[CapitanXeon]

Hello!

I have a Pentax K-5, currently with a bit over 60000 clicks on it, and since i've been learning a lot with this camera, and of course looking videos around the subject, while i am very happy with the quality i'm getting out of the camera, i feel like it could[/I][/I] be a bit better.

I'm not sure if i'm going to explain well, but for example, i see pictures all around of portraits and what not, where even details from the eye iris can be seen with total clarity, while for example i can get very nice detail out of eyelashes and whatnot, but as for today, i'm still not able to get that, that's why i refer with that completely made up wording about pixel level quality.
It's just like if there was a constant blurryness of a single pixel that, while allows me to take completely fine pictures, the finest of the finest details can't be catched.

Of course i should clarify, the best modern lens i own is a Pentax 18-135 WR ED blah-blah-blah, that one, while i know that i can get also crisp pictures from a very old (70's or so) Photax-paragon 135mm F/2.8 prime that i have laying around here, which while it can get like single feather details out of a bird on a tree, it has other issues like chromatic aberrations that still erases most of that detail.

It's that something expected for folks that can't spend a two month paycheck on a single lens or there's something i can do about it? I know the Pentax K5IIs went out without AA filter for reasons i can understand similar to what i feel, but i'd like to know what someone with actual experience and common sense has to say to a recent ex-teenager like me

[photoptimist]

The sharpness of the photos you see are almost certainly partly due to using the sharpest lenses under the best conditions. But the real source of the sharpness almost certainly involves post processing. Even the best of lenses tend to be a little fuzzy at 50 LPM (line-pair per millimeter) and the sensor on the K-5 can resolve down to 100 LPM. The Bayer filter found in virtually all digital cameras also creates some pixel-level blur.

The point is that even with a "sharp" lens, the RAW image will be fuzzy at the pixel level. Post processing is the only solution.

Look into getting a 50mm lens. Stopped-down, a modest prime can get really nice results but still require post processing if you pixel peep.

[CapitanXeon]

The sharpness of the photos you see are almost certainly partly due to using the sharpest lenses under the best conditions. But the real source of the sharpness almost certainly involves post processing. Even the best of lenses tend to be a little fuzzy at 50 LPM (line-pair per millimeter) and the sensor on the K-5 can resolve down to 100 LPM. The Bayer filter found in virtually all digital cameras also creates some pixel-level blur.

The point is that even with a "sharp" lens, the RAW image will be fuzzy at the pixel level. Post processing is the only solution.

Look into getting a 50mm lens. Stopped-down, a modest prime can get really nice results but still require post processing if you pixel peep.

I currently have an SMC Pentax-A f/2 50mm prime, and while it feels sharp and nice, there's still this little tiny bit of fuzzyness i can appreciate.

Just to clarify, i'll post here a pic of what i mean. currently i'm completely unable to get a result like this, and that's certainly aggravated by my lens selection as well.



I can agree, my 50mm stopped down can be very sharp. I might do some testing as i now have a soft light made of a scrap 32 inch TV. Should i make a tutorial on that?

[PhilipK5]

I felt somewhat the same about my K5. Have recently upgraded to a K3 and am now much happier with the detail I can get out of my existing lenses.

[MaineNative]

I have the K-5 and my experience is that the lens is more important than the camera much of the time. My first *istDL came with the original DA 18-55 AL. I noticed my pictures were not sharp and I upgraded to the DA 18-55 AL Mark II and there was a noticeable difference.

On my K-5, I upgraded from the 18-135 to the 16-85 and in my opinion, I got a noticeable improvement in sharpness. For a test, I take pictures of bark on trees, veins on leaves, or a bookcase full of books and see if I can read all the book titles and authors clearly. Braided ropes are another good test—my K-1 will show individual threads coming off a rope 50 feet away with the DFA 28-105.

I assume if you are trying to do portraits, you are using a tripod and remote release to get the sharpest pictures possible. When I do portraits, I also use manual focus to make sure the AF doesn’t accidentally look at the background or some random reflection. (I use AF first, then switch to manual.)

There are some cheap lenses that are still pretty sharp like the DA 50 or the FA 35/f2. I check review sites like lenstip.com to see if the lens gets high marks for what I will use it for. They might be plastic, but I don’t shoot every day so I don’t put too much wear on them. I am also usually shooting in good weather and don’t need WR lenses. That saves money.

[PhilipK5]

A couple of other issues to consider are:
a) Is there some element of camera shake or movement? Handheld images can often appear soft even at higher shutter speeds as inbuilt shake reduction is only good to a point - this becomes more important as the focal length is increased.
b) Lighting and "F" stop - are you using your lenses at their optimal sharpest "F" stop?
Even fairly average lenses can perform well when stopped down to around F8 and great lenses (particularly older ones) will still be a bit soft when wide open.
Do you have enough light to allow the camera to really nail the focus on the spot you want?
Does your "F" stop, focal length and distance to subject of your selected lens give you enough depth of field - particularly when the subject is not a flat surface?

