[Machspeed]

I wanted a camera that can stand 50-100% crops. I need very good detail. I have the glass, it is a shame I will not have a camera that will compete. I am very dissapointed. I was going to order the k-5 about a week ago and now the price is down to 1399. But i was bitten so bad with the k-7 I am gunshy. That Nikon looks so good to me. Detail so good in the crops. Such a shame about this. I am always rooting for the underdog but this time it doesn't win,,,, again. I'm afraid Pentax will not have any converts with this.
I'm keeping my glass with the hopes Pentax will eventually have a good camera. But I am now slowely switching to Nikon.

K5 and D7000 are within splitting hair distance from one another when comparing the achievable sharpness. If you are deciding based on this, you are wrong.

[ogl]

it's better to resize K10 image to size of K-5 image if you want to compare resolution more or less correctly )

Is it JOKE? I can't resize K10D's till 16 MP. I can only enlarge to 16 MP from 10 MP.
But it's absurd. The IQ will become degraded.

It's absolutely right and correct method to resize K-5's image size to 10 MP.

[Machspeed]

Is it JOKE? I can't resize K10D's till 16 MP. I can only enlarge to 16 MP from 10 MP.
But it's absurd. The IQ will become degraded.

It's absolutely right and correct method to resize K-5's image size to 10 MP.

What? If the K10D has better sharpness and detail at 10MP then K5 at 16MP, then enlarging the 10MP to 16MP will only outline these benefits of the K10D. The surplus details of the K10D at 10MP will better stand out versus the lack of detail of the K5 if they are both at 16MP..
I'm assuming that both images show the same objects, at the exact same FOV and exposure settings.

Anyway, I find it amazing how many out-of-focus images I've seen tossed around in these threads as valid "sharpness tests". This leads to a lot of confusion.
Also, the subject of the photograph adds or subtracts from the overall sharpness feel of the image. Photographing a wall will always feel less sharp the photographing cloth fabric from a certain distance for example.

[ogl]

That's good to hear but currently difficult to see for people not being able to listen to your conversations.


I don't understand. How does the meaning change when the interpretation is made "in a general sense"?


P.S.: You might want to try a trial version of LR3. The improved demosaicing and sharpening (compard to LR2) might have a slight influence on your findings. For instance, perhaps there might be less maze artefacts.

To say honest if we compare crops with FA43 from K10D and K-5 even without resize, we can't see any huge difference at 2 MP monitor.

Subjectively, K-5 has just a bit higher resolution than K10D. Klaus is not wrong.
16.3 MP is just dimension of the picture of K-5.
The real resolution of K-5 + FA31@4.5 - see Falk's datas.

[ogl]

What? If the K10D has better sharpness and detail at 10MP then K5 at 16MP, then enlarging the 10MP to 16MP will only outline these benefits of the K10D. The surplus details of the K10D at 10MP will better stand out versus the lack of detail of the K5 if they are both at 16MP..
I'm assuming that both images show the same objects, at the exact same FOV and exposure settings.

K10D has not better sharpness and details at 10 MP than resized till 10 MP K-5.
K-5 is just slightly better. I say only about this photos
K10D
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32163K8QVtiRMbm/0Xe0SHvCBv/568054.jpg
K-5
http://fotkidepo.ru/photo/132601/32163K8QVtiRMbm/0Xe0SHvCBv/568055.jpg

Play yourself

[ogl]

K10D



K-5 10 MP crop



K-5 16 MP crop

[Siniy]

Ogl, you should also put K10 image enlarged to 16MP (to compare correctly with real K-5 image)

---

Last edited by Siniy; 11-28-2010 at 06:12 AM. Reason: lang

[Siniy]

Is it JOKE? I can't resize K10D's till 16 MP. I can only enlarge to 16 MP from 10 MP. But it's absurd. The IQ will become degraded. It's absolutely right and correct method to resize K-5's image size to 10 MP.

it's not joke
Resize in english is change of size. it can be reduction of size or enlargement.
If you want some joke - please compare 0.3MP mobile phone camera with K-5 picture resizing last one to 0.3MP. you will be "surprized" and you will name K-5 worst camera of the world, because it has nearly same resolution as 0.3MP mobile phone camera.

[Machspeed]

K10D



K-5 10 MP crop



K-5 16 MP crop

Please provide a link to the DNG files. Also, do you know why controlled lighting is important in a sharpness test?

