[obheng]

Thanks for the great effort and great review.

Re AF testing, I am thinking it will be great if we can have a direct comparo between this latest Pentax AF engine versus the Nikon D7000 (or even the old D90, judging from playing with my sister's D90) which seems to trump the K-5 (sorry, if I have stepped on some sensitive toes here). I have paid for a K-30 and awaiting delivery of the camera so I am most interested to see how Pentax has improved, if at all, over the K-5.

[deadwolfbones]

Also was it just my eyes or are the Jpeg pics in the drop down ISO comparison test sharper than the raw?

Neil

The JPEG engine does some sharpening, so no, I don't think your eyes are playing tricks.

[nulla]

The JPEG engine does some sharpening, so no, I don't think your eyes are playing tricks.

Thanks for that

cheers

[leeak]

Thanks for the great review DWB. I know that you also have the D700. How do you think the D700 would have done in the dog tests?

[deadwolfbones]

Thanks for the great review DWB. I know that you also have the D700. How do you think the D700 would have done in the dog tests?

It definitely depends on the lens. I did a similar shoot with the same dog, in the snow at high noon earlier this year. With the Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF-S and the Sigma 100-300/4, I was getting about a 30-50% keeper rate (going from memory) with head-on shots. It was still very difficult. Some of that might be a lack of technique/experience, though. With panning shots I was getting a very, very high keeper rate. But it's really hard to make a direct comparison. On the one hand, obviously white snow with a partially white dog is a nightmare for any AF system. On the other, obviously those two lenses are tuned for wildlife/sports shooting.

[dc1500]

Wonderful review.... very helpful.

Just got my K-30 and though I am an experienced Pentax user I found the section on settings very user friendly.... I wish all reviews were as great and as helpful as this one.

Also was it just my eyes or are the Jpeg pics in the drop down ISO comparison test sharper than the raw?

Neil

-----------------------------------
I thought some of the shots in this section were out of focus as well, particularly some of the higher ISO ones. This would make the noise look less I think.

[Adam]

One or two points has changed my mind. No top LCD, does not save movies in .AVI but .mov. Any of you ever tried to convert a .mov to .avi? I have, and I didn't like the results. So, for all it's new features, I think I'll keep my K-x and wait to see what a replacement on the K-5 brings me. Or perhaps, save my money for the now lowered price of a K-5.

H.264 (.mov) is much better than .AVI in general, because it's more compatible and the files are smaller. Adobe premiere elements doesn't even support the K-5's AVIs because the encoding varies from camera to camera. And then there's that annoying clicking sound if you upload straight from the K-5 to youtube...

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[deadwolfbones]

-----------------------------------
I thought some of the shots in this section were out of focus as well, particularly some of the higher ISO ones. This would make the noise look less I think.

The K-30 ISO shots were shot in JPEG+RAW, so if the JPEGs are in focus, so are the RAWs.

None of the JPEGs look out of focus to me. And bear in mind that you're looking at 100% crops.

[JinDesu]

-----------------------------------
I thought some of the shots in this section were out of focus as well, particularly some of the higher ISO ones. This would make the noise look less I think.

I always thought out of focused areas would show more noise - as there is less signal for the sensor to register the details.

For example, when shooting at lower ISO like 400 or 800, the subject is usually clean but the background (and shadows) will show the hints of noise.

[SteveB]

I always thought out of focused areas would show more noise - as there is less signal for the sensor to register the details.

For example, when shooting at lower ISO like 400 or 800, the subject is usually clean but the background (and shadows) will show the hints of noise.

Yes, that's the way it works.

[Adam G]

Very nice review. Just a few linking issues to patch up:


K-30, Recovered RAW, -5EV:
Thumbnail attempts to link to https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/3384/519/large/K30_-3EV_RAW.JPG
Wrong EV, and in any case, the file doesn't exist. (Case-sensitive: *.JPG doesn't work, *.jpg does.)

K-5, Recovered RAW, -5EV:
Similarly, thumbnail attempts to link to https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/3384/519/large/K5_-3EV_RAW.JPG


K-30, Recovered RAW, -3EV:
Thumbnail links to a K-5 image. The View Full Size text below the thumbnail is fine.


There may be more I've missed.

[deadwolfbones]

Maybe I'm just having connection issues tonight, but some of the review's thumbnail links to large (not full-sized) images are returning Page Not Found errors. https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/3384/519/large/K5_-3EV_RAW.JPG & https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/3384/519/large/K30_-3EV_RAW.JPG, for instance.

Also, the "K-30, Recovered RAW, -3EV" image is badly linked. The View Full Size text below the thumbnail is fine, but the thumbnail itself links to https://www.pentaxforums.com/content/uploads/files/3384/519/large/K5_-3EV_RAW.jpg

It's not just you. I'll send an email to Adam to make sure he sees this. Thanks!

[dc1500]

Yes, that's the way it works.

----------------------
Mmm, interesting and I wouldn't dispute it. Just that using blur
is a way of reducing the appearance of noise PP but then of course the noise would already have been present and not created by blurring. Then again, sharpening always increases noise.

[JinDesu]

----------------------
Mmm, interesting and I wouldn't dispute it. Just that using blur
is a way of reducing the appearance of noise PP but then of course the noise would already have been present and not created by blurring. Then again, sharpening always increases noise.

Noise is unaffected by any blur when the picture is taken - because noise is applied as the image is recorded in the sensor. Noise the effect of the sensor generating random signals because there isn't enough light hitting the sensor, and out of focus areas have less information than in focus areas. Therefore, out of focus areas will always have more noise.

What you MAY be referring to is some post-processed blurring, which does reduce noise (like Gaussian Blur).

[Class A]

What's they're trying to say is that at its considering its price and feature set, the K-30 is more impressive than the K-5 was when it was launched

Curiously, the K-5's "Value" rating is a 10, whereas the K-30's "Value" rating is "only" a 9.

Also funny, both get a 9 for build quality, although the K-5 has clearly a better construction and (according to a user report) also feels higher grade when handling (-> dials).

Both cameras get a 9 for ergonomics/handling, even though the K-5 has more hardware controls and a top-LCD.

The K-30's AF rating is better by one point but the only supporting evidence is subjective. I'm not saying that there is no AF improvement, but the K-30 report does not unambiguously determine an advancement.

Finally, how is the K-30's user interface better by one full point?

In summary, I do not think that the numerical win on points by the K-30 is justified at all. The (incomplete, e.g., shutter noise) list of K-5 advantages ("Missing or Removed Features") does not seem to have influenced the numerical scores, even though it contains some features that could mean all the difference for certain photographers.

I can understand the enthusiasm for the K-30 which clearly is a great camera for its class. But what is the point of overselling it?