[cbaytan]

i still think the k200d sensor provides much sharper results than the K-7's. The K-7 body is light years ahead of the K200d which is why i use it much more. Its not that the K-7 is bad, the K200d is just astounding

Really? No kidding? Below from my 10 hours old new babe:

Top is 70-300mm Tamron below pic is taken with 16-45mm. (No PP other than cropping)

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[planedriver]

i still think the k200d sensor provides much sharper results than the K-7's. The K-7 body is light years ahead of the K200d which is why i use it much more. Its not that the K-7 is bad, the K200d is just astounding

+1

at low iso it is light years ahead of the K-x..and I still prefer it over the K-5..

I'm not missing it..I'm using it..99% with the da12-24. today:



Andras

[yeatzee]

yup, below 400 ISO it trumps everything I've tried thus far

considering I shoot below ISO 400 90% of the time, I'd love a K200d sensor in a K-7 body I for one never liked these new mega ISO sensors as their low ISO seemed to suffer. The K-x, and as far as I can tell K-5 are no different. K10d/K200d ftw!

[TOUGEFC]

Hmm i might do a base iso comparsion between the k200d and k-5 this weekend....

[JohnBee]

yup, below 400 ISO it trumps everything I've tried thus far

considering I shoot below ISO 400 90% of the time, I'd love a K200d sensor in a K-7 body I for one never liked these new mega ISO sensors as their low ISO seemed to suffer. The K-x, and as far as I can tell K-5 are no different. K10d/K200d ftw!

That's very interesting.

However, owning both system, I can tell you without a doubt that the K200D is nowhere near the K-5 with respect to RAW file performance.

There was a recent thread posted on dpreview on this very subject, and I posted a few K200D samples along with some K-5 ones to support the outcome.
Granted the K200D has a very good sensor... however, the K-5 has since taken the spot as the best Pentax APS-C sensor in production atm.

[yeatzee]

That's very interesting.

However, owning both system, I can tell you without a doubt that the K200D is nowhere near the K-5 with respect to RAW file performance.

There was a recent thread posted on dpreview on this very subject, and I posted a few K200D samples along with some K-5 ones to support the outcome.
Granted the K200D has a very good sensor... the K-5 has since taken this spot as the best APS-C sensor in production atm.

Any ISO 100 samples? I'd love for my now very old K200d to be dethroned officially

[JohnBee]

Any ISO 100 samples? I'd love for my now very old K200d to be dethroned officially

I did not posted ISO100 comparisons as those are not nominal sensitivities(extended). However, I did post ISO200 samples of both systems to compare.

K200D 1/1000 ISO200 PEF, +8.5 eV


K-5 1/640 ISO200 DNG, +8.5 eV


Also, in this test, the K-5 is actually at a slight disadvantage. However, I'll let the noise map speaks for itself

A quick summary would be along the lines of:

• More DR.
• Cleaner images.
• Higher resolution.

However, if you read the thread you'll find that not everyone has gotten this type of performance either. It would appear that some people with earlier K-5's are not getting consistent results with their own units.

K200D (push processing):


K-5, using same Push Processing:


PS. it is likely that these samples do not provide a complete story with regards to testing and/or results.
My advice would be to head on over to dpreview and take a look at the original thread entitled: Re: K-5 Banding and Tingeing by MaKeR

---

Last edited by JohnBee; 03-29-2011 at 01:27 PM.

[yeatzee]

any real life/world samples? I couldn't care less about pushing exposures, looking in the OOF areas for noise, etc.

[TOUGEFC]

I will try and get some real world samples done this weekend

[yeatzee]

I will try and get some real world samples done this weekend

sweet

As of right now I have no desire for the K-5, but my opinion is open to change (though im thinking my wallet not so much )

[cbaytan]

I
My advice would be to head on over to dpreview and take a look at the original thread entitled: Re: K-5 Banding and Tingeing by MaKeR

John, I would like to know the technical reason behind this extreme push processing testing, please. Also 3'rd picture shows lots of dust on the sensor.

[JohnBee]

John, I would like to know the technical reason behind this extreme push processing testing, please. Also 3'rd picture shows lots of dust on the sensor.

