Will the k-5 make my pictures look better than my k-x?

justtakingpics · 05-27-2011, 06:14 PM

I know it's more about the photographer but if I had a good picture with both cameras, same lens, etc., would my image look better on the k-5? I asked a similar question in the beginner discussion (should have just asked here, no delete though).

I was reading reviews on dpreview and they have jpeg and raw image quality measurements, so someone at least thinks there is a quality difference. I didn't want unreasonable expectations, should I get one. For these purpose, assume ISO 100 and a kit lens. thanks.

Rory · 05-27-2011, 06:18 PM

What resolution image are we talking? What kind of conditions are you photographing in (lighting)? What are you photographing?

Looking at your gear in your signature, worry about shooting until you outgrow those lenses before you worry about outgrowing the body.

dexmus · 05-27-2011, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by justtakingpics

I know it's more about the photographer but if I had a good picture with both cameras, same lens, etc., would my image look better on the k-5? I asked a similar question in the beginner discussion (should have just asked here, no delete though).

I was reading reviews on dpreview and they have jpeg and raw image quality measurements, so someone at least thinks there is a quality difference. I didn't want unreasonable expectations, should I get one. For these purpose, assume ISO 100 and a kit lens. thanks.

Short answer is NO.

wlachan · 05-27-2011, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by dexmus

Short answer is NO.

x2 w/o question.

justtakingpics · 05-27-2011, 06:25 PM

Ok. I believe you guys but then why do they have the raw image quality comparison at dpreview? Not only that the k-5 is much higher than every camera on the list.

Please help me understand.

**Ash** · 05-27-2011, 07:16 PM

There's more to RAW than straight image quality, and it's those small details that make the difference between RAW and JPEG worth considering when doing any serious work. The latitude RAW offers in white balancing, exposure and basic colour manipulations whilst retaining a great deal of highlight and shadow detail is of great value. In JPEG, once these details are lost after an exposure, or PP, they cannot be brought back.

justtakingpics · 05-27-2011, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Ash

There's more to RAW than straight image quality, and it's those small details that make the difference between RAW and JPEG worth considering when doing any serious work. The latitude RAW offers in white balancing, exposure and basic colour manipulations whilst retaining a great deal of highlight and shadow detail is of great value. In JPEG, once these details are lost after an exposure, or PP, they cannot be brought back.

Doesn't that mean RAW matters most then when talking about IQ?

dexmus · 05-27-2011, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by justtakingpics

Ok. I believe you guys but then why do they have the raw image quality comparison at dpreview? Not only that the k-5 is much higher than every camera on the list.

Please help me understand.

The image quality differences between k-x and k-5 are visible at pixel peeping levels. All review sites love to write about that. Companies love to boast about that. It has very little to do with whether the difference will be visible in the format/size that an amateur/hobbyist is going to use. But that's marketing.

The main factor that can make your pictures better is you.

K-x and k-5, both have similar SONY sensors. They give similar results - k-5 has slightly less noise at lower light. The focus is better but still not in the elite category.

So basically, if we talk about what makes a picture better than the other -
1. Composition - not going to change with k-5
2. Creativity/vision - not going to change with k-5
3. Understanding the lighting - not going to change with k-5
4. Image Quality - With same lenses, it is very similar. K-x is not that far behind k-5 for all practical purposes.

There are some advantages to K-5 - weather sealed body, more controls as physical buttons, better focus. These things will make your photo taking experience better than that with a k-x - NO DOUBT. But it is not going to make your pictures better by any significant margin.

cheers,

Abhi

jstevewhite · 05-27-2011, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by justtakingpics

Doesn't that mean RAW matters most then when talking about IQ?

The K-5 is *capable* of making images with higher technical quality, paired with appropriate lenses and technique. Whether you will notice that difference has to do with your skill level and your chosen task.

If you primarily view your images on monitors, tvs, and digital picture frames, the chances are you will not be able to find any difference in image quality (assuming zoom to "fit" so you can see the whole image on your monitor). That's because they outresolve nearly all monitors, and downscaled to the same size on a 72-100 ppi device like a monitor, there's little difference to be seen.

If you spend time learning what the difference is - what the dynamic range is good for, what MP you need for your target media, etc... you'll answer your own question, because, first and foremost, you'll understand what they mean *in your application*.

