I love to see the competition grovel.....

SHVLHEAD88 · 01-01-2013, 08:53 PM

Check out this conversation

Camera Topics Pentax K-5 IIs high ISO raw samples

Laurentiu Cristofor · 01-01-2013, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by SHVLHEAD88

Check out this conversation

Camera Topics Pentax K-5 IIs high ISO raw samples

They include the E-5, not the E-M5 in that OP comparison link.

Here's a proper comparison: 5DIII vs K-5IIs vs E-M5 vs X-E1 at ISO 3200. No comments are needed.

Ikarus · 01-01-2013, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

Here's a proper comparison: 5DIII vs K-5IIs vs E-M5 vs X-E1 at ISO 3200. No comments are needed.

Wow, that's a truly impressive showing from the E-M5. No wonder it's winning accolades.

Fogel70 · 01-02-2013, 01:03 AM

Olympus probably has market leading JPG-engine, but in RAW it's easier to see the disadvantage of the smaller sensor.

DSims · 01-02-2013, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

Here's a proper comparison: 5DIII vs K-5IIs vs E-M5 vs X-E1 at ISO 3200. No comments are needed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "no comments are needed," because if you look at the RAW file results (for example at ISO 6400), you can see that FujiFilm beats everyone, followed closely by the K-5 IIs. The E-M5 comes in last (despite being a big improvement over the E-5).

drawbar · 01-02-2013, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

They include the E-5, not the E-M5 in that OP comparison link.

Here's a proper comparison: 5DIII vs K-5IIs vs E-M5 vs X-E1 at ISO 3200. No comments are needed.

Although I knew Pentax K30 is a fine camera, I was still a bit suprised how favourably it compared against "big boys" in this test.

Ikarus · 01-02-2013, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Fogel70

Olympus probably has market leading JPG-engine, but in RAW it's easier to see the disadvantage of the smaller sensor.

It sure looks like it. About as impressive I find the quality of the Oly's RAW output up to ISO 800. It's only above that, that I see it fall apart in comparison to the big boys, but based on the noise level that becomes apparent in that region, it's amazing to me how the jpeg engine manages to save the day all the way up to ISO 3200 without an apparent loss of detail.

gazonk · 01-02-2013, 01:55 AM

Originally posted by DSims

I'm not sure what you mean by "no comments are needed," because if you look at the RAW file results (for example at ISO 6400), you can see that FujiFilm beats everyone, followed closely by the K-5 IIs. The E-M5 comes in last (despite being a big improvement over the E-5).

Yes, the Fuji is amazing at ISO 6400. Perhaps a tad soft compared to the others, but unbelievably clean.

gazonk · 01-02-2013, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Ikarus

it's amazing to me how the jpeg engine manages to save the day all the way up to ISO 3200 without an apparent loss of detail.

Hmm, it's good, but the E-M5 does lose more detail due to aggressive noise removal in textured details than the others do.

pinholecam · 01-02-2013, 01:59 AM

The OMD has more false detail from what I see on things with fine detail, though it does very well for flat contrasty stuff like the woman's face dollar note and the roman sculpture print.
This is comparing JPG

On RAW, its certainly behind K5iis.
And thats before chroma NR in which the K5iis has next to none.
Some may say Pentax 'cheated' with RAW NR, but the end result, K5iis delivers (cheating or no)

Ikarus · 01-02-2013, 02:09 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

Hmm, it's good, but the E-M5 does lose more detail due to aggressive noise removal in textured details than the others do.

That's not how I see it. The blonde brush hair on the bottom right and many parts of the feathers are all mushy in the Fuji's jpeg 3200 output and show much more detail in the Oly's.

gazonk · 01-02-2013, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Ikarus

That's not how I see it. The blonde brush hair on the bottom right and many parts of the feathers are all mushy in the Fuji's jpeg 3200 output and show much more detail in the Oly's.

Have a look at the fur to the right of the VW: The E-M5 and 5D Mk III ISO 3200 JPEG images show a smeared chaos only vaguely resembling the fur. The K-5 IIs is probably the best, but the soft Fuji output actually looks more like fur. ISO 3200 RAW of that fur is also a close race between K-5 IIs and X-E1, with the other two showing too much noise.

lightbulb · 01-02-2013, 05:20 AM

Flickr has omd pictures for real world comparison. Hard to love compared to k30, let alone k5 or the k5 steroid version.

cfraz · 01-02-2013, 07:10 AM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

They include the E-5, not the E-M5 in that OP comparison link.

Here's a proper comparison: 5DIII vs K-5IIs vs E-M5 vs X-E1 at ISO 3200. No comments are needed.

E-M5 would appeal to JPEG shooters who are unable or just plain unwilling (as DPR testers) to change JPEG settings from the out-of-the-box defaults.

**Rondec** · 01-02-2013, 08:19 AM

There has been some discussion on this subject, but the one thing that is impressive (based on DXO Mark testing) is how much the OM-D's iso is overstated. At iso 6400, the K5 II measures at 5200 iso, the OM-D measures at 3100. DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side

01-01-2013, 08:53 PM	#1
SHVLHEAD88 New Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Panama City,FL Posts: 13	I love to see the competition grovel..... Check out this conversation Camera Topics Pentax K-5 IIs high ISO raw samples

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
so I want to upgrade, K-5 vs competition?	axl	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	122	01-17-2012 10:36 PM
I finally got my K7! I upgraded from the Kx and I LOVE IT!	crossover37	Pentax DSLR Discussion	25	05-05-2011 01:10 PM
Stuff I'd Like to see	8540tomg	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	03-21-2011 10:04 AM
I think I've narrowed it down to 2...would love some feedback!	twix23919	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	03-07-2011 05:03 PM
Landscape "I see the wind, oh I see the trees" John Lennon	Eetu	Post Your Photos!	6	07-02-2010 12:20 PM

01-01-2013, 10:03 PM	#2
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by SHVLHEAD88 Check out this conversation Camera Topics Pentax K-5 IIs high ISO raw samples They include the E-5, not the E-M5 in that OP comparison link. Here's a proper comparison: 5DIII vs K-5IIs vs E-M5 vs X-E1 at ISO 3200. No comments are needed.

