[JohnBee]

I doubt it if K-5's CMOS sensor can give same color quality and 3D look as K200D CCD sensor, don't we all see those hazy, soft K-5 samples every day, proudly presented as perfect images? From my internet watch, on the FF and APS-C arena there is only one camera can beat the K200D's color quality and 3D look, which is Nikon D3x, even though it has a CMOS sensor, I don't know how they succeeded. I don't know how Samsung succeeded to produce such good sensor on K200D/K10 either. Don't forget K200D sensor is the same with K10 which resurrected Pentax' old reputation in the digital arena. I believe Pentax owes a lot to this sensor.

I'm not doubting your feelings on this but... the K-5 definitely has a better sensor than the K200D.
And the question that would naturally lead this statement is, what good reasons do you have for saying that?

And this is the main issue I see with arguments such as these. Questions that are governed by product knowledge, experience and shooting technique. And please don't take this the wrong way, this certainly isn't a personal criticism.

Having said that, I think a good way to explore the differences between sensors would come by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of each system and learning how to use them.
ie. how does one tap into the extra colors and pixel quality/fidelity or dynamic range?
And I think the answer to this goes hand in hand with the reality behind sensor performances.

One good example of this phenomenon can be seen earlier in this thread. At which point, samples were provided to help illustrate many of the advantages of the K-5 sensor. To which I'd ask... what level of photography are we talking about? And if someone were to say, at a point and shoot level(no processing), then I would likely agree.
However... if we we were talking RAW performance... then I'd say we've got something major to chew on.

PS. My wife and I used a K200D for over two years as a primary and secondary body at work. And though there was nothing inherently wrong with the K200(per say), it did prove to have its share of limitations. Though on the per pixel sharpness level, it proved sharper than the K20D. However... there's no denying the K20 would easily match the K200D in post.

And so in summary, I'd say that in RAW, the K-5 files are not only better, but more accurately "much better" than the K200D could ever produce. And that's including the areas where very little headroom existed for improvements(ie. color range etc).

One good example of this can be found with sharpness/microcontrast(or 3D as some call it).
But is the 3D effect truly a direct derivative of a sensor? And though there's no doubt the sensor would play a role in this, I'm not convinced it is so much sensor output as it is lens performance. And I say this based on the numerous examples of microcontrast that I've seen over the years.

Though on the issue of sharpness and microcontrast, we are left with questions on RAW file performances such as;
How much information is present in the files, and how does they respond to processing?
What about grain and pixel quality and artifacts?
How well does the file respond to color and detail extrapolation?
And what of the shadow and highlight data regions? Are they accurate? and how much headroom are in the files?

Therefore, beyond body functions and performance, we find a great number of attributes that would play a part in the overall IQ of a system. Which leads us to the question... Is it truly better? or are we under the impression that its better from our current standpoint? And I think its the answers to these questions that will ultimately answer the BIGGER one.

And so, I think there are many more areas that need addressing in order to formulate an accurate assessment of how the K200D sensor weighs-in against other sensors. Then again... some groups(or organizations) have taken it upon themselves to measure RAW sensor performance as well. DxOMark for example, has a well established reputation of assessing sensor performances and publishing marks for various areas. Which I think provides us with a good baseline from which to carry out our own evaluations. - Which all leads us to the same primal question.. How does one evaluate the various aspects of sensor performance?

-

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 05-06-2011 at 04:05 AM.

[bickrs]

I'm not totally comfortable with the green button placement on my K-5 compared to the K200D. I still have it as backup, so I may just use it for older glass. Still love that camera though.

Regarding the mentioned "soft" output from K-5, could this sometimes be down to lack of PP on the RAW file? It could just need some work. Blank canvas and all that.

[cbaytan]

the K-5 has a better sensor than the K200D, and there are good reasons for that.


And so in summary, I'd say that in RAW, the K-5 is not only better, but more accurately "much better" than the K200D ever could be in RAW.
And that's including the areas with little headroom for improvements(ie. pixel sharpness etc).

What level? jpeg or RAW doesn't matter, IQwise whichever it takes, I do believe everything you say but only theoretically, I've never seen a sample from K-5 exceeds K200D IQ yet but I've seen lots of such pictures from K20D beats K200D. I really don't want to sound as in imperative mood but why I didn't see a K-5 pictures made me feel like I should get one? May I ask some samples from you John, or from other K-5 owners? I am more than ready to be convinced.

On the other hand I've never intended to imply K200 IQ beats the K-5 IQ idea, that would be pretty silly, In fact this is the thread about K200D is a great camera, but I guess inevitably we come to this point continuously, to me there is nothing wrong with it. My guess is K-5 is a heavily AF problematic camera. and I don't expect from most of her users to solve the problem with lens microadjustments due to their technical abilities.

