Jan_Shim: Such a shame Paintshop Pro doesn't play nice with Nik plugins. Nik has confirmed in writing that all new releases are no longer compatible with PSP. I use Nik and Topaz plugins and in order to continue them for compatibility reasons, I am running PSP X6 32-bit as my main photo editor. I have tested both 32 and 64-bit version of PSP X6 and found no performance difference between the two.
"Wonder who this was aimed at? Now this comment is just wasted space."
mauritsvw, I think it was aimed at me because I said that the PainstShop Prop download is a fully-functional 30-day version, rather than a demo version. I was not being pedantic. For me this is an important consideration.
When evaluating a new image processing program, I have to use it for some time to see if I can adapt to it or can record/edit a script for it that does what I want. I'm not prepared to invest this time if every image is bookmarked or size-limited. I process about 1,500 images/week. At the end of the trial period I will then purchase a product if I'm comfortable with it. That's the process I followed with PaintShop Pro & SilkyPix Developer Pro purchases/upgrades, Topaz Labs' Detail & Remask, FocusMagic (although the version only allowed 10 saves, so I had to make up my mind quickly).
I equate "demo" versions with crippleware and usually don't bother with them.
Michael Piziak: No need to buy any retouching tools now that I've got Gimp.
Netmage: "Ease of use counts for a lot, and Gimp hasn't had a lot of that historically".
While I've been a PSP user for a long time (v3 -> v14), The GIMP is quite good at rotation (if you use "Corrective Rotation") and perspective correction:
ozgoldman: Corel has an appalling record of ripping off clients outside the USA. At least 30% more on average than within the USA and Canada. And they wonder why people won't buy it.
Buy the downloadable version off Amazon.com for a good price. You can give a US address but you download it so there's no need to get a disk.
"Just download the Paintshop Pro demo."
A "demo" version can mean that it often has has reduced functionality. It's not a demo version. It's a 30-day full-version trial.
Ednaz: I was wondering when someone would just write the AA simulator in code.
I like the colors. I had a blue Panasonic m4/3 and I used to tell people that the blue cameras took sharper pictures... but more seriously, for cameras that I'm using just for personal work, I really liked the unconventional look of the camera. Oddly, the blue camera got less attention than any of my black cameras when shooting events.
It probably depends on the dynamic performance of the SR/composition motors. Not all recent Pentax models may be using the same SR subsystem.
I wonder up to what shutter speed this model will offer 1px & 0.5px movement capability. The K-3 could move the sensor at a 500Hz rate, enabling 1px AA simulation at up to 1/500s and 0.5px correction at up to 1/1000s.
This camera has slightly larger pixel pitch, so it may not be able to to quite reach this speed.
The SR of the K-S1 has a CIPA-rated SR of 3.5 stops which is the same as the K-3 so it may well be the same beefed-up SR system.
Michael Piziak: Yet again, a new Pentax camera that sticks with the same k-mount that they've been making since 1975 [film cameras].
Kudos to Pentax !
Unlike Canon & Nikon that changed their lens mount when they went digital - making them basically proprietary as the old lens wouldn't work on the new Canon or Nikon dslr.
Also Kudos to Pentax for keeping the image stabilization in the camera - so all those old lens, since 1975, which still fit on the camera and allow the user to still have shake reduction as they shoot !
Not just K-mount lenses. The SR in any Pentax DSLR will also stabilise M42-mount lens like the popular 50/F1.4 Super Takumar. My copy is from about 1971.
Cameracist: So, just like Pentax SP coating? Used even on the cheapest of lenses like the 35mm F2.4?
Yes, as you've stated, SP is used even of low-cost recent Pentax lenses. I wonder if Nikkor is going to reserve their flourine lens coating only for their top-end glass?
BozillaNZ: So int he end Pentax still can't produce any full-sized sensor cameras! It's either Cropped 35mm or cropped 645, Pentax is for Croppers! It's sensor is far smaller than theactual '645' model number suggests, no matter how you fans spin it.
Sorry, Photomonkey. That reply was meant for BozillaNZ.
Photomokey, since you seem fixated on FF (the only '"true" uncropped format), just think of the 645Z as a Super-FF format, with a 66% bigger sensor area than FF, and thus a potential 0.75 stops better SNR than "standard" FF.
Unfortunately, when Sony designed this sensor, which has so far been used in the Hasselblad HD5-50c, Pentax 645Z & Phase One IQ250, they skimped on the sensor area and didn't make it 60mm x 45mm. But all 3 camera manufacturers are marketing their products with this sensor as "MF" cameras. Damn liars!!!
Unfortunately, it's difficult to find any digital "MF" camera, 645-format or otherwise, with a 60mm x 45mm sensor.
dosdan: In the sample images at http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/medium-format-digital/images/samples/PENTAX-645-Z.html
Photo #12 of 12. The detail in the ceiling is impressive when viewed full size.
Just noticed, the "real-size" image is only 27MP. Not sure if this was cropped, resized, or shot in a medium-res JPEG mode. If resized, I wonder if the 51MP version would show any more detail?
ali alriffai: Everything in this camera is hot but flash syn @ 1/125 is a big downside :-(
1/125s sync speed should not be an issue for general landscape & studio use.
