Reid's Review of K5 finished and full frame observations

RyanW · 02-03-2011, 11:13 AM

The rest of the review is done. The k5 gets great marks, but I came away amazed at the full frame format. He compared the k5 output at various iso settings to the canon 5d (not 5d mkii). At 3200 which is the limit of the Canon it's out put has less noise and more detail. It's amazing to me that a camera that came out in 2005 still has better output with respect to noise than the hottest crop camera to date.

What will the next generation of full frame cameras bring?

Myself I'm on the fence as what to get. Pentax or a full frame. I think Pentax has many pluses, but I like the extraordinarily clean files from the full frame. I tend to shoot mostly landscape, but also would like to shoot indoors in low light. Sports shooting needs, long glass or high frame rates don't matter to me.

enoeske · 02-03-2011, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by RyanW

He compared the k5 output at various iso settings to the canon 5d (not 5d mkii). At 3200 which is the limit of the Canon it's out put has less noise and more detail. It's amazing to me that a camera that came out in 2005 still has better output with respect to noise than the hottest crop camera to date.

Thats sounds pretty suspect to me. The K-5 sensor dominates the 5d and is pretty even with the 5dmii (except maybe > ISO 3200). It should easily beat the 5d. Where is this review? Any samples shots or is it all talk?

RyanW · 02-03-2011, 11:41 AM

http://www.reidreviews.com

It's a paid site, but he goes into his methodology. To my eye the images of the 5d are clearly better. Perhaps a member of this forum with more knowledge is also a member of Reid Reviews and can add something further.

er1kksen · 02-03-2011, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by enoeske

Thats sounds pretty suspect to me. The K-5 sensor dominates the 5d and is pretty even with the 5dmii (except maybe > ISO 3200). It should easily beat the 5d. Where is this review? Any samples shots or is it all talk?

Are you sure you're not thinking of dynamic range, rather than high-ISO noise levels? Everything I've seen to date suggests that the 5D ii still trumps the K-5 rather handily in the high ISO department, and I recall that comparing my K-x to the old 5D showed that the old 5D still had a decent advantage in the high ISO department. The K-5 is pretty great, but it's not exactly a multiple-stop improvement over the K-x.

Dynamic range is a different story, and that's where the K-5 is seen to take the field.

kenyee · 02-03-2011, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by RyanW

At 3200 which is the limit of the Canon it's out put has less noise and more detail

Canon has extremely aggressive noise reduction and the K5's sensor is probably still 1 stop worse than the D700's in terms of noise, so I think you're right about the next generation of FF sensors being a huge leap...
That said, after a certain point, it probably won't matter as much...do you really need more than a mostly clean ISO3200 indoors? Let's say the new FF sensors do a stop better like the K5 sensor jump...so a clean ISO6400 and decent ISO12800. What do you need?

sewebster · 02-03-2011, 02:07 PM

Full frame sensors have more light. More light = less noise. Right?

Emacs · 02-03-2011, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by RyanW

What will the next generation of full frame cameras bring?

You're wrong. It's not FF magic but lesser pixel density on FF sensor. It's highly unlikely 32Mp FF sensor would be any better in 100% crop than 14Mp 1.5 crop sensor.

Tommot1965 · 02-03-2011, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Emacs

You're wrong. It's not FF magic but lesser pixel density on FF sensor. It's highly unlikely 32Mp FF sensor would be any better in 100% crop than 14Mp 1.5 crop sensor.

I think it would

you have to crop to 150% on a FF to compare the results with a 100% on a 1.5 crop sensor...that would seem logical to me ,,i might be wrong though..LOL

RyanW · 02-03-2011, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Emacs

You're wrong. It's not FF magic but lesser pixel density on FF sensor. It's highly unlikely 32Mp FF sensor would be any better in 100% crop than 14Mp 1.5 crop sensor.

I can't be wrong, I asked a question.

