[ogl]

ogl,

Klaus uses relative aggressive sharpening parameters and it remains to be seen how sharp a K-5 image renders with normal sharpening parameters. As long as he doesn't communicate sharpening parameters and lens and f-stop used, the figures are meaningless anyway. Sharpening parameters must always be adapted to a cameras AA filter and I'm sure, Klaus is going to do that.

I don't understand why do you say it to me...I've just copypasted Klaus words and nothin' else.

[Wheatfield]

Klaus doesn't know what he is doing at the best of times. I'm surprised he can organize a trip to the bathroom, much less a camera test.

[ogl]

ogl,

An MTF50 value of 2500 LW/PH for a 3264 pixel high sensor is a measured .

Previous Pentax cameras (10-14.6 MP) have one of the best resolution in RAW between other brands.

Pentax K-5 is lower than Canon 50D?

[Vaikis_]

Previous Pentax cameras (10-14.6 MP) has one of the best resolution in RAW between other brands.

Pentax K-5 is lower than Canon 50D?

K-5 has better resolution then K10D, so how it can be lower then Canon 50D ?

[ogl]

K-5 has better resolution then K10D, so how it can be lower then Canon 50D ?

Canon 50D - 2718 LW/PH
Nikon D90 - 2566 LW/PH
Pentax K-5 - 2500 LW/PH
Sony A550 - 2500 LW/PH
Pentax K10D - 2350 LW/PH

[Vaikis_]

Canon 50D - 2718 LW/PH
Nikon D90 - 2566 LW/PH
Pentax K-5 - 2500 LW/PH
Sony A550 - 2500 LW/PH
Pentax K10D - 2350 LW/PH

so your statment: "Previous Pentax cameras (10-14.6 MP) has one of the best resolution in RAW between other brands " is wrong.
what about K-7 ?

[ogl]

so your statment: "Previous Pentax cameras (10-14.6 MP) has one of the best resolution in RAW between other brands " is wrong.
what about K-7 ?

K-7 - I have no info, bit K-7 has weaker AA filter than K-5.

Between other brands with the same MP.
K10D, K200D, K-x has rather weak AA filter and the very good resolution.
K10D had the best resolution between 10 MP cameras.

[Vaikis_]

K-7 - I have no info, bit K-7 has weaker AA filter than K-5.

Between other brands with the same MP.
K10D, K200D, K-x has rather weak AA filter and the very good resolution.
K10D had the best resolution between 10 MP cameras.

so why Pentax didn't used K-7 AA filter in K-5 Interesting.

[paperbag846]

olg you are making my head hurt a little.

do you know why we don't all listen to DVD audio? No one can hear the difference, and the few who can, don't care. You can't see the differences in resolution that have been measured here. I simply don't believe you can see the difference without zooming in to 100% +... where every image I've ever seen (including medium format) suck. The only reason you are even aware of this difference is because of some computer testing. I have my doubts that people would prefer the 50D in an ABX double-blind test, even if it was specifically about sharpness.

Furthermore the resolution of the in-camera JPEGs are a factor of sharpening, and we have no idea if bumping the sharpness would help his figures. Furthermore, anyone who shoots in-camera JPEG can't be THAT picky about IQ now can they? What would you say to a slr owner who only uses the camera in green mode and complains that the exposure is not always ideal? If you want optimal results you switch it into manual, baby. Or did you not learn how to drive stick?

I just playing with you, but please stop looking at numbers and use your eyes. That is what you are supposed to do with photographs... look at them. I cannot believe how much negativity is strewn around based on numbers... no one ever posts a picture and says "look how crappy my camera is!" The only bad photos I've seen were the result of a user error.

I submit, good sir, that we have reached a point of severely diminished returns, and that at this stage in the game, sharpness is GROSSLY over-rated. You can get very fine sharpness from a K10d, yes, because we have had high quality sensors for a while now. I'm not sure if you noticed, but SLR design is much more than resolution. I'm pretty sure we established that many years ago (before everyone started worrying about "ISO" ).

[falconeye]

I don't understand why do you say it to me...I've just copypasted Klaus words and nothin' else.

Because you copypasted.

Klaus doesn't know what he is doing at the best of times. I'm surprised he can organize a trip to the bathroom, much less a camera test.

I endorse what Klaus is doing. I know him in person and he is a knowledgable guy. What he does makes sense too. It can be improved, yes. But he's spending a lot of time for doing what he does for the community anyway.

Wheatfield, this post has cost you a lot of credit with me.

Canon 50D - 2718 LW/PH
...
Pentax K10D - 2350 LW/PH

Can this madness stop please?

Somebody not knowing what the modular transfer function is, how it depends on various factors (like contrast and sharpening), that an MTF50 value is not resolution, that resolution in excess of the number of pixels can be measured if only trying hard enough, etc. ... should refrain from doing this kind of posts. Really.

[Jasvox]

Freakazoid robots, please report to the dance floor.


As you were.


Jason

[Parallax]

[alessandro63]

because you copypasted.

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

can this madness stop please?

+1

[ZoT]

but to go out to take pictures it is so difficult, rather than be read always just numbers ... Enjoy the K-5 which is a great reflex

[jpzk]

ogl,

An MTF50 value of 2500 LW/PH for a 3264 pixel high sensor is a measured 10-90% edge rise width of about 1.30 pixels. As one can read in my Understanding Image Sharpness white paper, an ideal camera rendering perfect pixels would have 1.26 pixels exactly. So, the "25% blur is significant" comment is misleading. 26% "blur" is the mathematically perfect value. Therefore, the measured value is a very good balance between sharpening artefacts and detail. It can be shown mathematically that an image sharpened beyond the 1.26px blur width value must have aliasing artefacts (like jaggies).

Klaus uses relative aggressive sharpening parameters and it remains to be seen how sharp a K-5 image renders with normal sharpening parameters. As long as he doesn't communicate sharpening parameters and lens and f-stop used, the figures are meaningless anyway. Sharpening parameters must always be adapted to a cameras AA filter and I'm sure, Klaus is going to do that.

Falk, thanks for bringing some light into this thread, specifically with your explanation of the meaning of the said tests as read in the opening post!

Upon reading the first lines of this thread:

"The JPEG quality is terrible (in terms of pixel-level-sharpness).
The RAW quality is Okayish - 25% blur - which is significant. Based on these initial tests I'd conclude that it has a rather aggressive AA filter.",

I thought this was a bunch of hogwash again and a further negative feedback round on the K5.

I am becoming very tired of such tests, no matter how credible the tester would be.

Cheers.

JP