[outsider]

I do not understand why you don't see the point.
If you are interested in the "look" of K5 images; shoot an eye at f/8 and examine (pixel-peep) the image. If you are not interested in whether the shallow DOF (combined with some FF) is effecting the sharpness of your images; why are you shooting wide open?

Huh? There's no front focus issue that I know of. If it appears that there is front focus in my image, it is probably the low light, combined with wide aperture. This will cause all sorts of grief. I shoot wide open because I like the look. at least 50% of the time I hit it dead on, no problems at f1.4. Technology is very much capable of good, accurate results shooting like this. It's just my style. 1.4-2.8.

[bc_the_path]

>There's no front focus issue that I know of.
Then, how do you explain that in your original K5 shot the eyebrows are sharper than the eyelashes (UNLIKE those in the K-x image)?

[outsider]

>There's no front focus issue that I know of.
Then, how do you explain that in your original K5 shot the eyebrows are sharper than the eyelashes (UNLIKE those in the K-x image)?

O.k. I think you may have a point. But i'm not convinced that there is a front focus "problem". You see, i've noticed that most of my auto focus lenses have a tendancy to front or back focus in low light. Usually back focus. The image in question may be have front focus, but this happens fairly often with wide apertures. I have plenty of images with front focus, but they are all in low light scenarios. Almost never in ample lighting. A front focus problem is just that. It happens often, even in ideal settins/conditions, which is not the case here. I'll have to do some more testing before I mess with the focus adjustment settings

[DSims]

Like outsider, I also shoot mostly near wide open (I have 4 primes (both MF and AF) faster than f/2). The main point is that we both get different (and in many ways better looking) results with the K-x. Simply by changing bodies.

FF is only part of the issue here. Images from the K-5 also have a more "muted" look. Outsider obviously knows what he's doing in terms of shooting.

I like Pentax. And I can clearly see from online tests that the K-5 has better high-ISO noise performance than any other APS-C DSLR out there - a feature which I want. But this doesn't mean that the K-5's images look better overall. In some (perhaps many?) instances I like the images from the K-x (and the K-r, when I've used it) better. A close look at the dpreview studio comparison shots reveal differences (between the K-5 and K-r or K-x) similar to what we've been discussing here.

As I've already suggested, there are a number of factors at work here, and FF is only part of the story.

Outsider, I suggest you try this technique that I've used:

Put the K-5 in MF mode and continuous 7 fps shooting mode (make sure you have the updated firmware that allows more RAW images in the buffer). Then slowly turn the focus ring as you fire away. You'll get one or two shots with nice focus.

I can already tell you what you'll get. You'll get an image that may be slightly better focused on the eyeball, but all the other image characteristics will be similar to what you've previously noticed.

I'm wondering if most posters here have not owned these bodies and/or don't use the better, faster primes that make these differences obvious.

[ChrisJ]

Dude (not you, just excited), the k-5 image was 1 of about 3 or 4, close as possible, recomposing the shot as well as humanly possible. It is the best example i'm capable of. If you told me to go and do it again, we may see the same results. Did some more tests last night on high contrast image, focus seems ok. Also, none of the settings you mention affect raw. There is information that goes into the raw data (raw "remembers" the cameras jpeg settings) that can transfer those settings to jpeg, but ONLY if you use the camera to convert (which I don't) or you use pentax computer software (which I don't). I use adobe photoshop CS4. I don't have enough reason yet to mess with the lens adjustment, never have so I don't feel comfortable yet. But it is hard to tell if the image is just hazy, milky.....or out of focus.

How do you manage to open K5 RAW files in CS4?. You need the latest Raw converter in CS5 to do that.

Chris

[Smeggypants]

I'm wondering if most posters here have not owned these bodies and/or don't use the better, faster primes that make these differences obvious.

I've never had a K-x, but used to own a K10D and K20D before getting 2 K-5s. I have several fast primes including a 50/1.2

I haven't noticed any softness with my K-5s compared to my K10 and K20D

[bobmaxja]

The AF nodet are not the same

[dreamfoto]

downsider, howbout proper focus

[LFog]

Sometimes it's hard to understand just how small the depth of field really is when shooting at large apertures. An easy way to check this out is with the online depth of field calculator: Online Depth of Field Calculator .