But let me sing along with the chorus: If you take the same images, the same way, with the same lenses and target media, it will not make your pictures better.

justtakingpics · 05-27-2011, 07:47 PM

Then how can one camera have a better RAW image quality? I don't get it.

edit: I reread the posts. I guess it does have better capability but I probably wouldn't notice it except in extreme circumstances.

jstevewhite · 05-27-2011, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by justtakingpics

Then how can one camera have a better RAW image quality? I don't get it.

Image quality is measured many ways. If all else is equal, more MP==more detail (up to a point). The K-5 has more MP, so it can record more detail. But - you have to GET that detail, and then *use* it. So if you print 300dpi prints, a 4288x2848 (k-x) image will print out to 14.3 inches by 9.5 inches; a K-5 4928x3264 will print out to 16.42 inches by 10.88 inches with the same level of detail. So by that measure, it has higher image quality. If you print 8x10s, though, both machines out-resolve the print massively, and so will retain virtually identical quantities of detail. Like if we're trying to fill an 8oz cup with water, it doesn't matter if I have a gallon or a gallon and eight ounces.

justtakingpics · 05-27-2011, 07:56 PM

Thanks. That was a great analogy.

**Ash** · 05-27-2011, 08:14 PM

It can get complicated, but for your purposes, RAW is as good as the lenses and sensor quality and resolution will allow. Also be aware of the difference between shooting in sRGB and AdobeRGB. DxO explains some of their methodologies in comparing RAW between cameras.

Understanding RAW Files Explained
Digital camera benchmark based on RAW image quality
Raw image format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

yusuf · 05-27-2011, 10:41 PM

I have no experience on k-5, but k-5 might be able to pull more details out of shadow - though k-x itself excels in that area. Someone owning both might be having better comment.

**Ash** · 05-27-2011, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by yusuf

Someone owning both might be having better comment

The difference is clear to me both in resolution and dynamic range at every ISO, especially ISO 80, which the K-x doesn't offer. Whether this translates into 'better looking' images or not is a separate issue.

05-27-2011, 06:14 PM	#1
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288	Will the k-5 make my pictures look better than my k-x? I know it's more about the photographer but if I had a good picture with both cameras, same lens, etc., would my image look better on the k-5? I asked a similar question in the beginner discussion (should have just asked here, no delete though). I was reading reviews on dpreview and they have jpeg and raw image quality measurements, so someone at least thinks there is a quality difference. I didn't want unreasonable expectations, should I get one. For these purpose, assume ISO 100 and a kit lens. thanks.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How Will A K-7 or K-X Make These Pictures Look Better?	Mike Bokeh	Pentax DSLR Discussion	26	09-02-2010 11:48 PM
Why can't they make something like this...	regor	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	22	03-20-2010 01:16 PM
What do you make of this?	Jimfear	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	10	01-25-2010 03:05 PM
how to make pictures smaler?	Mew	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	10-29-2009 04:47 PM
Anyone make money from their pictures?	Buschmaster	General Talk	17	12-08-2007 11:52 AM

05-27-2011, 06:18 PM	#2
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	What resolution image are we talking? What kind of conditions are you photographing in (lighting)? What are you photographing? Looking at your gear in your signature, worry about shooting until you outgrow those lenses before you worry about outgrowing the body.

05-27-2011, 06:19 PM	#3
dexmus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 392	Originally posted by justtakingpics I know it's more about the photographer but if I had a good picture with both cameras, same lens, etc., would my image look better on the k-5? I asked a similar question in the beginner discussion (should have just asked here, no delete though). I was reading reviews on dpreview and they have jpeg and raw image quality measurements, so someone at least thinks there is a quality difference. I didn't want unreasonable expectations, should I get one. For these purpose, assume ISO 100 and a kit lens. thanks. Short answer is NO.

05-27-2011, 06:21 PM	#4
wlachan Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 2,625	Originally posted by dexmus Short answer is NO. x2 w/o question.

05-27-2011, 06:25 PM	#5
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288 Original Poster	Ok. I believe you guys but then why do they have the raw image quality comparison at dpreview? Not only that the k-5 is much higher than every camera on the list. Please help me understand.

05-27-2011, 07:16 PM	#6
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	There's more to RAW than straight image quality, and it's those small details that make the difference between RAW and JPEG worth considering when doing any serious work. The latitude RAW offers in white balancing, exposure and basic colour manipulations whilst retaining a great deal of highlight and shadow detail is of great value. In JPEG, once these details are lost after an exposure, or PP, they cannot be brought back.