[LensBeginner]

You should post a picture you took, either one you're not satisfied with or one you think is close to your intended target but not quite there yet, and then we can probably tell you where there's margin to improve the end result.

[Rondec]

The K5 is fine. More recent cameras (including the K5 IIs) have done away with the AA filter and that may add a bit of sharpness to images.

As others have said, post some photos. Possible issues include missing focus (the K5 tends to struggle a bit with tungsten lighting in particular), lens issues (looking into a high quality prime could help) and post processing issues (some people sharpen their photos more than others). All of that said, I think the K5 is a very nice camera and very capable of getting pixel sharp images.

[BrianR]

I agree some examples of your photos would be great.

I might do some testing as i now have a soft light made of a scrap 32 inch TV. Should i make a tutorial on that?

You popped out the parts to make a 32" lightpanel? There are a few tutorials online, but another wouldn't go amiss. I've collected a few defunct laptop & tablets for the same use. Maybe this winter I'll get to it.

[er1kksen]

Are you sure what you're seeing isn't a difference in local microcontrast? Lenses do have a large effect on this (and the 50mm f2s are the worst of the 50s in this regard, but still pretty good past f2.8), as does lighting, but postprocessing has more influence than anything else on the apparent microcontrast of the final image these days (especially with the somewhat muted reponse of the SONY CMOS sensors). I get images out of my older K10D with the F 35-70 with very little work that look deliciously crisp but turn out to be a bit blurred or defocused viewed at 100%. Shooting the K-3 ii with the 100mm macro ltd, getting that "crispness" usually took a bit more adjustment of the tone curve, clarity slider etc even when things were perfectly sharp viewed at 100%.

[jack002]

Is it possible you are comparing photos from higher resolution cameras to the K-5 photos? Its 16 MP. If you zoom in on the eyes in a photo you'll see less detail over a higher density sensor camera

[CapitanXeon]

Is it possible you are comparing photos from higher resolution cameras to the K-5 photos? Its 16 MP. If you zoom in on the eyes in a photo you'll see less detail over a higher density sensor camera

I have definetely thought on that, but there it is one with a K-5: Pentax K5 - Pentax DA 35mm F2.8 Macro Limited. | Mauro. Bonito. | Flickr

it will definetely have something to do with the lens selection, also being macro should help, so i will play around with my gear and keep you all informed!

[volley]

As others have said before: examples of "your best but still not good enough" shots might help to give advice.
I doubt that the pixel count of the camera is very important. The 16MP of the K5 are plenty enough ...

The lens and focus accuracy are definitely important.

Here is an example, significantly cropped from a shot with my K200D ( 10MP, but as mentioned a significant crop)
The lens was a 40 year old but excellent manual focus Macro lens (Panagor 2.8/90mm)

[CapitanXeon]

As others have said before: examples of "your best but still not good enough" shots might help to give advice.
I doubt that the pixel count of the camera is very important. The 16MP of the K5 are plenty enough ...

The lens and focus accuracy are definitely important.

Here is an example, significantly cropped from a shot with my K200D ( 10MP, but as mentioned a significant crop)
The lens was a 40 year old but excellent manual focus Macro lens (Panagor 2.8/90mm)

I will arm myself with my also 40 year old 135 f/2.8 Paragon and will post the results. I'm hovering over my lightroom catalog and theres like 12000 pictures there, i'm better off trying it again and showing my findings fresh. Algo will try base ISO, as some pictures i have (which i love btw) are noisy as F and we aren't trying that here. Example:

This one is very smoothed as it was taken underexposed at ISO 3200 on a dark street, so no-no.


Yet again, almost there, but as dark as my room is, i had to bump ISO and therefore use noise reduction. I should locate the original RAW to look at it fresh, but there wasn't much detail to begin with.

Also, bear in mind those are Instagram processed pics as i'm working right now and i could get those very easy, so later i'll look for the RAW files.

[mikesbike]

I cannot fault what you have there in your last given shot. Looks fine to me, and even more so considering the file-size reduction for posting here. The DA 18-135mm lens is capable of tested excellent sharpness, especially in the central area of the frame throughout its zoom range, an exceptional outcome for such a zoom lens. It is also capable of good closeup image performance, especially in the central area. Even bokeh is pretty good with this lens.

A good, fast 50mm prime lens is of course one of the best tools for portraits with APS-C usage, and can be an inexpensive way to go. Like the quite inexpensive DA 50mm f/1.8 lens. Good for low light work too. The main advantage over the zoom lens is it can open up its aperture wider to get a higher shutter speed. In the case of portraits and also to isolate other subjects from the background, to blur the background more to get a better effect in some circumstances, to make a subject stand out more from the background.

Another matter is that razor sharpness is often not desirable for portraiture, as too much detail stands out in bold, etched fashion, skin pores, minor blemishes, etc. while a slight smoothing effect would be more be flattering.

I think you've done a good job here, very fine sharpness right where you want it, but not too much in other areas.