DXO reviews and ranks K-5 IIs

pinholecam · 12-08-2012, 07:18 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rnovo

As I said in my previous post, my K5IIs images (amount of PP and final rendition) are much better than the ones from my K5 which is now my spare. Those tests are a gimmick just like opinion polls. Its what you think the result is (the shooter) and what others think of your images (the public).
What's the next topic?

+1
Its obvious the dxo test does not cover resolution and the potential for K5IIs to skip one PP step (sharpening -the most noisy one) to gain over a AA-filtered camera in final o/p.

The nay-sayers here will have nothing good to say whatever the results.
For the rest of us, just use the camera more.

Simen1 · 12-08-2012, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Adam

The one thing that DxO doesn't score is resolution, so that isn't factored in. But it still looks like we have 3 versions of the same camera, as the review found

DxO test sensors, not cameras. I consider it a strenght and not a weakness that they test a few factors thorowly, although i wish they would include detail reproduction too.

BTW: Any idea why slight improvement in DR and ISO scores doesent affect total score? How are the total score calculated?

JohnBee · 12-08-2012, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by ogl

SNR18% - higher is better
ISO80
K-5II - 41.7 dB
K-5IIs - 42 dB

ISO 100
K-5II - 40.8 dB
K-5IIs - 41 dB

ISO200
K-5II - 38 dB
K-5IIs - 38.1 dB

ISO 400
K-5II - 35.1 dB
K-5IIs - 35.2 dB

ISO800
K-5II - 32 dB
K-5IIs - 32.2 dB

ISO1600
K-5II - 27.6 dB
K-5IIs - 27.7 dB

Let's compare ISO manufacturer / measured

ISO80
K-5II/K-5IIs - 68/70

ISO100
K-5II/K-5IIs - 85/91

ISO200
K-5II/K-5IIs - 179/173

ISO400
K-5II/K-5IIs - 360/347

ISO800
K-5II/K-5IIs - 744/723

ISO1600
K-5II/K-5IIs - 1514/1426

ISO3200
K-5II/K-5IIs - 2482/2877

ISO6400
K-5II/K-5IIs - 5145/5970

Rather strange situation with ISO - K-5IIs has closer to nominal ISO at 80-100 and 3200-6400 (and e t.c.)

That is most interesting ogl
Thanks for posting this.

My prediction is that the added sharpness of the K-5 IIs will prove beneficial up-to a certain point along the sensitivity curve, at which point, the effects of noise may have an inverse effect on IQ.

OR WILL IT?

I guess there's only one way to find out.
I'll run a few tests today to see what comes out of it.

**Rondec** · 12-08-2012, 07:50 AM

I think it is clear that they all use essentially the same sensor. The question is how each camera responds to post processing and once again, I just haven't seen that much difference between them.

I think so much of what people see in camera differences has to do with post processing and not with home much detail is really preserved in an image. And that is hard to sort out. At the same time, I haven't seen enough difference to want to upgrade my K5 classics to either a K5 II or K5 IIs.

Adam · 12-08-2012, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Simen1

BTW: Any idea why slight improvement in DR and ISO scores doesent affect total score? How are the total score calculated?

They probably write about the precise calculations on their web site, but the scores are the same because you might say that the variations aren't statistically significant.

RonHendriks1966 · 12-08-2012, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Simen1

BTW: Any idea why slight improvement in DR and ISO scores doesent affect total score? How are the total score calculated?

The score 82 is reached by all scores between 81,5 and 82,4 and maybe the variation isn't big enough to jump one point.

rawr · 12-08-2012, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Simen1

How are the total score calculated?

DxO supply good information about how they calculate the soverall score here:

DxOMark - Sensor scores

In relation to the discussion about detail and resolution not being a factor in their sensor scoring, they know about that:

Quote:

In a camera, resolution is dependent on both sensor and lens performances. So to compare and rank digital cameras while taking resolution into account, you should look at the DxOMark Score for lenses (with camera), which weighs a number of image quality parameters, including resolution.

**Aristophanes** · 12-08-2012, 05:21 PM

Law of Diminishing Returns

WerTicus · 12-08-2012, 06:50 PM

The differences are so small it could be manufacturing variations that account for any differences.

rawr · 12-08-2012, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by WerTicus

The differences are so small it could be manufacturing variations that account for any differences.

Agreed. The differences are so small they could even be down to minute variations in the DxO testing procedure from K-5 body to body.

ogl · 12-09-2012, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

That is most interesting ogl
Thanks for posting this.

My prediction is that the added sharpness of the K-5 IIs will prove beneficial up-to a certain point along the sensitivity curve, at which point, the effects of noise may have an inverse effect on IQ.