05-27-2011, 07:18 PM	#7
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288 Original Poster	Originally posted by Ash There's more to RAW than straight image quality, and it's those small details that make the difference between RAW and JPEG worth considering when doing any serious work. The latitude RAW offers in white balancing, exposure and basic colour manipulations whilst retaining a great deal of highlight and shadow detail is of great value. In JPEG, once these details are lost after an exposure, or PP, they cannot be brought back. Doesn't that mean RAW matters most then when talking about IQ?

05-27-2011, 07:33 PM	#8
dexmus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 392	Originally posted by justtakingpics Ok. I believe you guys but then why do they have the raw image quality comparison at dpreview? Not only that the k-5 is much higher than every camera on the list. Please help me understand. The image quality differences between k-x and k-5 are visible at pixel peeping levels. All review sites love to write about that. Companies love to boast about that. It has very little to do with whether the difference will be visible in the format/size that an amateur/hobbyist is going to use. But that's marketing. The main factor that can make your pictures better is you. K-x and k-5, both have similar SONY sensors. They give similar results - k-5 has slightly less noise at lower light. The focus is better but still not in the elite category. So basically, if we talk about what makes a picture better than the other - 1. Composition - not going to change with k-5 2. Creativity/vision - not going to change with k-5 3. Understanding the lighting - not going to change with k-5 4. Image Quality - With same lenses, it is very similar. K-x is not that far behind k-5 for all practical purposes. There are some advantages to K-5 - weather sealed body, more controls as physical buttons, better focus. These things will make your photo taking experience better than that with a k-x - NO DOUBT. But it is not going to make your pictures better by any significant margin. cheers, Abhi

05-27-2011, 07:38 PM	#9
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by justtakingpics Doesn't that mean RAW matters most then when talking about IQ? The K-5 is capable of making images with higher technical quality, paired with appropriate lenses and technique. Whether you will notice that difference has to do with your skill level and your chosen task. If you primarily view your images on monitors, tvs, and digital picture frames, the chances are you will not be able to find any difference in image quality (assuming zoom to "fit" so you can see the whole image on your monitor). That's because they outresolve nearly all monitors, and downscaled to the same size on a 72-100 ppi device like a monitor, there's little difference to be seen. If you spend time learning what the difference is - what the dynamic range is good for, what MP you need for your target media, etc... you'll answer your own question, because, first and foremost, you'll understand what they mean in your application. But let me sing along with the chorus: If you take the same images, the same way, with the same lenses and target media, it will not make your pictures better.

05-27-2011, 07:47 PM	#10
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288 Original Poster	Then how can one camera have a better RAW image quality? I don't get it. edit: I reread the posts. I guess it does have better capability but I probably wouldn't notice it except in extreme circumstances.

05-27-2011, 07:53 PM	#11
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by justtakingpics Then how can one camera have a better RAW image quality? I don't get it. Image quality is measured many ways. If all else is equal, more MP==more detail (up to a point). The K-5 has more MP, so it can record more detail. But - you have to GET that detail, and then use it. So if you print 300dpi prints, a 4288x2848 (k-x) image will print out to 14.3 inches by 9.5 inches; a K-5 4928x3264 will print out to 16.42 inches by 10.88 inches with the same level of detail. So by that measure, it has higher image quality. If you print 8x10s, though, both machines out-resolve the print massively, and so will retain virtually identical quantities of detail. Like if we're trying to fill an 8oz cup with water, it doesn't matter if I have a gallon or a gallon and eight ounces.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-27-2011, 07:56 PM	#12
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288 Original Poster	Thanks. That was a great analogy.

05-27-2011, 08:14 PM	#13
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	It can get complicated, but for your purposes, RAW is as good as the lenses and sensor quality and resolution will allow. Also be aware of the difference between shooting in sRGB and AdobeRGB. DxO explains some of their methodologies in comparing RAW between cameras. Understanding RAW Files Explained Digital camera benchmark based on RAW image quality Raw image format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

05-27-2011, 10:41 PM	#14
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	I have no experience on k-5, but k-5 might be able to pull more details out of shadow - though k-x itself excels in that area. Someone owning both might be having better comment.

05-27-2011, 11:13 PM	#15
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by yusuf Someone owning both might be having better comment The difference is clear to me both in resolution and dynamic range at every ISO, especially ISO 80, which the K-x doesn't offer. Whether this translates into 'better looking' images or not is a separate issue.