Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-24-2010, 04:56 PM - 4 Likes   #31
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
My $0.02:
  1. The K-5 takes great pictures with plenty of detail. I see no motivation to try and uncover a 'softness issue'.
  2. I'll wait for Falk's (falconeye's) K-5 test. His results and comments will be a 100% reliable.
  3. Klaus has specific needs. He values the K10D because its AA filter is very weak (he claims it even has zero effect vertically). This particular K10D effect is good for producing high resolution numbers in lens test (remember that their resolution is measured vertically) but in practice a weak AA filter causes nothing but trouble.
  4. Can we not congratulate Pentax for chosing an appropriate AA filter? Go weaker and you run the risk of moir artifacts. The crispness is often not real detail but spurious contrast. It is much better to regain detail with capture sharpening than having to deal with moir.
  5. IR has published D7000 images in which one can observe spurious colour moir. In other words, you see colour where none should be present. Similar to TV broadcasts where B&W pinstripe shirts appeared to show rainbow colours. Do you want that?
  6. DSLR quality today has reached a level where one can blindly buy a camera based on handling preferences only. In terms of IQ they are all more than sufficient. Still, the hard work of testers has not become superfluous and should be respected. While the IQ differences are hardly relevant for 99% of the customers, the rest has an interest and I also think it helps to keep pushing the manufacturers to do their best.
In summary, I expect Pentax to have done the right thing. I'd be surprised if Falk's tests (hopefully he will have time to work on them) will show anything different.

Till then, I don't think there is anything to "uncover".


Last edited by Class A; 11-24-2010 at 08:03 PM.
11-24-2010, 05:40 PM - 1 Like   #32
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,042
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote

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.

I'm sorry you feel that way, especially in light of you saying in an earlier post that his measurements are "meaningless".
A couple of things, one being that many times I've found his results to be completely flawed in relation to what I know about the equipment in use, and that if he is putting his results out there as an expert witness, his test methods need to be transparent, flawless and above reproach, all of which you yourself say they are not.

Last edited by Wheatfield; 11-24-2010 at 08:53 PM.
11-24-2010, 06:46 PM   #33
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 407
Wheatfield I like you. Keep calling a spade a spade.
11-24-2010, 07:48 PM   #34
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
Falk, Klaus writes "The RAW quality is Okayish - 25% blur - which is significant.", while you write "the measured value is a very good balance between sharpening artefacts and detail." and "26% 'blur' is the mathematically perfect value.".

It, therefore, strikes me that Klaus' comment is not only misleading but simply inappropriate. With Photozone.de's reach, there comes a lot of responsibility and I feel that Klaus isn't living up to that by calling the K-5's RAW IQ "Okayish".

Previously I was was a big fan of photozone.de but I have to agree that I increasingly found that the published conclusions do not entirely match my own experiences and that the site focuses on parameters that are typically just fine for modern lenses while it neglects much more important properties such as flare control, quality of bokeh, focusing speed / accuracy, etc. This is not meant to be bashing photozone, it is more a reflection of how my evaluation of lenses shifted from test bench performance to photographic qualities.


Last edited by Class A; 11-24-2010 at 08:02 PM.
11-24-2010, 08:17 PM   #35
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
My $0.02:[LIST=1]
This particular K10D effect is good for producing high resolution numbers in lens test (remember that their resolution is measured vertically) but in practice a weak AA filter causes nothing but trouble.
Troubles??? Is it joke? Weak AA filter is the dream of perfectionist like me.
If you don't like moire, use C1Pro with good anti-moire tools. Of you print your photos, moire and CA are not a big issue.
11-24-2010, 08:22 PM   #36
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Falk, Klaus writes "The RAW quality is Okayish - 25% blur - which is significant.", while you write "the measured value is a very good balance between sharpening artefacts and detail." and "26% 'blur' is the mathematically perfect value.".
Try K-5's DNG files yourself. It's not bad, it's really Okayish.
Not perfect or excellent

IQ of K-5 is not the best. Good level.
11-24-2010, 08:39 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 392
this reaction is hilarious

OK, so this thread was started to quote Klaus (from his forum), and to quote him partially...and the same thing first appeared on dpreview.

The poor guy, Klaus, tried to clear things there that the quote was out of context. Couple of quotes from Klaus in that said thread.

QuoteOriginally posted by klaus:
As far as I can tell I'd say that the K5 is a very fine camera from a user perspective. I require a camera for a lab environment though.
QuoteOriginally posted by klaus:
It is about lens testing. The camera is merely the box that holds the sensor here.
As a side note - I'd like to use the camera personally - and I'm simply a guy who requires max. sharpness
SO it is pretty clear, he was quoted totally out of context. He tried his best to clear the confusion. But still, on dpreview, and even here, we have a quick line-up of defenders and doomsayers...Plus people are attacking Klaus's credibility...

