ok NOW I GET IT!!!!

patriotap · 12-14-2010, 11:09 AM

I couldnt really grasp the high ISO praising of the k5. Everytime I looked at a 1600 or 3200, I didnt think it was that great or that big a deal. Well, I helped a lady shoot a cheerleading competition. She is in the process of getting a new camera, she was looking at the d300s or d7000. She is using an Olympus E-500 now.

Well, after looking at similar shots, all I can say is WOW, now I get it!

I dont know that its a far comparison between the two cameras, but it still gives me the perspective and difference Ive been wondering about.

All pics completely untouched, not even a crop (when I added some luminese to mine, it was even better!!!)

E-500 at 1600 ISO

K5 at 3200 ISO

Olympus 400 ISO

K5...still at 3200 ISO

MCsquared · 12-14-2010, 11:22 AM

Nice comparison, even if it isn't "fair". Makes me wish I had an extra $1500 laying around.

**Eric Seavey** · 12-14-2010, 11:28 AM

I can clearly see the Olympus outperforming the K-5 here... Just look at all the colorful detail the Olympus is showing on the walls and ceiling in the first photo....

philbaum · 12-14-2010, 11:35 AM

Brain, congratulations and a very nice demonstration of the need for high ISO.

I've been shooting pictures, no flash allowed, for about 2 years now for a local playhouse. The occasional dark scenes are always difficult to shoot with my K20 and require lots of noise removal. One of the photographers i shoot with has a D300s and its got slightly better iso performance than my K20, but nowhere near the capabilities of the K5 or D7000. Also the D300s has a pretty noisy shutter.

People who routinely shoot during daylight or in studio conditions just don't get what a marvelous accomplishment the K5 is. Not to mention its quiet shutter :-)

tbirdas · 12-14-2010, 11:41 AM

Even though I am seriously considering a K-5 myself, I have been getting very good low-light pictures at ISO 3200 from my K-x (with reasonably fast lenses -2.8). I'd be curious if anyone has a K-5 to K-x comparisons

Jasvox · 12-14-2010, 11:45 AM

Just think what they would look like if they were exposed properly.

Jason.

causey · 12-14-2010, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Eric Seavey

I can clearly see the Olympus outperforming the K-5 here... Just look at all the colorful detail the Olympus is showing on the walls and ceiling in the first photo....

It seems more like a difference of focus btw. the two pics/.

Jodokast96 · 12-14-2010, 12:19 PM

A K-5, less than two minutes from my house, and I missed it!

We've got to hook up one of these days.

**jbinpg** · 12-14-2010, 01:13 PM

Note to Eric...you forgot the smiley again...

dlacouture · 12-14-2010, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by tbirdas

Even though I am seriously considering a K-5 myself, I have been getting very good low-light pictures at ISO 3200 from my K-x (with reasonably fast lenses -2.8). I'd be curious if anyone has a K-5 to K-x comparisons

Well, I sold my K7 + Kx for the K5... While the K7 was an obvious looser against the K5, the Kx was indeed good...

I would say the K5's strength against the Kx is its bigger DR (IQ-wise, the body's ergonomics are in another league completely). ISO-wise it's of course better, but frankly, given the excellent level of the K-x, you cannot justify the upgrade based only on ISO performance.

But a native 80 iso, with this huge 14.12Ev (DxOmark), really shines in outdoors situations. I've at last the same results I had with negatives, back in the film days...

robgo2 · 12-14-2010, 01:35 PM

Brian,

I have to ask, did you capture the K-5 shots in raw or jpeg, and, if the latter, was NR turned off?

Rob

**Eric Seavey** · 12-14-2010, 02:02 PM

Oh yes...

extravagrant · 12-14-2010, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Eric Seavey

I can clearly see the Olympus outperforming the K-5 here... Just look at all the colorful detail the Olympus is showing on the walls and ceiling in the first photo....

dexmus · 12-14-2010, 04:21 PM

E500 shot is terrible at 1600. Having said that, the k-5 shots here are inferior to what is usually posted. May be it is the uneven lighting, but the last shot at 3200 looks to have some visible noise, even at the size posted.
Did you have NR turned on in camera? Are these straight jpegs out of the camera.

Please, I am not dissing the camera. There are more than enought threads on that

. Just my observation on these particular pics.

cheers,

twitch · 12-14-2010, 04:28 PM

The first 2 shots really prove the point, massive difference. The E500 doesn't look much better than what my S90 could do.

The last 2 pics aren't that useful though, looks like flash was used for the Olympus ISO400 shot, and the last K-5 shot looks noisy (exposure dragged up in post?) and has missed focus.

