Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-28-2010, 12:12 PM   #211
Inactive Account




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 8
QuoteOriginally posted by Manel Brand Quote
Is this out of control?
controlled by taken picture )

11-28-2010, 01:12 PM   #212
Veteran Member
Manel Brand's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Porto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 854
QuoteOriginally posted by Siniy Quote
controlled by taken picture )
C'mon, don't take it personally.
11-28-2010, 01:31 PM   #213
Veteran Member
ManuH's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Manel Brand Quote
That's funny too!

Is this out of control?
Maybe, I heard stories of people trying to exorcise their K10D
11-28-2010, 01:52 PM   #214
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Where are these images from?

I'd say they are not fit for comparison.

The D7000 image has higher global contrast (compare in particular the different white points), has received more sharpening (visible sharpening halos), and has less noise.

No EXIF data available so we don't know much except that the differences (even in white balance) are too big to allow a comparison of AA filters.
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
That's not correct.
Both samples aren't sharp.
The D7000 sample has an edge blur of 2.7px, the K-5 of 3.0px. The D7000 edge blur function shows sharpening artefacts, the K-5 doesn't. Both are not sharp!

So, that's a pretty useless and meaningless comparison.
I think we need to set the record straight here(looks like emotions are running high) and remind some of you, that the samples posted were in direct response to OGL's initial comment stating 'To say honest, not better than K-5...' accompanied with the following the reference image.



Which is why, I in turn... posted the samples along with the statement:
"I'd say the difference is visible..."

So hopefully, that will help clear-up some of the confusion and responses following this.

Having said that...
for those who want to play...
I've taken the liberty of posting a few samples from my own pixel peeping stash:

Step 1. Establish per/pixel sharpness (check!)

D7000, RPP RAW/NEF_0


K-5, RPP RAW/DNG_0


-

Step 1. Process before/after 1:1 samples (check!)

D7000, RPP RAW/NEF_0


D7000, RPP RAW/NEF_SHARP/DETAIL/ADJ


K-5, RPP RAW/DNG_0


K-5, RPP RAW/DNG_SHARP/DETAIL/ADJ


-

Step 1. Rince and repeat... (check!)

D7000, RPP RAW/NEF_0


D7000, RPP RAW/NEF_SHARP/DETAIL/ADJ


K-5, RPP RAW/DNG_0


K-5, RPP RAW/DNG_SHARP/DETAIL/ADJ


-

Step 1. And once again... (check!)

D7000, RPP RAW/NEF_0


D7000, RPP RAW/NEF_SHARP/DETAIL/ADJ


K-5, RPP RAW/DNG_0


K-5, RPP RAW/DNG_SHARP/DETAIL/ADJ

NB. all samples were pushed just short of the threshold of artifacts.


PS. to help contrast these, I recomment you load them up in tabs(individually) and compare them directly.

-

Well there you have it!

I'm not going to bore you with senseless conclusions etc. you can make your own determinations. Though I will go as far as saying that both camera's are quite capable of producing excellent 1:1 output(contrary to popular belief) and... of course, that I do have my own favorites.

QuoteOriginally posted by cbaytan Quote
This is the point, CMOS D3x is also a real studio camera, I have local references but this really OT as you said, better cut it short.
OMG that was funny!

11-28-2010, 03:20 PM   #215
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Trabzon/Turkey
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,010
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Well there you have it!
cry
11-28-2010, 04:01 PM   #216
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Oaxaca, Mexico; Shohola PA, USA
Posts: 219
K-5 raw NR at low ISOs?

John,

I used LR3.3 to process the same two ISO 100 raw files. The K-5 does reveal very slightly less detail when viewed large. Nothing that will make a difference in an actual photo, IMO.

What is interesting is that with identical sharpening, the D7000 photo shows more luma noise. I know the consensus is that the K-5 does not start raw NR until ISO 3200, but it may be applying some at all ISOs. Another possibility, I guess, is different LR processing for the two cameras.

BTW, what were your sharpening settings for these photos?

Jeff
11-28-2010, 04:23 PM   #217
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by Jeff Charles Quote
What is interesting is that with identical sharpening, the D7000 photo shows more luma noise. I know the consensus is that the K-5 does not start raw NR until ISO 3200, but it may be applying some at all ISOs. Another possibility, I guess, is different LR processing for the two cameras.
I would agree.
Though I should mention that in this particular case, I used the ISO200 variant for the K-5 and the ISO100 for the D7000. The main reason being that the K-5 exhibited slightly(and I mean slightly) more pixel detail at this sensitivity than with the extended sensitivity ones.

Having said that, I too noticed both luma and chroma noise with the D7K at this ISO than with the K-5. And I guess this could very well be the effect of the AA filter over that of sensor processing. However with the DPReview samples, I noticed that the tables could turn as it is the K-5 that seems somewhat noisier in certain areas whereas the D7K seems smoother. So... I guess I'm on the fence with that at this stage.

QuoteQuote:
BTW, what were your sharpening settings for these photos?
I normally use Focalblade Pro for my sharpening needs, but since I was aiming for simplicity, I used Topaz Detail to process these particular images(by profile).

So in this case, I dialed in a bit of small detail(microcontrast) and a touch on the large detail(+3) and finished off with a deblur setting of: .85/25

Hope this helps
11-28-2010, 05:45 PM   #218
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by cbaytan Quote
:cry:
No reason for sobbing, since, frankly, I don't know what we have.

