The death of The Soft K5 urban legend

Ray Pulley · 04-28-2011, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Ash

I do not understand why there has to be a question over sharpness in this forum every time a new Pentax dSLR is released. Search for it and you'll see at least one rant about each camera having 'softness' issues. Being on my 6th different Pentax dSLR I have not experienced *any* image softness produced by any of these cameras that I cannot attribute to user error or lens limitation. Now, there may be bad copies of cameras with malaligned or defective sensors, or there may be bad lenses causing the unsharp images, but on the whole, the cameras are not the cause of unacceptably soft results.

Then there's how an image looks after processing from your own computer, and the way the image looks after being uploaded and manipulated (either by JPEG compression or resizing) by internet host sites (cf. Surfer - Pentax User Photo Gallery for my own example).

So I guess Pentax issued a firmware upgrade for the K5 to correct user errors then.....

The K5 seems to still have AF quirks that sometimes results in soft images, but it is, for the most part, fixed.

Ray

Parallax · 04-28-2011, 08:05 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rupert

The K5 had a rough start, so it was subjected to more rigorous scrutiny than most cameras ever receive.

Yeah. Some people trashed it mercilessly; until they actually took a picture with one.

Designosophy · 04-28-2011, 08:43 AM

Thanks to JohnBee and rfortson for answering my question. I haven't yet heard from any of the K-5 detractors, and after some reading and thinking I have come to the following, tentative conclusion:

Those who have decided that a K-5 is not capable of producing sharp photos are committed to this decision because of theoretical limitations of the camera (AA filter, for example) and cannot be swayed. I am guessing that their definition of a sharp photo includes "created by a sensor with a weak or nonexistant AA filter," and no amount of visually sharp final photos will convince them otherwise because their definition is based on the tool and not on what the user creates with it. In other words, it is based on the process, not the product.

As for me, I am happy to see all of the nice, sharp photos posted in this thread. I have no doubt that a K-5 can be used to create objectively sharp photos, based on my own definition of sharp.

rfortson · 04-28-2011, 09:37 AM

I don't know if this is sharp, but it sure was smooth.

Taken with my K5 and the DA70. I set the glass on a small glass table covered with black construction paper. I cut a hole in the paper and below the paper I stood a Maglite (flashlight, or torch for my British friends) on end pointing up through the hole. I turned off all the other lights and then shot the glass. Then I drained the glass (Maker's Mark over ice).

Rupert · 04-28-2011, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

Yeah. Some people trashed it mercilessly; until they actually took a picture with one.

Yes they did, until the firmware fix....when they promptly bought one. Maybe they had something to do with that firmware fix...you think? Let's keep it straight, if we are going to pull up the past....right?

Best Regards!

Parallax · 04-28-2011, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Rupert

Let's keep it straight, if we are going to pull up the past....right?

What did I say that wasn't factual?
I can think of two people, who are no longer members of this forum, to whom the K-5 was the biggest piece of trash ever created by the hand of man; even though they had never even seen one, let alone used one, and had no idea what was being done to correct the problems that actual users had encountered. (I have it from a reliable source that at least one of those two now owns one.)

Rupert · 04-28-2011, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

What did I say that wasn't factual?

Can I do you a Crayon drawing to explain it? I haven't done one of those in a while....I'm real good...remember?

Regards!

....and did I say anything that wasn't factual?

Parallax · 04-28-2011, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Rupert

............
....and did I say anything that wasn't factual?

Not at all.

robgo2 · 04-28-2011, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

Well I've used DSLRs with different sensors, both CCD and CMOS and to be honest, I seriously can't validate the AA filter arguments based on the shots I've taken. So to me that discussion is more theoretical than practical. I've never experienced any so called sensor "softness" with any of my Pentax DSLRs, if there were any softness it was likely because I used a junk lens or a crap filter. Have to agree with Ash on this one... it is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

And I have never taken a single photo that did not deserve sharpening, regardless of the lens. There may be times when I choose not to sharpen for aesthetic reasons (e.g. portraits,) but every photo has some degree of softness. It's not a big deal and can easily be managed.

Rob

**Ash** · 04-28-2011, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by Ray Pulley

So I guess Pentax issued a firmware upgrade for the K5 to correct user errors then.....

