[HEEGZ]

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

Chris

I open my K7 RAW files using ACR that comes with CS2. I shoot in DNG RAW and not PEF RAW, works just fine.

[dreamfoto]

f1.4 and f9 100%crop no sharpening no PP

SY85mm soft light conditions K-5 stained version

[dgaies]

f1.4 and f9 100%crop no sharpening no PP

SY85mm

I don't know, the skin looks a bit plasticky in that shot

[JohnBee]

I don't know, the skin looks a bit plasticky in that shot

Must be a Canon!

[deadwolfbones]

Lemme drag this one back out...

DA35 Macro. ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/320s:



100% crop of above:

[dreamfoto]

I don't know, the skin looks a bit plasticky in that shot

Two dollar professional model at f/1.4.

[JohnBee]

Two dollar professional model...

HAHAHAHAHA!
That's a good one

Looks nice for 1.4 though!

[outsider]

Aaah Man. The humor in this thread is almost as good as the information. Thanks Guys and deadwolfbones @ the picture. Damn. Just, Damn.

[LeChuck]

I used to shoot Canon DSLRs, and I'd say that if you looked at 100%, things stopped being totally satisfactory after the D60, which was 6MP. More resolution, which started to be more demanding on lenses, stronger AA filters etc. With the D30 and D60, I also rarely had worries about focus accuracy back focus, front focus etc.

But with resolution increase, the relevance of looking at a photo at 100% on a computer screen decreases as well. Looks like sensors are now reaching or exceeding the optical performance of most lenses, which wasn't the case before.

[outsider]

"$2 professional model"......Classic

[DSims]

Some nice K-5 examples were posted, but they still don't address the issue: That moving from the K-x to the K-5, particularly with a lens like an 85/1.4, can be frustrating.

Here are some examples from the FA*85 at f/1.6. This is the set that was the most favorable to the K-5. In other sequences the K200D clearly looked to have an advantage in terms of detail and sharpness. I took them by continuous shooting while slowly rotating the focus ring. I used approximately the same speed when rotating the focus ring. Note that, because of the differences in fps, that gave me about 3 shots on the K-5 for every one on the K200D. So the K-5 shot was the best of 3 candidates (they were close but this one was clearly the better focused one). In the case of the K200D there was only one shot to choose. The nearby frames were not even close. This concerns me because even with three shots to choose from each time, there was only one sequence in which I could get a K-5 shot to compete with the K200D.

The K200D shot is probably the most out-of-focus from all my sequences I took, which explains why the K-5 is so close here. And the K-5 shot (again, being the best of 3) is probably the most in-focus shot from all my sequences.

These were handheld, and I did leave SR on, but I rested the camera on the arm of a chair for support, so shake should be minimal - especially at these shutter speeds. Both were taken at the same time (I had forgotten to set the K200D to DST yet).

These were processed in PDCU 4.32 - on the PEFs I simply adjusted white balance to be somewhat close to each other and saved as *** JPGs - 1/4 original dimensions for K200D and 1/5 original dimensions for K-5.

K200D, then K-5, followed by their respective 100% crops.

In therms of other elements of the images, like the "skin tones", I may like the K-5 better, although this wasn't a very uniform test in that respect.

[DSims]

Oh no! I just noticed that I inadvertently knocked the dial before the last sequence on the K200D, so it was at f/1.8. But on the earlier sequences the K200D was still a clear winner when both bodies were at f/1.6.

It was tedious enough to do this simple comparison (and post) as it was, so I don't plan on re-doing it. But it was educational for me - it gave me an even clearer picture of how much more difficult it truly is to get good focus on the K-5, and that my best-focused K-5 shots will be barely as well focused as an average K200D shot. And when relying on AF I fear the gap may be even greater, whether or not I use the AF fine-tuning on the K-5. But I also realized I may like some other aspects of the image better with the K-5 - something I didn't realize before, since I was just shooting and not directly comparing recently.

But anyone who moves from a K-x (or likely also from a K-r) and doesn't notice these differences - that there are losses as well as gains in the transition - is probably not paying very close attention. Perhaps some people prefer it that way. And perhaps sometimes this is just as well. But hopefully they will also recognize that there is a good reason others get somewhat frustrated by the transition. It has nothing to do with negativity in most cases.

I have a good collection of Pentax lenses - which I really like - and I'm not invested in any other brand. I'll continue to use my K-5, and if I'm never completely satisfied that's OK, because I can just move to another body if and when I find the K-5 is truly not meeting my needs. But I'll likely be concentrating on its strengths instead. One of the great things about Pentax is how good their mid- and entry-level bodies are with their better lenses, so I've got good options.

[HEEGZ]

I used to shoot Canon DSLRs, and I'd say that if you looked at 100%, things stopped being totally satisfactory after the D60, which was 6MP. More resolution, which started to be more demanding on lenses, stronger AA filters etc. With the D30 and D60, I also rarely had worries about focus accuracy back focus, front focus etc.

But with resolution increase, the relevance of looking at a photo at 100% on a computer screen decreases as well. Looks like sensors are now reaching or exceeding the optical performance of most lenses, which wasn't the case before.

This is an interesting observation. I typically shoot my K7 with settings at 10 MP and **** and was wondering if lowering the quality affects this phenomenon. I'm assuming it doesn't because the sensor is the same and the conversion takes place in software.

[JohnBee]

Some nice K-5 examples were posted, but they still don't address the issue: That moving from the K-x to the K-5, particularly with a lens like an 85/1.4, can be frustrating.

Interesting.... Do you work in RAW or JPG?

The reason I ask is mainly where I work in RAW exclusively and I can say without a doubt that the K-5 produces consistently better files. However... they are not the same systems either, and I've found that tapping into that extra power does not equate an automatic go as one may expect upon changing systems...

Here's my take on things(vs. K200)

• Better color retention
• Better tonal range
• Better DR
• Better noise performance
• Better pixel definition

Having said that, how does this translate in terms of processing?

Well for one, the K-5 files respond better to detail extraction than the K200D in processing. One good example of this is with detail artifacts. However... observing this can be elusive given the resolution differences between both systems. Therefore, I've found that is is just as important to follow proper protocol when treating files from both systems so as to not get mislead into false presumptions in the end.

ie. sharpening or extracting details in files prior to publishing sizes induces artifacts...

[Rupert]

Hmmmm.....I don't know what to think here, but I am thrilled with the accuracy and sharpness of my K5 compared to my previous Pentax cameras. I'm not a Pro or a pixel peeper, but Ilike what I get from the K5. As with any DSLR, when shooting Raw, which I prefer, processing is the key in getting the best from any shot.
I do have a friend that is a Pro, has a very successful business in North Dallas with some impressive clients, and I once asked him where he would be without post-processing, and his reply was "out of business".
Not saying you don't have a problem, but it is not clear that the problem is the K5?

I'll take shots like this all day.....not perfect, but plenty good enough for old Rupert!



Best Regards!