I'd say it was devised is to expose the noise patterns(attributes) between each system. However, I believe the OP(over at dpreview) went into details as to why he chose this type of comparison. And, if I understood correctly, the results were part of RW processing which he applied to his images. However in my own defense, I can say that when using plugins such as Topaz Adjust with K-5 files in contrast to the K200D really shows the strengths and weaknesses between both systems. This holds especially true when the images are shot at higher ISO's(ISO400+).

A few examples here:





These do a good job of showing where noise and dynamic range advantages can really make a difference.
So all in all, I'd say it is quite common to experience the strengths and weaknesses between both systems in real world processing.

One other issue I found with real world comparo's is where its not always easy to identify the causes of a systems weakness.
Which can be seen in this case of the dpreview topic. Where the OP was investigating vertical banding and edge tinging while processing K-5 files.
But the cause was very much up in the air, which had him convinced the K200D was better than the K-5 in this regard.

ie. Identifying magenta tinging where none should appear raises question as to why they are there(optical distortion, sensor distortion/bloom etc).
However... thankfully, we have others sources from which to draw our conclusions from also, and one of such sources is the infamous DxoMark which paints a rather good picture of the difference between both systems.

K200D, K-5 Signal Noise Ratio Comparison


K200D, K-5 Dynamic Range Comparison


Tonal Range Comparison


Color Range Comparison


Another good source(to investigate from) is with Imaging Resource and the infamous Comparometer. Which is a great tool for pixel peeping between the various systems so as to assess their strengths and weaknesses. In getting back to the response, I did notice a few requests for ISO100 samples. However, I think the topic initiated by MaKeR at dpreview helps show that sensor performances can prove to be critical even when shooting at or bellow nominal sensitivities(ISO100).
Despite it all, I am happy to say that the end result was.. a defective K-5 rather than what was initially thought at the beginning of the thread. And more importantly... where a normally functioning K-5 had no problems outperforming the K200D under the same conditions.

Hope this helps...

[yeatzee]

am I the only one not interested in comparison charts? Really, I own some pretty bad stuff according to various internet charts, yet I find them to never give even close to the whole story. People that own both, who are trust worthy, give me a much better idea even without images to back it up

I am eager to hear TOUGEFC's report back

btw: I dont get those images at all.

[goddo31]

am I the only one not interested in comparison charts? Really, I own some pretty bad stuff according to various internet charts, yet I find them to never give even close to the whole story. People that own both, who are trust worthy, give me a much better idea even without images to back it up

I am eager to hear TOUGEFC's report back

btw: I dont get those images at all.

No Tanner, you're not the only one

JohnBee - I appreciate your effort with the comparison stuff, but I think we all know the K-5 will beat the K200D with noise and push processing at 400ISO and above.
Not sure where you got 200ISO as the base either?? K200D should be base ISO 100 (it's not extended) and I thought the K-5 was the same.

I think what we are mainly interested in is properly exposed real world examples of colour, contrast and sharpness at or around 100ISO with the K200D vs K-5.
It will be an interesting comparison and I look forward to Simon's thoughts.

Meanwhile, after 20,000+ shots with the K200D I will have a K-5 coming next week! So I'll see how that goes too. Will be interesting to see how the DA35 macro stacks up.

cheers,
Jason

[yeatzee]

No Tanner, you're not the only one

JohnBee - I appreciate your effort with the comparison stuff, but I think we all know the K-5 will beat the K200D with noise and push processing at 400ISO and above.
Not sure where you got 200ISO as the base either?? K200D should be base ISO 100 (it's not extended) and I thought the K-5 was the same.

I think what we are mainly interested in is properly exposed real world examples of colour, contrast and sharpness at or around 100ISO with the K200D vs K-5.
It will be an interesting comparison and I look forward to Simon's thoughts.

Meanwhile, after 20,000+ shots with the K200D I will have a K-5 coming next week! So I'll see how that goes too. Will be interesting to see how the DA35 macro stacks up.

cheers,
Jason

can't wait to hear what you think!