Kamox: Note to the Dpreview editors: you should definitely produce a comparison video for über-geeks featuring:- this lens;- the Zeiss 1700/4 (you might have to fly to Qatar);- the Sigma 200-500/2.8;- the Canon 1200/5.6;- the Nikon 1200-1700/5.6-8.If you can find those lenses, that is.
Pentax 800mm F4
Thank you for this. Its much appreciated.You might want to also consider the F16 setting used. Although its common in landscapes, its really hitting the defraction limit on a standard 2.8 Zoom.
Zoran K: Unfortunately, digital artefacts are noticeable when Pixel Shift Resolution with Motion Correction is turned on.
Its an ACR/Lightroom/Adobe Issue
steelski: Please oh please try the files in the Pentax software, Update it first to the latest version. As others have said, The Camera Store tested it and it coped better.
Rishi, Try the Pentax software. Maybe in SilkyPix software it does not work, But not in the Pentax provided software!!!There is a massive difference with and without Motion correction!!!
Here is an extract from the DXOMark Lens comparison of the Tamron equivalent lens. "A sharpness score of 17 P-Mpix is impressive in terms of the direct competition again ranking 1st for pro standard zooms, ahead of the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED with 15 P-Mpix, and the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM with 16 P-Mpix.Considering the huge 36-megapixel sensor in the D800 however a sharpness score of 17 P-Mpix is less than half of the camera’s resolution and put into that perspective is less impressive. So whilst the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD – and pro standard zooms in general – offer good features, build and versatility, lenses that cover such a focal range with a large fixed maximum aperture aren’t the sharpest. "Moral of the story, The lens MP combo is not going to show off Pixel Shift. We are really getting into the limits of lenses here IMO.
I just tried all the picture with the worst artifacts. It actually works in the Pentax software. But also, I think its masked by defraction at F16!, I would imagine a much better showing at F5.6 - F8, which would not have suited the waterfall. Photozone tested the Tamron lens and it showed falloff at F11 on a Canon 21MP camera, Now imagine the effect on something with over twice the resolution, (when you take pixel shift into account).
I lightbulb went on in my head, I just tested it and low and behold, its very different!.
Please oh please try the files in the Pentax software, Update it first to the latest version. As others have said, The Camera Store tested it and it coped better.
Lloyd709: I bet all those stuck in the mud staying with CS6 are starting to feel just a little bit jealous now!!!! Anyone guess what waterfall that is?
well, its pretty good for a first attempt. Am I kidding?
no, you do know that this is already doable in CS6 right? you just have to do it individually for each corner
Ian Leach: So we are comparing a designed in 1999 diminutive 77mm ltd lens against the hunk of glass which is the Nikkor 85mm 1.4G.
It is a golden limited lens! but thats because of its character, it has never really tested great in terms of off centre sharpness and chromatic aberration. Its mediocre at best!!! but it makes a great looking image IMO.
NeilJones: Complete overkill. Sony a7r ii can achieve similar results at a fraction of price. With most images being web based now, who needs a 100mp!So silly.
There's always one.
Pandimonium: How 'bout dads old dslr ;)
how about dads old SLR and craptastic 50mm F2 lens. Teach those SOBs to focus on something in life :P.
srados: Still my 2 year old Note 4 does 10x better job.
you guys are dumb.... As its a note 4, it will be 4 times better.
all over 200 dollars........ are you kidding me.
moontide: Beautiful image rendition, but I think at this price there shouldn't be banding at ISO 12500.
I meant the Leica, Its riddles with banding at high ISO. the Pentax does not exhibit this, dispute whet you may say. you need to show the Pentax banding.
HowaboutRAW..... You need to look again,
Buuut the pentax 645D does not have banding. and the glass is pretty great.
steelski: I posted this to Siomn Joinson at DPReview over a month ago. Thank you for actually getting around to posting something about this. Also, This is a Ricoh initiative. You guys mention Ricoh twice in the whole article, and not in the headline. I really am starting to believe that there is something that you guys have against Ricoh Pentax.
Thanks for changing the headline on something that actually mattered. I do not find it tasteless. What I find bizarre is that I read this article a month ago, looked through the official web page and was really moved by the efforts of all involved. I would give them a standing ovation if it were possible. It just looked as if the company who made it possible was just a side note. It made me slightly miffed. It would be like the headline. Man U lose to some low division team 4:0, obviously not quite the same, but you get the point I hope. I forgive you for calling me a troll.