Pentax engineers and programmers are top notch! From score differences you can tell Pentax make better use of the sensor than Nikon did for sure. Although the sensors seem slightly physically different with the crop factor and pixel pitch...

I'm actually starting to think Nikon may have crippled the sensor to protect sales of their higher end cameras. Because right now D7000 looks better than most of them. It wouldn't be the first time.

[kytra]

TBH, I was expecting this result. I have (i believe) the first D7000 officially sold in my homecountry and it is a fine camera indeed. The K7 will fly to Germany.

K5 sounds like an awesome camera and I will come from time to time to the PF to see what is capable of.

[johnmflores]

I'm actually starting to think Nikon may have crippled the sensor to protect sales of their higher end cameras. Because right now D7000 looks better than most of them. It wouldn't be the first time.

And this is why market leaders are rarely innovators - their need to protect market share and segment share forces them towards conservative decision-making.

Come on Pentax, strike while the iron is hot and create a weatherproof camera using the K-5 sensor at the core! Create a set of weatherproof Limiteds (Limited* perhaps?) and I'll beat a path to your door!

[Rory]

70 and 83 will both be essentially noise-free. You just get a bit more dynamic range for the highlights or the shadows in there for processing.


He's looking at measured ISO, not manufacturer-reported ISO.

Ah, I gotcha. I guess I didn't read the initial post correctly.

[Eruditass]

Who cares what Thom Hogan thinks? He is a self-appointed 'industry expert' and pundit with totally zero credibility.

He is a good source of entertainment. From his website:

On the flip side, no one's come close to matching Nikon on #1 lately. You see it in the DxO Mark sensor score ratings, for instance. Take out the PhaseOne medium format backs and the top four cameras are: D3x, D3s, D3, D700. Drop down to APS/DX sensors and the top two cameras are the D90 and D5000 (with the D300s in fourth). Based upon what I've seen so far with the D3100, it's going to top that list, and we all have high hopes for the D7000, as well.

And now:

Now that DxOmark has "rated" the Pentax K-5 and Nikon D7000, the nutty interpretations and spirited discussions have begun in earnest. But let me introduce a completely different idea: I don't care what DxO's number is. It's meaningless to me, and probably should be meaningless to you.

No one--not even DxO--has ever given me a seriously considered argument of how their single number summary applies to my shooting. I regularly shoot with cameras that have numbers ranging from a low of 47 to a high of 88 on the DxOmark scale. Do I care? Not really. Are my photos with the camera that scores a 47 terrible and my photos with the camera that scores an 88 great? No, it doesn't work that way. Not even close.

[WerTicus]

Hrmm d7000 does not have weather sealing

Google Translate

look under operating environment.

[Freak]

Hrmm d7000 does not have weather sealing

Google Translate

look under operating environment.

The D7000 has weather sealing on the "joints only", it's not completely sealed, and in no way matches Pentax in this IMO.

[yeatzee]

Damn Pentax, just a couple points away!

[Jonson PL]

He is a good source of entertainment. From his website:



And now:

I used to read Thom Hogan, but you've got a good point there

[24X36NOW]

Hate to burst the bubbles, but the K5, as I predicted, is nothing special when you look over the Comparometer shots on IR. K5 looks like total shite at ISO 1600, with massive detail smearing to get the "low noise" everyone is crowing about (check the red leaves on red background fabric - a tough and telling test for any sensor; it's already mushy at ISO 800, and is total mush with essentially NO detail at all at ISO 1600). D7000 looks better (than the K5) at a stop faster (D7000 @ ISO 3200 vs. K5 @ ISO 1600), and almost as good two stops faster (D7000 @ ISO 6400 vs. K5 @ ISO 1600)! D3 (3 years older than the K5) looks better than the K5 at THREE stops faster (D3 @ ISO 6400 vs. K5 @ ISO 800). So much for the "almost as good as FF" nonsense.

Hell, even the K10D looks every bit as good (and BETTER in the red channel) than the K5 at ISO 800.

If Pentax wants to compete on IQ, they'll need to come with the FF sensor. There's STILL no such thing as free lunch. (Please don't bother to mention the 645D, with it's "One lens system," which is a basic non-factor in the market at ten grand.) :ugh:

[dgaies]

Hate to burst the bubbles, but the K5, as I predicted, is nothing special when you look over the Comparometer shots on IR.

What's the point of getting all worked up about in camera JPEG images where there was clearly some heavy handed NR. Have you considered taking a look at some of the RAW files?

[24X36NOW]

What's the point of getting all worked up about in camera JPEG images where there was clearly some heavy handed NR. Have you considered taking a look at some of the RAW files?

