Pentax k-5 vs k-5II vs k-5IIs from Imaging Resources samples

wahid_satu · 10-25-2012, 03:45 PM

How 'bout as sharp as the D4!

I was planning to post this in a new thread, but this thread pops up so I put them here. All are jpegs from raws at ISO100 processed with Rawtherapee using neutral settings, Amaze demosaicing, and saved in JPEG quality 100, and no PPs, so this is as bare as we can get. Strangely IR overexpose the K-5's by 2/3 compared to the other cameras so I had to make a little adjustment to get the same eV (Still a touch over on the K, though

). I'm sure this has no effect on sharpness.

D7000

D4

K5-IIs

Assuming the Hellas vinegar Label is the sharpest area of all three pictures. I think it is save to say the K-5IIs beats the D7000 and matchess the D4 in terms of sharpness!

Other notable point: Red is noticably more saturated on the K, but dark blue more saturated on D4. That's why the red leaves cloth has much more detail on the D4 than the K (not shown here, head to IR if u wanna know). It's interesting to see what will happen if they take pictures of similar cloth but now in dark blue. Would the K retain more detail?

Hope this helps.

JinDesu · 10-25-2012, 03:49 PM

Agreed. Sharper than the D7000 (same sensor as k-5 anyways), and looks about the same as the 16.2MP FF D4.

Ok - did the file comparisons between the k-5II and the k-5IIs DNG files from Imaging Resources. ISO 100, F8, blah blah.

Click for full size 100% crops

Unsharp mask settings for the right images are 140% and 1.2 pixels. For greatest detail comparison, see the fabrics.

SyncGuy · 10-25-2012, 06:29 PM

Ouh...... Viewing from my iPad2 is more than enough! I can see the difference in sharpness already...

JinDesu · 10-25-2012, 07:33 PM

I suspect both can undergo even more sharpening, with the artifacts appearing on the bottle first. The fabric can definitely get even sharper - and I would posit that the k-5IIs can undergo more sharpening than the k-5II.

westmill · 10-26-2012, 02:27 AM

mmmmmmmmmmmm so far my thoughts are if you need to pixel peep and strain your eyes to spot the slight differances then the differances are so slight its hardly worth taking into consideration. The top set of pics is interesting. The D4 wins with ease to my eyes. Even though I see a tad more detail in the K5 2 over the D7000, the D7000 shows a far more pleasing image for me. The K5 2 images just look flat and lifeless. I think just adding a little contrast would pull it back into line though. So my sumerisation for now is, its highly unlikely you will see any differance in a print. If you print big enough you will see an obvious differance with the D4 because its a FF of course. As sharpness goes, 12 million pixel is more than enough unless you have a specific purpose lol. Where AAless cameras usualy score well is there noisless high ISO ability. It would be far more interesting to see the same pics rated at 6400 ISO. Just about every camera these days perform well at 200 ISO so all this is just imaterial really.

JinDesu · 10-26-2012, 04:45 AM

It is true, you have to pixel peep - however, the difference is there, and it is important to people who crop (like me). I find that the k-5IIs allows me to crop a lot more than the k-5II.

As far as saturation and contrast, that's certainly a PP question and shouldn't be held against the sensor. And we know the k-5 is better than the D7000 at high ISO, so therefore the k-5II and k-5IIs will probably be as good or better. In fact, AA-less sensor will more than likely perform even better than the AA one, if by just a small margin. We don't know if Pentax has pulled off even more magic on their high ISO front.

westmill · 10-26-2012, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by JinDesu

It is true, you have to pixel peep - however, the difference is there, and it is important to people who crop (like me). I find that the k-5IIs allows me to crop a lot more than the k-5II.

As far as saturation and contrast, that's certainly a PP question and shouldn't be held against the sensor. And we know the k-5 is better than the D7000 at high ISO, so therefore the k-5II and k-5IIs will probably be as good or better. In fact, AA-less sensor will more than likely perform even better than the AA one, if by just a small margin. We don't know if Pentax has pulled off even more magic on their high ISO front.

mmmmm I think the differance is small enough to be irelevent personly cropping or not. It could well be a different story at high ISO though. Im just going by the Fuji x range here though. One of the best high ISO performers is the new FF Cannon 5, but the fuji is on a simlar level, which is outstanding. If the AAless Pentax performs that well then I think that would be the reason for most for paying that bit extra for the S. Thats just my personal opinion of course. I do think there is likely to be a large and notable differance in the 6400 and even higher ISO range. As you say.... Pentax does a good job in this department. So we could be in for greatness

