[Catalana]

To my eyes it could be a toss up between the two. The K-5 sample is slightly less "vibrant", but the choices of how individual colors render could make certain areas appear more or less sharp.
Crop #2 has a bit more detail in the fuzz balls and looks sharper/more contrasty in the chin area of the lady printed on the paper money, in favor of the K-5. The label on the ubiquitous Baileys bottle looks a bit sharper in favor of the D7000.

I opened the full image in separate tabs on Firefox, lined them up to render the same perspective and toggled between the two. What I found a bit weird was the way the "Paul Smith" watch moved forward and back in relation to the "unchanging" back wall and color chart in the bottom right hand corner, whereas the left side of the set up seemed to move as expected with the change in perspective (due to changing cameras on the tripod). I'm not sure if such a small change in angle could affect the lighting, but I can see how difficult it must be to do these kind of tests.

btw: yes, both sample #1 & 2 show exif data from Nikon ????

Thank JohnBee for your efforts. :-)

[kenyee]

full size images embedded in thread? Yow :-P

[Jeff Charles]

...
btw: yes, both sample #1 & 2 show exif data from Nikon ????

I checked the raw files in LR. They are labeled correctly in the thread, even though the exif says D7000 for both.

Thank JohnBee for your efforts. :-)

+1

[hcarvalhoalves]

Now the question is: why both files have D7000 on the EXIF? It shouldn't.

[Eagle_Friends]

Looks about the same to me.

[ogl]

This is a new thread in response to the earlier one but with a completely different setup(from DPReview). I decided to make a new thread because I felt the old one had run its course and that adding this to it would most likely not receive the exposure it deserves.

Hello, new Mr. Rice High!!!

---------- Post added 11-19-10 at 12:13 AM ----------

Well there you have it! The K-5 and D7000 head to head in what we could call, fair and balanced conditions. Needless to say the differences really do come down to hair splitting between both systems. However, the lack of PEF converters did not help matters any in this case.

Either way, I'm just glad we had more than just Imaging Resource from draw conclusions from and of course that DPReview had the backbone to re-shoot their own test samples.

1. How to convert PEF? Which converter?
2. This photos are made just for noise tests. Not resolution. F9 from FA50/1.4 is close to diffraction.
3. What is the main plot of your threads?

[Smeggypants]

I'm all for objective testing, but extracting hyperbole like "The K-5 is soft" is akin to the politics of fear crap we get from governments.

Ultra pixel peeping and revealing slight differences in the image in the spirit of these two threads is almost crossing the line of paranoia.

FFS go out and actually indulge in some photography!!! This is what I do. I love it when a great pic is also in focus, is sharp and correctly exposed, but if it isn't and I still captured the 'moment' so f*cking what!!!

[JohnBee]

I'm all for objective testing, but extracting hyperbole like "The K-5 is soft" is akin to the politics of fear crap we get from governments.

Ultra pixel peeping and revealing slight differences in the image in the spirit of these two threads is almost crossing the line of paranoia.

FFS go out and actually indulge in some photography!!! This is what I do. I love it when a great pic is also in focus, is sharp and correctly exposed, but if it isn't and I still captured the 'moment' so f*cking what!!!

The issue is warranted(see DPReview, Image Resource and the various threads that come out of it). So I highly doubt this is anything akin to scare tactics or paranoia at this stage. This holds especially true when we consider the shutter vibe issues and... of course, the fact that so many people are waiting to purchase a K-5 at this time.

Secondly... telling people to stop looking at take photo's is the equivalent of saying turn-up your radio when your engine makes noise. Which is nothing more than classic denial or evasiveness.

Having said that, the BEST WAY possible to tackle issues such as these(whether they be baseless accusations or claims) is to tackle them head-on. This way, we can turn-around or respond to such claims with some tangibility rather than nothing.

---------- Post added 11-19-10 at 10:35 AM ----------

Now the question is: why both files have D7000 on the EXIF? It shouldn't.

Ah, good catch!

I pasted all of the crops(6 of them) on a layers in the same composite within Photoshop. However, since the base layer was the D7K file, the save for web interface preserve that EXIF by default. In effect, then the EXIF should have been removed from the crop to keep thing simple. But I neglected to do that.

---------- Post added 11-19-10 at 10:37 AM ----------

full size images embedded in thread? Yow :-P

LOL that was another oversight(on my part), but since I was in a rush, I didn't get the chance to edit them.
I have since fixed them, and they should load without the added weight now.

