Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

View Poll Results: Would you pay $100 (US) to increase the sharpness of your photos by 8%?
Yes 5253.06%
No 2222.45%
What's the catch 2222.45%
Undecided 22.04%
Voters: 98. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-28-2013, 12:19 PM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 4,988
QuoteOriginally posted by mrNewt Quote
I'm not going to go in an argument, just want to clarify one thing.

Like I have said everything is based on: "From what I know (my opinion from experience)...".
And the reason I said that is because as a PS user (used it pretty much since the day I was able to type on a computer) I have NOT encountered one situation where I cannot replicate an effect with PS (painting, drawing, photography, etc) done by something else (as another program).
Yes, naturally there is always a way. But then again, if you haven't used the plugins to compare side-by-side, you wouldn't really know, would you? I wasn't really referring to "effects" either, but the meat of normal post-processing -- sharpening, bringing out detail (dodging and burning if you will), etc etc.

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that plugins are not just interfaces to PS (using the "PS engine") -- they have their own engines, often superior than PS, and certainly more stable. For "effects", there are a gazillion actions/scripts which do use the PS engine. No shortage of stuff out there, that's for sure...

02-28-2013, 12:20 PM   #17
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
ha ha, you forgot the 3 inches part part.... but nice try..
02-28-2013, 12:27 PM   #18
Veteran Member
mrNewt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: ON, RH
Posts: 2,170
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
Yes, naturally there is always a way. But then again, if you haven't used the plugins to compare side-by-side, you wouldn't really know, would you? I wasn't really referring to "effects" either, but the meat of normal post-processing -- sharpening, bringing out detail (dodging and burning if you will), etc etc.
Who said I haven't used them!?
Maybe "effects" was not the correct word ... but you do get what I am trying to say. In essence, each modification done to a photo is more or less an "effect".
02-28-2013, 01:05 PM   #19
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
.....Go to your nearest camera store, take a memory card and you best lens, leave your watch (or passport if it's an inexpensive watch), stroll around the area and shoot at least 100 images at various apertures. All these people claiming on basis of some random 100% crops, that the K5IIs is not worth 100,- (or even 330,-) dollars/euros more, should put their energy into something else than debating the K5IIs that they don't have (unless they are secretly fascinated of course...). This is a camera you have to experience, and if you have the lenses and the eyes (and shoot raw), than Pentax made it available for you.
p.s. as an aside: the K5IIs has the most beautiful iso 800 rendering I have had the joy to experience, easily removable and mild color noise, and beautifully (if you can use this term in the context) fine grained luminance noise, that you will however only see at 100%.

Chris
I've shot both the II and IIs (extensively, for the past three months, using Limited lenses) and I'd take the K-5 II over the IIs if it were my money. There just simply isn't enough difference for me between the two. So horses for courses, I guess.

02-28-2013, 01:12 PM   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
I've shot both the II and IIs (extensively, for the past three months, using Limited lenses) and I'd take the K-5 II over the IIs if it were my money. There just simply isn't enough difference for me between the two. So horses for courses, I guess.
Noted and appreciated, and anticipated. However, that isn't the choice for most of us, the choice is upgrade from a K-5 at considerably more cost, or hang in with the K-5 until the next release which may be 24 MP APS-c. Based on current on-line research, my guess is going to a 24 MP sensor will be a 10-12% increase, possibly a 300 lw/ph difference by IR measurements... add that to an 8% increase for not having the AA filter and you have a 20% increase, and you're creeping up into towards D600 territory, and leaving a pile of lesser FF cameras in the dust.

SO for K-5 users, it's a lot more than $100. IN fact it's only $100 if you're deciding between a K-5 II and a K-5 IIs, and you've already committed the K-5 II money. A very odd way of calculating the cost of 8%.

Last edited by normhead; 02-28-2013 at 01:32 PM.
02-28-2013, 01:30 PM   #21
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 231
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
I've shot both the II and IIs (extensively, for the past three months, using Limited lenses) and I'd take the K-5 II over the IIs if it were my money. There just simply isn't enough difference for me between the two. So horses for courses, I guess.
That's fine. Anyone is entitled to an opinion. It's something else though, when you advise people on whether an upgrade is worth it or not. I am clearly seeing something different from what you are seeing.
Let's get it clear though, that I am referring to the difference between the (old) K5 and the K5IIs, and not between the K5II, and the K5IIs. Opinions are already circling round on two things people seem to be experiencing:
a.) some people that have upgraded from the K5 to the K5II (and there won't be a whóle lot), are suggesting, that the K5II might have a weaker AA filter than the original K5, because they are experiencing sharper images.
b.) some people having upgraded from the K5 to the K5IIs are stating that the in body SR is working better with the K5IIs. This is also my experience, I have found a clarity in the K5IIs images, that I have not found in any of my K5 images, and I know my way around in Raw converters and Photoshop.

