I bought a 5D Mark II and I am a little disappointed.

KxBlaze · 09-30-2010, 08:57 AM

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.

Urkeldaedalus · 09-30-2010, 09:28 AM

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.

**montman** · 09-30-2010, 09:45 AM

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

Urkeldaedalus · 09-30-2010, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by montman

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

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.

mysticcowboy · 09-30-2010, 11:18 AM

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.

kenyee · 09-30-2010, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by montman

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...

K-9 · 09-30-2010, 02:04 PM

It is well reported that the D700 is better at high ISO's than the 5d MkII

Big G · 09-30-2010, 02:13 PM

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.

KxBlaze · 09-30-2010, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Big G

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.

**montman** · 09-30-2010, 03:35 PM

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.

Tom in Delaware · 09-30-2010, 04:37 PM

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.

Raylon · 10-01-2010, 06:13 AM

Originally posted by Tom in Delaware

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.

**Miguel** · 10-01-2010, 06:45 AM

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

Originally posted by Tom in Delaware

[deleted]
APS-C cameras are getting to the point where they are on a par with FF sensors.

AngryCorgi · 10-01-2010, 06:55 AM

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.

**montman** · 10-01-2010, 12:18 PM

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.

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

09-30-2010, 08:57 AM	#16
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	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
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	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
montman Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Kansas City Photos: Gallery Posts: 576 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
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	Originally posted by montman 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 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
mysticcowboy Veteran Member 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
kenyee Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Boston, PRofMA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,026	Originally posted by montman 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 Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	It is well reported that the D700 is better at high ISO's than the 5d MkII

09-30-2010, 02:13 PM	#23
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 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
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	Originally posted by Big G 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
montman Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Kansas City Photos: Gallery Posts: 576 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
Tom in Delaware 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	Originally posted by Tom in Delaware 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
Miguel Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Near Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,743	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 Originally posted by Tom in Delaware [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
AngryCorgi 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
montman Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Kansas City Photos: Gallery Posts: 576 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.