The RAW files don't impress, either; you get back some detail and quite a bit of noise to go with it. Did you think there was some magic in the RAW files that Pentax cleverly worked very hard to destroy in their JPEGs? Even the RAW ISO 800 K5 shot doesn't look as good as the Nikon D3 JPEG @ ISO 6400, much less the RAW file (the K5 RAW noise looks better when comparing K5 @ ISO 800 to D3 @ ISO 6400, but that's obviously because they're applying noise reduction to the K5 even in RAW, and even as low as ISO 800 (that, or it's just that bad in terms of the mushy detail at ISO 800; again, check the red leaves on red fabric, which shows lots of detail loss even as low as ISO 800 on the K5, and even in RAW), while the D3 is NOT using noise reduction in RAW. The D3 RAW sample also has some slight overexposure, which detracts from its appearance).

In short, noise reduction mush does not an impressive performance make. The K5 is still stops behind three-year-old Nikon D3 performance, and is nothing to sing from the hilltops about. For the record, I'm not the one getting "worked up;" that description would be better suited for those braying on about the K5 long before any actual comparable images taken under similar controlled conditions were available, with all of the ridiculous assertions of "practically equal to FF" performance absent anything to support it. Now let the crow eating begin, though I'm sure the more likely response will be either deafening silence or rationalization, conspiracy theories and/or excuse-making.

[dgaies]

For the record, I'm not the one getting "worked up;" that description would be better suited for those braying on about the K5 long before any actual comparable images taken under similar controlled conditions were available, with all of the ridiculous assertions of "practically equal to FF" performance absent anything to support it. Now let the crow eating begin, though I'm sure the more likely response will be either deafening silence or rationalization, conspiracy theories and/or excuse-making.

I don't know, I guess you just sound pretty worked up to me; you seem to be getting quite agitated over a camera which you're clearly not interested in; I assume no one is forcing you to buy a K-5.

As for your comparison to the D3, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that camera 2-3 times more expensive than the K-5? So basically a camera, with a larger sensor, that is significantly more expensive than the K-5, also outperforms it? Shocking.

The vast majority of people interested in the K-5 are Pentax users who are coming from a K10D, K20D, K-7, etc. The K-5 represents a significant improvement over all of those models (at a price) and the vast majority of people who have purchased a K-5 (myself included) are quite happy with its performance. To suggest that people shouldn't be happy just because that improvement doesn't rise to the level of the more expensive D3 (or the more expensive D700) doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[Rondec]

The RAW files don't impress, either; you get back some detail and quite a bit of noise to go with it. Did you think there was some magic in the RAW files that Pentax cleverly worked very hard to destroy in their JPEGs? Even the RAW ISO 800 K5 shot doesn't look as good as the Nikon D3 JPEG @ ISO 6400, much less the RAW file (the K5 RAW noise looks better when comparing K5 @ ISO 800 to D3 @ ISO 6400, but that's obviously because they're applying noise reduction to the K5 even in RAW, and even as low as ISO 800 (that, or it's just that bad in terms of the mushy detail at ISO 800; again, check the red leaves on red fabric, which shows lots of detail loss even as low as ISO 800 on the K5, and even in RAW), while the D3 is NOT using noise reduction in RAW. The D3 RAW sample also has some slight overexposure, which detracts from its appearance).

In short, noise reduction mush does not an impressive performance make. The K5 is still stops behind three-year-old Nikon D3 performance, and is nothing to sing from the hilltops about. For the record, I'm not the one getting "worked up;" that description would be better suited for those braying on about the K5 long before any actual comparable images taken under similar controlled conditions were available, with all of the ridiculous assertions of "practically equal to FF" performance absent anything to support it. Now let the crow eating begin, though I'm sure the more likely response will be either deafening silence or rationalization, conspiracy theories and/or excuse-making.

There is one thing that K5 actually beats full frame in and that is dynamic range. This is not to say that the next generation of full frame cameras will not pull ahead again, they probably will, but that is still pretty sweet performance.

Clearly you have not seen files that John Bee has worked on. The question in my mind is not whether or not the K5 measures up to the D700 in high iso capability (it probably doesn't), but whether or not its high iso photos are usable with my post processing abilities. The answer seems clearly that iso 12,000 is the upper end for that, which is pretty sweet.

I am also surprised at what a pixel peeper you have become. At web resolution, or in a printed photo at A4 size, none of these differences are going to be visible.

[gazonk]

Hate to burst the bubbles, but the K5, as I predicted, is nothing special when you look over the Comparometer shots on IR.

Hate to burst your bubble, but those K-5 shots over at IR are badly back focussed. You can tell it from the purple fringing (due to longitudinal CA) in the strong highlights, check out e.g. the metal parts of the salt jar.