Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-30-2010, 08:57 AM   #16
Veteran Member
KxBlaze's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,594
My friend owns a 5dMkII and I can say with 100% certainty that the 5D destroys my kx in IQ (but cannot say that above ISO 3200). The 5D's images are extremely sharp and have almost a 3D quality to them. I have yet to produce a image that clear with my Kx, but then again the sharpest lens I own is the M 50mm 1.7. In any case, you definitely need to do more than 10min worth of picture taking to see the real advantages of the 5D.

09-30-2010, 09:28 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,368
What type of lenses are you using on both cameras? This would make a big difference either way. If I had a FA31 on a K-x and a cheap 50 mm on a 5D MK2, I'm pretty confident that the K-x would look better in most situations.
09-30-2010, 09:45 AM   #18
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kansas City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 572
Original Poster
KxBlaze- That’s encouraging to here. I agree a 10 min test under kitchen light is not much of a test. When ever it comes back I can try it out in the real wold.

Urkeldaedalus- On the k-x a Sigma 30 1.4 on the 5D a Sigma 50 1.4 both shots taken at 1.8
09-30-2010, 09:54 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Iowa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,368
QuoteOriginally posted by montman Quote
KxBlaze- Thatís encouraging to here. I agree a 10 min test under kitchen light is not much of a test. When ever it comes back I can try it out in the real wold.

Urkeldaedalus- On the k-x a Sigma 30 1.4 on the 5D a Sigma 50 1.4 both shots taken at 1.8
Interesting. I'm surprised there was that much of a difference either way then. At that aperture, could it be that the fact that the K-x has more depth of field make it seem like it has more detail?

Still, like others have said, the 5D Mark 2 should be a lot better at certain things but not that much better at others. Depending on what you end up using it for it might not make that much of a difference for you. From what I've seen of your work, the stuff you've done with your Pentax equipment is already very good, so I'll be interested to see what you think.

09-30-2010, 11:18 AM   #20
Veteran Member
mysticcowboy's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: port townsend, wa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 968
I'm very impressed with the IQ of the K-x. It certainly offers the best bang for the buck currently on the market in that regard. It has excellent high ISO quality, too. Still it's no 5dII. Look for subtle gradients and tonal range. Look at the sizes at which you can reasonably print. Those are harder to to see at web image size than ISO range but are absolutely visible in the Canon's prints. Whether those differences are worth the money for the average enthusiast is open to debate. The 5d MkII wins, hands down, on absolute image quality.

That brings up the question of whether the difference is enough to make the more expensive camera worth the price. It's quite possible that the K-x is more than a good enough camera for most purposes. I own a Honda. A BMW is measurably a better car, but not worth the price to me. I can appreciate the slightly smoother ride and more responsive engine of the BMW, but those are small differences. And, I don't need the perceived status that the Beemer imparts. Honestly, a lot of why people buy more expensive products is not for the improvement in quality but because the expensive toy might turn heads.

Back to the other hand, if I were shooting weddings professionally, I would use the Canon, or at least a K7/5 with a battery holder on it. People equate big cameras and lenses with professional photographers. The K-x just doesn't look impressive enough, even if its images were the complete equal of the 5dII. In this case the value of the Canon is a marketing benefit, not an image quality one.
09-30-2010, 01:55 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,053
QuoteOriginally posted by montman Quote
KxBlaze- That’s encouraging to here. I agree a 10 min test under kitchen light is not much of a test. When ever it comes back I can try it out in the real wold.
Deliberately get your exposure *wrong* (underexposed will show the biggest gap...this is where FF and MF shine).
With the 5D, you'll be able to recover it at ISO3200. With the K-x, I'd bet the image will only look good if you get the exposure right...
09-30-2010, 02:04 PM   #22
K-9
Veteran Member
K-9's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,966
It is well reported that the D700 is better at high ISO's than the 5d MkII
09-30-2010, 02:13 PM   #23
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 581
Are you guys talking about the same photos that I can see?