Classy stuff, go internet!


cheers

Last edited by dexmus; 11-24-2010 at 08:41 PM. Reason: misspelt a name
11-24-2010, 08:47 PM   #38
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Weak AA filter is the dream of perfectionist like me.
As a perfectionist you should be rejecting the notion of using a design beyond its limits. I too once was fascinated by the high contrast images that come out of cameras which have the AA filter removed. But
  • this only works if the input signal is bandwidth limited such as to not exceed the sensor's resolution and
  • in the latter case you can achieve the same contrast with capture sharpening. Capture sharpening is not cheating, it is an appropriate step.
  • If the input signal (scene) is not sufficiently bandwidth limited, you get nasty moir which is a lot harder to remove than AA-blur. Did you remove the AA filter from your CD player? This only works if the rest of your chain (or your ears) effectively acts like a replacement filter. You don't want to listen to a digital recording where the sampling wasn't done with an appropriate bandwidth filter. Otherwise you'll be hearing things that were never part of the original sound (you'll hear mirror images from frequencies beyond the Nyquist frequency). This would sound terrible but yet you are asking for something very similar for your camera.

QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
If you don't like moire, use C1Pro with good anti-moire tools.
What if I like LR which doesn't offer moir removal? I don't know C1Pro, but as I said AA-blur removal is an easy and natural step, whereas moir removal is a challenge in damage repair.

QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Of you print your photos, moire and CA are not a big issue.
Well, if prints are this fuzzy, they hardly can be used as an argument in a discussion about top image resolution, can they?

QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
IQ of K-5 is not the best. Good level.
I suspect you are looking at them the wrong way. Either you are pixel-peeping without normalising different camera images to the same resolution or you are not applying the appropriate capture sharpening (which will differ for each camera).

I may be proven wrong, but I'd be very surprised if we -- some time later -- won't be convinced that the K-5's images provide excellent detail.


Last edited by Class A; 11-24-2010 at 08:58 PM.
11-24-2010, 08:53 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 923
A 'perfectionist' thinks moire patterns are not an issue ?

Maybe my PP skills are not up to scratch, but the last time I tried removing moire patterns in PP, some fine detail went out the window as well.....plus moire patterns can appear in prints, they look like discolorations. If its a scene where you were actually there, you'll spot it soon enough...
11-24-2010, 08:55 PM   #40
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,934
QuoteOriginally posted by dexmus Quote
SO it is pretty clear, he was quoted totally out of context.
I don't follow you.

The quotes you provided basically just say "sharpness isn't everything" but "if you need max. sharpness, e.g., for a lab, the K-5 isn't the best choice".

So where is the "out of context quoting"? He still maintains that the K-5 has a sharpness issue (in the sense that its 16MP sensor isn't better than the 10MP sensor of the K10D).
11-24-2010, 09:05 PM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: United States
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 392
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I don't follow you.

The quotes you provided basically just say "sharpness isn't everything" but "if you need max. sharpness, e.g., for a lab, the K-5 isn't the best choice".

So where is the "out of context quoting"? He still maintains that the K-5 has a sharpness issue (in the sense that its 16MP sensor isn't better than the 10MP sensor of the K10D).
No, the quotes I provided tell you that Klaus was talking about a lab test. For his lab test, where he wants to upgrade to a 'new' Pentax body to test Pentax lenses, he found that the increase in sharpness over a K10D (weaker AA filter) was not significant. That is ALL. The main thing to take away is that it is for lens test in a controlled lab environment.
His quote should not be considered as his review of the camera. I think it is pretty clear. But you choose to ignore that.

Anyways, I don't have to defend Klaus. So you are free to prolong your mis-interpretation.
11-24-2010, 11:18 PM   #42
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
I think the point is that sharpness for everything, for Klaus, because he is conducting resolution tests on lenses.

For photographers, sharpness is not everything. I believe this is what Klaus was trying to say. Class A, your analogy with digital audio is perfect.

The fact is, we are not working in an all analog environment anymore. Digitization is a series of approximations, and the AA filter brings those approximations closer to the analog experience. An approximation generates information that does not exist in the original scene. A "purist", then, would never use digital... a photographer would .
11-24-2010, 11:34 PM   #43
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
Original Poster
My conspiracy theory is that the AA filter strength were increased intentionally to hide shutter induced blur

Oleg_V
11-24-2010, 11:37 PM   #44
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,112
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote


I suspect you are looking at them the wrong way. Either you are pixel-peeping without normalising different camera images to the same resolution or you are not applying the appropriate capture sharpening (which will differ for each camera).
I look in right way
24 - - - iXBT
FA*24/2 +K-5 from LR 3.2 = not bad, but worse than at K200D.

I'm modest fan of sharpness without additional tools.
11-24-2010, 11:40 PM   #45
Inactive Account




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 388
I thought this whole sharpness thing was overblown, whats going on? I saw some crazy sharp samples on this board with the K-5
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 12:00 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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