I would add another point:
-the Zeiss lenses have very high centre resolution (I use the 28/2, 35/2 and 50/2), and they are manual focus, so we can leave AF out. I use a Canon Ees screen. With the K5 it was simply not possible to resolve the very high centre detail from the Zeiss lenses. The K5IIs comes a lot closer. Not everyone is interested in these high resolution lenses, but it does indicate the K5IIs capacity to resolve considerably higher fine detail than the K5. And many are supporting this.

Chris
02-28-2013, 01:33 PM   #22
Senior Member
romeck's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Piekary Śląskie
Photos: Albums
Posts: 156
Yes. I have paid. ($200 in Poland)
02-28-2013, 01:40 PM   #23
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
I've shot both the II and IIs (extensively, for the past three months, using Limited lenses) and I'd take the K-5 II over the IIs if it were my money. There just simply isn't enough difference for me between the two. So horses for courses, I guess.
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
That's fine. Anyone is entitled to an opinion. It's something else though, when you advise people on whether an upgrade is worth it or not. I am clearly seeing something different from what you are seeing.
Let's get it clear though, that I am referring to the difference between the (old) K5 and the K5IIs, and not between the K5II, and the K5IIs. Opinions are already circling round on two things people seem to be experiencing:
a.) some people that have upgraded from the K5 to the K5II (and there won't be a whóle lot), are suggesting, that the K5II might have a weaker AA filter than the original K5, because they are experiencing sharper images.
b.) some people having upgraded from the K5 to the K5IIs are stating that the in body SR is working better with the K5IIs. This is also my experience, I have found a clarity in the K5IIs images, that I have not found in any of my K5 images, and I know my way around in Raw converters and Photoshop.

I would add another point:
-the Zeiss lenses have very high centre resolution (I use the 28/2, 35/2 and 50/2), and they are manual focus, so we can leave AF out. I use a Canon Ees screen. With the K5 it was simply not possible to resolve the very high centre detail from the Zeiss lenses. The K5IIs comes a lot closer. Not everyone is interested in these high resolution lenses, but it does indicate the K5IIs capacity to resolve considerably higher fine detail than the K5. And many are supporting this.

Chris
Is anyone supporting this with some MTF calculations?

02-28-2013, 02:08 PM   #24
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
That's fine. Anyone is entitled to an opinion. It's something else though, when you advise people on whether an upgrade is worth it or not. I am clearly seeing something different from what you are seeing.
Let's get it clear though, that I am referring to the difference between the (old) K5 and the K5IIs, and not between the K5II, and the K5IIs. Opinions are already circling round on two things people seem to be experiencing:
a.) some people that have upgraded from the K5 to the K5II (and there won't be a whóle lot), are suggesting, that the K5II might have a weaker AA filter than the original K5, because they are experiencing sharper images.
b.) some people having upgraded from the K5 to the K5IIs are stating that the in body SR is working better with the K5IIs. This is also my experience, I have found a clarity in the K5IIs images, that I have not found in any of my K5 images, and I know my way around in Raw converters and Photoshop.

I would add another point:
-the Zeiss lenses have very high centre resolution (I use the 28/2, 35/2 and 50/2), and they are manual focus, so we can leave AF out. I use a Canon Ees screen. With the K5 it was simply not possible to resolve the very high centre detail from the Zeiss lenses. The K5IIs comes a lot closer. Not everyone is interested in these high resolution lenses, but it does indicate the K5IIs capacity to resolve considerably higher fine detail than the K5. And many are supporting this.

Chris
"Some people say" doesn't really do a lot for me. I'd prefer to see some real testing done. I do have a K-5, so I can run a few tests and see how it compares to the II and IIs on sharpness, but SR is very difficult to test in a controlled way.

Based on the specs and what we know of the internals, the K-5 and K-5 II should be all but identical in terms of image quality, but who knows what tweaks Pentax might have made and not mentioned.
02-28-2013, 02:41 PM   #25
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 231
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Is anyone supporting this with some MTF calculations?
No sorry, I only have my eyes to trust.
But let me post two images to illustrate what I feel is special about the K5IIs, and feel free to disagree.
The first image below is with the close focus Zeiss 25/2.8. Both images are straight from the raw converter (CO1) with zero capture sharpening or contrast enhancing, and resized in photoshop with bicubic standard to jpeg, with zero output sharpening. So this is only camera/lens raw resolution, without any contrast enhancing sharpening whatsoever. Perhaps some sharpening might be in place, but this is just to show the resolving power of the K5IIs detail wise. I particularly like the total absence of sharpening, because it leaves the bokeh intact, and results in absence of artifacts (not counting lens artifacts).

Second image is with the 35/2, that has a particular focus plain, at f6.3. You can see the going in and out of focus clearly, just look at the brown pillars towards the glass lantern tops. You see it going out of focus towards the background. Also zero sharpening and thus zero sharpening artifacts. What it does for me, is make me much more aware of the lens and the focus plain. Not having to sharpen leaves a lot of the focus plain gradation intact. Perhaps some very mild output sharpening, but there is a lot of detail to start with.
Again, feel free to disagree.