Comparing images with different ISO settings?
Comparing images with different global contrast?
Same sharpening applied to cameras with different AA filters?

If someone wants to make conclusions from this...

BTW, no emotions running high here. Just scratching my head to how this non-issue has been created and is kept being purported.

11-28-2010, 06:34 PM   #219
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,620
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
BTW, no emotions running high here. Just scratching my head to how this non-issue has been created and is kept being purported.
Oh that's easy... The entire affair started when DPReview posted horrible images from the K-5, which was then compounded by Imaging Resource following suite with none other than equally poor images from the K-5. Now take that, and factor in that these are two of the most influential digital camera review sites on the internet and you have yourself an answer.

Will it go away anytime soon?
Not likely.

So the only thing we 'can do' is explore the claims to the best of our abilities and direct any/and all victims toward the facts.
Otherwise... the rumors and claims will persist to time indefinite.

On a side note...
Lets just be glad we don't own the Nikon.
Have you even seen the rubbish being dealt from the forums lately?
Based on that, you couldn't pay someone enough to own one of those hot pixel, AF riddled problematic D7000's!

Last edited by JohnBee; 11-28-2010 at 06:57 PM.
11-28-2010, 08:19 PM   #220
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,613
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
................

So the only thing we 'can do' is explore the claims to the best of our abilities and direct any/and all victims toward the facts.
Otherwise... the rumors and claims will persist to time indefinite........
If it weren't for the admirable job that you, Falk, Class A, and others have been doing in presenting actual facts, I would have put this thread out if its misery several pages ago.
11-28-2010, 11:33 PM   #221
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
The entire affair started when DPReview posted horrible images from the K-5, which was then compounded by Imaging Resource following suite with none other than equally poor images from the K-5.
That's certainly part of the puzzle. Ideally the response should just have been "Can't these review sites take a straight shot anymore?" (there were other K-5 images floating around already) but we all know it went a different route.

QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote
Based on that, you couldn't pay someone enough to own one of those hot pixel, AF riddled problematic D7000's!
I'll take one if someone throws in an additional $1. But I'm open to higher amounts, let the bidding begin.

QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
If it weren't for the admirable job that you, Falk, Class A, and others have been doing in presenting actual facts, I would have put this thread out if its misery several pages ago.
I'm surprised to see myself mentioned in that list, but thanks nevertheless.
11-29-2010, 02:26 AM   #222
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 488
Boy all this is confusing...... I think I am going to take an asprin and sleep it off.
After reading all of this. I feel like i have been on a week long drinking binge......

Going to dpreview, it looks like the k-x whips up on the k-5 pretty good.....
I am interested in the k-r now.

Last edited by garyk; 11-29-2010 at 03:12 AM.
11-29-2010, 03:26 AM   #223
Veteran Member
stanic's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: PB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 380
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
[*] With optimum lens, setup and raw parameters, the K-5 delivers a sharpness which well reproduces the original. Sharper and softer both could be worse. There is no halo, almost no sharpening artefact or fuzzyness.[*] However, there is mild color moiré and demosaicing mazes from a relatively weak AA filter. Weak if the goal would have been to prevent any color moiré. Just fine in a sense of a good compromise between acuity and fine texture color reproduction. Not weak in comparison to D7000 or Sony.[*] Without the mazes (demosaicing), color moiré (AA), noise (sensor) and color aberration (lens), the image would look very close to the original.[*] The contrast at the Nyquist frequency is 38%, close to and beating the original (a sign that less sharpening would do the job as well).[*] The K-5 AA filter seems to be about the same strength as previous Penatx cameras (K20D and K-7). I didn't verify this though. It's just my feeling.
gosh, thanks a million times dear sir, I`m starting to save money
11-29-2010, 04:34 AM   #224
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,247
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by JohnBee Quote


I'm not going to bore you with senseless conclusions etc. you can make your own determinations. Though I will go as far as saying that both camera's are quite capable of producing excellent 1:1 output(contrary to popular belief) and... of course, that I do have my own favorites.


OMG that was funny!
My eyes say - K-5 and D7000 are very close now.
11-29-2010, 05:33 AM   #225
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12
Hello everybody. Certainly i've read this threat with some interest, because the new Pentax is one of my candidates for my next DSLR. I'm not sure about sharpness, because i think that differents JPG algorythms have a great impact in final output. In my old Nikon D90, sharpness by default was not great. You had to set +2 to improve this aspect. I'm seeing some samples in this web:

pentax.photoble.net

and certainly Fine Sharpness and Extra Fine Sharpness have great impact in final results. I've found a good compromis between sharpness and artifacts with FS +1, although prime lens need less sharpen. I've found that even a zoom, as the new 18-135mm, can be sharp with correct settings:

??????? [PENTAX K-5] - Photoble Uploader

Last edited by Malake; 11-29-2010 at 07:45 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, jpeg, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k10d, k5, lens, pentax k-5, quality, tests
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question Exploring the K-5's Features rechmbrs Site Suggestions and Help 9 11-11-2010 03:47 PM
The K-5's five 5 user modes Adam Pentax K-5 8 11-04-2010 08:32 AM
Video of K-5's LiveView AF inferno10 Pentax K-5 22 10-31-2010 08:37 PM
Two different Takumar 135mm 2.5's ? kenhreed Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 4 06-06-2010 10:41 PM
New year resolution Vs camera resolution Tripod General Talk 1 01-04-2009 05:10 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top