Pentax Monochrome

Freakscene said:
Everything you grab is plastic. When stripped down there is more structural plastic than you’d expect too. The entire experience is different to holding, say, a Leica Monochrom
Click to expand...
I mean, I guess if you're only comparing it to a Leica. To me it seems like a lot more metal than most cameras.

tab-6.jpg


Freakscene said:
That’s what I meant. Pentax tried to make it look ‘stealth’ by making the lettering matte dark grey on black but it makes the controls extremely hard to see in the dark.
Click to expand...
Ah, agreed. The K-1 with its LED illumination comes in handy sometimes.
 
agentlossing said:
I mean, I guess if you're only comparing it to a Leica. To me it seems like a lot more metal than most cameras.
Click to expand...
Yes, in comparison to a Monochrom. And, as I said, I don’t mind that. I prefer electronics and plastic, both tend to work until they fail obviously. I dislike subtle malfunction, it undermines confidence for me.
 
Archiver said:
@Freakscene Bobby Tonelli on YouTube reviewed the colour K3 III, and the colours from that camera are quite something. I like that it produces DNG files that can be read by my antiquated version of Lightroom.
Click to expand...
In general the photos I have seen from the K-3 iii have nice colour interpretation. I also like that all the APS-C lenses with HD coating have a fairly consistent familial look. As if I didn't already have enough problems and cameras.
 
Freakscene said:
I had been thinking about the K 30mm. I thought I gad one but I can’t find it. That’s some funky out if focus.
Click to expand...
Interested in your impressions on the K30 when you get a chance to use one, Marty. I like the focal length on APSC. Though it's generally too close to the DA35mm/2.8 (optically supreme) to reasonably carry both lenses at the same time. Still, the K30 has a certain vintage Takumar-ish charm that can be pleasing.
 
Freakscene said:
How could I help myself? 🤪



I’m still getting used to it despite having bought it in May 2023. In short, and as always these are ‘for me’, and with a general view to comparison with the Leica Monochroms. Also note that I use my gear very hard and tend to be critical. So, given those things, preliminarily:

Pros
- camera and its internals, particularly the processor, are really properly integrated with the sensor - no weird artefacts, super clean files
- lag time, once focused or if manually focused, is very fast (faster than the Leica M11)
- insane ISO response (200,000+ works just fine) with very manageable noise that looks like grain
- excellent vibration reduction (definitely 5+ stops)
- great metering with good options and sensible algorithms
- very open tonal interpretation of shadows in RAW files to go with very malleable artefact free files
- predictable response to filtration
- lots of nice lenses (crazy lots when you can go back through all K mount lenses to early M42 lenses with an adapter)
- the 20-40 zoom (it’s a normal normal zoom, in a category of its own)
- excellent viewfinder (better than most full-frame dSLRs in my view)
- fantastic grip and in-hand feel/ergonomics
- nice big battery
- battery is good for a lot of shots per charge
- cheap (in comparison) camera, lenses (incredibly cheap for what you get) and battery (and it is in enough cameras that Pentax are unlikely to discontinue it anytime soon)
- weather sealing is tremendous

Cons
- it’s an SLR with everything that goes with that
- over-featured with complicated interface (put the manual on your phone!)
- vibration reduction can unexpectedly reduce sharpness (Pentax warns you, and it figures given how it works, but I can’t figure out yet why it does or does not happen) (turn it off and crank the ISO!)
- tried to make it look ‘stealth’ or ‘cool’ but just made the controls hard/impossible to see in the dark (take a torch)
- not altogether well thought out as a B&W/‘Monochrome’ camera (live view focus peaking flashes white and you can’t change the colour, in monochrome, I mean . . . !?)
- limited native lenses and…
- only fast autofocus normal is the Sigma Art 35/1.4 and it is the size of a grapefruit (exaggeration, but…) (and to me f1.8 like the Pentax 31/1.8 is not ‘fast’)
- grip and hand feel is offset by physical depth of the camera that makes it harder to hold and deploy in extended use than a shallower camera, good lenses tend to make it over front-heavy
- in-camera charging as standard, need to buy external battery charger as an accessory (but the charger uses a USB-C socket, which is a plus)
- only soft silicone underwater ‘housings’

Things I’m still thinking about:
- decent autofocus but nowhere near as accurate, fast or precise as something like a Sony A1 (this might be an ‘it just is’ rather than a pro/con)
- APS-C sensor (I don’t mind except that it makes the native lens lineup interesting at best, although even in full frame lenses Pentax doesn’t have a complete contemporary line up) although a full frame viewfinder using the same technical approach to the viewfinder would be STELLAR
- it looks either pretty cool or quite awkward (does that matter?)
- a lot of plastic (in general I actually think this is a positive - definitely the most dimensionally stable material, at least until I find out what it takes to make it break)
- I have not needed any device support and have no idea what it would be like if I do need it
Click to expand...