12-14-2010, 11:09 AM	#1
patriotap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: South Jersey Photos: Albums Posts: 159	ok NOW I GET IT!!!! I couldnt really grasp the high ISO praising of the k5. Everytime I looked at a 1600 or 3200, I didnt think it was that great or that big a deal. Well, I helped a lady shoot a cheerleading competition. She is in the process of getting a new camera, she was looking at the d300s or d7000. She is using an Olympus E-500 now. Well, after looking at similar shots, all I can say is WOW, now I get it! I dont know that its a far comparison between the two cameras, but it still gives me the perspective and difference Ive been wondering about. All pics completely untouched, not even a crop (when I added some luminese to mine, it was even better!!!) E-500 at 1600 ISO K5 at 3200 ISO Olympus 400 ISO K5...still at 3200 ISO

12-14-2010, 11:22 AM	#2
MCsquared Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Oklahoma Photos: Gallery Posts: 84	Nice comparison, even if it isn't "fair". Makes me wish I had an extra $1500 laying around.

12-14-2010, 11:28 AM	#3
Eric Seavey Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 307	I can clearly see the Olympus outperforming the K-5 here... Just look at all the colorful detail the Olympus is showing on the walls and ceiling in the first photo....

12-14-2010, 11:35 AM	#4
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Brain, congratulations and a very nice demonstration of the need for high ISO. I've been shooting pictures, no flash allowed, for about 2 years now for a local playhouse. The occasional dark scenes are always difficult to shoot with my K20 and require lots of noise removal. One of the photographers i shoot with has a D300s and its got slightly better iso performance than my K20, but nowhere near the capabilities of the K5 or D7000. Also the D300s has a pretty noisy shutter. People who routinely shoot during daylight or in studio conditions just don't get what a marvelous accomplishment the K5 is. Not to mention its quiet shutter :-)

12-14-2010, 11:41 AM	#5
tbirdas Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 83	Even though I am seriously considering a K-5 myself, I have been getting very good low-light pictures at ISO 3200 from my K-x (with reasonably fast lenses -2.8). I'd be curious if anyone has a K-5 to K-x comparisons

12-14-2010, 11:45 AM	#6
Jasvox Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 3,107	Just think what they would look like if they were exposed properly. Jason.

12-14-2010, 12:14 PM	#7
causey Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Arlington, VA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,757	Originally posted by Eric Seavey I can clearly see the Olympus outperforming the K-5 here... Just look at all the colorful detail the Olympus is showing on the walls and ceiling in the first photo.... It seems more like a difference of focus btw. the two pics/.

12-14-2010, 12:19 PM	#8
Jodokast96 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Erial, NJ USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,134	A K-5, less than two minutes from my house, and I missed it! We've got to hook up one of these days.

12-14-2010, 01:13 PM	#9
jbinpg Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Prince George, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,546	Note to Eric...you forgot the smiley again...

12-14-2010, 01:26 PM	#10
dlacouture Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Var, South of France Photos: Albums Posts: 1,074	Originally posted by tbirdas Even though I am seriously considering a K-5 myself, I have been getting very good low-light pictures at ISO 3200 from my K-x (with reasonably fast lenses -2.8). I'd be curious if anyone has a K-5 to K-x comparisons Well, I sold my K7 + Kx for the K5... While the K7 was an obvious looser against the K5, the Kx was indeed good... I would say the K5's strength against the Kx is its bigger DR (IQ-wise, the body's ergonomics are in another league completely). ISO-wise it's of course better, but frankly, given the excellent level of the K-x, you cannot justify the upgrade based only on ISO performance. But a native 80 iso, with this huge 14.12Ev (DxOmark), really shines in outdoors situations. I've at last the same results I had with negatives, back in the film days...

12-14-2010, 01:35 PM	#11
robgo2 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: New Mexico Photos: Albums Posts: 1,125	Brian, I have to ask, did you capture the K-5 shots in raw or jpeg, and, if the latter, was NR turned off? Rob

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-14-2010, 02:02 PM	#12
Eric Seavey Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Irvine, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 307	Oh yes...

12-14-2010, 02:30 PM	#13
extravagrant Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 121	Originally posted by Eric Seavey I can clearly see the Olympus outperforming the K-5 here... Just look at all the colorful detail the Olympus is showing on the walls and ceiling in the first photo....

12-14-2010, 04:21 PM	#14
dexmus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 392	E500 shot is terrible at 1600. Having said that, the k-5 shots here are inferior to what is usually posted. May be it is the uneven lighting, but the last shot at 3200 looks to have some visible noise, even at the size posted. Did you have NR turned on in camera? Are these straight jpegs out of the camera. Please, I am not dissing the camera. There are more than enought threads on that . Just my observation on these particular pics. cheers,

12-14-2010, 04:28 PM	#15
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	The first 2 shots really prove the point, massive difference. The E500 doesn't look much better than what my S90 could do. The last 2 pics aren't that useful though, looks like flash was used for the Olympus ISO400 shot, and the last K-5 shot looks noisy (exposure dragged up in post?) and has missed focus.