I can see a bunch of horribly out of focus tulips taken in poor light; I think the camera body is the least of your problems here.

No offence, but neither of these photos show any credibility as a photographer.

09-30-2010, 02:43 PM   #24
Veteran Member
KxBlaze's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,594
QuoteOriginally posted by Big G Quote
Are you guys talking about the same photos that I can see?

I can see a bunch of horribly out of focus tulips taken in poor light; I think the camera body is the least of your problems here.

No offence, but neither of these photos show any credibility as a photographer.
The OP had already stated that the pics were not that good and were out of focus and that he shot for only about 10min. So from his very limited use he was concerned that the IQ was not as good as $3000 worth but we all have pretty much told him that he needs to do a lot more testing than 10min worth.
09-30-2010, 03:35 PM   #25
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kansas City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 572
Original Poster
KxBlaze- Thank you!
Urkeldaedalus- Thank you!
Mysticcowboy- I laughed at your last point. We just met with a client last week and stated when we showed up the day of the wedding they were a bit hesitant because we had Pentax cameras but then said they were supper happy with the pictures.
Some pics from there wedding
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-your-photos/113169-other-wedding-k20-k200-k-x.html

Kenyee- Indeed. I think I will be happy in the end.
K-9- Very true, but I have to admit I kind like some of the Canon glass.
Big-G- Agree, horrid shots. I almost did not even start a thread because I felt ashamed to post them. I upgraded from a point and shoot to a k20d less then two years ago, so my experience is very limited. A link to my blog if you are bored.Captivated Studio | Wedding Photography

On a side note, the 5D MarkII Is for my wife I will be shooting with a Pentax for at least another 6 months.
09-30-2010, 04:37 PM   #26
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Delaware
Posts: 177
Well, I looked at the full sized images and did not see a big difference between the two cameras in gradation and overall noise. I would say that if you had first rate glass on the K-x, it would be a toss-up at 3200. IQ-wise, it would be hard to say that the 5D is worth all of the extra cash. APS-C cameras are getting to the point where they are on a par with FF sensors.
10-01-2010, 06:13 AM   #27
Raylon
Guest




QuoteOriginally posted by Tom in Delaware Quote
APS-C cameras are getting to the point where they are on a par with FF sensors.
Hmm, I'd give that a big heck no. Just take a look at these 100% crops:

http://rolandlim.smugmug.com/photos/700851376_L3kfP-XL.jpg

It was a comparison between the 7D and the 5DMkII. Both at same f/stops, ISO, and with same lens. 7D on left, 5D on right. As you can tell, the 5D absolutely blows the 7D out of the water.
10-01-2010, 06:45 AM   #28
Pentaxian
Miguel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Near Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,726
Only in the context of viewing low-rez jpegs on a computer monitor. But you know, my kids' 5 year old Canon P&S works just as well for that.

Surely you are not making your pronouncement based upon the OP's little posting here, are you?

M

QuoteOriginally posted by Tom in Delaware Quote
[deleted]
APS-C cameras are getting to the point where they are on a par with FF sensors.
10-01-2010, 06:55 AM   #29
Forum Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 73
The biggest difference in the shots is the way the color/contrast is handled. Shooting on the "faithful" setting on Canons tends to match what you see in that K-x shot.
10-01-2010, 12:18 PM   #30
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kansas City
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 572
Original Poster
Both shots were taken with white balance set for tungsten light. What I could have done was adjusted the WB in lightroom to match instead of in camera.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
5d, camera, dslr, ii, iso, k-x, mark, photography, replacement, shots
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Disappointed with my last roll. Gashog Photographic Technique 9 09-27-2010 07:11 PM
Really disappointed with KEH ChipB General Talk 7 05-10-2010 06:44 AM
disappointed in Adorama kiwao General Talk 16 03-03-2010 04:59 PM
Disappointed by the K7 dcreed Photographic Technique 45 05-26-2009 06:55 PM
disappointed nathancombs General Talk 16 05-24-2008 05:28 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top