[switters]

I have a K5 on loan from a friend, with the venerable FA43. Took a few quick snaps in the backyard today. I see no problem at all with sharpness. These were shot in RAW, converted to JPEG with no adjustments at all. f/3.5 @1/100 ISO 200.



Here's the 100% crop.



They look even better with just a touch of sharpening in LR.

I have a few more shots I'll post to this thread in a while. Nothing special, just taking it for a spin.

My main concern was AF speed, and I'm happy to report that even with the FA43 (not the fastest focusing lens in the Pentax line-up) it's much snappier than my K-x.

[pcarfan]

I think the K-5 with the FA43 at f3.5 should be able to deliver sharper 100% crops. I don't believe the K-5 is inherently soft, and I don't think this image is not all that bad, but it is on the softer side though....

[jpzk]

I have a K5 on loan from a friend, with the venerable FA43. Took a few quick snaps in the backyard today. I see no problem at all with sharpness. These were shot in RAW, converted to JPEG with no adjustments at all. f/3.5 @1/100 ISO 200.



Here's the 100% crop.



They look even better with just a touch of sharpening in LR.

I have a few more shots I'll post to this thread in a while. Nothing special, just taking it for a spin.

My main concern was AF speed, and I'm happy to report that even with the FA43 (not the fastest focusing lens in the Pentax line-up) it's much snappier than my K-x.

That is a very good image you have here.
Now, one wonders about the ongoing thread about the K5 pics being "soft"!?

I believe that a combination of a high IQ lens, with the K5, will produce excellent results.
I also think that some tests are carried out with less than ideal lenses.

This here shows what the camera can actually produce.

Thanks for posting.

JP

[robgo2]

I think the K-5 with the FA43 at f3.5 should be able to deliver sharper 100% crops. I don't believe the K-5 is inherently soft, and I don't think this image is not all that bad, but it is on the softer side though....

He did say that they look better with sharpening, but he chose to post the unsharpened images. What matters is how much detail is present, and I would say that there is plenty.

Rob

[jpzk]

He did say that they look better with sharpening, but he chose to post the unsharpened images. What matters is how much detail is present, and I would say that there is plenty.

Rob

Agreed!

As far as I am concerned, this image does indeed show a lot of details. And it is sharp enough too.

If one wants to tweak it further, if taken in RAW first, plenty of room for PP adjustments, but I don't think this would be necessary in this case.

Just print it and see what I mean.

JP

[switters]

Here's another 100% crop of Red the Chicken. This time, I adjusted the sharpening and detail in LR:



Here are a few other shots. These are unsharpened and unadjusted.









The only one where I see a little bit of the softness/blur people might be talking about is in the last 100% crop of the arm of the bench, with the bug. However, a bit of sharpening in LR tightens it up nicely:

[jpzk]

Here's another 100% crop of Red the Chicken. This time, I adjusted the sharpening and detail in LR:

Here are a few other shots. These are unsharpened and unadjusted.

The only one where I see a little bit of the softness/blur people might be talking about is in the last 100% crop of the arm of the bench, with the bug. However, a bit of sharpening in LR tightens it up nicely:

Switters:

I was expecting a detailed image at that low ISO.
But to make a long story short: there is no softness in the chicken image.
Maybe it's only me, but without doing any pixel peeping on the uncropped pic, all is fine by me.

Again, great shot.

JP

[rawr]

This is the problem with people prematurely posting long threads that claim the K-5 is 'soft' on the basis of some poor quality images pulled off some sloppy photo review site. The idea, no matter how dumb and un-proven, suddenly gets legs and a life of its own, and then worried people get the idea that there is something amiss with their camera, and they need to prove to themselves that their K-5 is indeed sharp and doesn't have something wrong with it.

Soon I expect to see a stream of posts from people blaming every soft K- image of theirs (due to poor glass, crappy UV filters, motion blur or whatever) on their 'defective' camera, and lots of stories of angry people sending their K-5's back to Pentax etc etc etc.

Sigh.

[jimH]

I have a K5 on loan from a friend, with the venerable FA43. Took a few quick snaps in the backyard today. I see no problem at all with sharpness. These were shot in RAW, converted to JPEG with no adjustments at all. f/3.5 @1/100 ISO 200.



Here's the 100% crop.



They look even better with just a touch of sharpening in LR.

I have a few more shots I'll post to this thread in a while. Nothing special, just taking it for a spin.

My main concern was AF speed, and I'm happy to report that even with the FA43 (not the fastest focusing lens in the Pentax line-up) it's much snappier than my K-x.

That's one sharp Puppy!! er . . . . I mean chicken

[ozlizard]

Seems like some people on here want images to be sharper than reality! What's the point of looking at 200% crops, that's just plain crazy. Get out and take some pics, print them out and show me those, then I'll take notice!

[bogiesbad]

Some members of PF are just better photographers than the test-pilots at DPR, IR, and the others.

[panoguy]

Soon I expect to see a stream of posts from people blaming every soft K- image of theirs (due to poor glass, crappy UV filters, motion blur or whatever) on their 'defective' camera, and lots of stories of angry people sending their K-5's back to Pentax etc etc etc.

Absolutely, and sadly it's only the second stage of internet hype (after "It's Great!"). Pixelpeepers are the worst for moaning "OMG this camera is worthless because this one pic on a review site is blurry! Glad I didn't buy one and try to take any photos with it!"



It's a weird reality, compounded by the internet "opinion amplifier" and the uniquely human desire to be told what to buy/believe/do. But that's a seriously sharp chicken...

[Marc Langille]

Going back in time....

Those claims of softness - this is very similar to the K10D being slammed for soft JPEGs by DPR. That was a wonderful claim to make themselves look under qualified to review a camera - one or two simple menu setting changes will correct the issue.

I have a lot of K10D JPEGs that prove there is not an issue with them being soft.

Cheers,
Marc

[mickey]

We've been through the ISO capabilities, which the k-5 seems to have passed with flying colours, so it seems natural that other "weaknesses" will be found.
I'll wait for falc's tests on shaprness, but in the meantime, I think the images in this thread are very good.

Not at all worried about shapness.

[jpzk]

This is the problem with people prematurely posting long threads that claim the K-5 is 'soft' on the basis of some poor quality images pulled off some sloppy photo review site. The idea, no matter how dumb and un-proven, suddenly gets legs and a life of its own, and then worried people get the idea that there is something amiss with their camera, and they need to prove to themselves that their K-5 is indeed sharp and doesn't have something wrong with it.

Soon I expect to see a stream of posts from people blaming every soft K- image of theirs (due to poor glass, crappy UV filters, motion blur or whatever) on their 'defective' camera, and lots of stories of angry people sending their K-5's back to Pentax etc etc etc.

Sigh.

Really!

As I mentioned earlier, there will always be some sort of "last minute call" on an otherwise perfectly capable piece of technology, whether that'd be a camera, a stereo system or a smart phone.

This has been ongoing with the K10D, the K-m, K20D, Kx, K7, and now with the K5 .... soon we will also see some suggestions that the K-r "might" be plagued with something which isn't quite "up to par" with the original concensus.

So far, I see, from users' reviews at least, one great performer in the K5.
This thread here, thanks to the OP, shows superb performance.

Remember all of the hoopla when the K5 was released just a few weeks ago, and USED by new owners? I wouldn't think that this has changed THAT dramatically.

Cheers.

JP