01-01-2013, 11:55 PM	#3
Ikarus Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: California Photos: Albums Posts: 484	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Here's a proper comparison: 5DIII vs K-5IIs vs E-M5 vs X-E1 at ISO 3200. No comments are needed. Wow, that's a truly impressive showing from the E-M5. No wonder it's winning accolades.

01-02-2013, 01:03 AM	#4
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Olympus probably has market leading JPG-engine, but in RAW it's easier to see the disadvantage of the smaller sensor.

01-02-2013, 01:05 AM	#5
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Here's a proper comparison: 5DIII vs K-5IIs vs E-M5 vs X-E1 at ISO 3200. No comments are needed. I'm not sure what you mean by "no comments are needed," because if you look at the RAW file results (for example at ISO 6400), you can see that FujiFilm beats everyone, followed closely by the K-5 IIs. The E-M5 comes in last (despite being a big improvement over the E-5).

01-02-2013, 01:11 AM	#6
drawbar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Hämeenlinna, Finland Posts: 52	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor They include the E-5, not the E-M5 in that OP comparison link. Here's a proper comparison: 5DIII vs K-5IIs vs E-M5 vs X-E1 at ISO 3200. No comments are needed. Although I knew Pentax K30 is a fine camera, I was still a bit suprised how favourably it compared against "big boys" in this test.

01-02-2013, 01:45 AM	#7
Ikarus Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: California Photos: Albums Posts: 484	Originally posted by Fogel70 Olympus probably has market leading JPG-engine, but in RAW it's easier to see the disadvantage of the smaller sensor. It sure looks like it. About as impressive I find the quality of the Oly's RAW output up to ISO 800. It's only above that, that I see it fall apart in comparison to the big boys, but based on the noise level that becomes apparent in that region, it's amazing to me how the jpeg engine manages to save the day all the way up to ISO 3200 without an apparent loss of detail.

01-02-2013, 01:55 AM	#8
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by DSims I'm not sure what you mean by "no comments are needed," because if you look at the RAW file results (for example at ISO 6400), you can see that FujiFilm beats everyone, followed closely by the K-5 IIs. The E-M5 comes in last (despite being a big improvement over the E-5). Yes, the Fuji is amazing at ISO 6400. Perhaps a tad soft compared to the others, but unbelievably clean.

01-02-2013, 01:58 AM	#9
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Ikarus it's amazing to me how the jpeg engine manages to save the day all the way up to ISO 3200 without an apparent loss of detail. Hmm, it's good, but the E-M5 does lose more detail due to aggressive noise removal in textured details than the others do.

01-02-2013, 01:59 AM	#10
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	The OMD has more false detail from what I see on things with fine detail, though it does very well for flat contrasty stuff like the woman's face dollar note and the roman sculpture print. This is comparing JPG On RAW, its certainly behind K5iis. And thats before chroma NR in which the K5iis has next to none. Some may say Pentax 'cheated' with RAW NR, but the end result, K5iis delivers (cheating or no)

01-02-2013, 02:09 AM	#11
Ikarus Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: California Photos: Albums Posts: 484	Originally posted by gazonk Hmm, it's good, but the E-M5 does lose more detail due to aggressive noise removal in textured details than the others do. That's not how I see it. The blonde brush hair on the bottom right and many parts of the feathers are all mushy in the Fuji's jpeg 3200 output and show much more detail in the Oly's.

01-02-2013, 02:30 AM	#12
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Ikarus That's not how I see it. The blonde brush hair on the bottom right and many parts of the feathers are all mushy in the Fuji's jpeg 3200 output and show much more detail in the Oly's. Have a look at the fur to the right of the VW: The E-M5 and 5D Mk III ISO 3200 JPEG images show a smeared chaos only vaguely resembling the fur. The K-5 IIs is probably the best, but the soft Fuji output actually looks more like fur. ISO 3200 RAW of that fur is also a close race between K-5 IIs and X-E1, with the other two showing too much noise.

01-02-2013, 05:20 AM	#13
lightbulb Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 691	Flickr has omd pictures for real world comparison. Hard to love compared to k30, let alone k5 or the k5 steroid version.

01-02-2013, 07:10 AM	#14
cfraz Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 521	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor They include the E-5, not the E-M5 in that OP comparison link. Here's a proper comparison: 5DIII vs K-5IIs vs E-M5 vs X-E1 at ISO 3200. No comments are needed. E-M5 would appeal to JPEG shooters who are unable or just plain unwilling (as DPR testers) to change JPEG settings from the out-of-the-box defaults.

01-02-2013, 08:19 AM	#15
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	There has been some discussion on this subject, but the one thing that is impressive (based on DXO Mark testing) is how much the OM-D's iso is overstated. At iso 6400, the K5 II measures at 5200 iso, the OM-D measures at 3100. DxOMark - Compare cameras side by side