[Roy3]

There is no post processing tool that can compensate for certain shortcomings of how the information is processed IN camera.

But, there is NO in-camera post processing of a Raw file!

If I were to compare the Pentax K-5 with my Sigma SD14.....now there is a difficulty.

[RonHendriks1966]

And is some of these different results maybe due to different lenses?

[JohnBee]

But, there is NO in-camera post processing of a Raw file!

If I were to compare the Pentax K-5 with my Sigma SD14.....now there is a difficulty.

I think these are the biggest indicators at the root of the issue.
There are a great number of people who don't fully understanding what RAW files are and more importantly how to use them.

I'm not saying that in a condescending tone, but since this is a real problem I thought it was worth mentioning.

[Rupert]

This seems a lot like sitting two sacks of flour on the stove and asking how two different baking pans "render them"? One pan might be glass and the flour would be lighter than a black pan, but it is the same raw flour. Making a comparison would be near impossible I would think, and about as worthwhile as comparing the flour rendering.
What I am interested in is how the finished product tastes, does it have a great flavor, is it delicious? My K5 is delicious, if yours isn't, maybe it needs a new cook?

Best Regards!

[amoringello]

small part of raw file:

00011001111000111110000011011101010100101010010110011010110101010101010....

So you can see them

Wrong, wrong, wrong, it looks like this (from a hex editor).
"MM.*..QJ.%......"
See the whole problem is that you're just viewing it wrong.

Sorry. The point being without examples, as requested several times, even the same data can be viewed and interpreted differently.

Personally, I feel that I get much better color form my K5 than the K7. Probably even better than the K10D.

Colors are exceptionally accurate and vibrant when appropriately so.

I guess a question I had not seen raised yet is whether the colors that you are seeing form the K5 are more or less accurate than what you're seeing from the Kx or the Canikon brands? Perhaps using a color chart and proper lighting in a proper test environment will help determine if the other cameras are rendering the colors improperly.

The others may look better to you, but personal preference does not validate correctness. Just something to look into.

[rfortson]

Paragraphs and pictures would help.

+1 I agree

[rfortson]

I may post a couple examples in the next day or so. I did so in my other post "The Undone look of Pentax RAW files". Right now i'm too lazy. I just want to see if there are others who have noticed this kind of rendering in specific........SPECIFIC scenarios. In most situations there's no problem and all the characteristics shine through. I'm not knocking pentax or any of the cameras, I'm just a kx user who upgraded to the k5 and was shocked at how much more stripped down raw image was, especially in darker photos. I can give examples, but i'm not eager to prove anything. It would be nice only to see if anyone else who does specific photography has had some of the same issues.

I moved from the K20 to the K5, and the K5 files are more muted before I process them. However, I've been able to get my usual "well saturated" shots without any problem. I'm curious to see the shots that are causing you problems.

[amoringello]

but with my high standards, I must pixel peep. I expect an extremely high level of performance and pentax corporation should expect nothing less from its customers.

I wish I would have read that big solid block of text through to the end the first time... (shame on me), as it is a humorous pile of text...

Anyway, with his high standards, I would think that verifying the quality of the equipment being used would have been a priority before purchase. There would be no surprises unless the specific piece of hardware is flawed, but then that would have been a known issue and this discussion would not have been started.

The ability of Nikon cameras to pull sheen and glimmer of skin tones through on an overcast day is unmatched.

Is that really a good thing? I'm not sure any models I've seen would like their skin to be described as having a sheen. Are they wrapped in plastic? If the camera is doing that, I would be surprised. Usually makeup and proper lighting should do away with nasty sheen. Maybe a polarizer... but blaming the camera in this case sounds like user error.


The whole thing, from the nasty argumentative statements in the initial post to the lack of backing just stinks up the thread with hints of *troll*.

[outsider]

This seems a lot like sitting two sacks of flour on the stove and asking how two different baking pans "render them"? One pan might be glass and the flour would be lighter than a black pan, but it is the same raw flour. Making a comparison would be near impossible I would think, and about as worthwhile as comparing the flour rendering.
What I am interested in is how the finished product tastes, does it have a great flavor, is it delicious? My K5 is delicious, if yours isn't, maybe it needs a new cook?

Best Regards!

Haha....Nice One Rupes