Conclusion: K-5 might be better camera but K200D is still a great camera. Which fulfills most of my needs.

[JohnBee]

What level? jpeg or RAW doesn't matter

Hi cbaytan,

First off, I want to point-out that I edited my initial post to better convey what I was trying to say.
The former post just felt too abrasive and I think it misconstrued my objective.
Secondly, your opening statement(quoted above) is exactly what I was pointing out with the inherent differences we all have on what or how sensor performance stacks-up. - To which I'd ask... what does better IQ mean to you?

And I believe this is the key to the BIG question.
which isn't a black and white issue at all if you think about it, though, that doesn't mean it can't be true either, can it?
A most interesting phenomenon when you think about it.

And I'd agree with you(and most everyone else here), that there is nothing wrong with the K200D.
In fact!... I think the K200D was(and still is) an amazing camera. And I think most everyone who's used one, would agree to that statement.
And so, I believe the heart of the issue revolves entirely around ones needs and experience. Which is why we find so many people with such vastly contrasting opinions and feelings between systems.

why I didn't see a K-5 pictures made me feel like I should get one?

This is also another very good example of what I was trying to express in my initial post(to long?). And that is where the K200D like most any other camera, does a great job. To which we could ask again... what is a great job?

May I ask some samples from you John, or from other K-5 owners? I am more than ready to be convinced.

I would be more than happy to provide you with any samples that might help you appreciate the advantages of the K-5 system.
However... to help make this as conclusive as possible, may ask you what you think would make better images than the K200D?
Or in another form... what do you feel the D3 has that the K200D doesn't(to help put a practical perspective on that)?

And the reasons I ask, is because anyone can show amazing photographs which would cast the impression an amazing camera. But its in the identification of the advantages that we find the truth on matters. (<- if one can use such a word).

-

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 05-06-2011 at 04:18 AM.

[TOUGEFC]

I have both, and I can tell you the K-5 sensor is much better, and FWIW the K-5 AF walks all over the K200D AF, the K-5 is a better camera in every way possible, dont get me wrong the K200D is an excellent camera and I like it alot hence why im keeping it.

[bickrs]

I have both, and I can tell you the K-5 sensor is much better, and FWIW the K-5 AF walks all over the K200D AF, the K-5 is a better camera in every way possible, dont get me wrong the K200D is an excellent camera and I like it alot hence why im keeping it.

This mirrors my experience.

I think what I was alluding to in my previous post was that you may have two camps of shooters: the post processors and the au natural guys. If somebody was shooting RAW and not really manipulating the K-5 file, I can see why it could look flat, hazy, soft etc. Ultimately though, the files are a lot more malleable. This is of course a speculative generalisation to illustrate my point, but you only have to look at the K-5 output on PPG to see that it can produce stunning images ... as does the K200D.

The K-5 gives me a lot more keepers, but the K200D makes you work harder to get there sometimes ... which is often part of the reward, hence why I'm also keeping it.

[goddo31]

I have both, and I can tell you the K-5 sensor is much better, and FWIW the K-5 AF walks all over the K200D AF, the K-5 is a better camera in every way possible, dont get me wrong the K200D is an excellent camera and I like it alot hence why im keeping it.

After more than 5000 shots taken with the K-5 so far, I have to completely agree with this... And I'm still yet to do a real comparison between the two

[cbaytan]

Hi cbaytan,

To which I'd ask... what does better IQ mean to you?
And I believe this is the key to the BIG question.

Sure, it's not a rocket science, to me there are three simple measures for that, first is pretty objective while other two is not very objective.

1- imaging resource lowest ISO lab samples, I mostly check on the brush and round measurement card, then if structure of the black velvet and white salt crystals visible.
Like this: Digital Cameras, Pentax K-5 Digital Camera Test Image
Then I check them with other models. This is a reliable simple resolution and saturation and DR test for me. But thats not enough, a flat HQ photo doesn't give me enough reason to judge a camera model. Then I check other two options, even though lens is a great deal in next options you can easily separate camera models when you use same lens.

2-Smooth color transitions that make the image pop from the internet samples, if this is perfect image could have almost a 3D look..
3- İmpressive colors, colors don't have to be very realistic but they have to be impressive to my eyes (please check the flower samples I've given above)

In fact!... I think the K200D was(and still is) an amazing camera. And I think most everyone who's used one, To which we could ask again... what is a great job?