---------- Post added 11-19-10 at 10:40 AM ----------

To my eyes it could be a toss up between the two. The K-5 sample is slightly less "vibrant", but the choices of how individual colors render could make certain areas appear more or less sharp.
Crop #2 has a bit more detail in the fuzz balls and looks sharper/more contrasty in the chin area of the lady printed on the paper money, in favor of the K-5. The label on the ubiquitous Baileys bottle looks a bit sharper in favor of the D7000.

I would agree.

Secretly, I'd say the D7000 has a slight edge here as lines and pixel definition seems ever so slightly better. Whereas the K-5 has a sort of stray pixel issue(as I like to call it ). However, none of this can be seen at anything less than 100% so I'm not convince its an issue at this stage.

And of course... there's the proverbial question as to whether or not this is an isolated issue(relative to this scene and setup) or a fixed thing. Either way, I Have no problems giving the D7K a little something along the way. After all... its not like it doesn't deserve it or anything.

---------- Post added 11-19-10 at 10:55 AM ----------

Why does the EXIF from each of those full size samples say they were BOTH taken on a Nikon D7000? Something has gotten mixed up here.

Also I wish you would just link to those full size images, or provide a tumbnail and then a link, rather than include the big images directly into the post here (at 4+ MB each per image).

I am being shaped atm and this 10MB page has taken me at least 20 minutes to load....

This has already been answered, but because I addressed it from another post, I didn't want to make it appear like I was ignoring your question which appeared first, so I'll simply expand on that here also.

This happened because I stacked all of the crops into one single composite in Photoshop(to keep things neat). However, I also forgot to turn off EXIF data in the save for web panel and so Photoshop treated every image as though it was the base layer. Which incidentally(in this case) was the Nikon file.

But... the crops are okay insofar as which is which. As can be confirmed by examining the full size samples.
So I guess there was no harm done other than the questions marks that would come out of it

[cbaytan]

I am posting 4 images, one taken with Nikon D7000, other is from Canon 60D, and there are 2 K-5 images when one taken with F5.6 other is latest corrected imaging resource photo taken with F8. I am not commenting nor revealing which is which, preventing ogl calls me Mr. 3rd RiceHigh. File names bear the title. Also EXIF's are intact. I've cropped them with Irfanview and done nothing else FYI.

[JohnBee]

For rendering(clean outlines etc) I like no. 3 the most
I can't comment on color registration etc because I can't tell. But at face value, that's what I see.

Also, its great to see IR took the initiative to fix the issue.
I complained on their forum about it as well as the D7000 when the posted those too(for underexposure). And since they failed to address the issue on the Nikon, I didn't have high hopes for the K-5. But as it turns out, I guess Pentax got plenty of support(DPReview and IR) this round.

[ogl]

I am posting 4 images, one taken with Nikon D7000, other is from Canon 60D, and there are 2 K-5 images when one taken with F5.6 other is latest corrected imaging resource photo taken with F8. I am not commenting nor revealing which is which, preventing ogl calls me Mr. 3rd RiceHigh. File names bear the title. Also EXIF's are intact. I've cropped them with Irfanview and done nothing else FYI.

Can you explain me how my picture is much better?



why don't you think that focus point of D7000, K-5 and 60D are in slightly different places?

try to compare another places of picture

[cbaytan]

Can you explain me how my picture is much better?



why don't you think that focus point of D7000, K-5 and 60D are in slightly different places?

Better? Sorry I didn't understand, first one is the same picture of 2nd I've posted. I don't know about focusing issue, I doubt it if there is a way we can know that. Can we? The only way to get around this is K-5 owners post properly focused pictures here in forum IMO.

[cbaytan]

How about these ogl?

[cbaytan]

For rendering(clean outlines etc) I like no. 3 the most
I can't comment on color registration etc because I can't tell. But at face value, that's what I see.

Also, its great to see IR took the initiative to fix the issue.
I complained on their forum about it as well as the D7000 when the posted those too(for underexposure). And since they failed to address the issue on the Nikon, I didn't have high hopes for the K-5. But as it turns out, I guess Pentax got plenty of support(DPReview and IR) this round.

You liked the Nikon John, actually I am curious why you didn't taken into account the 4th one.

[NaClH2O]

*snip*

And of course... there's the proverbial question as to whether or not this is an isolated issue(relative to this scene and setup) or a fixed thing. Either way, I Have no problems giving the D7K a little something along the way. After all... its not like it doesn't deserve it or anything.

Personally I think the differences are marginal enough that they may even be attributed to sample variation between individual cameras. Not being a pixel peeper myself, I'm not sure how one would even go about testing this. I can never remember there ever being a test between individual samples of a given camera model.

NaCl(of course, since I am not in any way knowledgeable in this field I may be completely wrong)H2O