RyanW · 02-03-2011, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by kenyee

Canon has extremely aggressive noise reduction and the K5's sensor is probably still 1 stop worse than the D700's in terms of noise, so I think you're right about the next generation of FF sensors being a huge leap...
That said, after a certain point, it probably won't matter as much...do you really need more than a mostly clean ISO3200 indoors? Let's say the new FF sensors do a stop better like the K5 sensor jump...so a clean ISO6400 and decent ISO12800. What do you need?

I don't recall the 5d classic having a lot of noise reduction, but maybe it does. If it does, it's still showing the same or better detail in the images on the review site than the K5.

I'm not saying I need more than ISO 3200, but the 5d was clearly better cleaner in every pic from ISO 400 on up and at 100 and 200 slightly cleaner.

If I only shot at 200 iso or below, I would not care. My landscape work falls in that range, but rarely does anything in doors without flash.

The K5 is good with regards to noise, probably the best crop sensor camera out there. My point is I was surprised how good a 6 year old full frame camera actually was. It was not trying to say or imply the K5 was bad, so I hope nobody thinks that's what I'm saying.

deadwolfbones · 02-03-2011, 02:51 PM

Wait, wait, wait...

People pay to read camera reviews?

**Rondec** · 02-03-2011, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by er1kksen

Are you sure you're not thinking of dynamic range, rather than high-ISO noise levels? Everything I've seen to date suggests that the 5D ii still trumps the K-5 rather handily in the high ISO department, and I recall that comparing my K-x to the old 5D showed that the old 5D still had a decent advantage in the high ISO department. The K-5 is pretty great, but it's not exactly a multiple-stop improvement over the K-x.

Dynamic range is a different story, and that's where the K-5 is seen to take the field.

This is where full frame beats APS-C consistently. Full frame cameras have approximately one stop better noise than do even the best APS-C cameras. Of course, when you factor in equivalence and the fact that you are shooting with more shallow depth of field at an equivalent f stop, if you keep depth of field the same, the noise advantage is negated.

That said, to me the question is how much of a difference you will see at printing sizes. For most users, they will not be able to see much difference below iso 6400 between the K5 and 5D.

Jeff Charles · 02-03-2011, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Emacs

You're wrong. It's not FF magic but lesser pixel density on FF sensor. It's highly unlikely 32Mp FF sensor would be any better in 100% crop than 14Mp 1.5 crop sensor.

A 100% crop is not a photograph. The question is how will the images from the two cameras compare in the same size prints or screen images. At the same size, more pixels produce better IQ, assuming that there is a visible difference.

Jeff

**rparmar** · 02-03-2011, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

People pay to read camera reviews?

Those who are silly enough to buy magazines do. :-)

Smeggypants · 02-03-2011, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by RyanW

The rest of the review is done. The k5 gets great marks, but I came away amazed at the full frame format. He compared the k5 output at various iso settings to the canon 5d (not 5d mkii). At 3200 which is the limit of the Canon it's out put has less noise and more detail. It's amazing to me that a camera that came out in 2005 still has better output with respect to noise than the hottest crop camera to date.

What will the next generation of full frame cameras bring?

Myself I'm on the fence as what to get. Pentax or a full frame. I think Pentax has many pluses, but I like the extraordinarily clean files from the full frame. I tend to shoot mostly landscape, but also would like to shoot indoors in low light. Sports shooting needs, long glass or high frame rates don't matter to me.

My shooting buddy uses a Canon 5D MKI.

We compared pics taken at high ISOs and he was very impressed at my new K-5 and agrees it smokes his Canon 5D.

I pay no attention to reviews in comparison to reality.

