[Catalana]

As a K-7 owner, that table just makes me cringe.
A good result.

I am "almost" in the same boat, but I paid less than $800.- for a new K-7 earlier this year. No matter what, my K-7 & K-x combo will get considerable use before they'll retire of shutter failure. They both are capable of taking excellent images and I have yet so much to learn. I recently opted to invest in a DA15mm LTD and DA17-70 and couldn't be happier.

[macTak]

I suppose too, given enough light, ISO 80 is really to way to go, judging from the tests.

[fs999]

Yuuuuhuuuuuuu !
I'am so proud to be a pentaxian !!!!!!

[jpzk]

I was in private communication with him about his 14EV DR prediction. He was spot on indeed!

I just thought that there have been some assumptions in his result which made me stay a bit more conservative. However, I concede all his assumptions were legitimate.

Gordon, excellent work!

+1
and stunningGoing by these results







Actually, fourth place is a tie of three. So, the top six are

1. P65+
2. D3X
3. P40+
4. 645D, D3s, K-5

However, the smaller sensor of the K-5 must perform worse for noise performance compared to the bigger. It's low light score is just in line with a very good sensor of its size (best APSC ever but the D3s beats it in ISO/surface which would translate to 1400 on APSC compared to 1162 for the K-5). So with an equivalent lens, D3s is the only camera beating the K-5 in low light performance (by 1/4 stop).

And the medium format cameras excel in color depth and resolution.

But in dynamic range (where the larger sensors used to be better too), the K-5 outclasses everything tested so far. Even the SuperCCD Finepix S3/5 Pro and bigger D3X are beaten by half a stop!


If the D7k for whatever reason stays behind that result then K-5 will wash tons of cash into Pentax which I hope they have good use for




That's correct. But only applies to the overall score which is a bit artificial.






Instead, look at

• resolution
• dynamic range (landscape score)
• color depth (portrait score)
• SNR (or DR) at true ISO 1600 in Print normalization (some use the sports score instead which is poorer though)

and you have four reliable figures which are much more trustworthy than the overall score. Of course, K-5 doesn't rank high in resolution or ISO 1600 SNR because of its relatively small sensor. But its very good elsewhere and the best APSC sensor ever, with only the 7D sensor having higher resolution.


See above. Best testing lab with a broad service. Run by physicists

My verdict on DxO is rather constant independently from their last test. Great in individual results. A bit artificial when it comes to overall presentation.


BTW,
Anybody note how they tested the K-5 prior to D7000 and how they quote an indicative price of 1374 USD (which is French street price w/o VAT)?

I'm sure the K-5 is a big hit at DxO Labs in Paris



One last note...

Everybody wondering how DR may increase in the future beyond what we have seen now ...

According to Gordon's analysis and this DxO result, the full well capacity is ~40,000 electrons and read-out noise is ~3.2 electrons (Gordon guessed 4) where luminosity reaches 3.2 electrons too (SNR 1:1). However, at 3.2 electrons, the photon shot noise is 1.8 electrons already and the pure electronic read-out noise is only 2.6 electrons. That's an amazingly good result, chapeau to Sony engineering.

On the other hand, it only leaves maybe one more stop DR which is feasible with a sensor of that size, i.e., DR 15.0-15.5 is kind of a barrier for APSC sensors without offering native lower iso (an ideal sensor of the same full well capacity would have 15.7 EV DR).

Falk,

For the very first time I am starting to understand your scientific jargon because you are providing charts to refer to; I am the "visual" type and for me, seeing the results is what makes me understand better.

I am quite happy to see that the K5 has earned such praise; I was really wondering about it until results from users started to trickle in. Now, with some hard facts (tests), I can say I am a believer.

By the way, do you teach optical physics somewhere?

JP

[jpzk]

I meant I was done viewing the DXO website and whoever wants to jump on (to the DXO website) should feel free. I was making a reference to people asking other to get off the DXO website because it was clogged up and people were having trouble loading it this morning

Gotcha!

But really, are you not taking loads of pictures with that K5 of yours?

Have a great weekend.

JP

[dgaies]

Gotcha!

But really, are you not taking loads of pictures with that K5 of yours?

Have a great weekend.

JP

Oh yeah, I've run that shutter up over 3,000 so far

But a lot of it was just fooling around, testing it out, getting a feel for it... plus there were quite a few sets of specific test shots exploring the high ISO side of things that I sent to JohnBee.

[civiletti]

I think it's pretty interesting that ISO 80 actually offers more DR than ISO 100.

I hope to be able to replace my K10D with the K-5 some time next year, and just the idea of having 2.5 EV more DR than I currently have at ISO 100 is almost incomprehensible. After all, I feel the K10D has a lot of RAW headroom at low ISO.

Same for me. Unless I find the cash for a 645d, I'll get a k5 to replace my gx-10.

[climit]

Wow!

[cbaytan]

No comments needed:

BUT! With my limited knowledge, due to pixel density and general diffraction rules, we are not able to get sharp pictures with aperture smaller than f.8 with K-5, unless Sony made a trick with it's Exmor sensors microlenses. Tell me that I am wrong.

[Wheatfield]

No comments needed:

BUT! With my limited knowledge, due to pixel density and general diffraction rules, we are not able to get sharp pictures with aperture smaller than f.8 with K-5, unless Sony made a trick with it's Exmor sensors microlenses. Tell me that I am wrong.

I haven't done anything small aperture yet with the K5, but I routinely shot at f/22- f/32 with the K7 and had perfectly acceptable sharpness.
The diffraction limit is not a wall.

[tomtor]

BUT! With my limited knowledge, due to pixel density and general diffraction rules, we are not able to get sharp pictures with aperture smaller than f.8 with K-5, unless Sony made a trick with it's Exmor sensors microlenses. Tell me that I am wrong.

I don't get your point.

When you are diffraction limited with F8 on the K-5 for a certain DOF than you would be diffraction limited with F11 on a FF, and both will have similar DOF and you
loose the ISO advantage of the FF.

[curiouspeter]

I believe DxO uses 0 dB as the basis for dynamic range calculations. Obviously, anything close to 0 dB is photographically useless. Their Full SNR graphs, on the other hand, is very useful. One can easily calculate a dynamic range using his/her acceptable noise level (e.g. 30 dB).

That said, K5 appears to be hugely impressive.

BTW, I *just* bought a K7, which should be more than sufficient for my needs. (I upgraded from an 8-year-old Canon D60).

Perhaps I will get a bargain K5 or K3 years down the road.

[burnie]

So.... I bet all those people that dumped their pentax gear for greener pastures feel pretty dumb about now!!

To those saying that the K-5 breaks into FF ground: I don't think so. I think this is simply where APS-C's are headed. K-5's sensor is a next gen sensor. Well guess what, as soon as the next gen FF sensors come out, they will most likely make the K-5 sensor look like a toy again. Stop making the stupid APS-C to FF comparison. Just accept the fact they are totally different sensors for different uses...

[aleonx3]

So.... I bet all those people that dumped their pentax gear for greener pastures feel pretty dumb about now!!

I could imagine how hinman feels after seeing this; however, he is a well respect individuals though.