[jpzk]

I'm sorry, but if you think this is a sharp photo, then either the interpretation of sharpness is very flexible, or one of us is completely wrong. This is not a compelling example of K5 sharpness.

Michael

Come on Michael !

Whatever your interpretation of sharpness (unadulterated) is I don't think anyone said that it was "perfect".
Personally, I find that image compellingly sharp to my taste and I would only guess that once printed, one would have a tough time telling me that it is not sharp.

Do you have anything, a sample shot, of an untouched, JPEG straight-out-the camera image which actually conveys your own interpretation of sharpness?

Anyway, gotta go back to business.

Cheers!

JP

[switters]

Not to mention the fact that sharpness is only one of several factors that determine whether a picture will make an impact on the viewer - and often not the primary one at all. There have been many memorable images produced through the ages that were not "razor sharp". I know this is a gear forum, it's fun to compare specs, and we all want the potential for sharp pictures, but at some point too much of this analysis makes it easy to lose sight of the goal. Which, for me at least, is to produce pictures that move people in some way. I guarantee you that "sharpness" is not one of the highest criteria on the list (for most normal people) of what determines whether a picture has that effect.

[nulla]

Not to mention the fact that sharpness is only one of several factors that determine whether a picture will make an impact on the viewer - and often not the primary one at all. There have been many memorable images produced through the ages that were not "razor sharp". I know this is a gear forum, it's fun to compare specs, and we all want the potential for sharp pictures, but at some point too much of this analysis makes it easy to lose sight of the goal. Which, for me at least, is to produce pictures that move people in some way. I guarantee you that "sharpness" is not one of the highest criteria on the list (for most normal people) of what determines whether a picture has that effect.

I agree that the general public may not place sharpness as a priority when viewing a photo and agree that it is what moves people or has the greatest impact on people that makes a shot.

That though still does not take away the fact that we should not strive to improve the quality of an image.

A lot of people are still moved by black and white and or poor quality video movies/shows on television

[Rick Clark]

Speaking of Equipment, in the 70's I belonged to a camera club about 30 members or so and every month or so one of them would have to buy the latest and greatest and then listen to what was wrong with it for next six months. That is a sharp chic.

---

Last edited by Rick Clark; 11-19-2010 at 11:48 AM. Reason: Forgot

[switters]

A lot of people are still moved by black and white and or poor quality video movies/shows on television

Yes, that's exactly my point. If most people spent even 25% of the time they spend researching and talking about gear on improving their technique and just taking pictures, they'd be a lot better photographers.

If you doubt that, check out this Chase Jarvis portfolio - all taken with a 3 MP iPhone.

I like talking about gear too, and of course I want to get the best quality image I can. But I always try to remember that the technical factors are almost always secondary.

[navcom]

Speaking of Equipment, in the 70's I belonged to a camera club about 30 members or so and every month or so one of them would have to buy the latest and greatest and then listen to what was wrong with it for next six months. That is a sharp chic.

Rick is absolutely right. Whenever a new product comes out, those who long for the latest and greatest but don't have it yet "put down" those that do have it. This jealousy syndrome drives most of these internet panics. That and the nit-picking model brand war-mongers. Pentax could make the best camera ever and they would find something wrong with it.

I just received my brand new K-5 yesterday. I can honestly say that after I took the very first image, I looked at it and said to myself, "Wow! That's a really sharp image!" That's all the "testing" I need.

Speaking as a landscape photographer, sharpness is an important aspect of my images so I'm used to comparing shots for just this attribute. The K-5 is awesome and it's going to be a pleasure to incorporate it into my landscape photography routine. Pentax has pleased the only critic I care about...me.

[ivoire]

owned K10, K20, K7 and considering K5. Every one of thes cameras has had its share of complaints. Get out and shoot with one instead of pixel peeping!

[bobmaxja]

Get out and shoot with one instead of pixel peeping!

Camera are made to take photo not to do test . That camera will take great photo. 99 % of the peoples that will look at the photo you take , will not see anaything about what peoples talk here
But reading comment here is so entertaining

[Gimbal]

How is the K-5 not going to be sharp? You mean someone put on a lens with the AF uncalibrated? Camera shake? Partial blindness.

Come on!! If anything is not sharp, it's not the body. How can a body not be sharp? Let's not get paranoia get in the way of common sense

There are plenty of reasons for a body not to be sharp, or are you suggesting that all those k-x and k-7 owners with shutter/SR/mirror-induced blur are lying?

And with the SR-system being built as it is, one can at least suspect that there could be problems. Hopefully there is none, we don't know however until there has been enough pixelpeeping to kill off all the rumors.

[Smeggypants]

Yes, that's exactly my point. If most people spent even 25% of the time they spend researching and talking about gear on improving their technique and just taking pictures, they'd be a lot better photographers.

If you doubt that, check out this Chase Jarvis portfolio - all taken with a 3 MP iPhone.

I like talking about gear too, and of course I want to get the best quality image I can. But I always try to remember that the technical factors are almost always secondary.

Chase jarvis!! - great stuff. And proves the point. Thanks for linking Chase!!

I love great IQ but I do a lot of 'drive by shooting' where I have to preset focus and shoot blind ) - don't wanna crash the car ya know

Many OOF shots are keepers for the vibe and /or the moment. Sometimes a cool shot is also in focus with no camera shake and that's only a bonus.

[simico]

I get plenty sharp images from my K-5 + Sigma 30 combo. I guess the oversharpening zealots (who crank up all the shaprness sliders to max in PS) would still find them "soft" rofl

[skyoftexas]

Come on Michael !

Whatever your interpretation of sharpness (unadulterated) is I don't think anyone said that it was "perfect".
Personally, I find that image compellingly sharp to my taste and I would only guess that once printed, one would have a tough time telling me that it is not sharp.

Do you have anything, a sample shot, of an untouched, JPEG straight-out-the camera image which actually conveys your own interpretation of sharpness?

Anyway, gotta go back to business.

Cheers!

JP

Okay. I tried to replicate a sharper photo taken from raw to jpeg without PP and I couldn't. In fact the chicken photo looks very good in comparison. A jpeg straight out of the camera would be easier since the camera applies sharpening, contrast, etc., to jpeg's, but I wanted to duplicate what the OP had done.

So I concede, retract my original statement, and surrender the field. Is this an historic moment in the annals of forums? Someone actually concedes an argument?

Regards,
Michael

[switters]

And here's a sharp puppy to go with the sharp chicken. (Actually, not particularly sharp but I like the picture anyways. Imagine that!)

[jimH]

Yes, that's exactly my point. If most people spent even 25% of the time they spend researching and talking about gear on improving their technique and just taking pictures, they'd be a lot better photographers.

If you doubt that, check out this Chase Jarvis portfolio - all taken with a 3 MP iPhone.

I like talking about gear too, and of course I want to get the best quality image I can. But I always try to remember that the technical factors are almost always secondary.

I agree, it's all about vision, not equipment. It's nice to have the latest and greatest equipment, but it's even better to have a good eye and the knowledge to capture a compelling image.

[ve2vfd]

I'm still waiting for my pictures of knives and razor blades!!!

Pat