In these examples the depth of field is probably less than the length of an eyelash and half falls behind the focus point.

[yeatzee]

I was hoping this wouldn't be the case for the K-5

How about setting up a controlled environment with the K-5, kx, and sigma 85mm

Get a tripod, set one camera up with MF in live view at 8x magnfication getting the focus perfect. Take the shot, swap cameras, and repeat

Thats what I did concluding the K-7's sensor was "softer" than the K200d's

[outsider]

Like outsider, I also shoot mostly near wide open (I have 4 primes (both MF and AF) faster than f/2). The main point is that we both get different (and in many ways better looking) results with the K-x. Simply by changing bodies.

FF is only part of the issue here. Images from the K-5 also have a more "muted" look. Outsider obviously knows what he's doing in terms of shooting.

I like Pentax. And I can clearly see from online tests that the K-5 has better high-ISO noise performance than any other APS-C DSLR out there - a feature which I want. But this doesn't mean that the K-5's images look better overall. In some (perhaps many?) instances I like the images from the K-x (and the K-r, when I've used it) better. A close look at the dpreview studio comparison shots reveal differences (between the K-5 and K-r or K-x) similar to what we've been discussing here.

As I've already suggested, there are a number of factors at work here, and FF is only part of the story.

Outsider, I suggest you try this technique that I've used:

Put the K-5 in MF mode and continuous 7 fps shooting mode (make sure you have the updated firmware that allows more RAW images in the buffer). Then slowly turn the focus ring as you fire away. You'll get one or two shots with nice focus.

I can already tell you what you'll get. You'll get an image that may be slightly better focused on the eyeball, but all the other image characteristics will be similar to what you've previously noticed.

I'm wondering if most posters here have not owned these bodies and/or don't use the better, faster primes that make these differences obvious.

Great points Sims! Yes, i've also noticed too the more muted look in the raw images. It would be interesting to chat with the people responsible for the processing of these files. We'd hear some interesting opinions! I tell you, i'm glad to have gotten advice on this subject and just as glad my k-5 came to me in perfect condition! It's nice to be able to wait until bugs are smoothed out of electronic devices, but that's not always an option. Sometimes you just want to take the dive, knowing you may not have the funds later on. I'll try that technique you mentioned. I have used the k5 today in clear, blue skies and it performed just as good, if not betten than my k-x (and the k-x deserves a lot of credit for it's autofocus accuracy/I.Q.). One change I made is changing the autofocus mode to af continuous, in the idea that as myself, camera and subject move ever so slightly during a session, it will compensate as I work to keep the point on the area of interest (eyes). With the 7fps shooting, I should believe that i'll get 1 or maybe 5 perfectly focused shots. This seemed to be especially helpful when shooting women with long hair blowing across there face.

[outsider]

I was hoping this wouldn't be the case for the K-5

How about setting up a controlled environment with the K-5, kx, and sigma 85mm

Get a tripod, set one camera up with MF in live view at 8x magnfication getting the focus perfect. Take the shot, swap cameras, and repeat

Thats what I did concluding the K-7's sensor was "softer" than the K200d's

I may just have to try that

[outsider]

if he is shooting dng he could be using cs, or even ps7 to open them.

cs? Ps7?

[outsider]

Sometimes it's hard to understand just how small the depth of field really is when shooting at large apertures. An easy way to check this out is with the online depth of field calculator: Online Depth of Field Calculator .

In these examples the depth of field is probably less than the length of an eyelash and half falls behind the focus point.

This is true, looking at how the blur fades backwards from the focal point at 1.4-3.0. We really are asking a lot of our cameras.

[outsider]

The K5 look = out of focus?
I think not.
Every time we go up in sensor resolution, the technical considerations for getting a technically superb image also increase, and they increase significantly.
I've been playing extensively with focus on my K5, and it is VERY demanding of both lens and focus.

Yes, wheatfield. This also is something I thought about. Good point. This is one reason I keep an open mind when addressing such issues. There are many times technical idiosynchrasies we must look long and hard in order to get to the bottom of things