DXO reviews and ranks K-5 IIs

gazonk · 12-09-2012, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by ogl

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

Actually I think Olympus did just the right thing for the Exmor sensor. I wish Pentax had did the same, then I could use my K-5 without using -0.3 - -0.7 EV all the time.

thibs · 12-10-2012, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

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

Distortions like these should be published as a scandal.

Yep, last time I said the same thing I was ridiculed.
I thought someone like Falk would adhere to that but it seems idea are only good if they come from the right people.

Smeggypants · 12-10-2012, 09:15 AM

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?

'Much Better' ??

Until someone can provide a comparison show the K-5IIs images are waht can be reasonably described as much better than the K-5 then "much better" is all hyperbole and unsubstantiated anecdote.

The differences between the K-5 and K-5IIs are minutiae even at pixel peeping levels

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

JohnBee · 12-10-2012, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

The differences between the K-5 and K-5IIs are minutiae even at pixel peeping levels

Having examined both the K-5 and K-5 IIs image at 1500%, I can assure you that they K-5 IIs is not only leagues above the K-5 in terms of pixel quality but I'd go as far as saying that it completely kills it! To which I'd add, it's a good thing we not longer have K-5's in our home because I honestly don't think I could stop myself from throwing them in the garbage.

normhead · 12-10-2012, 09:39 AM

I'm actually looking forward to the Imaging Resource test of the K-5 IIs. DxO mark doesn't include MTF in it's calculations, but having recently done a comparison of the resolving power of various bodies, I'm almost certain the K-5 II s will produce better resolution than the K-5II or K-5. IN terms of K-5 bodies, I just bought a new one. That and a spare battery and a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for less than the cost of a K5-IIs, I just can't bring myself to be an early adopter of these things. I tried. I could see the advantage, I couldn't pull the trigger. LBA pulled me in.

ogl · 12-10-2012, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Smeggypants

'Much Better' ??

Until someone can provide a comparison show the K-5IIs images are waht can be reasonably described as much better than the K-5 then "much better" is all hyperbole and unsubstantiated anecdote.

The differences between the K-5 and K-5IIs are minutiae even at pixel peeping levels

In terms of sharpness - K-5IIs is the new K10D with 16 MP.

K-5 is weaker. My K200D is much sharper than K-5.

JinDesu · 12-10-2012, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by ogl

In terms of sharpness - K-5IIs is the new K10D with 16 MP.

K-5 is weaker. My K200D is much sharper than K-5.

Sorry Ogl, you've lost me slightly. I'm assuming you are praising the IIs, but if you could explain your statements a little better for a Pentax noob like me lol.. I only know my k-x and the k-5

JohnBee · 12-10-2012, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by ogl

My K200D is much sharper than K-5.

Then again... you could just as easily sharpen the K-5 image to be sharper than the K200D.

Smeggypants · 12-10-2012, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

Having examined both the K-5 and K-5 IIs image at 1500%, I can assure you that they K-5 IIs is not only leagues above the K-5 in terms of pixel quality but I'd go as far as saying that it completely kills it! To which I'd add, it's a good thing we not longer have K-5's in our home because I honestly don't think I could stop myself from throwing them in the garbage.

LOL

Since my last post I've undetaken some further tests just to make sure and I've isolated and blown up a single pixel from the K-5 and K-5IIs to a square 20 feet wide. Blown up to this size you can clearly see the quality of the K-5IIs pixel is MUCH BETTER than the pixel from the K-5. I take back my previous post and now I plabn to throw my K-5s into the garbage and replace them with the hugely superior K-5IIs. I'm confident this will make my photoraphs much much better.

ogl · 12-10-2012, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

Then again... you could just as easily sharpen the K-5 image to be sharper than the K200D.

No. I used K200D and K-5 together during 1 year.
K-5 has better resolution - yes. But to sharp K-5's images with more sharpness settings is not the cure.
K200D has better sharpness.

Thick AA filter is no good...

gazonk · 12-11-2012, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by ogl

No. I used K200D and K-5 together during 1 year.
K-5 has better resolution - yes. But to sharp K-5's images with more sharpness settings is not the cure.
K200D has better sharpness.

Thick AA filter is no good...

The heavy AA filter of the K-5 is apparent to me too - still much more detail than in K10d shots! And with the K10d, I actually very often got annoying moire.

Smeggypants · 12-11-2012, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by ogl

No. I used K200D and K-5 together during 1 year.
K-5 has better resolution - yes. But to sharp K-5's images with more sharpness settings is not the cure.
K200D has better sharpness.

Thick AA filter is no good...

I found I needed a little bit more sharpeness with the K-5 after I upgraded from K10/K20. it was the cure. Job done.

--- And anyway sharpness is not some deity. the much better dynamic range of the K-5 was the clincher for me

JohnBee · 12-11-2012, 06:05 AM

Originally posted by ogl

No. I used K200D and K-5 together during 1 year.
K-5 has better resolution - yes. But to sharp K-5's images with more sharpness settings is not the cure.
K200D has better sharpness.

Thick AA filter is no good...

So are you saying you prefer not to sharpen your K-5 images?
Also, how would you compare sharpness between camera's with different resolution?
Do you view both camera's at 1:1 using the same scene and/or subject matter?

PS. I found that a deconvolution or deblur filter works very well to counter the effects of AA filter.

Enkhbayar · 12-11-2012, 07:18 AM

by reading the DXOMARK results, the sensor actually improving very slowly, or even stopped improving recent years. now days the best sensor score is roughly matter of area of sensor.
best sensor aps-c sensor score is 1200. full frame sensor size is 2.25 times bigger than aps-c. so best FF sensor score would be around 1200*2.25=2700. actually by DXOmark the best FF sensor iso is around this number, best in 2012 is around 2900. which is lower than nikon d3s released in 2008.

btw, dxomark missing one big performance measurement, focus performances including accuracy, speed, sensitivity!

ogl · 12-11-2012, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by JohnBee

So are you saying you prefer not to sharpen your K-5 images?
Also, how would you compare sharpness between camera's with different resolution?
Do you view both camera's at 1:1 using the same scene and/or subject matter?

PS. I found that a deconvolution or deblur filter works very well to counter the effects of AA filter.

K-5 needs MORE sharpness than K200D to be sharp. To apply more sharpness in RAW converter makes picture worse.

It looks like this

K-5's result is in the middle. Good resolution and no good acutance
K200D is the last. I would say it's K-5IIs....

Good resolution and good acutance

I prefer the last one

If we apply to the second picture more sharpness we will get ALIASING and HALOES.

12-11-2012, 06:05 AM	#43
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by ogl No. I used K200D and K-5 together during 1 year. K-5 has better resolution - yes. But to sharp K-5's images with more sharpness settings is not the cure. K200D has better sharpness. Thick AA filter is no good... So are you saying you prefer not to sharpen your K-5 images? Also, how would you compare sharpness between camera's with different resolution? Do you view both camera's at 1:1 using the same scene and/or subject matter? PS. I found that a deconvolution or deblur filter works very well to counter the effects of AA filter. Last edited by JohnBee; 12-11-2012 at 06:21 AM.

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

12-09-2012, 11:40 PM	#31
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by ogl One of the shameless tricks are Olympus OM-D E-M5 Actually I think Olympus did just the right thing for the Exmor sensor. I wish Pentax had did the same, then I could use my K-5 without using -0.3 - -0.7 EV all the time.

12-10-2012, 03:55 AM	#32
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by JohnBee Wow. That is so much worst then I ever thought possible! Distortions like these should be published as a scandal. Yep, last time I said the same thing I was ridiculed. I thought someone like Falk would adhere to that but it seems idea are only good if they come from the right people.

12-10-2012, 09:15 AM	#33
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	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? 'Much Better' ?? Until someone can provide a comparison show the K-5IIs images are waht can be reasonably described as much better than the K-5 then "much better" is all hyperbole and unsubstantiated anecdote. The differences between the K-5 and K-5IIs are minutiae even at pixel peeping levels Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

12-10-2012, 09:31 AM	#34
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by Smeggypants The differences between the K-5 and K-5IIs are minutiae even at pixel peeping levels Having examined both the K-5 and K-5 IIs image at 1500%, I can assure you that they K-5 IIs is not only leagues above the K-5 in terms of pixel quality but I'd go as far as saying that it completely kills it! To which I'd add, it's a good thing we not longer have K-5's in our home because I honestly don't think I could stop myself from throwing them in the garbage.

12-10-2012, 09:39 AM	#35
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	I'm actually looking forward to the Imaging Resource test of the K-5 IIs. DxO mark doesn't include MTF in it's calculations, but having recently done a comparison of the resolving power of various bodies, I'm almost certain the K-5 II s will produce better resolution than the K-5II or K-5. IN terms of K-5 bodies, I just bought a new one. That and a spare battery and a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for less than the cost of a K5-IIs, I just can't bring myself to be an early adopter of these things. I tried. I could see the advantage, I couldn't pull the trigger. LBA pulled me in.

12-10-2012, 09:50 AM	#36
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by Smeggypants 'Much Better' ?? Until someone can provide a comparison show the K-5IIs images are waht can be reasonably described as much better than the K-5 then "much better" is all hyperbole and unsubstantiated anecdote. The differences between the K-5 and K-5IIs are minutiae even at pixel peeping levels In terms of sharpness - K-5IIs is the new K10D with 16 MP. K-5 is weaker. My K200D is much sharper than K-5.

12-10-2012, 10:24 AM	#37
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by ogl In terms of sharpness - K-5IIs is the new K10D with 16 MP. K-5 is weaker. My K200D is much sharper than K-5. Sorry Ogl, you've lost me slightly. I'm assuming you are praising the IIs, but if you could explain your statements a little better for a Pentax noob like me lol.. I only know my k-x and the k-5

12-10-2012, 10:24 AM	#38
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	Originally posted by ogl My K200D is much sharper than K-5. Then again... you could just as easily sharpen the K-5 image to be sharper than the K200D.

12-10-2012, 07:02 PM	#39
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by JohnBee Having examined both the K-5 and K-5 IIs image at 1500%, I can assure you that they K-5 IIs is not only leagues above the K-5 in terms of pixel quality but I'd go as far as saying that it completely kills it! To which I'd add, it's a good thing we not longer have K-5's in our home because I honestly don't think I could stop myself from throwing them in the garbage. LOL Since my last post I've undetaken some further tests just to make sure and I've isolated and blown up a single pixel from the K-5 and K-5IIs to a square 20 feet wide. Blown up to this size you can clearly see the quality of the K-5IIs pixel is MUCH BETTER than the pixel from the K-5. I take back my previous post and now I plabn to throw my K-5s into the garbage and replace them with the hugely superior K-5IIs. I'm confident this will make my photoraphs much much better.

12-10-2012, 09:55 PM	#40
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by JohnBee Then again... you could just as easily sharpen the K-5 image to be sharper than the K200D. No. I used K200D and K-5 together during 1 year. K-5 has better resolution - yes. But to sharp K-5's images with more sharpness settings is not the cure. K200D has better sharpness. Thick AA filter is no good...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-11-2012, 12:50 AM	#41
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by ogl No. I used K200D and K-5 together during 1 year. K-5 has better resolution - yes. But to sharp K-5's images with more sharpness settings is not the cure. K200D has better sharpness. Thick AA filter is no good... The heavy AA filter of the K-5 is apparent to me too - still much more detail than in K10d shots! And with the K10d, I actually very often got annoying moire.

12-11-2012, 05:19 AM	#42
Smeggypants Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 1,536	Originally posted by ogl No. I used K200D and K-5 together during 1 year. K-5 has better resolution - yes. But to sharp K-5's images with more sharpness settings is not the cure. K200D has better sharpness. Thick AA filter is no good... I found I needed a little bit more sharpeness with the K-5 after I upgraded from K10/K20. it was the cure. Job done. --- And anyway sharpness is not some deity. the much better dynamic range of the K-5 was the clincher for me

12-11-2012, 07:18 AM	#44
Enkhbayar New Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Photos: Albums Posts: 13	by reading the DXOMARK results, the sensor actually improving very slowly, or even stopped improving recent years. now days the best sensor score is roughly matter of area of sensor. best sensor aps-c sensor score is 1200. full frame sensor size is 2.25 times bigger than aps-c. so best FF sensor score would be around 1200*2.25=2700. actually by DXOmark the best FF sensor iso is around this number, best in 2012 is around 2900. which is lower than nikon d3s released in 2008. btw, dxomark missing one big performance measurement, focus performances including accuracy, speed, sensitivity!

12-11-2012, 07:56 AM	#45
ogl Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Sankt Peterburg Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,382	Originally posted by JohnBee So are you saying you prefer not to sharpen your K-5 images? Also, how would you compare sharpness between camera's with different resolution? Do you view both camera's at 1:1 using the same scene and/or subject matter? PS. I found that a deconvolution or deblur filter works very well to counter the effects of AA filter. K-5 needs MORE sharpness than K200D to be sharp. To apply more sharpness in RAW converter makes picture worse. It looks like this K-5's result is in the middle. Good resolution and no good acutance K200D is the last. I would say it's K-5IIs.... Good resolution and good acutance I prefer the last one If we apply to the second picture more sharpness we will get ALIASING and HALOES.