Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-24-2010, 11:47 PM   #46
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,294
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Abstract Quote
I thought this whole sharpness thing was overblown, whats going on? I saw some crazy sharp samples on this board with the K-5
Me too. Just with FA77 at f8. Not crazy sharp, but good.

11-24-2010, 11:48 PM   #47
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
My conspiracy theory is that the AA filter strength were increased intentionally to hide shutter induced blur

Oleg_V
Ha ha! Oh, wow.
11-25-2010, 02:30 AM   #48
Inactive Account




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 535
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
My conspiracy theory is that the AA filter strength were increased intentionally to hide shutter induced blur

Oleg_V
and base that assumption on?
11-25-2010, 02:35 AM   #49
Veteran Member
Jimfear's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 576
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
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.

I have a hard time understanding how this is relevant. From what I can understand all those pictures are with the K-5. So from where does the comparison with the K200D come? Anyone can take a bad photo with good gear, so until someone does a comparison head to head under the same conditions all we can really say is that there are examples of good and sharp pictures from both cameras. As well as bad pictures from both.

11-25-2010, 02:40 AM   #50
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,294
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jimfear Quote
I have a hard time understanding how this is relevant. From what I can understand all those pictures are with the K-5. So from where does the comparison with the K200D come? Anyone can take a bad photo with good gear, so until someone does a comparison head to head under the same conditions all we can really say is that there are examples of good and sharp pictures from both cameras. As well as bad pictures from both.
Nobody of K-5 users can show me the photo from FA77 at f/3.2 with such level of sharpness without any additional sharp tools or extra sharp in converter.

It's default converted file in C1Pro.
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/566217.jpg
11-25-2010, 03:31 AM   #51
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Nobody of K-5 users can show me the photo from FA77 at f/3.2 with such level of sharpness without any additional sharp tools or extra sharp in converter.

It's default converted file in C1Pro.
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32162qXOjQehHIw/E9QALj3fZV/566217.jpg
I assume you want to compare a resized (to 10MP) K-5 photo with a K200D photo? Only then it makes sense.
11-25-2010, 04:08 AM   #52
New Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Budapest
Posts: 11
My thoughts also. Reduce the K-5 picture to K200D size or scale up the K200D to 16mpix. I have a copy of the FA*24/2 too, and I know its flaws, but I just don't care, I like it very much. Why? I like the the FOV, the colors, the build quality, the center sharpness, and so on. I think my sharpest lens overall is the DA* 50-135/2.8, but on f/8 an old Vivitar 70-210/2.8-4.0 is sharper. But I don't care either. I love to use both, in different situations. Thats what this all about, don't pixel-peep all the time, guys, because you'll always be frustrated.
11-25-2010, 05:30 AM   #53
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle of Everywhere
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,171
I'm sticking with the cheese...

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.".

It, therefore, strikes me that Klaus' comment is not only misleading but simply inappropriate....
As DSLRs mature and the gap between film and digital outputs narrow, life gets harder for those who aspire to be opinion shapers through the use of bench test and academic explanations. To stay relevant, they need a "man bites dog" storyline.

In the case of the K-5, unlike times past, they are late to the party. Their main talking points and the issues may have given me pause have been dissolved by examples posted by others for all to see. The cheese has moved. All that remains are a few fly-specs and crumbs to examine then blather endlessly about. Pretty soon even that will be devoured.

Anyway, if you happen to cross the path of a fellow "loose in the wild" enjoying his K-5 (or its successor), I hope you will take a moment and say "Hello..." It might just be me.

Best of success and enjoy the season...

11-25-2010, 06:04 AM   #54
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,630
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
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.
I don't know if this this is necessarily true. As a fan of landscape photography, I can see where 1:1 output would be every bit as integral as that of reduced printing. And though I wouldn't say everyone's on the same playing field in this regard, I do think the same sort of requirements come-in on various studio and media grade photography as well. And so, the issue seems just as much one of intent than that of generalized needs in many cases.

QuoteQuote:
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.
I would agree with this .
And though there are hard feelings attached. I don't think there's anything wrong with this as a whole, when we consider the market and the way things run their course. If anything... Pentax has had a foot in the prosumer market for sometime now, and I think this inevitably places them in the competitive arena insofar as product performances go. And, consequentially, any attempts to deny or shun any/and all competitive comparissons seems highly unlikely option.

QuoteQuote:
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.
I've been running tests between several systems over the past few weeks and its looking as though the differences in detail due to AA filtration may not be recoverable by post processing. Having said that... it would take a considerable amount of effort to setup a reliable testing method from which to draw sound conclusions from. And despite this, I'm just not convinced that the standing results(based on available data) are very conclusive at this stage.

However(all this aside), I will admit, that the D7K does seem to hold a unique position amidst the competition with regard to IQ and detail. Which can be seen or observed at 1:1(or 100%) where both the advantages and consequences are visible.

QuoteQuote:
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" ).
I think the observation ends-up being a mixed bag tbh.
On the one hand, we get to claim that sensors have had the potential and capacity to provide us with "good photo's" for some time now. However, as needs and requirements continue to move forward, I think everyone is in there right to expect a likely progression along the way also. Otherwise... no one would bother to upgrade their equipment

Personally, I'd like to see Pentax build a prosumer grade body.
IOW. A crop sensor system that would command the outmost in IQ and performance for the working professional that 'would not' cost 10 thousand dollars. This way, we could look forward to keeping our APS-C lenses and putting our chips on performance in a serious way. A perfect blend of cost and performance for the working photographer.

And they could call it the K-3
11-25-2010, 06:46 AM   #55
Senior Member
kari's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 149
Every new camera in recent times has been called "soft". There was a review that claimed the 7D was softer than the 450D. There is a thread on the Nikon forum claiming that the D90 is sharper than the D7000 and it seems many Nikon users who upgraded agree.

There are simply too many variables when testing cameras that you can say this one is soft and that one is sharp and this is always the case. Everyone needs to find the sweet spot for their own camera and stick with it. I really doubt there is any real difference in resolving power between 7D, D7000, K-5 and A580.
11-25-2010, 06:48 AM   #56
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,654
Okay, ogl, I think I understand all of this now. Because the sensor is not PERFECT for a lens testing lab environment, the K5 is physically incapable of producing good pictures. Got it.
11-25-2010, 07:32 AM   #57
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,893
Interestingly, I notice focus numerique, in testing the D7000 vs the D90 also found that the JPG resolution differences were marginal - 45 lp/mm @f/5,6 vs D90 43 lp/mm - between the D7000 and the D90.
Test Nikon D7000 - Focus Numrique

It's worth noting that DXOMark.com also includes lens and camera body testing...here's some results for the a reasonably sharp lens like the 50mm 2.8 macro on a K10D, K200D and a K20D that, despite what some people have claimed in this discussion, illustrate a progressive (but not dramatic) increase in resolution from the K10 to the K20.

DxOMark - Compare lenses

They don't have the K-7, K-x or K-5 in there yet, but it's worth watching dxomark.com to see what they add, particularly if they add any K-5 lens/resolution tests soon.
11-25-2010, 07:37 AM   #58
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,294
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by kari Quote
Every new camera in recent times has been called "soft". There was a review that claimed the 7D was softer than the 450D. There is a thread on the Nikon forum claiming that the D90 is sharper than the D7000 and it seems many Nikon users who upgraded agree.

There are simply too many variables when testing cameras that you can say this one is soft and that one is sharp and this is always the case. Everyone needs to find the sweet spot for their own camera and stick with it. I really doubt there is any real difference in resolving power between 7D, D7000, K-5 and A580.
Pentax cameras with 10 MP sensors never called SOFT. K-x too.
JPEG of Pentax had some softness from the time of *ist D. And nothing else.

The generation of *ist cameras had strong AA filter
The generation of 10 MP CCD had weak AA filter
The generation of K20D/K-7 had semi-thick AA filter
K-x has even weaker filter than 10 MP CCD generation
K-5 has rather strong AA filter close to *ist generation.

I will test K-r's DNG this weekend and can say something about total sharpness.
11-25-2010, 07:41 AM   #59
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,294
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by tmtke Quote
My thoughts also. Reduce the K-5 picture to K200D size or scale up the K200D to 16mpix. I have a copy of the FA*24/2 too, and I know its flaws, but I just don't care, I like it very much. Why? I like the the FOV, the colors, the build quality, the center sharpness, and so on. I think my sharpest lens overall is the DA* 50-135/2.8, but on f/8 an old Vivitar 70-210/2.8-4.0 is sharper. But I don't care either. I love to use both, in different situations. Thats what this all about, don't pixel-peep all the time, guys, because you'll always be frustrated.
In terms of sharpness K-7 is better than K-5.
To scale up of picture is absurd. I can leave FA*24 at K200D and buy K-7 for other lenses
11-25-2010, 07:47 AM   #60
Senior Member




Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 213
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
In terms of sharpness K-7 is better than K-5.
To scale up of picture is absurd. I can leave FA*24 at K200D and buy K-7 for other lenses
and you don't buy K-5 ? Ohh... it's not good
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 10:13 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