[crossover37]

I dont know what it is but Full Frame portraits have a certain look to them. They look very nice and clean. Whenever I see pictures that look the way I'm trying to describe, they usually are full frame shots. I can live without the field of view difference (which would prevent me from moving closer to the subject to get less dof) but I'm wondering how the K5 portrait photos compare to a full frame like a 5D mark II any other FF's since the K5 sensor is one of the most advanced ever.

[yeatzee]

I think the look has to do with shallower DOF.....

at least thats the case for me

[Allison]

I can't help with examples for another month, but on May 14th I am shooting a wedding with my K5 and my second shooter has a Nikon D700. We will have exactly the same conditions, so I will be able to do some side by side comparison shots for you.

[rawr]

Have a look here, under the 'Portraits' section for some K-5 portraits.
Flickr: Camera Finder: Pentax: K-5

And ditto here for (eg) some of the FF Nikons:
Flickr: Camera Finder: Nikon
(LOL at this from flickr for the D3X: 'Sorry, but we found no interesting portraits taken with a Nikon D3X'.)

The character of the (best) portrait shots seems similar between the K5 and FF - of course depending on lens optics, lighting, skill etc.

An aside: too many people on flickr spoil perfectly decent portrait shots with awful photoshopping and (even worse) criminally horrible HDR.

[WerTicus]

Its almost certainly the DOF, there is no other variable that the K-5 has not surpassed (besides iso dependent noise).

[crossover37]

Thanks all.

I wonder how the K5 would compare to these 5D images. The full frame looks to have a lot of advantages besides shallower DOF.

The Full-Frame Advantage

[WerTicus]

The full frame looks to have a lot of advantages besides shallower DOF.

Not really:

DxOMark - Compare sensors

You cant compare random images to other random images taken under different conditions.
Also you cant really compare a brand spanking new APS-C technology to the 3yr old full frame tech... when the d800 or 5d mk3 comes out you'll see full frame jump ahead again... then in the next 3 yrs aps-c will catch up and probably over take full frame again.

[RyanW]

And ditto here for (eg) some of the FF Nikons:
Flickr: Camera Finder: Nikon
(LOL at this from flickr for the D3X: 'Sorry, but we found no interesting portraits taken with a Nikon D3X'.)
.

Probably due to the Nikon skin tones. Oops, did I say that out loud If we are talking FF portraits, I much prefer those from Canon due to skin tones.

The DOF difference is definitely what I prefer about full frame.

[RyanW]

Not really:

DxOMark - Compare sensors

You cant compare random images to other random images taken under different conditions.
Also you cant really compare a brand spanking new APS-C technology to the 3yr old full frame tech... when the d800 or 5d mk3 comes out you'll see full frame jump ahead again... then in the next 3 yrs aps-c will catch up and probably over take full frame again.

And... you really can't tell how a picture is going to look from a benchmark.

Beyond the benchmarks pixel size comes into play as well. The top APS-C have pixel density greater than the 5DII and especially the D700 thus have smaller pixels. Bigger pixels typically mean less noise and sharper images

[Couscousdelight]

I've just found that in pentaxforums.com : K5 vs 5DmkII : Pentax K5 vs Canon 5D II - Collage 03 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Schraubstock]

An aside: too many people on flickr spoil perfectly decent portrait shots with awful photoshopping and (even worse) criminally horrible HDR.

And terrible colour casts, probably the result of uncalibrated monitors.

[yeatzee]

After playing with my friends new D700, theres just something magical about that sensor apart from the DOF difference. I can't explain it but wow what a camera!

(way to big for me though)

[jstevewhite]

Thanks all.

I wonder how the K5 would compare to these 5D images. The full frame looks to have a lot of advantages besides shallower DOF.

The Full-Frame Advantage

Ken Rockwell is a cartoonist. By that I mean his basic premises are fairly defensible, but he launches into them with abandon and makes them into caricatures of themselves.

First, this article was written in 2007; technology in DSLRs is closely linked to technology in computers, and Moore's law is felt if not seen. The K10D was current. Things have changed.

Second, the article doesn't apply in this situation in many ways because the three cameras using the new sensor technology (K-5, D7000, and that Sony) are "out of sync" tech wise with everything else. Next year we'll see full frame machines with the sensors we've got in our K-5s, and his article will be more relevant in respect to color reproduction and ISO noise and the like, but right now, those are absolutely incorrect.

I think there's something wrong with his first example (in re sharpness). I read that article some time ago and spent literally *days* on pixel-peeper.com comparing my K20D shots to shots from FF cams of similar MP. My 100mm f4 Macro produced images every bit as sharp at 100% as the FF cams. I've no idea what he's on about. Now certainly if you use a lens on your FF that's at the limit of its resolving power, then on your APS/C... well, you get the picture. But I could reproduce much of what he says is the sole purview of the FF cameras with my K20D, and the K-5 spanks that monkey. Many of my lenses still out-resolve my sensor.

So here's the upshot. If *all things are equal* , using a larger sensor with the same MP output produces technically better images, period. But things are so rarely equal...

Consider that *everything he says* applies equally to medium format images over FF images. But he doesn't advocate medium format digital (that I've seen).

[jstevewhite]

And... you really can't tell how a picture is going to look from a benchmark.

Beyond the benchmarks pixel size comes into play as well. The top APS-C have pixel density greater than the 5DII and especially the D700 thus have smaller pixels. Bigger pixels typically mean less noise and sharper images

Absolutely true as long as they're using the same technology. The new sensor has very low read noise, much lower than old tech with much larger areas. Of course, it will be in full frame systems soon, and parity will once again be achieved

[Rupert]

Thanks all.

I wonder how the K5 would compare to these 5D images. The full frame looks to have a lot of advantages besides shallower DOF.

The Full-Frame Advantage

Maybe you should research the article where Ken Rockwell compares the D300 with the D700 and finds virtually no advantage to the FF in most situations. Other than DOF for certain photos, he challenged his readers to pick which camera took which shot.
So I have to ask....which Ken showed up for your example? The FF Ken or the Cropped Ken? With Ken, he is like a box of Crackerjacks, the Prize is different every time.
Personally, my feeling is that the K5 has "stung" a lot of Nikon and Canon shooters, and we are now hearing them squeal. Sounds good to me!
Best Regards!