I won't be very humble, I guess my untouched flower samples and Marc's interior shots are great jobs

I would be more than happy to provide you with any samples that might help you appreciate the advantages of the K-5 system.
-

Ok again I've never intended to make this thread a K-5 K200D competing thread and we can make a challenge to make two models collide in another thread, how about that? Just for fun, what are we got to loose, this is the Pentax fun site isnt it? I guess this is the way I could see good images of K-5 and I'll be more than happy to lose.

How about a suggestion, competition would require two samples: reddish flower taken in the daylight and another scene like plush colorful toys indoor without flash for resolution and colors, like this?



I dare you to to challange my K200D, buddy, in another thread. I know it's gonna be childish, but useful and fun.

[Marc Sabatella]

FWIW, I don't doubt for a moment the K-5 is an improvement on the K200D in most if not all areas. With two years of technological advancement and a price about $1000 higher, it had *better* be an improvement. What's remarkable, I think, is that it took that long for there to be a camera one could say this about without reservation, and that there remains nothing else that compares well in the <$1000 range. Sure, any number of other cameras have certain advantages over the K200D, but some of the things that cause people to hold the K200D in such high esteem just haven't been reproduced at that price level.

I don't have have strong opinion on color rendition or anything like that - it's not a major factor in most of my work. But I had an opportunity to think about color while shooting at the Denver Botanic Gardens yesterday. I do so much work with moving subjects in low light settings that sometimes I forget how much easier it is to shoot static subjects in good light. Of course, without creativity on the part of the photographer, you may get technically proficient but not overly interesting shots. And I make no claims to have escaped this trap. But I like these anyhow:

K200D + DA70:


K200D + DA18-55II:


K200D + M120/2.8:


K200D + DA18-55II:

[cbaytan]

One of the pictures is direct resize from jpeg, other one is tweaked with the ACR a bit, guess which is which.

[speedoo]

I love my K200D. It does a great job and anytime I have a problem with it, it is due to user error. ISO 100-200 it has flawless IQ. Above that it is hit or miss depending on the scene. I love the ergo and having the SR switch. I love having that switch. It's also nice with the Weathersealing and my 16-50. I being at some scenic place here in Oregon with it raining and being able to keep shooting without a cover. All the canon/nikon crowds look at me funny like I'm going to ruin my camera. I smile and say it's a Pentax and keep shooting.

Here is a link to one of my photos taken with it.

I REALLY like that shot. Where was it taken?

[speedoo]

Moo?¡ : Ou? p??' Ou? p???

Don't worry about the "refurbished". The camera you get may be brand new, it just can't be sold as new for some reason. 90 day Pentax warranty on the body, 1 year on the lens.

So it's $400 plus tax for the body and kit lens.

you can use the code "taxsucks" to save the $5 shipping.

Just thought I'd repost this in case anyone wants one. Might be the last chance.

[JohnBee]

1- imaging resource lowest ISO lab samples, I mostly check on the brush and round measurement card, then if structure of the black velvet and white salt crystals visible.
Like this: Digital Cameras, Pentax K-5 Digital Camera Test Image

Hello again cbaytan, I'd readily agree on the value of Imaging Resources as a samples source for sensor evaluations etc. and I've certainly had my share of pixel peeping with them over the years. Having said that, I wondered if you might take a look at the following three images(candidates; A, B & C) and share your opinion and observations based on the criteria provided in your previous post(color definition, 3D pop etc etc).

Candidate A

Candidate B

Candidate C

PS. due to the sample file size(2+ Mb), I chose not to render the images in this post.

EDIT: Due to a problem with the K200D ISO200 file(motion blur), I have since re-processed the images using the ISO100 K200D file. The replacement files can be found here:

Candidate A2
Candidate B2
Candidate C2

[cbaytan]

take a look at the following three images(candidates; A, B & C) and give your opinion on them along with your own observations based on the criteria that you've provided in your previous post(color definition, 3D pop etc etc).

Oh, John is pop quizing me, I like that , but as I said above post I use Im. Res. samples just for resolution and saturation and DR , 3d pop etc. requires more real life samples.

Anyways, here are my answers. B is the best, A is the worst. SO! do I pass the exam?

Edit: Looked them again, B and C seemed coming from a same camera to me but tweaked later on. Can' wait to hear whats the catch.

[JohnBee]

Oh, John is pop quizing me, I like that , but as I said above post I use Im. Res. samples just for resolution and saturation and DR , 3d pop etc. requires more real life samples.

Anyways, here are my answers. B is the best, A is the worst. SO! do I pass the exam?

Edit: Looked them again, B and C seemed coming from a same camera to me but tweaked later on. Can' wait to hear whats the catch.

I though you might like that, who can resist such things right?
Anyways, the answer is:

A = K200D
B = K-5
C = D3x