Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-25-2012, 09:38 AM   #106
Veteran Member
Ryan Trevisol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
I would venture to guess that they were focusing issues, possibly issues with the early firmware used to test the K-5 2 years ago, or issues of a lens which needed focus adjustment. If you look at the sample images from the dpreview review of the K-5, and compare them to, say, the K-x, the K-5 images appear less sharp and lacking in detail. This belies the results that we've seen on here and Flickr about the K-5.

There is a debate which claims that the 14-bit RAW and higher Dynamic Range in the K-5 makes it "appear" to have less contrast and detail (that such contrast must be added back selectively in post-process), and the opposing side says that the Dynamic Range is faked by decreasing contrast.

Either way, the samples from IR and DPreview don't seem representative of what I've seen come out of the K-5.

QuoteOriginally posted by gorski Quote
The price drops would never happen if there would be no delays because of the flodings and Ricoh takeover.[...]. I think K-5 is exception that will not repeat.
That's what I keep thinking - and I keep thinking that the K-5 is the camera that is likely to wear better and satisfy me for longer, based on informal reports of the K-7 and K-5 having higher build quality and feel than the K-30.

06-25-2012, 09:44 AM   #107
Veteran Member
ihasa's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: West Midlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,054
Perhaps one camera is less prone to vibration caused by the shutter? Maybe plastic has a greater damping effect than the K5's metal body. But although I also looked at the samples, and drew the same conclusions as you, I do think we're into the realm of nit picking, the difference is unlikely to have much effect on real world images for web or print.

I would even go as far as saying you can take IQ out of the equation when comparing the two cameras.
06-25-2012, 09:50 AM   #108
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by Ryan Trevisol Quote
There is a debate which claims that the 14-bit RAW and higher Dynamic Range in the K-5 makes it "appear" to have less contrast and detail (that such contrast must be added back selectively in post-process), and the opposing side says that the Dynamic Range is faked by decreasing contrast.
I miss your point a bit... anyway its RAW so it needs to be processed anyway and 14bit give you more leeway then 12bit and that's what matters really.
06-25-2012, 10:07 AM   #109
Veteran Member
Ryan Trevisol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
I miss your point a bit... anyway its RAW so it needs to be processed anyway and 14bit give you more leeway then 12bit and that's what matters really.
I agree. I was referring to this post: RiceHigh's Pentax Blog: I Want to Buy the K-5, But.., specifically the comments. I don't put a lot of stock in much of what ricehigh says, but it is a similar situation to what's we're noticing with the K-30 vs. K-5 comparison, and the comments provided some plausible and interesting explanations of why the K-5's sample images seem less sharp and detailed.

06-25-2012, 11:24 AM   #110
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
They are looking at JPEG there, something different those are always 8bit and limited in "DR"
06-25-2012, 11:53 AM   #111
Veteran Member
Ryan Trevisol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
They are looking at JPEG there, something different those are always 8bit and limited in "DR"
Yes, I know. And the settings between the two cameras have a lot to do with that. But I've looked at the RAW myself between K-x and K-5, and the difference is still noticeable. Even more so with the K01.
Attached Images
   
06-25-2012, 12:11 PM   #112
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
But those are also still jpegs, you cant see RAW files in the browser
06-25-2012, 12:51 PM   #113
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 34
Is it possible that sharpening is applied to the K-30 raw files. Also looking at the noise, noise from K-5 seems finer, really each pixel to pixel, while noise from K-30 seems like it has larger "grain", which would mean that there is some kind of noise reduction, maybe very simple averaging. But this seems in contradiction to the fact that the images from K-30 look sharper. They seem more “punchy” than images from the other dslrs.

06-25-2012, 01:17 PM   #114
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
But those are also still jpegs, you cant see RAW files in the browser
are you serious?
06-25-2012, 02:05 PM   #115
Site Supporter
Santoku's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 131
QuoteOriginally posted by gorski Quote
Is it possible that sharpening is applied to the K-30 raw files. Also looking at the noise, noise from K-5 seems finer, really each pixel to pixel, while noise from K-30 seems like it has larger "grain", which would mean that there is some kind of noise reduction, maybe very simple averaging. But this seems in contradiction to the fact that the images from K-30 look sharper. They seem more “punchy” than images from the other dslrs.
This was exactly my observation, thus my questioning whether the imaging-resource.com "unaltered" test images are unaltered in size only, but have .JPG processing that is different between the K-30 and K-5 e.g., noise reduction, sharpening, contrast enhance, etc. for the K-30, or whether the PRIME-M engine is actually producing better images. Regarding the former, I would assume it to be pretty sloppy test methodology to have such differences in .JPG processing, especially between two dSLR from the same company i.e., should be easy to keep them equivalent.