Chris

Last edited by Chris Mak; 03-28-2013 at 01:51 PM.
02-28-2013, 03:14 PM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter
dadipentak's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,073
If I were buying a new body? Sure I'd pay the extra 100--I need all the help I can get.
02-28-2013, 03:26 PM   #27
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
No sorry, I only have my eyes to trust.
But let me post two images to illustrate what I feel is special about the K5IIs, and feel free to disagree.
The first image below is with the close focus Zeiss 25/2.8. Both images are straight from the raw converter (CO1) with zero capture sharpening or contrast enhancing, and resized in photoshop with bicubic standard to jpeg, with zero output sharpening. So this is only camera/lens raw resolution, without any contrast enhancing sharpening whatsoever. Perhaps some sharpening might be in place, but this is just to show the resolving power of the K5IIs detail wise. I particularly like the total absence of sharpening, because it leaves the bokeh intact, and results in absence of artifacts (not counting lens artifacts).

Second image is with the 35/2, that has a particular focus plain, at f6.3. You can see the going in and out of focus clearly, just look at the brown pillars towards the glass lantern tops. You see it going out of focus towards the background. Also zero sharpening and thus zero sharpening artifacts. What it does for me, is make me much more aware of the lens and the focus plain. Not having to sharpen leaves a lot of the focus plain gradation intact. Perhaps some very mild output sharpening, but there is a lot of detail to start with.
Again, feel free to disagree.

Chris
It's hard to say anything about these since we're not seeing them at full res...
02-28-2013, 03:51 PM   #28
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,720
I simply don't believe comparative pictures anymore... even in the Imaging resource attempts under test conditions, different focal points are selected by the different AF systems. Comparing a D800 and a K-5 there is one point where the D800 being FF and having narrower depth of field is actually worse than the K-5 image. There are also places in the image where the D800 captures detail the K-5 misses altogether, where the K-5 appears to be in clear focus. YOu could argue the K-5 is better because it has better DoF and has more of the image in focus. You can argue the D800 image is better because where it is in focus it shows much more detail than the K-5. Even if parts that are in focus on the K-5 image is in clear focus are out of focus on the D800 image one could argue that's part of the charm of FF. It's really hard to look at two images that aren't test images, and come to any kind of conclusion. There are way to many variables.

We have had long discussions on the forum looking at the same test images, and come to different conclusions. One person see's an area as part of an image as poorly focussed, another sees an image 's lack of detail in that area as proof the camera lacks detail, even though there are parts of the same image on the other camera that are sharper. There's a lot of bias that goes on.

The folks over at IR when they tested the D800 got some pretty impressive numbers out of it, and then admitted that without viewing the test chart and constantly adjusting focus etc. they couldn't have achieved those numbers, and that it took quite a few exposures to nail it, and that makes you wonder if those numbers would even be obtainable in the field.

After all this messing around with a D800 and K-5 to prove you could get 2700 lw/ph out of a K-5 and 4000 lw/ph out of a D800, I've pretty much come to the conclusion, good testing is hard to come by. For one thing, we'll never know what would have happened had they "teased" the numbers for the K-5 like they did for the D800.

But I digress. Testing is always problematic. Personal comparisons are even more un-reliable than testing. So while I appreciate your input, it's filed away somewhere, I'm not sure it has any relevance besides bragging points on an internet forum. It's great you have those sharp lenses. And that a K-5 does not stack up to a K-5 II in terms of IQ. I'll put one check mark in the opinion column, unfortunately it's the only check mark in that column so far, so I'll have to keep looking to see if anyone else can in some way corroborate it.

Last edited by normhead; 02-28-2013 at 04:07 PM.
02-28-2013, 05:36 PM   #29
Pentaxian
Sagitta's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Maine
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,912
QuoteOriginally posted by Chris Mak Quote
b.) some people having upgraded from the K5 to the K5IIs are stating that the in body SR is working better with the K5IIs. This is also my experience, I have found a clarity in the K5IIs images, that I have not found in any of my K5 images, and I know my way around in Raw converters and Photoshop.
Its not just the K5II, its the K-30 as well. One of the first things I realized when I started doing my night snaps with the K-30 was that I was pulling off shots I never could of dreamed of managing with the K-x/K-r.
02-28-2013, 07:15 PM   #30
Veteran Member
wlachan's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,626
I would pay $100 more for a misalignment free guaranteed lens OOB. Failing that, any increase in sharpness will be a waste of my time.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, increase, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, photos, sharpness
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which free RAW editing software to increase sharpness more kamisu Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 8 05-22-2012 04:34 AM
Would you swap your DA12-24 for the DA15mm? simonkit Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 32 04-07-2012 06:49 AM
Would you pay an annual "firmware" fee once your body is out of warranty? brecklundin Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 05-11-2010 07:50 AM
Would you like to do a good deed with your photos? Wombat General Talk 2 07-18-2009 05:55 AM
Do you customize the Sharpness, Contrast and Saturation settings on your DSLR? lastdodobird Pentax DSLR Discussion 12 01-30-2008 07:41 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:48 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top