02-03-2011, 11:13 AM	#1
RyanW Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 583	Reid's Review of K5 finished and full frame observations The rest of the review is done. The k5 gets great marks, but I came away amazed at the full frame format. He compared the k5 output at various iso settings to the canon 5d (not 5d mkii). At 3200 which is the limit of the Canon it's out put has less noise and more detail. It's amazing to me that a camera that came out in 2005 still has better output with respect to noise than the hottest crop camera to date. What will the next generation of full frame cameras bring? Myself I'm on the fence as what to get. Pentax or a full frame. I think Pentax has many pluses, but I like the extraordinarily clean files from the full frame. I tend to shoot mostly landscape, but also would like to shoot indoors in low light. Sports shooting needs, long glass or high frame rates don't matter to me.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Full Frame	chilihead	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	22	12-12-2009 08:01 AM
How Full is Your Frame?	Venturi	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	05-16-2009 04:30 AM
Your Full Frame is Here!!!	Das Boot	Pentax News and Rumors	15	04-05-2009 09:02 AM
Is Full Frame Enough?	mithrandir	Photographic Technique	10	10-04-2008 10:00 PM
Full Frame????	vanDam	Pentax DSLR Discussion	32	01-24-2008 08:40 PM

02-03-2011, 11:27 AM	#2
enoeske Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Surprise, Az Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,136	Originally posted by RyanW He compared the k5 output at various iso settings to the canon 5d (not 5d mkii). At 3200 which is the limit of the Canon it's out put has less noise and more detail. It's amazing to me that a camera that came out in 2005 still has better output with respect to noise than the hottest crop camera to date. Thats sounds pretty suspect to me. The K-5 sensor dominates the 5d and is pretty even with the 5dmii (except maybe > ISO 3200). It should easily beat the 5d. Where is this review? Any samples shots or is it all talk?

02-03-2011, 11:41 AM	#3
RyanW Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 583 Original Poster	http://www.reidreviews.com It's a paid site, but he goes into his methodology. To my eye the images of the 5d are clearly better. Perhaps a member of this forum with more knowledge is also a member of Reid Reviews and can add something further.

02-03-2011, 02:00 PM	#4
er1kksen Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Forestville, NY Photos: Albums Posts: 1,801	Originally posted by enoeske Thats sounds pretty suspect to me. The K-5 sensor dominates the 5d and is pretty even with the 5dmii (except maybe > ISO 3200). It should easily beat the 5d. Where is this review? Any samples shots or is it all talk? Are you sure you're not thinking of dynamic range, rather than high-ISO noise levels? Everything I've seen to date suggests that the 5D ii still trumps the K-5 rather handily in the high ISO department, and I recall that comparing my K-x to the old 5D showed that the old 5D still had a decent advantage in the high ISO department. The K-5 is pretty great, but it's not exactly a multiple-stop improvement over the K-x. Dynamic range is a different story, and that's where the K-5 is seen to take the field.

02-03-2011, 02:02 PM	#5
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by RyanW At 3200 which is the limit of the Canon it's out put has less noise and more detail Canon has extremely aggressive noise reduction and the K5's sensor is probably still 1 stop worse than the D700's in terms of noise, so I think you're right about the next generation of FF sensors being a huge leap... That said, after a certain point, it probably won't matter as much...do you really need more than a mostly clean ISO3200 indoors? Let's say the new FF sensors do a stop better like the K5 sensor jump...so a clean ISO6400 and decent ISO12800. What do you need?

02-03-2011, 02:07 PM	#6
sewebster Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery Posts: 544	Full frame sensors have more light. More light = less noise. Right?

02-03-2011, 02:12 PM	#7
Emacs Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Moscow Posts: 1,223	Originally posted by RyanW What will the next generation of full frame cameras bring? You're wrong. It's not FF magic but lesser pixel density on FF sensor. It's highly unlikely 32Mp FF sensor would be any better in 100% crop than 14Mp 1.5 crop sensor.

02-03-2011, 02:25 PM	#8
Tommot1965 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Perth Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,026	Originally posted by Emacs You're wrong. It's not FF magic but lesser pixel density on FF sensor. It's highly unlikely 32Mp FF sensor would be any better in 100% crop than 14Mp 1.5 crop sensor. I think it would you have to crop to 150% on a FF to compare the results with a 100% on a 1.5 crop sensor...that would seem logical to me ,,i might be wrong though..LOL

02-03-2011, 02:32 PM	#9
RyanW Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 583 Original Poster	Originally posted by Emacs You're wrong. It's not FF magic but lesser pixel density on FF sensor. It's highly unlikely 32Mp FF sensor would be any better in 100% crop than 14Mp 1.5 crop sensor. I can't be wrong, I asked a question.

