Possible Complete K-5 Specs (Still rumour until the 22nd!)

Big G · 09-14-2010, 12:50 PM

High ISO tests over here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/114465...ucks-myth.html

**rparmar** · 09-14-2010, 02:17 PM

Because I was curious, I quickly set up the K-x for a still life shot at ISO 12,800 using the FA43. I set it to f/4 and the camera metered 1/60s. The K-x was used on a tripod with mirror lock up.

Here are two 100% crops, the first untouched, as converted from RAW by ACR with everything on neutral (NR and sharpening off). Since I would never care to look at an image unprocessed, the second crop shows the results after my "usual" PP, though with no special time taken over it. (I might have chosen to back off on the sharpening a tad.) Noise reduction has here been applied using a minimal setting of Noise Ninja. I note that all the in-camera NR is turned off.

100% crop untouched

100% crop processed

complete image processed

The final picture is the processed image in full, though obviously resized for the screen. Any artefacts visible in the crop are here rendered palatable. I have no problem with this image, though would never "in real life" resort to such a high ISO.

Also the subject needs some work! :-)

**eccentricphotography** · 09-14-2010, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

Because I was curious, I quickly set up the K-x for a still life shot at ISO 12,800 using the FA43. I set it to f/4 and the camera metered 1/60s. The K-x was used on a tripod with mirror lock up.

Here are two 100% crops, the first untouched, as converted from RAW by ACR with everything on neutral (NR and sharpening off). Since I would never care to look at an image unprocessed, the second crop shows the results after my "usual" PP, though with no special time taken over it. (I might have chosen to back off on the sharpening a tad.) Noise reduction has here been applied using a minimal setting of Noise Ninja. I note that all the in-camera NR is turned off
The final picture is the processed image in full, though obviously resized for the screen. Any artefacts visible in the crop are here rendered palatable. I have no problem with this image, though would never "in real life" resort to such a high ISO.

Also the subject needs some work! :-)

Not bad for noise ninja. I used NN for a long time till recently. I'd use 12,800 in a heartbeat these days. This wedding had terrible lighting. The versions of this shot that I previously put up were raw with no WB adjustment. (I have 1 standard custom WB setting for my IR camera) This version has been adjusted for WB some slight sharpening(UM) and light RAW noise reduction in Topaz 4 with the clean color ramped up all the way

**rparmar** · 09-14-2010, 03:00 PM

The colour is so distracting on that one...I'd make it monochrome. Just an idea!

**eccentricphotography** · 09-14-2010, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

The colour is so distracting on that one...I'd make it monochrome. Just an idea!

Yes, the odd color is actually desired by the bride. The dresses were black and pink. I've also done some custom duotones and monochrome. Funky colors though for sure...

peter25 · 09-14-2010, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by JeffJS

THAT'S the phenomenal ISO 12,800 everyone keeps raving about on the Kx? I'm sure you did what you could with what you had. I'm not knocking your photo but sorry, that would be an ISO I would not be using unless I Absolutely had to simply to document an event.

I have to agree with Jeff here. Nothing against the photographer here.. but that image with 12,800 ISO. I would not use that setting either. Unless the K-R is much cleaner... I'm not a fan of that high ISO. If it had a more film like grain maybe.. but it just looks noisy to me.

I do like the B&W version much better.

**eccentricphotography** · 09-15-2010, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by JeffJS

THAT'S the phenomenal ISO 12,800 everyone keeps raving about on the Kx? I'm sure you did what you could with what you had. I'm not knocking your photo but sorry, that would be an ISO I would not be using unless I Absolutely had to simply to document an event.

LOL. Yes I'd agree about the output as it looks here. But I'd never leave it there. The white balance on the cooler side shows more color gremlins than on the warmer side, which is what the actual lighting was. The other camera used at this wedding was a d700 and had nearly the same output in noise since I turn off all NR in camera preferring to use Topaz. Take a look at the finished product on page 29. that is absolutely usable in my unhumble opinion

Tbear · 09-15-2010, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by lurchlarson

If that is the case, I really need to save my pennies to buy it. I'd buy it for the $1600 too. (Just thought I'd get ahead of those that tend to gripe about Pentax Prices). If it was a Canon or Nikon it'd be more than that.

