Hands-on with K-5 :)

ogl · 10-15-2010, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

Ogl, have to say you just don't know what you're talking about... seriously.

I've already seen JPEG from RAW photos from K-5. ISO1600 is not bad.
ISO3200 and above are not good for me.
JPEG has less noise. Even without NR in settings.

upload some DNG files with K-5 + DA35/2.4, please. ISO100, ISO800 and 1600. the same scene. with low light condition.
it's easy. and we talk again. could you?

I ask you very much to upload three DNG files at ISO100, 800 and 1600. And we'll investigate if there is NR in RAW.

NO DNG, NO TALKS. I mean - about IQ.

Last edited by ogl; 10-16-2010 at 01:40 AM.

jsherman999 · 10-16-2010, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by ogl

I've already seen JPEG from RAW photos from K-5. ISO1600 is not bad.
ISO3200 and above are not good for me.
JPEG has less noise. Even without NR in settings.

upload some DNG files with K-5 + DA35/2.4, please. ISO100, ISO800 and 1600. the same scene. with low light condition.
it's easy. and we talk again. could you?

I ask you very much to upload three DNG files at ISO100, 800 and 1600. And we'll investigate if there is NR in RAW.

NO DNG, NO TALKS.

It's almost a given that there's NR in the raw, as there is in the k-7. Question is, is it at an objectionable level? Looks very good to me for aps-c output, at least on-par with the D7000. That DA 35 f2.4 looks pretty good, too.

.

Raybo · 10-16-2010, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by ogl

I've already seen JPEG from RAW photos from K-5. ISO1600 is not bad.
ISO3200 and above are not good for me.
JPEG has less noise. Even without NR in settings.

upload some DNG files with K-5 + DA35/2.4, please. ISO100, ISO800 and 1600. the same scene. with low light condition.
it's easy. and we talk again. could you?

I ask you very much to upload three DNG files at ISO100, 800 and 1600. And we'll investigate if there is NR in RAW.

NO DNG, NO TALKS.

You are a DNG bully!

Steelski · 10-16-2010, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by ogl

I've already seen JPEG from RAW photos from K-5. ISO1600 is not bad.
ISO3200 and above are not good for me.
JPEG has less noise. Even without NR in settings.

upload some DNG files with K-5 + DA35/2.4, please. ISO100, ISO800 and 1600. the same scene. with low light condition.
it's easy. and we talk again. could you?

I ask you very much to upload three DNG files at ISO100, 800 and 1600. And we'll investigate if there is NR in RAW.

NO DNG, NO TALKS.

You are getting incredibly pushy and annoying. And its always the same old bullshit cycle with you.
Firstly, you praise, then you say something to criticize,..... when it gets close to release you are like a dog on heat. Then you demand and criticize. And then this crybaby phase when we all know you will not get this camera anyway.

No DNG, NO TALKS..... what does that mean???? you think you have any authority anywhere? You think you can demand by being rude.
I think you need to learn some respect when you talk to others who are more respected than you.

the swede · 10-16-2010, 12:36 AM

there is an ignore function!

**Ash** · 10-16-2010, 12:38 AM

Let's take it easy and get back on track guys. We all want to see the K-5 performance at its best and worst for us to appreciate it. We should also accept, not necessarily condone, that nay-sayers will want to have their say. Just let it be, ignore it if you can, and use a few nice words in reply if necessary.

But let's see more from the K-5... it gets more interesting with each image...

pinholecam · 10-16-2010, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by ogl

I've already seen JPEG from RAW photos from K-5. ISO1600 is not bad.
ISO3200 and above are not good for me.
JPEG has less noise. Even without NR in settings.

upload some DNG files with K-5 + DA35/2.4, please. ISO100, ISO800 and 1600. the same scene. with low light condition.
it's easy. and we talk again. could you?

I ask you very much to upload three DNG files at ISO100, 800 and 1600. And we'll investigate if there is NR in RAW.

NO DNG, NO TALKS.

Why is it that you take up an attitude that someone owes you an answer.
Frank stayed up till 4am+ in the morning just to give everyone great news and hope, and headed off for the local Pentax meet up by 6am.

You are not satisfied, don't buy.

Go buy your own Kr and K5 so that you can push yourself around.

Ok. back to topics pls. We waited so long for good news, and the moment has come. Don't want to pollute this thread with non relevant stuff.
My positive contribution to this thread. JPEG shot with NR on Auto.