02-03-2011, 02:42 PM	#10
RyanW Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 583 Original Poster	Originally posted by kenyee Canon has extremely aggressive noise reduction and the K5's sensor is probably still 1 stop worse than the D700's in terms of noise, so I think you're right about the next generation of FF sensors being a huge leap... That said, after a certain point, it probably won't matter as much...do you really need more than a mostly clean ISO3200 indoors? Let's say the new FF sensors do a stop better like the K5 sensor jump...so a clean ISO6400 and decent ISO12800. What do you need? I don't recall the 5d classic having a lot of noise reduction, but maybe it does. If it does, it's still showing the same or better detail in the images on the review site than the K5. I'm not saying I need more than ISO 3200, but the 5d was clearly better cleaner in every pic from ISO 400 on up and at 100 and 200 slightly cleaner. If I only shot at 200 iso or below, I would not care. My landscape work falls in that range, but rarely does anything in doors without flash. The K5 is good with regards to noise, probably the best crop sensor camera out there. My point is I was surprised how good a 6 year old full frame camera actually was. It was not trying to say or imply the K5 was bad, so I hope nobody thinks that's what I'm saying.

02-03-2011, 02:51 PM	#11
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450	Wait, wait, wait... People pay to read camera reviews?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-03-2011, 03:37 PM	#12
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,652	Originally posted by er1kksen Are you sure you're not thinking of dynamic range, rather than high-ISO noise levels? Everything I've seen to date suggests that the 5D ii still trumps the K-5 rather handily in the high ISO department, and I recall that comparing my K-x to the old 5D showed that the old 5D still had a decent advantage in the high ISO department. The K-5 is pretty great, but it's not exactly a multiple-stop improvement over the K-x. Dynamic range is a different story, and that's where the K-5 is seen to take the field. This is where full frame beats APS-C consistently. Full frame cameras have approximately one stop better noise than do even the best APS-C cameras. Of course, when you factor in equivalence and the fact that you are shooting with more shallow depth of field at an equivalent f stop, if you keep depth of field the same, the noise advantage is negated. That said, to me the question is how much of a difference you will see at printing sizes. For most users, they will not be able to see much difference below iso 6400 between the K5 and 5D.

02-03-2011, 05:04 PM	#13
Jeff Charles Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Oaxaca, Mexico; Shohola PA, USA Posts: 219	Originally posted by Emacs You're wrong. It's not FF magic but lesser pixel density on FF sensor. It's highly unlikely 32Mp FF sensor would be any better in 100% crop than 14Mp 1.5 crop sensor. A 100% crop is not a photograph. The question is how will the images from the two cameras compare in the same size prints or screen images. At the same size, more pixels produce better IQ, assuming that there is a visible difference. Jeff

02-03-2011, 05:44 PM	#14
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by deadwolfbones People pay to read camera reviews? Those who are silly enough to buy magazines do. :-)

02-03-2011, 07:34 PM	#15
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by RyanW The rest of the review is done. The k5 gets great marks, but I came away amazed at the full frame format. He compared the k5 output at various iso settings to the canon 5d (not 5d mkii). At 3200 which is the limit of the Canon it's out put has less noise and more detail. It's amazing to me that a camera that came out in 2005 still has better output with respect to noise than the hottest crop camera to date. What will the next generation of full frame cameras bring? Myself I'm on the fence as what to get. Pentax or a full frame. I think Pentax has many pluses, but I like the extraordinarily clean files from the full frame. I tend to shoot mostly landscape, but also would like to shoot indoors in low light. Sports shooting needs, long glass or high frame rates don't matter to me. My shooting buddy uses a Canon 5D MKI. We compared pics taken at high ISOs and he was very impressed at my new K-5 and agrees it smokes his Canon 5D. I pay no attention to reviews in comparison to reality.