The K5 seems to still have AF quirks that sometimes results in soft images, but it is, for the most part, fixed.

Ray

No, Ray.
The firmware upgrade was for focusing deficiencies, not to fix sharpness problems on the camera. Manually focusing you would still get sharp images. Don't confuse the two.

Ray Pulley · 04-28-2011, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Ash

No, Ray.
The firmware upgrade was for focusing deficiencies, not to fix sharpness problems on the camera. Manually focusing you would still get sharp images. Don't confuse the two.

No confusion at all on my part. Can't speak for anyone else.

The camera is more than the sensor, BTW, and the camera did indeed produce soft images in many conditions where the competition had no trouble.

The reasons for K5 soft images are certainly many and varied, but for months, the AF issues resulted in soft images in certain conditions and the results had nothing to do with user error. The camera was creating soft images in these conditions.

Having to resort to MF to get sharp images in very normal non-challenging conditions made the K5 less than competitive with cameras using the same sensor and costing the same or less (or even with older Pentax models, for that matter), and not useful at all in some shooting conditions. Having to spend more money on a focusing screen to MF the camera just to get good results just meant that the K5 did indeed produce soft images in normal use for the way that the majority of people use the camera.

The K5 would be worth about $5 without an AF system, IMO.

So, for many users, the K5 as designed and initially delivered, did indeed produce soft images in some conditions and user error had nothing to do with it. Nor was it any sort of myth, the camera produced the soft results by simply using it the way it was designed to be used.

Lastly, I do not recall seeing anyone claiming that the K5 produced only soft images, just too many.

Ray

Rupert · 04-28-2011, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

Not at all.

You would argue, I know you...but you just don't want to let me color.....no one seems to want me to color, and the pity is I am so good at it!

Best Regards!

We have all kinds of neat Forums here....love it...but I do miss not having a Crayon section. A good many of us could do better than we do with our cameras, no doubt about it!

Gimbal · 04-28-2011, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Designosophy

clusion:

Those who have decided that a K-5 is not capable of producing sharp photos are committed to this decision because of theoretical limitations of the camera (AA filter, for example) and cannot be swayed. I am guessing that their definition of a sharp photo includes "created by a sensor with a weak or nonexistant AA filter," and no amount of visually sharp final photos will convince them otherwise because their definition is based on the tool and not on what the user creates with it. In other words, it is based on the process, not the product.

No, more probably it was based on the fact that most (all?) early reviews that included side by side shoots with Nikon d7000 (supposedly same or similar sensor) had the K5 looking softer. Excuses invented for this was bad lens, bad focus, bad photographer, stronger AA, and maybe a case of shutter vs SR blur again.

Parallax · 04-29-2011, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Rupert

You would argue, I know you...but you just don't want to let me color.....no one seems to want me to color, and the pity is I am so good at it!

Best Regards!

We have all kinds of neat Forums here....love it...but I do miss not having a Crayon section. A good many of us could do better than we do with our cameras, no doubt about it!

I've seen your drawings, Jim. Remember? Stick to photography.

Ray Pulley · 04-29-2011, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Gimbal

No, more probably it was based on the fact that most (all?) early reviews that included side by side shoots with Nikon d7000 (supposedly same or similar sensor) had the K5 looking softer. Excuses invented for this was bad lens, bad focus, bad photographer, stronger AA, and maybe a case of shutter vs SR blur again.

This is EXACTLY where the discussion started, along with the inevitable threads like this one purporting to show that there was nothing wrong with the camera, or other threads intimating that any soft images were made by dummies that did not know how to use the camera.

I'm glad that Pentax has addressed the issue even if the fix is not always perfect.