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=779686&page=2

Last edited by pinholecam; 10-16-2010 at 01:17 AM.

frank · 10-16-2010, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by ogl

ISO1600 in RAW is the limit for good photos. IMO
But I see IQ degradation at ISO800 - NR traces...

And I see DA35/2.4 has better bokeh that FA35/2 wide-opened.

As for noise - K-r / K-x is better than K-5 IMO. K-5 has lower noise than K-7, but it seems it has hard NR.

K5 has 14bit RAW, I guess there is more room to play when doing postprocess?

Yes, DA35/2.4 is a really sweet lens. It takes brighter photos than the FA35/2 at the same setting (same scene, iso, aperture, speed), so I guess either FA35/2 isn't really an F2 lens, or DA35/2.4 is faster than F2.

ogl · 10-16-2010, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Steelski

No DNG, NO TALKS..... what does that mean???? you think you have any authority anywhere? .

I think that's it's none of your business.

I didn't ask you to upload files. Why do you talk with me?
I don't see any problems to upload files.
To talk about IQ and noise without RAW files are senseless.

**Ash** · 10-16-2010, 02:05 AM

Sure thing ogl. Then I would cordially suggest you desist from demanding others to do work for your benefit if you can buy a K-5 and do it yourself. Or simply ask nicely.

What we've seen so far is quite acceptable - real life stuff on real high ISO, regardless of JPG processing method. Keeping this kind of performance on par with the competition is a good thing IMO.

janneman · 10-16-2010, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by frank

Other than some out of focus, you can see the noise patterns. At ISO 3200, it's really very usable. ISO6400 is pretty nice too. But at ISO12800, some noise remove needs to be done. ISO25600 and 52100 are not really usable imo, probably are only for quick snaps only.

That was what ISO 3200 and 6400 on the K-7 was, jut for quick snappies so I think it was only expected that the highest two levels were only good for that. Still, I have found use for 3200 where noise did not bother too much so I guess it can be used.
But I noticed that the high ISO shots were very "blue-ish" I wnder what the images would look like without R but with something like desaturatng the blue level??/

RTogog · 10-16-2010, 02:16 AM

Excellent !!

Looking at ISO 3200 & above, just wonder how our slow lens will shine-up again. Not all my slow lenses reflect lack sharpness, low contrast & bad color rendition.

creampuff · 10-16-2010, 02:32 AM

Gosh ogl, who the hell are you to dictate and demand a RAW file from anyone? Uploading a 14-bit DNG RAW file is almost 20 megabytes, so it puts a lot of constraints on server bandwidth. Even a 100% jpeg (Quality 10) yields a file that's about 2 megabytes. So please stop whining like a small kid if nobody uploads a RAW file for you to comment on. Either go and get your own camera and do what you like with it or show some consideration for others on this forum. Oh I forget, you're still singing praises about your old and discontinued K200D... no money to buy a new and better camera perhaps?

creampuff · 10-16-2010, 02:42 AM

A tourist caught crossing the street. The pretty lady was about 20 feet away. From today's Pentax outing.

Pentax K-5 FA 135mm f/2.8 (1/3200 sec at f/3.2, ISO 80)

100% crop... Look at the detail...

Original converted from RAW (4928 x 3264 pixels)
WARNING: BIG FILE
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/5086080782_32b8147dd1_o.jpg

jonny1986 · 10-16-2010, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Boris

Thanks for sharing. Indeed K-5 has IS0 6400 usable whereas K-7 stops at below ISO 3200 (may be 3200 with some processing). I wouldn't use ISO 25600 and above on K-5. So technology keeps advancing. I am fully convinced that for my shooting K-7 is perfectly sufficient.

i use nd love the k7 but from k5 to k7 there are at lest 2 stop and i dare to say more.
iso 1600 in k5 in dalight is like iso 400. iso 6400 is like iso 1000 1600. it dependss on level of light.

