Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-19-2010, 02:14 AM   #46
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
i was surprised on just how much better the k5 raw files and jpegs looked over the d7000...at all the iso setting and particularly at the higher iso end

i used the widget over the playing card on the set shot...k5 was a very clear winner..

then to torment myself even more..i added a k7 to the mix...:{

12-19-2010, 03:36 AM   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by Tommot1965 Quote
i was surprised on just how much better the k5 raw files and jpegs looked over the d7000...at all the iso setting and particularly at the higher iso end

i used the widget over the playing card on the set shot...k5 was a very clear winner..
Certainly testing with the D FA 50 Macro helped.
12-19-2010, 04:06 AM   #48
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 488
Well I am just about to throw in the towl and buy the k-5 because i have some good glass for pentax. But what the he_ _ does it mean when it says.

■Jaggies can be a problem along very fine diagonal lines
12-19-2010, 04:31 AM   #49
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,937
QuoteOriginally posted by MrPetkus Quote
That wasn't the case. From the review:
"Ultimately, we have no hesitation in recommending the Pentax K-5 to anyone - not only existing Pentax users [...]"
Yeah, you picked the one line where they didn't restrict it to Pentax users. Earlier they write "we would wholeheartedly recommend the camera to any Pentax user" (no "not only existing Pentax users" here) and "The K-5 is a no-brainer upgrade from a K-x or earlier Pentax DSLR, but obviously, for users of other systems it is harder to justify, and price is only part of the reason for that.".

But I agree that there not really something to moan about regarding recommendations.

12-19-2010, 04:35 AM   #50
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,937
QuoteOriginally posted by garyk Quote
But what the he_ _ does it mean when it says.
"Jaggies can be a problem along very fine diagonal lines"
Apparently, they found diagonal lines (in JPEGs?) which weren't blurry enough and hence look more like staircases rather than solid (but blurry) lines. They put it down to an AA filter that's too weak. Note, however, that there are threads on this forum that investigated whether the K-5's AA filter is too strong (just because the Nikon D7000 has a weaker one)! Rest assured, the K-5's AA filter is a Goldilock's filter, it is "just right".
12-19-2010, 04:53 AM   #51
Inactive Account




Join Date: Feb 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 488
K-5's AA filter is a Goldilock's filter, it is "just right".

LOL... Ok thanks...
12-19-2010, 02:26 PM   #52
Veteran Member
Tommot1965's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Perth Western Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,026
QuoteOriginally posted by DSims Quote
Certainly testing with the D FA 50 Macro helped.
i was thinking about less noise too at the higher ISO end..rather than lens IQ...im trying to find as many reasons as possible to stay with my K7..but its getting harder and harder
12-19-2010, 04:51 PM   #53
Pentaxian
dosdan's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,697
Don't think I've seen this mentioned here yet - DPR has retested the burst performance with the v1.0.1 firmware:

The following timings were originally made with firmware version 1.0 – we have since re-tested the K-5's continuous shooting performance with firmware 1.0.1, and updated timings follow below.

The Pentax K5 offers pretty impressive continuous shooting performance – a maximum frame rate of 7fps (although we have found that it wavers slightly, between 6.3-7fps) for 20-30 JPEG images (depending on JPEG quality settings) images. This compares very favorably both to the Canon EOS60D and the Nikon D7000, but isn't quite as good as the Nikon D300S or Canon EOS 7D, which both have significantly bigger buffers in JPEG mode. In RAW mode, the K-5 (with updated firmware) gives very good performance, and manages 24 images in a high-speed burst (increased from 8, with original firmware).

The following figures are the result of our own timings – all operations are performed and timed three times, with the average given.

* JPEG (4 star – highest quality): 6.3 – 7fps for 25 frames, then 1.5 – 2.5fps in short bursts. Approx 15 seconds to recover.

* JPEG ( 3 star – standard quality): 6.3 – 7fps for 30 frames, then 1.5 – 2.5fps in short bursts. Approx 10 seconds to recover.
* RAW (DNG): 6.3 – 7 fps for 24 frames, then 1.2fps. Approx 18 seconds to recover.
* RAW+ JPEG (standard): 6.3 – 7 fps for 24 frames, then around 0.7 fps. Approx 18 seconds to recover.

All tests conducted at 1/250 sec in AF-S mode with a 16GB Lexar Professional 133x Class 10 SDHC card.