JinDesu · 10-26-2012, 05:08 AM

That would be my hope - the RAW files from Pentax have been amazing for their noise performance on the k-5, especially when compared to the D7000 and the Sonys that use the same sensor. If Pentax can get just a bit more out of it, that would be great.

westmill · 10-26-2012, 06:14 AM

Well you know me Jin lol I do not like FF cameras but I miss and want there higher ISO ability

Fuji has shown APSC can match FF by removing the AA filter. Im seriously looking at the Fuji X pro 1 at the mo. Now I seem to be holding back a little as the Pentax could well be a viable option for me.

wahid_satu · 10-26-2012, 01:30 PM

At high ISOs the 2s just doesn't stand a chance against FF. Comparing again with the D4 (arguably the best FF in noise level at high ISO), at 6400 the 2s loses by at least a stop. Against the D600 it is a bit better, but just a bit.

Against the X-Pro it's more complicated as my software don't support the X-CMOS sensor so I have to compare the 2s DNG against Xpro in camera JPG at 6400:

X-Pro1 (in-camera JPG NR1, whatever that is)

K5-IIs (from DNG, no PP)

The X-pro is a bit over exposed (1/500 vs 1/800). From these, I think noise performance is about the same-the 2s' can be NR'd to the same noise level *and* detail as the Xpro jpg-but the 2s is a bit sharper looking at the Samuel Smith Label, and it also seems to use better lens! If we look at the proportional scale the instructions are more readable on the 2s, so the edge sharpness is better on the 2s. At first I thought it's the NR, but looking at the ISO 100 shot it is the same (assuming NR is less severe at that ISO), the 2s is sharper there.

Just my observations on a boring friday night,

.

edit: Actually they are using very different FLs. 2s using 70mm, Xpro using a 35mm. So disregard the comment on sharpness please :P

**interested_observer** · 10-26-2012, 02:21 PM

In terms of the comparison of the K5, II and IIs. Having to go to 100% is one thing, but at 100% what is the estimated percentage of increase across the images, everyone is seeing. Can you quantify the improvement you are seeing. Initially weeks ago, I was thinking perhaps on the order of 5% for IIs, however now I am thinking of 1% to 2% max - if that. You would need good glass and to be printing very large to really see the difference.

Right now there is what - a $500 difference in price K5 vs the IIs. That's a difference of 35%. I am just as happy with the K5 - actually, I am ecstatic.. Yes, there is the improved AF low light capability, but I am up on a tripod anyway, manual focusing, so I think that I am good for certainly the next 3 years - at least. The K5 is one heck of a camera - it might be 2 years old, but it is holding its own very well....

**Pål Jensen** · 10-26-2012, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by wahid_satu

At high ISOs the 2s just doesn't stand a chance against FF. Comparing again with the D4 (arguably the best FF in noise level at high ISO), at 6400 the 2s loses by at least a stop. Against the D600 it is a bit better, but just a bit.

If theres one stop difference between the D4 and the K-5 then they are equal for the same image; ie same DOF and shutterspeed. You need to use one stop faster ISO on FF.

wahid_satu · 10-26-2012, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

If theres one stop difference between the D4 and the K-5 then they are equal for the same image; ie same DOF and shutterspeed. You need to use one stop faster ISO on FF.

I don't quite understand what you mean here, Pal

, but here's how I got to my conclusion:

I compared the IR's raws of the D4 at 1/1250 F8 ISO6400 against the IIs at 1/400 F8 ISO3200. The ISO difference is 1 stop and the shutter speed difference is about 1 stop, I think, total difference is 2-stop. At those settings, the D4's image is noticeably darker on my monitor than the IIs'. So I compensate the IIs image by -0.75 to get the same light levels between the two. At those settings the noise and detail level between the two images are about the same. Thus the D4 has a 1.25 stop advantage in terms of High ISO noise, maybe even more.

Class A · 10-26-2012, 09:03 PM

I know it is tempting but shots from Imageresource or Dpreview should never be used for sharpness comparisons. The creators will be the first to admit that they don't even attempt to achieve consistent focus between different cameras.

These images aren't meant for sharpness comparisons and shouldn't be used for this purpose.

ironlionzion · 10-27-2012, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Class A

I know it is tempting but shots from Imageresource or Dpreview should never be used for sharpness comparisons. The creators will be the first to admit that they don't even attempt to achieve consistent focus between different cameras. These images aren't meant for sharpness comparisons and shouldn't be used for this purpose.

Yeah I was looking into image resource and I found someone who quoted the boss of image resource as saying it should only be used as a comparison between cameras in terms of jpeg color output....kind of lame in my opinion.