OR WILL IT?

K-5IIs has lower noise at ISO3200-51200 than K-5II, because SNR is almost the same as K-5II, but real ISO of K-5IIs are higher than K-5II.

IMO.

JohnBee · 12-09-2012, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by ogl

K-5IIs has lower noise at ISO3200-51200 than K-5II, because SNR is almost the same as K-5II, but real ISO of K-5IIs are higher than K-5II.

IMO.

I wonder why DxOMark publishes advertised ISO measurements rather than true ISO measurements?
I think this would clear-up alot of confusion about noise performance not to mention place all the camera's on equal footing. Because as it stands, the ratings seem to allow manufacturers to manipulate their ISO standards. Which I think allows them to manipulate the terms along the way.

Having said that, I find the true ISO differences between the K-5 II and IIs to be quite significant at higher sensitivities.

ogl · 12-09-2012, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

I wonder why DxOMark publishes advertised ISO measurements rather than true ISO measurements?
I think this would clear-up alot of confusion about noise performance not to mention place all the camera's on equal footing. Because as it stands, the ratings seem to allow manufacturers to manipulate their ISO standards. Which I think allows them to manipulate the terms along the way.

Having said that, I find the true ISO differences between the K-5 II and IIs to be quite significant at higher sensitivities.

One of the shameless tricks are Olympus OM-D E-M5
For example,

and Fuji X100 - it's out of my mind
ISO1000, 1012 and 1076 are marked in camera as ISO1600, 3200 and 6400.

ogl · 12-09-2012, 07:19 AM

but it's not the end
ISO800 is ISO504

We can talk about low noise mythes...

JohnBee · 12-09-2012, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by ogl

One of the shameless tricks are Olympus OM-D E-M5
For example,

and Fuji X100 - it's out of my mind
ISO1000, 1012 and 1076 are marked in camera as ISO1600, 3200 and 6400.

Wow. That is so much worst then I ever thought possible!

Distortions like these should be published as a scandal.

12-08-2012, 11:08 AM	#20
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,593	Originally posted by Simen1 BTW: Any idea why slight improvement in DR and ISO scores doesent affect total score? How are the total score calculated? They probably write about the precise calculations on their web site, but the scores are the same because you might say that the variations aren't statistically significant. 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:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-5 II and K-5 IIs File Numbering	David	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	5	12-08-2012 05:21 AM
Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIs Now In Stock!	Adam	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	24	10-25-2012 03:38 PM
Suggestion K-5 forum renamed to K-5, K-5 II, and K-5 IIs?	Buschmaster	Site Suggestions and Help	2	10-16-2012 02:17 PM
Facts and rumors regarding the 16.28 Megapixel sensor in K- 5 II and K-5 IIs	F-pix	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	11	09-28-2012 08:17 AM
Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIs OFFICIALLY Announced	Adam	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	9	09-11-2012 08:43 AM

12-08-2012, 07:18 AM - 1 Like	#16
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	Originally posted by Rnovo As I said in my previous post, my K5IIs images (amount of PP and final rendition) are much better than the ones from my K5 which is now my spare. Those tests are a gimmick just like opinion polls. Its what you think the result is (the shooter) and what others think of your images (the public). What's the next topic? +1 Its obvious the dxo test does not cover resolution and the potential for K5IIs to skip one PP step (sharpening -the most noisy one) to gain over a AA-filtered camera in final o/p. The nay-sayers here will have nothing good to say whatever the results. For the rest of us, just use the camera more.

12-08-2012, 07:27 AM	#17
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	Originally posted by Adam The one thing that DxO doesn't score is resolution, so that isn't factored in. But it still looks like we have 3 versions of the same camera, as the review found DxO test sensors, not cameras. I consider it a strenght and not a weakness that they test a few factors thorowly, although i wish they would include detail reproduction too. BTW: Any idea why slight improvement in DR and ISO scores doesent affect total score? How are the total score calculated?

12-08-2012, 07:27 AM	#18
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by ogl SNR18% - higher is better ISO80 K-5II - 41.7 dB K-5IIs - 42 dB ISO 100 K-5II - 40.8 dB K-5IIs - 41 dB ISO200 K-5II - 38 dB K-5IIs - 38.1 dB ISO 400 K-5II - 35.1 dB K-5IIs - 35.2 dB ISO800 K-5II - 32 dB K-5IIs - 32.2 dB ISO1600 K-5II - 27.6 dB K-5IIs - 27.7 dB Let's compare ISO manufacturer / measured ISO80 K-5II/K-5IIs - 68/70 ISO100 K-5II/K-5IIs - 85/91 ISO200 K-5II/K-5IIs - 179/173 ISO400 K-5II/K-5IIs - 360/347 ISO800 K-5II/K-5IIs - 744/723 ISO1600 K-5II/K-5IIs - 1514/1426 ISO3200 K-5II/K-5IIs - 2482/2877 ISO6400 K-5II/K-5IIs - 5145/5970 Rather strange situation with ISO - K-5IIs has closer to nominal ISO at 80-100 and 3200-6400 (and e t.c.) That is most interesting ogl Thanks for posting this. My prediction is that the added sharpness of the K-5 IIs will prove beneficial up-to a certain point along the sensitivity curve, at which point, the effects of noise may have an inverse effect on IQ. OR WILL IT? I guess there's only one way to find out. I'll run a few tests today to see what comes out of it.

12-08-2012, 07:50 AM	#19
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	I think it is clear that they all use essentially the same sensor. The question is how each camera responds to post processing and once again, I just haven't seen that much difference between them. I think so much of what people see in camera differences has to do with post processing and not with home much detail is really preserved in an image. And that is hard to sort out. At the same time, I haven't seen enough difference to want to upgrade my K5 classics to either a K5 II or K5 IIs.

12-08-2012, 12:29 PM	#21
RonHendriks1966 Banned Join Date: Jan 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,675	Originally posted by Simen1 BTW: Any idea why slight improvement in DR and ISO scores doesent affect total score? How are the total score calculated? The score 82 is reached by all scores between 81,5 and 82,4 and maybe the variation isn't big enough to jump one point.

12-08-2012, 12:53 PM	#22
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913 Original Poster	Originally posted by Simen1 How are the total score calculated? DxO supply good information about how they calculate the soverall score here: DxOMark - Sensor scores In relation to the discussion about detail and resolution not being a factor in their sensor scoring, they know about that: Quote: In a camera, resolution is dependent on both sensor and lens performances. So to compare and rank digital cameras while taking resolution into account, you should look at the DxOMark Score for lenses (with camera), which weighs a number of image quality parameters, including resolution.

12-08-2012, 05:21 PM	#23
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Law of Diminishing Returns

12-08-2012, 06:50 PM	#24
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	The differences are so small it could be manufacturing variations that account for any differences.

12-08-2012, 08:08 PM	#25
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913 Original Poster	Originally posted by WerTicus The differences are so small it could be manufacturing variations that account for any differences. Agreed. The differences are so small they could even be down to minute variations in the DxO testing procedure from K-5 body to body.

12-09-2012, 05:56 AM	#26
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by JohnBee That is most interesting ogl Thanks for posting this. My prediction is that the added sharpness of the K-5 IIs will prove beneficial up-to a certain point along the sensitivity curve, at which point, the effects of noise may have an inverse effect on IQ. OR WILL IT? K-5IIs has lower noise at ISO3200-51200 than K-5II, because SNR is almost the same as K-5II, but real ISO of K-5IIs are higher than K-5II. IMO.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-09-2012, 06:53 AM	#27
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by ogl K-5IIs has lower noise at ISO3200-51200 than K-5II, because SNR is almost the same as K-5II, but real ISO of K-5IIs are higher than K-5II. IMO. I wonder why DxOMark publishes advertised ISO measurements rather than true ISO measurements? I think this would clear-up alot of confusion about noise performance not to mention place all the camera's on equal footing. Because as it stands, the ratings seem to allow manufacturers to manipulate their ISO standards. Which I think allows them to manipulate the terms along the way. Having said that, I find the true ISO differences between the K-5 II and IIs to be quite significant at higher sensitivities.

12-09-2012, 07:16 AM	#28
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by JohnBee I wonder why DxOMark publishes advertised ISO measurements rather than true ISO measurements? I think this would clear-up alot of confusion about noise performance not to mention place all the camera's on equal footing. Because as it stands, the ratings seem to allow manufacturers to manipulate their ISO standards. Which I think allows them to manipulate the terms along the way. Having said that, I find the true ISO differences between the K-5 II and IIs to be quite significant at higher sensitivities. One of the shameless tricks are Olympus OM-D E-M5 For example, and Fuji X100 - it's out of my mind ISO1000, 1012 and 1076 are marked in camera as ISO1600, 3200 and 6400.

12-09-2012, 07:19 AM	#29
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	but it's not the end ISO800 is ISO504 We can talk about low noise mythes...

12-09-2012, 08:08 AM	#30
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by ogl One of the shameless tricks are Olympus OM-D E-M5 For example, and Fuji X100 - it's out of my mind ISO1000, 1012 and 1076 are marked in camera as ISO1600, 3200 and 6400. Wow. That is so much worst then I ever thought possible! Distortions like these should be published as a scandal.