For fill-flash situations outdoors, you would probably be using a flash with HSS capabilty anyhow. And you should be able to bump the ISO up a lot further than the 645D without noise becoming too significant.
In the sample images at http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/medium-format-digital/images/samples/PENTAX-645-Z.html
Super486: 645Z for landscape/portraits and K-3 for action would be a great combo!
So I'm not allowed to shoot sports with my K-3 & Sigma 70-200/F2.8 HSM II?
I better stop until Pentax releases their own version of this lens, since what I'm currently doing is "utter nonsense".
keeponkeepingon: The flash and white balance pictures were shot with:
smc PENTAX-DA* 50-135mm F2.8 ED
The compared to pictures were shot with
smc PENTAX-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro
A zoom and a macro seems like an odd lens to use for your tests? Have you shot any other tests with a macro lens?
A true macro lens is often a good choice for these sort of tests because it has little curvature-of-field (focus is the same across the whole frame) and macro lens are usually quite sharp.
bobbarber: "The K-3 is a very likeable addition to what was once a really interesting sector of the market..."
True enough--a nice camera, but this sector of the market is not where the most interesting innovations are happening today.
Full-frame mirrorless, 4K video, etc. trump what is at heart just another well-spec'ed and well-performing APS-C DSLR.
Of course, if the shoe fits, this is a great camera. I would certainly be happy shooting with one!
" I shoot Nikon full frame and Fuji mirrorless. I have absolutely no interest in the K3."
That's OK, I have absolutely no interest in switching to either Nikon FF or Fuji MILC.
In this class of camera, I find it strange how much time DPR devotes in their reviews to a camera's JPEG engine output. With the high DR & resolution capable from modern sensors, the "enthusiasts", who would seem the likely market for this type of camera, are probably shooting raw to take maximum advantage of the image capabilities.
Gary Martin: A fair review. Now Ricoh needs to release a new generation of faster AF pro lenses to match a body of this quality.
I shoot sports with the K5 & K3. I use the Pentax DA* 60-250/F4 SDM (for rain and where I need a wide zoom range) and the Sigma 70-200/F2.8 HSM II (for LL and for where I want the max shallow DOF effect).
The Pentax is satisfactory, but the Sigma is faster for approaching subjects.
dosdan: As a Pentax K100D Super, K20D, K-5, K-3, Q & K-01 owner, I'd like to comment on some of the differences I've noticed between the K-5 & K-3:
1. The camera feels even sturdier - the K-5 is no slouch in this area, but you get the feeling you could bang in nails with the K3.
2. AE is more accurate. I'm tending to use less EV Comp.
3. When using good lenses, the difference in resolution is obvious (more obvious than I was expecting). K-3 images also respond better to higher sharpening in PP than does the K-5. Since sharpness is a major determinant of IQ, I'm confident that the images look better.
(continued in next message)
8. The K-3 is more power hungry than the K-5,but it depends on usage. Here's some stats. I shot recently 1,582 K-3 raw files at a weekly daytime athletics meet. That took up 46.0 GB. Based on the 59.4 GB available space (with 1GB = 2^20 bytes, not 10^9) on a Sandisk 64 GB Extreme Pro SD card, I estimate that I'd be able to fit 2,042 raw shots on the card.
This was on the same battery. There was still charge in it. I don't normally look at the battery indicator, since I don't find them very linear, so I'm not sure if it was still showing all the bars or not. Much of this were AF.C bursts to capture specific poses in a movement. The vast majority of these were shot with a Sigma 70-200/F2.8 II HSM (non-OS). So for sports use with this type of lens and this type of shooting, it appears you should be able to get at least 1,500 shots from a battery.
Since the K-3 uses the same battery as in the K-5 & K-01, many users may already have a 2nd battery available.
6. Another thing: finer grained noise tends to be less objectionable. I'm enjoying shooting at higher ISOs than I regularly used on the K-5 (I only shoot raw). When I apply NR in PP, the K-3 images seem to suffer less visible quality loss than the K-5.
7. Being involved in mainly sports shooting, the faster shot rate, higher buffer depth and better/more sensitive/tracking AF is appreciated. But you really need a SD card with a very high *write rate*. I use an Sandisk Extreme Pro 64GB card. Don't skimp in this area to save some money.
(concluded in the next msg)
4. The K-3 has smaller sensels than the K-5, so DR & SNR 18% at the sensel-level (the DxoMark "Screen" tab) is worse, but when considered at the same image size and viewing distance (the "Print" tab), the difference is quite small. See here:
5. Some are decrying the K-3's lack of a the K-5's ISO80 base extension, and its slightly lower DR. While this difference is measurable under lab conditions using careful screening around the light source, in the real world in high-contrast situations, flare and veiling glare present in any lens, puts an effective limit on the DR obtainable to about 11 stops. The DR figure does give some indication of how well shadows can be boosted without problems, but this also depends on the presence of banding noise, which while too low to greatly affect the DR figure, can be visibly objectionable due to its regularity.
(continued next msg)