Robert Jewett wrote:
On some level I like the look, and I think one could develop a "signature" look from it.

Haven't used the Pentaxes, but I think if a person's "signature look" depends on shooting a certain brand, what are they gonna do if that company goes bust?  Experience has shown us that it happens to even the biggest of companies.

Robert Jewett wrote:
...I have a friend who sold his entire Canon system and bought the equivalent in Pentax.  He is pretty experienced, and in conversation went on and on about their sensors, glass, etc.

Well, I really looked forward to seeing his images.  When they were finally posted, they looked different.  Lots of brown/blues, less reds, less saturation.  Micro contrast was different, and other things were a little different than his normal look.

I looked at another friend's of his (who only shoots Pentax), and I could see the same thing. 

Now, I know the Pentax guys on this forum love their gear, and I think if there were issues with the sensor, the industry would be talking about it.

Are these just new aesthetic choices he is making, or do Pentax sensors just look different in this way?

On some level I like the look, and I think one could develop a "signature" look from it.

Yeah, Pentax stuff looks as little different. They haven't fallen into the over sharpened, over saturated trap that seems so prevalent these days. The lenses are also, on average, less flare prone, and have a more balanced look to their images.
Everything in my port was shot on Pentax. I would be interested to know if you see in my port what you are seeing in the ports of your friends.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
I just handled and tested this a few hours ago with a supplier / importer who allowed me to use it for a few minutes:



Colors straight out from the camera look like 600D hues, which is quite good. But with the "style" settings, you can tweak outputs and WB chart hues to suit your taste.

I don't use Pentax, but this 40 MP 645 format tank could be my first Pentax after a very long spell...

.

I wish it had a pop up flash though.

Kaouthia wrote:

Haven't used the Pentaxes, but I think if a person's "signature look" depends on shooting a certain brand, what are they gonna do if that company goes bust?  Experience has shown us that it happens to even the biggest of companies.

My best friend litterally broke down into tears when Neopan 1600 was discontinued.  Then he got drunk. 

Paolo Roversi was not to happy when he lost 8x10 Polaroid.

If Tri-X goes away you will here the screams of millions.

For me it's Ilford for B&W (which was a painful transition, but one I felt I had to make), so I'm safe on that end.  However, when Provia goes away, I'll want to die (just as I did when Kodachrome went away).


It happens.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
I just handled and tested this a few hours ago with a supplier / importer who allowed me to use it for a few minutes:



Colors straight out from the camera look like 600D hues, which is quite good. But with the "style" settings, you can tweak outputs and WB chart hues to suit your taste.

I don't use Pentax, but this 40 MP 645 format tank could be my first Pentax after a very long spell...

.

Yep!! If I had an extra 10K$ in my pocket!8-))

SKITA Studios wrote:
Can you tell what my port was shot with?

Pentax does tend to have nicer skin tones sooc...less pop than canikon.
Sony uses the same sensor as Nikon but their output looks different....

I glanced at your port for three seconds.  These jumped out at me and look exactly like Pentax to me:







Notice the blurred areas.  If they are lighter, they run to brown (in spite of processing).  If they are darker, they run to green.  the reds are less saturated.  Also notice overall lack of the microcontrast you see with Canikon.

Ed Woodson Photography wrote:
About the time I decided to make the move into Portrait/Glamour Photography, Pentax had introduced the K7.  Well, I bought one.  After about three trips to repair, I bought a second one as a back up.  I never had the two of them at the same time for very long as one of them seemed to always be @ CRJ for some type of Repair.

  Changing brands didn't do a thing to improve my skills as a photographer.   But, it sure as hell made me feel a lot more confident.

Same thing with a couple of K-5's...Only had one in my possession at a time. Af540 flash and a 16-50/2.8 that lived in Arizona.

Changed brands.......Will not look back.

Robert Jewett wrote:
Notice the blurred areas.  If they are lighter, they run to brown (in spite of processing).  If they are darker, they run to green.  the reds are less saturated.  Also notice overall lack of the microcontrast you see with Canikon.

Interesting...I never noticed that but now that you mention it, that is interesting about the bokeh areas.
Microcontrast I do see on the 100% images though.

And I didn't realize how bad the colors look on that first image looks on a high gamut display...you see funky blue blood colors in her hand :-P

Paramour Productions wrote:
It happens.

Of course it happens, and it's a little different with film because you had less options for alterations in post than we have today, with regard to colour, contrast, tone, etc).

When I say less options, I mean if you always shot with the same type of film, your images would always pretty much look the same - not that there weren't different types of film giving you different types of look.

Today we can get all those different types of look from the same sensor by running it through Lightroom, Aperture, ACR, Photoshop, whatever.  You can create the same sort of look with pretty much any digital camera that has RAW capabilities if you know what you're doing in post (and if you don't, by all means sub it out to somebody that does - after all, that's what film photographers did whenever they sent their film off to the lab).

But, if you can't adapt and your whole look, style, and career hinges on one particular device or film type, how good are you really?

PS, also an Ilford person, but have a few 100ft rolls of Tri-X and TMax 35mm here.

George Ruge wrote:
One reason I picked Pentax when I bought my first DSLR (K10-D) was that I read a review from someone who had spoken with the engineers at Pentax and they had stated that they were working on getting a more film look from their cameras as opposed to the HD-count the nose hairs look. I don't have my settings all maxed out for sharpness, saturation... I want to look at a photograph instead of an image perfect like a mirror reflection.

This is exactly what I found several years ago when shooting with a Sanmsung Gx-10 and using a series of older Pentax F and FA Film Lenses. Many of my images looked like they were Straight out of a 1970's Pentax Camera Manual and I loved every minute of it.

Kaouthia wrote:

Of course it happens, and it's a little different with film because you had less options for alterations in post than we have today, with regard to colour, contrast, tone, etc).

When I say less options, I mean if you always shot with the same type of film, your images would always pretty much look the same - not that there weren't different types of film giving you different types of look.

Today we can get all those different types of look from the same sensor by running it through Lightroom, Aperture, ACR, Photoshop, whatever.  You can create the same sort of look with pretty much any digital camera that has RAW capabilities if you know what you're doing in post (and if you don't, by all means sub it out to somebody that does - after all, that's what film photographers did whenever they sent their film off to the lab).

But, if you can't adapt and your whole look, style, and career hinges on one particular device or film type, how good are you really?

PS, also an Ilford person, but have a few 100ft rolls of Tri-X and TMax 35mm here.

Well, I'm getting older and have had read ing glasses now for almost 2 years (at 45) but, I still see differences in shooting Ilford Delta Pro as opposed to the film emulation suites. I'll tell you one thing though, I am impressed with AlienSkin's stuff, probably the best general purpose out there right now.

Kaouthia wrote:
But, if you can't adapt and your whole look, style, and career hinges on one particular device or film type, how good are you really?

some of the greats found what worked for them and did not "adapt" or change,... it made them what they are, Great.....

How many people remember what camera or film weston or adams or brady used?!?

Westons personal writings indicate he was using old equipment , stuff that worked for him, and he did NOT want to chage.

For the OP....  find what makes your Art work for you..get Jazzed about the work you create and not the brand stuck on the hardware.