Regarding the possibility of changes in the firmware for the K-5 subsequent to the original 1.00, is there any indication from those in the know, whether Pentax did anything in the firmware updates that would likely refine the aforementioned characteristics, thus suggesting that the same test with later firmware might be producing K-5 shots closer to the K-30 ? In terms of the lens used, there was nothing in the EXIF to detail the lens other than that it was a Sigma on both K-5 and K-30. One might assume it was the same lens, but you know what they say what happens when we ASSUME.....
06-25-2012, 02:18 PM   #116
Veteran Member
Ryan Trevisol's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: South Florida
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 308
QuoteOriginally posted by Santoku Quote
Regarding the possibility of changes in the firmware for the K-5 subsequent to the original 1.00, is there any indication from those in the know, whether Pentax did anything in the firmware updates that would likely refine the aforementioned characteristics, thus suggesting that the same test with later firmware might be producing K-5 shots closer to the K-30 ? In terms of the lens used, there was nothing in the EXIF to detail the lens other than that it was a Sigma on both K-5 and K-30. One might assume it was the same lens, but you know what they say what happens when we ASSUME.....
When I opened the door to firmware changes, I was only referring to focus tweaks, which Pentax did make changes to in the firmware, but I don't recall which version.
A for the in-camera settings, it may be that the in-camera settings were not precisely logged when the K-5 was tested. Whatever post-process they use to turn the PEF or DNG files into JPG's for publication on the website comes into play, too. Aperture, Lightroom, ACR, and Silkypix all do a measure of interpretation when they convert from raw to jpg. IR's testing methodology page doesn't state what their process is, but in 2 years, odds are they've updated whatever software they're using, and so "bare generic defaults" may have changed and improved noise handling and sharpening.
And the lens is a good point too. A lab like IR's probably has a fair amount of turnover, so even if they used the same lens, it may not be the same copy of that lens.
06-25-2012, 02:43 PM   #117
Site Supporter
Santoku's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 131
QuoteOriginally posted by Ryan Trevisol Quote
When I opened the door to firmware changes, I was only referring to focus tweaks, which Pentax did make changes to in the firmware, but I don't recall which version.
A for the in-camera settings, it may be that the in-camera settings were not precisely logged when the K-5 was tested. Whatever post-process they use to turn the PEF or DNG files into JPG's for publication on the website comes into play, too. Aperture, Lightroom, ACR, and Silkypix all do a measure of interpretation when they convert from raw to jpg. IR's testing methodology page doesn't state what their process is, but in 2 years, odds are they've updated whatever software they're using, and so "bare generic defaults" may have changed and improved noise handling and sharpening.
And the lens is a good point too. A lab like IR's probably has a fair amount of turnover, so even if they used the same lens, it may not be the same copy of that lens.
So, in other words, we probably know absolutely nothing until someone with a current firmware K-5 AND a production K-30, can produce some RAW files with the SAME lens, under the SAME conditions, with the SAME settings. Not that I really thought that anything currently available out there would answer the ultimate image processing and IQ questions, but it did resolve my angst momentarily with a brief illusion of control. So, any word on an exact date for North American retail availability in July ?
06-25-2012, 05:37 PM   #118
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Santoku Quote
So, in other words, we probably know absolutely nothing until someone with a current firmware K-5 AND a production K-30, can produce some RAW files with the SAME lens, under the SAME conditions, with the SAME settings. Not that I really thought that anything currently available out there would answer the ultimate image processing and IQ questions, but it did resolve my angst momentarily with a brief illusion of control. So, any word on an exact date for North American retail availability in July ?
I don't believe that there is a problem with regards to testing the K-5. be it firmware, focusing tweak, lens, shooting condition, question of RAW or jpeg processing, the results are pretty much consistent with about everything that is shown on the entire web, not just limited to IR. we could also include the actual Raw results that owners of the K-5 have noticed eversince. even comparing the K-5 images to the K-x which looked sharper and even to the Nex5n camera which looked better and sharper photos. have any of you ever considered that it could be the AA filter as well? I'm not sure what people are still so anal about, the K-5 is fine as it is. and if the K30 looks better, well then the K30 is better. end of story. it's not the K-5 would remain the ultimate camera forever.
06-27-2012, 06:29 AM - 1 Like   #119
Site Supporter
Santoku's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 131
QuoteOriginally posted by Ryan Trevisol Quote
And the lens is a good point too. A lab like IR's probably has a fair amount of turnover, so even if they used the same lens, it may not be the same copy of that lens.
imaging-resource got back to me to confirm that they did use the same reference lens for both the 2-year old K-5 still-life shots and the current K-30 still-life shots FYI.
06-27-2012, 06:34 AM   #120
Site Supporter
Santoku's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 131
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I'm not sure what people are still so anal about, the K-5 is fine as it is. and if the K30 looks better, well then the K30 is better. end of story. it's not the K-5 would remain the ultimate camera forever.
Good point. The scientist and consumer in me is interested in compare and contrast at a fine level, however the practical just-noticeable-difference may be insignificant in practice. And for those already with K-5's I am sure this all a very mute point, however for those "upgrading" from prior mid-line dSLR's, there are some significant technical decisions to make. Cheers !
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!
image, k-30, k-50, k30, pentax k30, pentax k50
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Post your "Park Bench" "or "Picnic Table" images tessfully Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories 1347 15 Hours Ago 12:52 PM
Do custom "artistic" or even "funny" lens caps evenexist? lovemehate Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 35 02-10-2016 09:10 AM
Don't say Pentax "Q" in French ... "Q" = "cul" = "A--" Jean Poitiers Pentax Q 52 11-10-2013 06:25 AM
"Christians for a Moral America" plan boycott of "The Hobbit" MRRiley General Talk 47 01-23-2012 01:48 AM
K-x "aperture priority" records as "automatic" in meta data charlestm Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 12-05-2011 12:12 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:23 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