They've also added this as a "Pro" in the list of positive points in the Conclusion:

Excellent burst depth in RAW mode (with firmware 1.0.1)


Being able to shoot a continuous 6.3-7fps raw burst for about 3.5 seconds should please action shooters. Just don't fill the buffer or you'll wait a long time for it to clear. (According to GordonBGood, the long buffer clearance time is the result of a deep buffer and large filesize, not a slow processor.)


Dan.

12-19-2010, 11:57 PM   #54
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 44
Awesome review! I'm a little disappointed that there was zero mention of water proofing. One would think this would earn some "build quality" points.That and for some reason the K-5 scored lower in body design than the K-7... but still an awesome review.

PS. I may be wrong but it looks like they updated the jpg comparison shots... is it just me or does the K-5 looks significantly sharper than I think it did a few weeks ago?
12-20-2010, 04:50 AM   #55
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Montreal (Canada)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 198
QuoteOriginally posted by PixleFish Quote
zero mention of water proofing
the k5 is not water-proof!! at least not in the same way as the Optio W90 is water-proof.

it has weather sealing; there are anecdotical evidence where you see people clean their camera under a running faucet, or standing in the pouring rain, but I would not put it underwater deliberately.
12-20-2010, 05:46 AM   #56
Veteran Member
stanic's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: PB
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 380
QuoteOriginally posted by PixleFish Quote
Awesome review! I'm a little disappointed that there was zero mention of water proofing.
please read the first page of the review, it is claimed in the comparison chart

QuoteOriginally posted by PixleFish Quote
That and for some reason the K-5 scored lower in body design than the K-7... but still an awesome review.
my guess is this is only because of missing direct movie button
12-20-2010, 06:26 AM   #57
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by ogl Quote
Why didn't they use 1.01 firmware - 20-25 RAW buffer?
DPReview writes in their report:
QuoteQuote:
The following timings were originally made with firmware version 1.0 - we have since re-tested the K-5's continuous shooting performance with firmware 1.0.1, and updated timings follow below.
I have two technical comments about the DPR review (which Pentaxians love to see of course ).


1. AF comment

Under "Metering & focus accuracy", the scores are as this:

K-5: ~79%
D7000: ~61%

Are the differences this significant? As they like the D7000 AF as the more versatile AF, it must apply to the metering accuracy, I guess.


2. 18% Gray noise

This one is strange. When comparing K-5 and D7000 RAW curves I mean.

Up and incl. to ISO 1600, DPR measures identical Black noise for K-5 and D7000. This is in line with DxO's result. DxO doesn't measure Chroma noise as it is included in their color sensitivity measure (which is more like a Chroma black noise measurement though).

Nevertheless, DPR sees a difference in the Chroma noise where DxO sees no difference in color sensitivity.

Most strikingly though, DPR sees a significant difference in 18% Gray noise where DxO does NOT (up to ISO 1600).

At ISO 1600, the DPR Gray noise (standard deviation) is 8 vs. 6 while DxO figues are 29.2dB vs. 29.7dB. Worse even, with an advantage going to D7000 before correcting for ISO sensitivity (which DPR fails to do).

Standard deviation can't be converted into SNR easily. But skipping all normalization steps, a standard deviation of 6/128 is 26.6dB and 8/128 is 24.1dB or a difference of 2.5dB or 0.8 stops. This is huge!


How can DPR find almost 1 stop better gray performance (ISO performance) at ISO 1600 where DxO finds none?

BTW, the DxO result is the more trustworthy one. OTOH, I see the extra noise in the D7000 in the samples too. So, what's going on here? Is it ACR? Has ACR another NR or sharpening default for K-5 vs. D7000? Is DPR this sloppy in controlling their tests?
12-20-2010, 06:55 AM   #58
Veteran Member
pcarfan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,958
Falk,

I started a somewhat related topic in DPR for which Gordn Good had replied.

The thread is on page one, thread title is " K-5 vs D7000 chroma/grey noise (1 stop advantage at iso 12800)"... (damn link blockage).
12-20-2010, 10:25 AM   #59
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by pcarfan Quote
Falk,

I started a somewhat related topic in DPR for which Gordn Good had replied.