10-16-2010, 12:30 AM	#34
Steelski Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Varna Posts: 470	РЕСПЕКТ!!!!! Originally posted by ogl I've already seen JPEG from RAW photos from K-5. ISO1600 is not bad. ISO3200 and above are not good for me. JPEG has less noise. Even without NR in settings. upload some DNG files with K-5 + DA35/2.4, please. ISO100, ISO800 and 1600. the same scene. with low light condition. it's easy. and we talk again. could you? I ask you very much to upload three DNG files at ISO100, 800 and 1600. And we'll investigate if there is NR in RAW. NO DNG, NO TALKS. You are getting incredibly pushy and annoying. And its always the same old bullshit cycle with you. Firstly, you praise, then you say something to criticize,..... when it gets close to release you are like a dog on heat. Then you demand and criticize. And then this crybaby phase when we all know you will not get this camera anyway. No DNG, NO TALKS..... what does that mean???? you think you have any authority anywhere? You think you can demand by being rude. I think you need to learn some respect when you talk to others who are more respected than you.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-r hands-on	JoepLX3	Pentax News and Rumors	2	09-10-2010 12:43 AM
Another K-x hands-on...	deadwolfbones	Pentax News and Rumors	4	09-16-2009 11:49 PM
Hands up!	Mindaugas	Post Your Photos!	12	09-03-2009 06:02 AM
W/NW: Hands	ChrisN	Post Your Photos!	1	09-07-2008 09:52 AM
look Ma, no hands!	aabram	Post Your Photos!	0	02-27-2007 04:29 PM

10-15-2010, 11:30 PM	#31
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by creampuff Ogl, have to say you just don't know what you're talking about... seriously. I've already seen JPEG from RAW photos from K-5. ISO1600 is not bad. ISO3200 and above are not good for me. JPEG has less noise. Even without NR in settings. upload some DNG files with K-5 + DA35/2.4, please. ISO100, ISO800 and 1600. the same scene. with low light condition. it's easy. and we talk again. could you? I ask you very much to upload three DNG files at ISO100, 800 and 1600. And we'll investigate if there is NR in RAW. NO DNG, NO TALKS. I mean - about IQ. Last edited by ogl; 10-16-2010 at 01:40 AM.

10-16-2010, 12:05 AM	#32
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by ogl I've already seen JPEG from RAW photos from K-5. ISO1600 is not bad. ISO3200 and above are not good for me. JPEG has less noise. Even without NR in settings. upload some DNG files with K-5 + DA35/2.4, please. ISO100, ISO800 and 1600. the same scene. with low light condition. it's easy. and we talk again. could you? I ask you very much to upload three DNG files at ISO100, 800 and 1600. And we'll investigate if there is NR in RAW. NO DNG, NO TALKS. It's almost a given that there's NR in the raw, as there is in the k-7. Question is, is it at an objectionable level? Looks very good to me for aps-c output, at least on-par with the D7000. That DA 35 f2.4 looks pretty good, too. .

10-16-2010, 12:07 AM	#33
Raybo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 872	Originally posted by ogl I've already seen JPEG from RAW photos from K-5. ISO1600 is not bad. ISO3200 and above are not good for me. JPEG has less noise. Even without NR in settings. upload some DNG files with K-5 + DA35/2.4, please. ISO100, ISO800 and 1600. the same scene. with low light condition. it's easy. and we talk again. could you? I ask you very much to upload three DNG files at ISO100, 800 and 1600. And we'll investigate if there is NR in RAW. NO DNG, NO TALKS. You are a DNG bully!

10-16-2010, 12:36 AM	#35
the swede Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 2,310	there is an ignore function!

10-16-2010, 12:38 AM	#36
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Let's take it easy and get back on track guys. We all want to see the K-5 performance at its best and worst for us to appreciate it. We should also accept, not necessarily condone, that nay-sayers will want to have their say. Just let it be, ignore it if you can, and use a few nice words in reply if necessary. But let's see more from the K-5... it gets more interesting with each image...

10-16-2010, 01:10 AM	#37
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	Originally posted by ogl I've already seen JPEG from RAW photos from K-5. ISO1600 is not bad. ISO3200 and above are not good for me. JPEG has less noise. Even without NR in settings. upload some DNG files with K-5 + DA35/2.4, please. ISO100, ISO800 and 1600. the same scene. with low light condition. it's easy. and we talk again. could you? I ask you very much to upload three DNG files at ISO100, 800 and 1600. And we'll investigate if there is NR in RAW. NO DNG, NO TALKS. Why is it that you take up an attitude that someone owes you an answer. Frank stayed up till 4am+ in the morning just to give everyone great news and hope, and headed off for the local Pentax meet up by 6am. You are not satisfied, don't buy. Go buy your own Kr and K5 so that you can push yourself around. Ok. back to topics pls. We waited so long for good news, and the moment has come. Don't want to pollute this thread with non relevant stuff. My positive contribution to this thread. JPEG shot with NR on Auto. http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=779686&page=2 Last edited by pinholecam; 10-16-2010 at 01:17 AM.