Thank your lucky stars for the Nikon D7000, which has a retail price of $1199. Based on the specs of these cameras, a fair retail price for the K-5 is going to have to come down to around $1299.

Ted

gybp · 09-15-2010, 02:05 PM

why would you choose the K-5 instead of the new Nikon D7000?
http://photography.bhinsights.com/content/new-nikon-d7000-simply-amazing.html
Nikon D7000: Camera Road Test With Chase Jarvis | Chase Jarvis Blog

Kunzite · 09-15-2010, 02:32 PM

Why not?

stanleyk · 09-15-2010, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by gybp

why would you choose the K-5 instead of the new Nikon D7000?
http://photography.bhinsights.com/content/new-nikon-d7000-simply-amazing.html
Nikon D7000: Camera Road Test With Chase Jarvis | Chase Jarvis Blog

I'm not buying a K5, but on the other hand I could really care less what Chase Jarvis whoever he is thinks. And...I would never take a camera review serious that uses "kick a##" to describe the camera. It's like totally like non like serious like you know.

Tommy · 09-15-2010, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by gybp

why would you choose the K-5 instead of the new Nikon D7000?

Don't forget, the K-5 has 4 rows of knurls on the mode dial. Looks like D7000 has only 3

Nikon is doomed!

Seriously, D7000 looks like a great camera. I'd call it the next best thing....after the K-5

/Tommy

zackspeed · 09-15-2010, 02:49 PM

only 3????????????????
tzzz..... Nikon is DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!

creampuff · 09-15-2010, 02:57 PM

Nikon = button overload.
Speaking as an ex-Nikon DSLR user of course...

zackspeed · 09-15-2010, 03:01 PM

To much plastik for my opinion,but for sure a good camera

09-14-2010, 10:32 PM	#426
peter25 Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 16	not impressed with high ISO images Originally posted by JeffJS THAT'S the phenomenal ISO 12,800 everyone keeps raving about on the Kx? I'm sure you did what you could with what you had. I'm not knocking your photo but sorry, that would be an ISO I would not be using unless I Absolutely had to simply to document an event. I have to agree with Jeff here. Nothing against the photographer here.. but that image with 12,800 ISO. I would not use that setting either. Unless the K-R is much cleaner... I'm not a fan of that high ISO. If it had a more film like grain maybe.. but it just looks noisy to me. I do like the B&W version much better.

09-15-2010, 09:18 AM	#428
Tbear Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 269	Praise be to competition Originally posted by lurchlarson If that is the case, I really need to save my pennies to buy it. I'd buy it for the $1600 too. (Just thought I'd get ahead of those that tend to gripe about Pentax Prices). If it was a Canon or Nikon it'd be more than that. Thank your lucky stars for the Nikon D7000, which has a retail price of $1199. Based on the specs of these cameras, a fair retail price for the K-5 is going to have to come down to around $1299. Ted

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Toronto Meetup #7 - Sunday November 22nd 2009 - The Distillery District	Steinback	Travel, Events, and Groups	9	11-23-2009 08:28 AM
CONFIRMED UK Prices - No Rumour	rparmar	Pentax News and Rumors	67	09-20-2009 12:13 AM
Time for a new rumour on K30D	welshwizard645	Pentax News and Rumors	34	04-24-2009 01:33 PM
Rumour: K3D, 22 Mp, square sensor	cateto	Pentax News and Rumors	134	02-27-2009 11:45 AM
Rumour	Geyst	Pentax News and Rumors	41	10-09-2007 09:39 AM

09-14-2010, 12:50 PM	#421
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	High ISO tests over here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/non-pentax-cameras-canon-nikon-etc/114465...ucks-myth.html

09-14-2010, 02:17 PM	#422
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Because I was curious, I quickly set up the K-x for a still life shot at ISO 12,800 using the FA43. I set it to f/4 and the camera metered 1/60s. The K-x was used on a tripod with mirror lock up. Here are two 100% crops, the first untouched, as converted from RAW by ACR with everything on neutral (NR and sharpening off). Since I would never care to look at an image unprocessed, the second crop shows the results after my "usual" PP, though with no special time taken over it. (I might have chosen to back off on the sharpening a tad.) Noise reduction has here been applied using a minimal setting of Noise Ninja. I note that all the in-camera NR is turned off. 100% crop untouched 100% crop processed complete image processed The final picture is the processed image in full, though obviously resized for the screen. Any artefacts visible in the crop are here rendered palatable. I have no problem with this image, though would never "in real life" resort to such a high ISO. Also the subject needs some work! :-)

