on this I suggested that this could be an option for the OP, since an old 5D -again, based on my real experience- can be possibly the best value in photography, since is an old timer that sells for mere $500 but delivers the goods.

I never said that the Pentax K-.. series are bad cameras. There are at the top of the aps-c market right now and they represent good value. But if i were going to start from scratch again and knowing what I know today, i would never had bothered buying an aps-c Pentax system and would had bought a 5D three years ago. That's mostly all my point. If I moved and sold at a loss the K-5 is because, personally, I found myself liking a lot more the results I still get from the 5D. I found the colors very unique but also very accurate, the light rendition excellent and the effect one get with the more control of DOF helps a lot in most situations. Then, the 5D is considered a "classic" as the type of sensor it has, produces some particular colors and light rendition that is the result of having a large sensor with very low resolution and a very distinct processing technology.

Then it has been hard to keep a sane discussion, since some of the technical points from other poster are that the 5D is an 8 year old camera and hence it means is obsolete. I completely disagree with that statement, as being old doesn't mean that the camera can't deliver the goods. In fact, and based on my daily experience -no from friends or people who told me-, this little monster still doesn't stop to amaze me in term of reliability and image quality.

The 5D could be obsolete for a professional photographer who needs high quality, faster frame speeds and all the modern electronic gimmicks But I believe that for the average amateur photographer, the 5D can be a surprising answer to the needs of capturing light and moments. It was a camera used by a lot of professionals back then, which means it has the capacity. It lacks so many things that come today with almost ALL cameras (HDR, IBIS, MULTITUDE OF ELECTRONIC EFFECTS, etc.) and probably that's another reason why I like it so much, as I say it again, it gives me the closest experience I had shooting with film. Actually the 5D feels like a very honest camera: doesn't have all the big noise associated with thousand functions. Only basic drive, iso, af, wb and exposure modes and that's it. Even the photographer needs to be aware of the light conditions to set the ISO manually, almost exactly like in the old film days. and The sensor, oh, the sensor is there all the time, with its unique characteristics.

My perception is that some poster has been using FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to manage a conversation about objective things. Then his arguments are that the 5D is old, -of course, is old, that's why it costs now $500 instead of $3,600- that it can break, that the mirror falls, that the technology back in 2005 was no mature compared to today standards. all that is just arrogant smears. Any electronic or mechanic thing can break any time, just ask people with the lens release button in the k-5 falling some times. But I believe that with the 5D, Canon built a very reliable camera, since once the mirror gets re-glued -for free- there are not that many known issues about this camera. it is showing a reliability and longevity that impresses me more with the passing months. That's why I am not afraid to use or recommend one.

There is not perfect camera and never will be. there are only cameras that satisfy certain needs and at the end, they are mostly an instrument, not an end. I find the 5D, again, an honest and affordable solution to a high level of photography if one is interested in full frame. Full frame is not for everybody, specially people who never have tried it. That's why most people are happy with Aps-c systems. Nothing wrong with that. To each his own.

Good question. I would like to claim that sensor size difference is more important than (associated) image quality to anyone who knows what they need. In the sense that one picks the format based on other than IQ reasons. However I have to admit this claim is to strong and I am willing to accept that this importance also depends on the user.

100% agree. I have tried to say this, but i probably failed conveying the message

What I was really trying to say is that the tools (FF and APS-C) are different and these differences are (may be) important, though if this difference implies one is better than another depends on the photographer. Another thing I was trying to claim is that different sensor size and its implications on DOF are moreimportant to anyone than the resolution and other image quality differences. The last part is probably too strong of a statement

++

If you like to pick on semantics, I can only add that stating that "A is more important than B" does not imply that "B is not important"

This has been the constant in the discussion lately. is hard to have a mature conversation when other posters focus on semantics and trying to demonstrate they are right at any price.

All I have claimed is that the 5D is a viable option if one is interested in full frame at all (and obviously Pentax is not, simply because it doesn't have a FF in the line up.)

It seems Pentax has achieved something interesting; The Pentaxians don't need full frame as Pentax doesn't produce one and the other way too.

Depends on who is "us". I definitely would like to see more input by brand-neutral people or even from reasonable fans of other systems to have a bigger picture to be able to make a better choice for myself. It doesn't annoy me especially when people offer balanced and well supported opinions. I know different things work for different people and I can decide myself what works best for me based on a variety of info. If the info is irrelevant to me I simply ignore it.