10-16-2010, 01:38 AM	#38
frank Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,202 Original Poster	Originally posted by ogl ISO1600 in RAW is the limit for good photos. IMO But I see IQ degradation at ISO800 - NR traces... And I see DA35/2.4 has better bokeh that FA35/2 wide-opened. As for noise - K-r / K-x is better than K-5 IMO. K-5 has lower noise than K-7, but it seems it has hard NR. K5 has 14bit RAW, I guess there is more room to play when doing postprocess? Yes, DA35/2.4 is a really sweet lens. It takes brighter photos than the FA35/2 at the same setting (same scene, iso, aperture, speed), so I guess either FA35/2 isn't really an F2 lens, or DA35/2.4 is faster than F2.

10-16-2010, 01:39 AM	#39
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Steelski No DNG, NO TALKS..... what does that mean???? you think you have any authority anywhere? . I think that's it's none of your business. I didn't ask you to upload files. Why do you talk with me? I don't see any problems to upload files. To talk about IQ and noise without RAW files are senseless.

10-16-2010, 02:05 AM	#40
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Sure thing ogl. Then I would cordially suggest you desist from demanding others to do work for your benefit if you can buy a K-5 and do it yourself. Or simply ask nicely. What we've seen so far is quite acceptable - real life stuff on real high ISO, regardless of JPG processing method. Keeping this kind of performance on par with the competition is a good thing IMO.

10-16-2010, 02:12 AM	#41
janneman Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Netherlands Photos: Gallery Posts: 908	Originally posted by frank Other than some out of focus, you can see the noise patterns. At ISO 3200, it's really very usable. ISO6400 is pretty nice too. But at ISO12800, some noise remove needs to be done. ISO25600 and 52100 are not really usable imo, probably are only for quick snaps only. That was what ISO 3200 and 6400 on the K-7 was, jut for quick snappies so I think it was only expected that the highest two levels were only good for that. Still, I have found use for 3200 where noise did not bother too much so I guess it can be used. But I noticed that the high ISO shots were very "blue-ish" I wnder what the images would look like without R but with something like desaturatng the blue level??/

10-16-2010, 02:16 AM	#42
RTogog Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 77	Excellent !! Looking at ISO 3200 & above, just wonder how our slow lens will shine-up again. Not all my slow lenses reflect lack sharpness, low contrast & bad color rendition.

10-16-2010, 02:32 AM	#43
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Gosh ogl, who the hell are you to dictate and demand a RAW file from anyone? Uploading a 14-bit DNG RAW file is almost 20 megabytes, so it puts a lot of constraints on server bandwidth. Even a 100% jpeg (Quality 10) yields a file that's about 2 megabytes. So please stop whining like a small kid if nobody uploads a RAW file for you to comment on. Either go and get your own camera and do what you like with it or show some consideration for others on this forum. Oh I forget, you're still singing praises about your old and discontinued K200D... no money to buy a new and better camera perhaps?

10-16-2010, 02:42 AM	#44
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	A tourist caught crossing the street. The pretty lady was about 20 feet away. From today's Pentax outing. Pentax K-5 FA 135mm f/2.8 (1/3200 sec at f/3.2, ISO 80) 100% crop... Look at the detail... Original converted from RAW (4928 x 3264 pixels) *WARNING: BIG FILE* http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/5086080782_32b8147dd1_o.jpg

10-16-2010, 02:43 AM	#45
jonny1986 Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: italy Posts: 411	Originally posted by Boris Thanks for sharing. Indeed K-5 has IS0 6400 usable whereas K-7 stops at below ISO 3200 (may be 3200 with some processing). I wouldn't use ISO 25600 and above on K-5. So technology keeps advancing. I am fully convinced that for my shooting K-7 is perfectly sufficient. i use nd love the k7 but from k5 to k7 there are at lest 2 stop and i dare to say more. iso 1600 in k5 in dalight is like iso 400. iso 6400 is like iso 1000 1600. it dependss on level of light.