09-14-2010, 02:58 PM	#423
eccentricphotography Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Los Angeles Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 182	Originally posted by rparmar Because I was curious, I quickly set up the K-x for a still life shot at ISO 12,800 using the FA43. I set it to f/4 and the camera metered 1/60s. The K-x was used on a tripod with mirror lock up. Here are two 100% crops, the first untouched, as converted from RAW by ACR with everything on neutral (NR and sharpening off). Since I would never care to look at an image unprocessed, the second crop shows the results after my "usual" PP, though with no special time taken over it. (I might have chosen to back off on the sharpening a tad.) Noise reduction has here been applied using a minimal setting of Noise Ninja. I note that all the in-camera NR is turned off The final picture is the processed image in full, though obviously resized for the screen. Any artefacts visible in the crop are here rendered palatable. I have no problem with this image, though would never "in real life" resort to such a high ISO. Also the subject needs some work! :-) Not bad for noise ninja. I used NN for a long time till recently. I'd use 12,800 in a heartbeat these days. This wedding had terrible lighting. The versions of this shot that I previously put up were raw with no WB adjustment. (I have 1 standard custom WB setting for my IR camera) This version has been adjusted for WB some slight sharpening(UM) and light RAW noise reduction in Topaz 4 with the clean color ramped up all the way

09-14-2010, 03:00 PM	#424
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	The colour is so distracting on that one...I'd make it monochrome. Just an idea!

09-14-2010, 03:05 PM	#425
eccentricphotography Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Los Angeles Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 182	Originally posted by rparmar The colour is so distracting on that one...I'd make it monochrome. Just an idea! Yes, the odd color is actually desired by the bride. The dresses were black and pink. I've also done some custom duotones and monochrome. Funky colors though for sure...

09-15-2010, 12:22 AM	#427
eccentricphotography Site Supporter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Los Angeles Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 182	Originally posted by JeffJS THAT'S the phenomenal ISO 12,800 everyone keeps raving about on the Kx? I'm sure you did what you could with what you had. I'm not knocking your photo but sorry, that would be an ISO I would not be using unless I Absolutely had to simply to document an event. LOL. Yes I'd agree about the output as it looks here. But I'd never leave it there. The white balance on the cooler side shows more color gremlins than on the warmer side, which is what the actual lighting was. The other camera used at this wedding was a d700 and had nearly the same output in noise since I turn off all NR in camera preferring to use Topaz. Take a look at the finished product on page 29. that is absolutely usable in my unhumble opinion

09-15-2010, 02:05 PM	#429
gybp Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 165	why would you choose the K-5 instead of the new Nikon D7000? http://photography.bhinsights.com/content/new-nikon-d7000-simply-amazing.html Nikon D7000: Camera Road Test With Chase Jarvis \| Chase Jarvis Blog

09-15-2010, 02:32 PM	#430
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Why not?

09-15-2010, 02:42 PM	#431
stanleyk Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Taylor, Texas Posts: 1,018	Originally posted by gybp why would you choose the K-5 instead of the new Nikon D7000? http://photography.bhinsights.com/content/new-nikon-d7000-simply-amazing.html Nikon D7000: Camera Road Test With Chase Jarvis \| Chase Jarvis Blog I'm not buying a K5, but on the other hand I could really care less what Chase Jarvis whoever he is thinks. And...I would never take a camera review serious that uses "kick a##" to describe the camera. It's like totally like non like serious like you know.

09-15-2010, 02:45 PM	#432
Tommy Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 195	Originally posted by gybp why would you choose the K-5 instead of the new Nikon D7000? Don't forget, the K-5 has 4 rows of knurls on the mode dial. Looks like D7000 has only 3 Nikon is doomed! Seriously, D7000 looks like a great camera. I'd call it the next best thing....after the K-5 /Tommy

09-15-2010, 02:49 PM	#433
zackspeed Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 527	only 3???????????????? tzzz..... Nikon is DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!

09-15-2010, 02:57 PM	#434
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	Nikon = button overload. Speaking as an ex-Nikon DSLR user of course...

09-15-2010, 03:01 PM	#435
zackspeed Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 527	To much plastik for my opinion,but for sure a good camera