Ray

04-28-2011, 10:25 AM	#126
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Rupert Let's keep it straight, if we are going to pull up the past....right? What did I say that wasn't factual? I can think of two people, who are no longer members of this forum, to whom the K-5 was the biggest piece of trash ever created by the hand of man; even though they had never even seen one, let alone used one, and had no idea what was being done to correct the problems that actual users had encountered. (I have it from a reliable source that at least one of those two now owns one.) Last edited by Parallax; 04-28-2011 at 10:34 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A legend passes	Hey Elwood	General Talk	1	04-28-2009 06:55 AM
The Soft Place: Post Your Soft Focus Images	jeffkpotter	Post Your Photos!	22	04-23-2009 09:04 PM
gone of a legend	Gooshin	General Talk	4	11-22-2008 05:28 AM
The Legend [Taken with my new FA77]	barbosas	Post Your Photos!	3	08-19-2008 07:10 AM
I am Legend + K10(D)	bt*ist	Photographic Technique	4	01-13-2008 02:23 PM

04-28-2011, 08:01 AM	#121
Ray Pulley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Fallon Nevada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Originally posted by Ash I do not understand why there has to be a question over sharpness in this forum every time a new Pentax dSLR is released. Search for it and you'll see at least one rant about each camera having 'softness' issues. Being on my 6th different Pentax dSLR I have not experienced any image softness produced by any of these cameras that I cannot attribute to user error or lens limitation. Now, there may be bad copies of cameras with malaligned or defective sensors, or there may be bad lenses causing the unsharp images, but on the whole, the cameras are not the cause of unacceptably soft results. Then there's how an image looks after processing from your own computer, and the way the image looks after being uploaded and manipulated (either by JPEG compression or resizing) by internet host sites (cf. Surfer - Pentax User Photo Gallery for my own example). So I guess Pentax issued a firmware upgrade for the K5 to correct user errors then..... The K5 seems to still have AF quirks that sometimes results in soft images, but it is, for the most part, fixed. Ray

04-28-2011, 08:05 AM - 1 Like	#122
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Rupert The K5 had a rough start, so it was subjected to more rigorous scrutiny than most cameras ever receive. Yeah. Some people trashed it mercilessly; until they actually took a picture with one.

04-28-2011, 08:43 AM	#123
Designosophy Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Northeast Philadelphia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,137	Thanks to JohnBee and rfortson for answering my question. I haven't yet heard from any of the K-5 detractors, and after some reading and thinking I have come to the following, tentative conclusion: Those who have decided that a K-5 is not capable of producing sharp photos are committed to this decision because of theoretical limitations of the camera (AA filter, for example) and cannot be swayed. I am guessing that their definition of a sharp photo includes "created by a sensor with a weak or nonexistant AA filter," and no amount of visually sharp final photos will convince them otherwise because their definition is based on the tool and not on what the user creates with it. In other words, it is based on the process, not the product. As for me, I am happy to see all of the nice, sharp photos posted in this thread. I have no doubt that a K-5 can be used to create objectively sharp photos, based on my own definition of sharp.

04-28-2011, 09:37 AM	#124
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	I don't know if this is sharp, but it sure was smooth. Taken with my K5 and the DA70. I set the glass on a small glass table covered with black construction paper. I cut a hole in the paper and below the paper I stood a Maglite (flashlight, or torch for my British friends) on end pointing up through the hole. I turned off all the other lights and then shot the glass. Then I drained the glass (Maker's Mark over ice).

04-28-2011, 10:20 AM	#125
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by Parallax Yeah. Some people trashed it mercilessly; until they actually took a picture with one. Yes they did, until the firmware fix....when they promptly bought one. Maybe they had something to do with that firmware fix...you think? Let's keep it straight, if we are going to pull up the past....right? Best Regards!

04-28-2011, 10:35 AM	#127
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by Parallax What did I say that wasn't factual? Can I do you a Crayon drawing to explain it? I haven't done one of those in a while....I'm real good...remember? Regards! ....and did I say anything that wasn't factual?

04-28-2011, 11:59 AM	#128
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Rupert ............ ....and did I say anything that wasn't factual? Not at all.