Brilliant summary Marty - quick question if you don’t mind? Your comment about the shadows being more open than the M11M in the raw files seems a bit odd - is this the default tone curve applied by Lightroom, or other, application? Or is the preferred curve embedded along with the raw data? Just seems a bit strange that it should be hard to match the tonality from raw?

Clearly, there could be differences in colour sensitivity depending on the sensor stack.

Cheers

Mike
 
sojournerphoto said:
Brilliant summary Marty - quick question if you don’t mind? Your comment about the shadows being more open than the M11M in the raw files seems a bit odd - is this the default tone curve applied by Lightroom, or other, application? Or is the preferred curve embedded along with the raw data? Just seems a bit strange that it should be hard to match the tonality from raw?

Clearly, there could be differences in colour sensitivity depending on the sensor stack.

Cheers

Mike
Click to expand...
Hi Mike @sojournerphoto this is the combination of spectral sensitivity and the curve interpretation of the sensor data in the raw file. The main problem is that if you lift the Leica shadows to match the Pentax look (or, as I would prefer to describe it, the Plus-X in D76 or Xtol look) you start to see textured artefacts in the shadows. These get amplified on further manipulation, and can be out of control on printing - I think the texture interacts with inkjet printers’ own interpretation of fine detail and the algorithms that turn the data into ink delivery.

One thing I have noticed looking at a lot more photos is that the Pentax files are not totally clean; at high ISO if you lift the shadows enough you get a diamond shaped noise artefact. Nothing is perfect, and all manipulations have a cost.
 
Last edited:
Freakscene said:
One thing I have noticed looking at a lot more photos is that the Pentax files are not totally clean; at high ISO if you lift the shadows enough you get a diamond shaped noise artefact. Nothing is perfect, and all manipulations have a cost.
Click to expand...
What I have noticed from heavily underexposed and then raised shadows are white speckles, like hot pixels but more heavily distributed than I would assume actual hot pixels are. They mostly blend into the noise pattern without standing out, but are certainly noticeable at 100% when pixel peeping.
 
agentlossing said:
What I have noticed from heavily underexposed and then raised shadows are white speckles, like hot pixels but more heavily distributed than I would assume actual hot pixels are. They mostly blend into the noise pattern without standing out, but are certainly noticeable at 100% when pixel peeping.
Click to expand...
Yes, I noticed these too. But they get removed by denoising programs (in my case Topaz). What bothers me about the geometric shapes/textures is that denoising usually makes them worse, not better. That was what drove me nuts about the 246. Colour cameras don’t seem to do this, but combined chroma and luminance noise means they start to have messy files at much lower ISOs.
 
Freakscene said:
Hi Mike @sojournerphoto this is the combination of spectral sensitivity and the curve interpretation of the sensor data in the raw file. The main problem is that if you lift the Leica shadows to match the Pentax look (or, as I would prefer to describe it, the Plus-X in D76 or Xtol look) you start to see textured artefacts in the shadows. These get amplified on further manipulation, and can be out of control on printing - I think the texture interacts with inkjet printers’ own interpretation of fine detail and the algorithms that turn the data into ink delivery.

One thing I have noticed looking at a lot more photos is that the Pentax files are not totally clean; at high ISO if you lift the shadows enough you get a diamond shaped noise artefact. Nothing is perfect, and all manipulations have a cost.
Click to expand...

Thanks Marty (and Agentlossing), that’s helpful. I’ve not looked at the spectral sensitivity curves for each, but pattern noise does seem to still be a problem sometimes.

Off to do some experiments over the next couple of weeks…

Mike
 
sojournerphoto said:
Thanks Marty (and Agentlossing), that’s helpful. I’ve not looked at the spectral sensitivity curves for each, but pattern noise does seem to still be a problem sometimes.

Off to do some experiments over the next couple of weeks…

Mike
Click to expand...
With the Pentax you’ll never see the pattern noise unless you go crazy with the manipulations. With a Leica Monochrom you run into them much more quickly, which was why I generally accept the tonality and let my photos have darker shadows and lower mud tones than I’d like.

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom