[robgo2]

ogl, I'm just curious about something. You apparently don't like the K5. Understood; but why the crusade to convince everyone else that it is junk? Why particularly in the face of a plethora of hard evidence to the contrary?

I hate to say it, but Ogl is starting to sound a bit like RiceHigh. No Pentax camera is good enough for him. Well, no camera is perfect, as anyone with a molecule of common sense knows. So if Pentax makes you especially unhappy. move on to another brand that will make you happier, that is if you can find one.

Rob

[paperbag846]

I can't prohibit Asahiflex to make photos of K-5 with FA43, resize till 10 MP and show us...

I have no such DNG yet.

You haven't provided us with any DNG's either.

[paperbag846]

I hate to say it, but Ogl is starting to sound a bit like RiceHigh. No Pentax camera is good enough for him. Well, no camera is perfect, as anyone with a molecule of common sense knows. So if Pentax makes you especially unhappy. move on to another brand that will make you happier, that is if you can find one.

Rob

I'm ok with this. The world needs more clowns .

[robgo2]

I'm ok with this. The world needs more clowns .

I don't know if "clown" is the appropriate description. I think he is more likely an obsessive personality who cannot accept anything short of perfection, which means that he is never happy with anything. Now, why he feels compelled to make a crusade of his unhappiness is another matter.

This whole fuss over the K-5 lacking sharpness borders on madness. Just how sharp does an image have to be to look good at ordinary printing sizes, even fairly large ones? From what I have seen, the K-5 is more than up to the task. Anyone who says otherwise from inspecting images at 100% or larger is a fool who does not understand the whole point of producing photographic images.

Rob

[paperbag846]

Anyone who says otherwise from inspecting images at 100% or larger is a fool who does not understand the whole point of producing photographic images.

IMHO, this is a person who does not print much.

Maybe clown was inaccurate, although it wouldn't be a far cry to call all of this a bit of a circus . OGL isn't simply obsessive, he's also not listening to anyone. It's like talking to a wall. This makes him appear to be a little more loony than your typical perfectionist... it's starting to make him look... funny .

[Asahiflex]

OK then, here's one of my shots with the K-5 + FA77 combo. It was shot at f/2.5. The RAW was developed in ACR with the sharpening & noise reduction sliders set to 0. The resulting JPEG was resized to match the K200D's resolution at the longest side: 3872 pixels.

Have fun pixel peeping!

http://www.camerac.nl/foto/kaakslag-big.jpg

[rawr]

here's one of my shots with the K-5 + FA77 combo. It was shot at f/2.5

According to our friends at photozone.de, the FA77 delivers it's highest resolution at f4. The f4 result has about 10% more resolution than the f2.8 result. Pixel peepers take note!

Furthermore, while it is a charming shot, that foto has such a narrow depth of field of less than 1cm (only the tip and bridge of the nose is in sharp focus) that it is probably not the best shot to assess camera or lens sharpness with.

[Asahiflex]

According to our friends at photozone.de, the FA77 delivers it's highest resolution at f4. The f4 result has about 10% more resolution than the f2.8 result. Pixel peepers take note!

Furthermore, while it is a charming shot, that foto has such a narrow depth of field of less than 1cm (only the tip and bridge of the nose is in sharp focus) that it is probably not the best shot to assess camera or lens sharpness with.

I agree with everything you have written (although I'd say that the focus is also on the left eye). Unfortunately it was the only shot with this combo I had at hand. It must be said however, that I rarely shoot the FA77 at f/3.5 or beyond. The same goes for my FA* 85: I rarely go beyond f/2.8. Why? Because of my shooting style and my opinion that both lenses deliver the best bokeh at portrait distances at those f/stops.. And I prefer bokeh and overall feel above sharpness.

[paperbag846]

And I prefer bokeh and overall feel above sharpness.

Yes, this is a good point, which renders the whole anti-aliasing worry a bit silly. I do agree that it is a wonderful portrait, but it will unfortunately not satisfy our sharpness obsessed friends.

[Parallax]

I hate to say it, but Ogl is starting to sound a bit like RiceHigh. No Pentax camera is good enough for him. Well, no camera is perfect, as anyone with a molecule of common sense knows. So if Pentax makes you especially unhappy. move on to another brand that will make you happier, that is if you can find one.

Rob

I tried really hard not to say that, or make that comparison, but since you chose to..............................
carry on.

[cbaytan]

Have fun pixel peeping!

http://www.camerac.nl/foto/kaakslag-big.jpg

Thanks, this one is K200D sample taken with a cheap second hand FA 35-80mm at f/5.6, direct jpg from the camera, sharpness set to high unfortunately at that time. Check her hair, dress and EXIF.

http://www.baytan.org/Pentax/IMGP2401.JPG

Why did I post this? What is my point? it's the same size CCD sensor always superior to CMOS.

[paperbag846]

Thanks, this one is K200D sample taken with a cheap second hand FA 35-80mm at f/5.6, direct jpg from the camera, sharpness set to high unfortunately at that time. Check her hair, dress and EXIF.

http://www.baytan.org/Pentax/IMGP2401.JPG

Why did I post this? What is my point? it's the same size CCD sensor always superior to CMOS.

I think the difference has mostly to do with f5.6...

[cbaytan]

I think the difference has mostly to do with f5.6...

And the correct angle of the sun. Seriously I can't even imagine this photo taken with same camera with 77mm ltd with it's sharpest aperture. I would need a band aid.

[nanok]

the difference has to do with quality of light, and heavy sharpening (no pun intended). you are presenting a shot taken in direct sunlight to compare for perceived sharpness to one taken in diffused light. i don't know where you got the "ccd always superior to cmos" mantra, but i'd stay away from religion when it comes to technology, if you know what i mean (they are just different, neither is absolutely superior).

anyway, the point is i like asahiflex's shot better, and the sharpness doesn't have anything to do with it. so maybe this is indeed getting blown out of proportion. lighten up

[cbaytan]

the difference has to do with quality of light, and heavy sharpening (no pun intended). you are presenting a shot taken in direct sunlight to compare for perceived sharpness to one taken in diffused light. i don't know where you got the "ccd always superior to cmos" mantra, but i'd stay away from religion when it comes to technology, if you know what i mean (they are just different, neither is absolutely superior).

anyway, the point is i like asahiflex's shot better, and the sharpness doesn't have anything to do with it. so maybe this is indeed getting blown out of proportion. lighten up

I know what you mean, I agree with the light situation difference and believe me I am trying hard to be lighten up.