04-28-2011, 02:21 PM	#129
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Originally posted by creampuff Well I've used DSLRs with different sensors, both CCD and CMOS and to be honest, I seriously can't validate the AA filter arguments based on the shots I've taken. So to me that discussion is more theoretical than practical. I've never experienced any so called sensor "softness" with any of my Pentax DSLRs, if there were any softness it was likely because I used a junk lens or a crap filter. Have to agree with Ash on this one... it is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. And I have never taken a single photo that did not deserve sharpening, regardless of the lens. There may be times when I choose not to sharpen for aesthetic reasons (e.g. portraits,) but every photo has some degree of softness. It's not a big deal and can easily be managed. Rob

04-28-2011, 04:34 PM	#130
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Ray Pulley So I guess Pentax issued a firmware upgrade for the K5 to correct user errors then..... The K5 seems to still have AF quirks that sometimes results in soft images, but it is, for the most part, fixed. Ray No, Ray. The firmware upgrade was for focusing deficiencies, not to fix sharpness problems on the camera. Manually focusing you would still get sharp images. Don't confuse the two.

04-28-2011, 07:43 PM	#131
Ray Pulley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Fallon Nevada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Originally posted by Ash No, Ray. The firmware upgrade was for focusing deficiencies, not to fix sharpness problems on the camera. Manually focusing you would still get sharp images. Don't confuse the two. No confusion at all on my part. Can't speak for anyone else. The camera is more than the sensor, BTW, and the camera did indeed produce soft images in many conditions where the competition had no trouble. The reasons for K5 soft images are certainly many and varied, but for months, the AF issues resulted in soft images in certain conditions and the results had nothing to do with user error. The camera was creating soft images in these conditions. Having to resort to MF to get sharp images in very normal non-challenging conditions made the K5 less than competitive with cameras using the same sensor and costing the same or less (or even with older Pentax models, for that matter), and not useful at all in some shooting conditions. Having to spend more money on a focusing screen to MF the camera just to get good results just meant that the K5 did indeed produce soft images in normal use for the way that the majority of people use the camera. The K5 would be worth about $5 without an AF system, IMO. So, for many users, the K5 as designed and initially delivered, did indeed produce soft images in some conditions and user error had nothing to do with it. Nor was it any sort of myth, the camera produced the soft results by simply using it the way it was designed to be used. Lastly, I do not recall seeing anyone claiming that the K5 produced only soft images, just too many. Ray

04-28-2011, 09:50 PM	#132
Rupert Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 25,123	Originally posted by Parallax Not at all. You would argue, I know you...but you just don't want to let me color.....no one seems to want me to color, and the pity is I am so good at it! Best Regards! We have all kinds of neat Forums here....love it...but I do miss not having a Crayon section. A good many of us could do better than we do with our cameras, no doubt about it!

04-28-2011, 11:33 PM	#133
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Originally posted by Designosophy clusion: Those who have decided that a K-5 is not capable of producing sharp photos are committed to this decision because of theoretical limitations of the camera (AA filter, for example) and cannot be swayed. I am guessing that their definition of a sharp photo includes "created by a sensor with a weak or nonexistant AA filter," and no amount of visually sharp final photos will convince them otherwise because their definition is based on the tool and not on what the user creates with it. In other words, it is based on the process, not the product. No, more probably it was based on the fact that most (all?) early reviews that included side by side shoots with Nikon d7000 (supposedly same or similar sensor) had the K5 looking softer. Excuses invented for this was bad lens, bad focus, bad photographer, stronger AA, and maybe a case of shutter vs SR blur again.

04-29-2011, 04:44 AM	#134
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Rupert You would argue, I know you...but you just don't want to let me color.....no one seems to want me to color, and the pity is I am so good at it! Best Regards! We have all kinds of neat Forums here....love it...but I do miss not having a Crayon section. A good many of us could do better than we do with our cameras, no doubt about it! I've seen your drawings, Jim. Remember? Stick to photography.

04-29-2011, 05:54 AM	#135
Ray Pulley Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Fallon Nevada Photos: Albums Posts: 504	Originally posted by Gimbal No, more probably it was based on the fact that most (all?) early reviews that included side by side shoots with Nikon d7000 (supposedly same or similar sensor) had the K5 looking softer. Excuses invented for this was bad lens, bad focus, bad photographer, stronger AA, and maybe a case of shutter vs SR blur again. This is EXACTLY where the discussion started, along with the inevitable threads like this one purporting to show that there was nothing wrong with the camera, or other threads intimating that any soft images were made by dummies that did not know how to use the camera. I'm glad that Pentax has addressed the issue even if the fix is not always perfect. Ray