[garyk]

Interesting test. Just completed. Everyone shooting the k-5 should be proud to have such a good camera. In the jungle here. the k-5 really smacks around the 7d and also the k-5 and sigma prime is just as sharp in my eyes to the 7d and canon 300mm f2.8 prime.

Sigma 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 + k-5: Flickr: buripornchaiprasit's Photostream

Canon 300mm f2.8 + 1.4 + 7d: Flickr: gary1844's Photostream

When the K-5 uses extremely good glass in my opinion it is just as good and in my case better than the 7d.
So in my opinion the K-5 is a better camera than the 7d for portrait shooting.

What really threw me was the quality of the Sigma 300mm f2.8 prime. It is right there with the Canon 300mm prime. At close quarter shooting. There is very little difference, and with the K-5 I like the pics much better.
Now I will say this is after the K-5 came back from a complete rebuild in Japan. Before that it was a basket case at best.

I also own the Sigma 500mm f4.5lens and the Canon 500mm f4l IS lens. And will test when i have the opportunity.

---

Last edited by garyk; 09-02-2011 at 05:23 PM.

[Bob from Aus]

Thanks for your information. Please let me know when you compare the two 500mm.

[hcc]

In themselves, the shots are great. But the comparison is stunning.

I would love to see such systematic comparisons posted on PF Forum, possibly as a new category, to add to the Users' reviews and In-depth lens reviews.

[silverelantra]

Do you honestly think K5 is better than 7D for portrait shooting? I look both streams and feel 7D produce more natural colors (to my taste) and less noise in shadow area.
I don't see the EXIF of K5 shots so I assume both camera use same setting and same treatment in PP .. These Spectacled Barwing pics are the closest comparison :

K5


K5 Spectacled Barwing



7D


Spectcled Barwing ( Actinodura ramsayi ) | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Both look equally sharp (would be nicer if you provide us 100% crop too) but imo there's a strong magenta color cast on K5 pic and obviously more noise in shadow area.

CMIIW

[garyk]

Yea, I just re-processed the shot you show with the 7d. I have not had a chance to re-process the shot from the K-5. When I have a chance I will. But I stand by my original statement. Out of the camera the K-5 is much better. The shot you show with the K-5 is ISO 1600, F5.6. The shot with the 7D is if I remember ISO 1000 and out of the camera it sucked. With PP in CS5 I De-noised the raw file and tweeked settings and sharpened. Then I converted it to Jpeg with PS. Then did my tweaking to get it right.

With the K-5 at ISO 1600 I did not PP in raw and seperated the image the best I could and de-noised the background after the conversion. Also I will say that the CS5 I use gives me horrible jpeg conversions for the k-5. But it is almost like optimized for the canon conversions???

And actually I like the pics out of the Pentax camera better. Color wise and warmer pics for my eyes.
Also with the 7D if not perfect with exposure the PP in CS5 does not help that much. The Speckaled barwing is the perfect color for the canon. Or for me as a processor to really sharpen in PS.

So the processing with the 7D you see was extensive before I would put it up on the site. And the K-5 was a 2-5 minute. quick turnaround.

No offense I own the 7D and the K-5. The 7D will be my equipment of choice now. But only because of the lack of lenses and horrible QC with Pentax. I will say after buying the lenses and Canon gear. I have not one problem.

Note: I just finished a 100% crop of both of the above photos. If I look at the detail around the eyes. The Canon is a tad sharper. But I expect that might go away if shot in a better light. It was overcast and raining that day. And it is apparent the 7D was when the clouds lifted 1/200sec ISO 1000 and the K-5 was shot when it was very cloudy 1/80 sec. ISO 1600 exposure. Look at the Exif files and draw your own conclusions. I will leave up the first four pics for a few days.

www.flickr.com/photos/avianphotos