Probably this is one of the best paragraphs I have read in this discussion. Congratulations for bringing back some sense of sanity. I have given my opinions freely, based on my experience. I have no interest to promote or destroy one or other brand. I just promote the 5D as what it is and based on my own experience. I am not a Canon fanboy but probably a 5D adept and promoter. I believe more people could benefit from what I have learned and what I know. I would appreciate the 5D anyway if it had been manufactured by either Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Sony or any other brand. I started my first posting in this thread stating that I am a brand eclectic.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alex Sarbu
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,648Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax as first DSLR?
In reply to Ivan Gordeli, Jul 24, 2013

Ivan Gordeli wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

People who aren't printing, or are printing small don't actually need a FF camera, don't you think? There is no such thing as a generalized FF need, I hope you agree.

First statement - I don´t think so. printing big or not is about image quality, while FF is not just about that.

IMO you can't see the advantage of larger formats in web galleries and small prints, except maybe for the (ab)use of shallow DOF.

Second statement - I do agree of course. Most people do not need FF, as a matter of fact most people do not need any SLR. In fact most people do not need any camera at all. What most people do need IMHO to take good pictures is invest into learning first of all - by far bigger effect on our pictures than anything else.

You are distorting my words a bit - it was obviously about people who needs/wants a DSLR, and we could even consider only those "enthusiasts". Most of them do not need FF. OTOH, if we were to consider everyone on this planet, most of those do not need to learn taking good pictures; they don't even care about that.

But at least there's a level of agreement, so I'll leave it at that.

My point is it all depends on the type of work you do and your style. For some applications and some people the older camera may be still as good if not better.

But most of all, we are not simply comparing 2 cameras of the same class. We compare 2 tools with different sensor size which implies quite different visual rendering of the subject. This difference is IMHO much more important than the difference in resolution etc.

Is it? In the paragraph above you were talking about "the type of work you do and your style". Now you're deciding this is important no matter what?

There is no contradiction at all if you read it carefully. The first paragraph says what is BETTER depends on your style and the type of work you do while the second one acknowledges the differences are IMOPRTANT.

Important to whom?

Good question. I would like to claim that sensor size difference is more important than (associated) image quality to anyone who knows what they need. In the sense that one picks the format based on other than IQ reasons. However I have to admit this claim is to strong and I am willing to accept that this importance also depends on the user.

Sensor size is more important than image quality?

What I was really trying to say is that the tools (FF and APS-C) are different and these differences are (may be) important, though if this difference implies one is better than another depends on the photographer. Another thing I was trying to claim is that different sensor size and its implications on DOF are moreimportant to anyone than the resolution and other image quality differences. The last part is probably too strong of a statement

And you're wrong. If shallow DOF is not what you want (at times you would be struggling to get enough DOF...), if resolution matters a lot, if you could benefit from larger DR... such things are happening all the time.

But it may be important in others.

I have never claimed otherwise.

Not even when you say what is "much more important"?

If you like to pick on semantics, I can only add that stating that "A is more important than B" does not imply that "B is not important"

You can't say "A is more important than B" either, not in this case. A might be more important, or it is more important for you.

And keep in mind you're on Pentax SLR Talk... not the best place to hype old Canon cameras

this forum would benefit a lot from a more brand-neutral POV. At least it would be nice if it tolerated an opinion of Pentax users themselves (as long as it is presented in a reasonable way)

Actually there's nothing brand-neutral in basically claiming no Pentax camera should ever be bought, because the 5D is so much better.

We are Pentax users; we made our choice. Last thing we want to hear is pro-Canon propaganda.

Obviously I have never claimed no Pentax camera should ever be bought.

  • I am the living proof I do not think like that since I have bought a Pentax camera myself
  • In my original recommendation to the OP I have in fact proposed to go Pentax

You're not the most vehement 5D fan around here, and I met much worse than UnexpressiveCanvas

All I have claimed is that the 5D is a viable option if one is interested in full frame at all (and obviously Pentax is not, simply because it doesn't have a FF in the line up.)

Maybe they'll fix that. At least, they admitted they're working on a FF.

Depends on who is "us". I definitely would like to see more input by brand-neutral people or even from reasonable fans of other systems to have a bigger picture to be able to make a better choice for myself. It doesn't annoy me especially when people offer balanced and well supported opinions. I know different things work for different people and I can decide myself what works best for me based on a variety of info. If the info is irrelevant to me I simply ignore it.

Pentaxians happy with their choice. I'm of course not their representative, but I'm quite confident they don't like being told how the old 5D is this and that, and what should be their preferences.

But what if said "reasonable fans of other systems" are clearly overhyping the tools of their choice? I met many who thought they were more balanced, even completely objective while presenting highly subjective and debatable opinions.

Alex

 Alex Sarbu's gear list:Alex Sarbu's gear list
Pentax K20D Pentax K-5 Pentax smc DA* 60-250mm F4.0 ED (IF) SDM Pentax smc DA 21mm F3.2 AL Limited Pentax smc DA 70mm F2.4 AL Limited +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads