How much do you trust DxO Marks' tests?

**NZ_Ross** · 12-22-2013, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by normhead

My observations using both cameras would confirm that at least for the K-5 and K-3. For landscape, I may continue to carry the K-5, keeping the K-3 on a long lens for wildlife. MInd you, the K-3 is still quite a bit better than my K-x or K20D. Let's keep it in perspective. But you aren't going to pull detail out of the depths of the shadows like you could on the K-5. Proper exposure is more critical.

Hi Norm, that is a really helpful comment from me regarding the K5 vs K3 differences in real world landscape. Thanks. Ross

ChrisJ · 12-23-2013, 02:56 AM

Canon may have faster focusing on paper, but it's not as accurate as Pentax, I get more keepers with my K5 than I do with my 1D (OK an older camera). Another problem with Canon auto focus is you have to send them in for re-callibration every few thousand frames at £60 a pop. A colleague of mine who does Event photography, and takes thousands of frames, has to send his 1D and 5D cameras in several times a year, til he does only 1 in 3 frames are actually in focus!

Image quality is visibly better on my K5 than any Canon full frame I've used (and I've used then all), Canon are old technology and have to use full frame sensors to get close to the IQ in the newer Sony APS sensors used in Pentax cameras.

I can't comment on Nikon as I haven't used them much.

Chris

Class A · 12-23-2013, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by normhead

My observations using both cameras would confirm that at least for the K-5 and K-3.

You responded to wahid_satu who looked at DxOMark "screen" data.
The latter does not allow a fair comparison.

Are your observations based on 100% pixel peeping or are they based on comparing images at the same level of magnification?
In the former case, the K-3 would obviously be disadvantaged.
In the latter case, you should be seeing minimal differences only.

With the exception of ISO 80 (that doesn't exist on the K-3) the DxOMark measurements for the K-3 and K-5 are very close to each other.

Originally posted by normhead

But you aren't going to pull detail out of the depths of the shadows like you could on the K-5. Proper exposure is more critical.

Would you be able to post two shots from the K-3 and K-5 respectively to demonstrate your observation?

It would be very interesting to see how much less latitude the K-3 provides in terms of pulling out shadow details.

According to the DxOMark measurements, there should be an insignificantly small difference only, but we know that they don't measure banding, for instance.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How much time do you spend on photography??	littledrawe	Photographic Industry and Professionals	17	01-18-2014 11:01 AM
Points of sufficiency: do you really know how much is enough?	baro-nite	Photographic Industry and Professionals	14	09-19-2012 02:14 AM
How much post processing do you do?	Katier	Photographic Technique	30	07-27-2012 01:19 PM
How DxO Labs tests hot cameras like Canon's latest SLR	gawan	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	3	04-20-2012 07:36 PM
How Much Do You Trust The Government	mikemike	General Talk	28	05-09-2011 01:46 PM

12-22-2013, 03:14 PM	#61
NZ_Ross Kiwi Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Timaru Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,225	Originally posted by normhead My observations using both cameras would confirm that at least for the K-5 and K-3. For landscape, I may continue to carry the K-5, keeping the K-3 on a long lens for wildlife. MInd you, the K-3 is still quite a bit better than my K-x or K20D. Let's keep it in perspective. But you aren't going to pull detail out of the depths of the shadows like you could on the K-5. Proper exposure is more critical. Hi Norm, that is a really helpful comment from me regarding the K5 vs K3 differences in real world landscape. Thanks. Ross

12-23-2013, 02:56 AM	#62
ChrisJ Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Eckington, Derbyshire UK Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 316	Canon may have faster focusing on paper, but it's not as accurate as Pentax, I get more keepers with my K5 than I do with my 1D (OK an older camera). Another problem with Canon auto focus is you have to send them in for re-callibration every few thousand frames at £60 a pop. A colleague of mine who does Event photography, and takes thousands of frames, has to send his 1D and 5D cameras in several times a year, til he does only 1 in 3 frames are actually in focus! Image quality is visibly better on my K5 than any Canon full frame I've used (and I've used then all), Canon are old technology and have to use full frame sensors to get close to the IQ in the newer Sony APS sensors used in Pentax cameras. I can't comment on Nikon as I haven't used them much. Chris

12-23-2013, 05:32 PM	#63
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by normhead My observations using both cameras would confirm that at least for the K-5 and K-3. You responded to wahid_satu who looked at DxOMark "screen" data. The latter does not allow a fair comparison. Are your observations based on 100% pixel peeping or are they based on comparing images at the same level of magnification? In the former case, the K-3 would obviously be disadvantaged. In the latter case, you should be seeing minimal differences only. With the exception of ISO 80 (that doesn't exist on the K-3) the DxOMark measurements for the K-3 and K-5 are very close to each other. Originally posted by normhead But you aren't going to pull detail out of the depths of the shadows like you could on the K-5. Proper exposure is more critical. Would you be able to post two shots from the K-3 and K-5 respectively to demonstrate your observation? It would be very interesting to see how much less latitude the K-3 provides in terms of pulling out shadow details. According to the DxOMark measurements, there should be an insignificantly small difference only, but we know that they don't measure banding, for instance.