[Siniy]

Machspeed, these files are originaly my files

here are links to PEFs

K-5
http://files.mail.ru/5LT8MM

K10
it was required to set -0.7 EV for to auto metering for K10 to obtain same brightness of resulting image and avoid huge highligt clipping
http://files.mail.ru/A3T1AP

please ready this post
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/123768-photozone-de-k-5s...ml#post1283557

[Machspeed]

Machspeed, these files are originaly my files

here are links to PEFs

K-5
http://files.mail.ru/5LT8MM

K10
it was required to set -0.7 EV for to auto metering for K10 to obtain same brightness of resulting image and avoid huge highligt clipping
http://files.mail.ru/A3T1AP

please ready this post
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/123768-photozone-de-k-5s...ml#post1283557

I can't read the K5 PEF, that's why I'm asking for DNG (Photoshop and Lightroom user on OS X here).
Also, lighting is very important in a sharpness test. Outdoor light is bad for sharpness tests, especially if you are inspecting 200% enlarged crops. You have a moving light which casts drop-shadows (the shadows are making the image sharp or not) at different angles in 2 consecutive photos.

[Siniy]

I can't read the K5 PEF, that's why I'm asking for DNG (Photoshop and Lightroom user on OS X here). Also, lighting is very important in a sharpness test. Outdoor light is bad for sharpness tests, especially if you are inspecting 200% enlarged crops. You have a moving light which casts drop-shadows (the shadows are making the image sharp or not) at different angles in 2 consecutive photos.

you can try pentax utility for Mac
PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4 Update for Macintosh : Software Downloads : PENTAX
it's only one way to open PEFs for you)

i did this test (not test, just number of photos in same conditions) to understand for me what is difference between K-5, K-7 and K10 (as i have all these cameas) in normal situations for most part of my day-to-day shots.
and it was test more for iso/noise comparison, not for resolution
if it's useful for any other person - i'm ok with it.
if not - let this person try to find test good for him)

regarding resolution, my opinion, once again, K-5 have about 20% advantage in real resolution in normal conditions over both K10 and K-7
also i've put jpegs with almost all useful ISO from all three cameras.
http://fotkidepo.ru/?id=album:32509
original full size jpegs are available for each picture - 4th string in their descriptions (under pictures)

also you can check PEFs from all three cameras in ISO 100, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 (last one for K-5 and K-7 only)
K-5 IMGP1438.PEF ñêà÷àòü ñ Ôàéëû@Mail.Ru
K-7 IMGP1402.PEF ñêà÷àòü ñ Ôàéëû@Mail.Ru
K10 IMGP0794.PEF ñêà÷àòü ñ Ôàéëû@Mail.Ru (EV -0.7)

[ManuH]

The K-5 has no strong AA filter or any softness "issue". This ends this discussion for me.

Amen to that.

[Class A]

I wanted a camera that can stand 50-100% crops.

The K-5 is such a camera.

Don't get fooled by all the people that are trying to uncover or even proclaim a "softness" problem with the K-5.

Hopefully, you can see from proper sources (see e.g., Falk's posts) that the K-5 is just fine and more contrasty 100% crops can only be had at the expense of more (earlier) colour moiré.

Just do yourself a favour, take a good K-5 shot and sharpen it. The untreated 100% crop that looked "soft" before sharpening will show amazing detail.

It would be great if people would stop posting "softness problem" messages against proof to the contrary. However, I have little hope that this nonsense will stop any time soon.

[Machspeed]

you can try pentax utility for Mac
PENTAX Digital Camera Utility 4 Update for Macintosh : Software Downloads : PENTAX
it's only one way to open PEFs for you)

i did this test (not test, just number of photos in same conditions) to understand for me what is difference between K-5, K-7 and K10 (as i have all these cameas) in normal situations for most part of my day-to-day shots.
and it was test more for iso/noise comparison, not for resolution
if it's useful for any other person - i'm ok with it.
if not - let this person try to find test good for him)

regarding resolution, my opinion, once again, K-5 have about 20% advantage in real resolution in normal conditions over both K10 and K-7
also i've put jpegs with all ISO from all three cameras.
also you can check PEFs from all three cameras in ISO 100, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 (last one for K-5 and K-7 only)
K-5 IMGP1438.PEF ñêà÷àòü ñ Ôàéëû@Mail.Ru
K-7 IMGP1402.PEF ñêà÷àòü ñ Ôàéëû@Mail.Ru
K10 IMGP0794.PEF ñêà÷àòü ñ Ôàéëû@Mail.Ru (EV -0.7)

OK then, understood. We can agree then that this "normal situations" could not provide us with an absolute conclusion when comparing 2 cameras at 200% zooming.
It's an interesting exercise but that's all..

Anyway, in my opinion, CMOS sensors are not meant for extracting maximum sharpness. We are deluding ourselves if we are basing our choices of a CMOS based DSLR purchase exclusively on this. If we want maximum sharpness per pixel there are far better choices. On the other hand, High ISO performance and Dynamic Range are other characteristics to watch for in a CMOS sensor.