The thread is on page one, thread title is " K-5 vs D7000 chroma/grey noise (1 stop advantage at iso 12800)"... (damn link blockage).
That's the link to Gordon's reply:
Re: K-5 vs D7000 chroma/grey noise (1 stop advantage at iso 12800): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

excerpt here:
QuoteQuote:
The differences in metered ISO sensitivity, where the way DPR was metering, the actual Nikon D7000 ISO is about 1/3 of a stop higher and the actual K-5 ISO is about 1/3 of a stop lower for 2/3's of a stop difference. This affects the "shot" noise measured for chroma and grey noise testing, which is proportional to exposure, but doesn't much affect the blacks where there is no signal and only the effects of gain.
However, if you read my post again, you'll see that I avoided both mis-explainations Gordon had to offer:

The raw NR (which doesn't apply yet at ISO 1600 which is why I based my remark on an ISO 1600 comparison) and the difference in ISO sensitivity which is there but goes in the opposite direction and I already said so.

At ISO 1600, DxO measures true sensitivities to be 1417 (K-5) and 1269 (D7000). As DPR doesn't correct for this difference, the D7000 should have come out better, not worse!


Gordon refers to the DPR text, stating that at ISO 100, the K-5 true sensitivity is ISO 80 vs. ISO 125 for the D7000, both applying to the entire range. Ie., true sensitivities at ISO 1600 would be 1280 (K-5) and 2000 (D7000). While that would indeed explain it (DPR would shoot at a lower exposure time and then boost to the same gray level) it is a complete fail on the ISO measurement (cf. DxO measurements which are precise -- DPR actually reverts the sensitivity result which is easy enough to measure!).


Assuming Gordon is correct, then DPR must shoot at a significantly different exposure value (aperture/time) and boost to 18% gray in post processing prior to measuring noise. That would render DPR noise curves useless. Which is why I ask and Gordon'r response doesn't help to reassure me


I hope that DPR will soon base noise measurements on fixed triplets of (shutter/aperture/iso)-settings and normalize brightness and then do the numeric evaluation. With lenses of equal (high) enough T-stop. Otherwise, their numeric noise results must be discarded in favour of DxO's ones.

Last edited by falconeye; 12-20-2010 at 10:48 AM.
12-20-2010, 07:35 PM   #60
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,954
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
That's the link to Gordon's reply:
Re: K-5 vs D7000 chroma/grey noise (1 stop advantage at iso 12800): Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

excerpt here:
However, if you read my post again, you'll see that I avoided both mis-explainations Gordon had to offer:

The raw NR (which doesn't apply yet at ISO 1600 which is why I based my remark on an ISO 1600 comparison) and the difference in ISO sensitivity which is there but goes in the opposite direction and I already said so.

At ISO 1600, DxO measures true sensitivities to be 1417 (K-5) and 1269 (D7000). As DPR doesn't correct for this difference, the D7000 should have come out better, not worse!


Gordon refers to the DPR text, stating that at ISO 100, the K-5 true sensitivity is ISO 80 vs. ISO 125 for the D7000, both applying to the entire range. Ie., true sensitivities at ISO 1600 would be 1280 (K-5) and 2000 (D7000). While that would indeed explain it (DPR would shoot at a lower exposure time and then boost to the same gray level) it is a complete fail on the ISO measurement (cf. DxO measurements which are precise -- DPR actually reverts the sensitivity result which is easy enough to measure!).


Assuming Gordon is correct, then DPR must shoot at a significantly different exposure value (aperture/time) and boost to 18% gray in post processing prior to measuring noise. That would render DPR noise curves useless. Which is why I ask and Gordon'r response doesn't help to reassure me


I hope that DPR will soon base noise measurements on fixed triplets of (shutter/aperture/iso)-settings and normalize brightness and then do the numeric evaluation. With lenses of equal (high) enough T-stop. Otherwise, their numeric noise results must be discarded in favour of DxO's ones.
I mentioned this earlier in this thread. Why Dxo and DP Review's numbers are so different and their impression that the D7000's measured iso is that different (in the opposite direction from Dxo's measured iso).

Is it possible that the K5 tends to expose to the right more than the D7000 and then ACR knows to bring down the exposure in post, producing less noise and the impression that the K5 requires a longer shutter speed for a similar exposure at the same iso? I know the K7 tended to do this to reduce noise.
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, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, review
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm out of my depth ! TeamPentax Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 09-08-2010 03:48 AM
depth of field miss_alexx Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 20 12-11-2009 10:56 PM
depth of field dafiryde Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 11-05-2008 01:21 PM
Lots of great photos being posted at DP Review peted Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 11-27-2006 06:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:38 PM. | 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