10-25-2012, 03:45 PM	#16
wahid_satu Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Jakarta Photos: Gallery Posts: 96	How sharp is the K-5IIs? How 'bout as sharp as the D4! I was planning to post this in a new thread, but this thread pops up so I put them here. All are jpegs from raws at ISO100 processed with Rawtherapee using neutral settings, Amaze demosaicing, and saved in JPEG quality 100, and no PPs, so this is as bare as we can get. Strangely IR overexpose the K-5's by 2/3 compared to the other cameras so I had to make a little adjustment to get the same eV (Still a touch over on the K, though). I'm sure this has no effect on sharpness. D7000 D4 K5-IIs Assuming the Hellas vinegar Label is the sharpest area of all three pictures. I think it is save to say the K-5IIs beats the D7000 and matchess the D4 in terms of sharpness! Other notable point: Red is noticably more saturated on the K, but dark blue more saturated on D4. That's why the red leaves cloth has much more detail on the D4 than the K (not shown here, head to IR if u wanna know). It's interesting to see what will happen if they take pictures of similar cloth but now in dark blue. Would the K retain more detail? Hope this helps.

10-25-2012, 03:49 PM	#17
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638 Original Poster	Agreed. Sharper than the D7000 (same sensor as k-5 anyways), and looks about the same as the 16.2MP FF D4. Ok - did the file comparisons between the k-5II and the k-5IIs DNG files from Imaging Resources. ISO 100, F8, blah blah. Click for full size 100% crops Unsharp mask settings for the right images are 140% and 1.2 pixels. For greatest detail comparison, see the fabrics. Last edited by JinDesu; 10-25-2012 at 04:18 PM.

10-26-2012, 01:30 PM	#25
wahid_satu Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Jakarta Photos: Gallery Posts: 96	At high ISOs the 2s just doesn't stand a chance against FF. Comparing again with the D4 (arguably the best FF in noise level at high ISO), at 6400 the 2s loses by at least a stop. Against the D600 it is a bit better, but just a bit. Against the X-Pro it's more complicated as my software don't support the X-CMOS sensor so I have to compare the 2s DNG against Xpro in camera JPG at 6400: X-Pro1 (in-camera JPG NR1, whatever that is) K5-IIs (from DNG, no PP) The X-pro is a bit over exposed (1/500 vs 1/800). From these, I think noise performance is about the same-the 2s' can be NR'd to the same noise level and detail as the Xpro jpg-but the 2s is a bit sharper looking at the Samuel Smith Label, and it also seems to use better lens! If we look at the proportional scale the instructions are more readable on the 2s, so the edge sharpness is better on the 2s. At first I thought it's the NR, but looking at the ISO 100 shot it is the same (assuming NR is less severe at that ISO), the 2s is sharper there. Just my observations on a boring friday night, . edit: Actually they are using very different FLs. 2s using 70mm, Xpro using a 35mm. So disregard the comment on sharpness please :P Last edited by wahid_satu; 10-26-2012 at 05:38 PM.

10-26-2012, 06:39 PM	#28
wahid_satu Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Jakarta Photos: Gallery Posts: 96	Originally posted by Pål Jensen If theres one stop difference between the D4 and the K-5 then they are equal for the same image; ie same DOF and shutterspeed. You need to use one stop faster ISO on FF. I don't quite understand what you mean here, Pal, but here's how I got to my conclusion: I compared the IR's raws of the D4 at 1/1250 F8 ISO6400 against the IIs at 1/400 F8 ISO3200. The ISO difference is 1 stop and the shutter speed difference is about 1 stop, I think, total difference is 2-stop. At those settings, the D4's image is noticeably darker on my monitor than the IIs'. So I compensate the IIs image by -0.75 to get the same light levels between the two. At those settings the noise and detail level between the two images are about the same. Thus the D4 has a 1.25 stop advantage in terms of High ISO noise, maybe even more.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K-5IIs Test Shots at Imaging Resources	bgdisc	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	10-20-2012 05:25 AM
When Will the K-5II & K-5IIs Test Shots Start Coming Out?	reivax	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	09-22-2012 07:07 AM
Imaging resources review...	jeffkrol	Pentax News and Rumors	18	08-29-2009 09:58 PM
K-7 Full test at Imaging-resources.	pcarfan	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	08-15-2009 12:46 PM
Imaging Resources K10D review	*isteve	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	04-06-2007 06:44 AM

10-25-2012, 06:29 PM	#18
SyncGuy Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 821	Ouh...... Viewing from my iPad2 is more than enough! I can see the difference in sharpness already...

10-25-2012, 07:33 PM	#19
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638 Original Poster	I suspect both can undergo even more sharpening, with the artifacts appearing on the bottle first. The fabric can definitely get even sharper - and I would posit that the k-5IIs can undergo more sharpening than the k-5II.

10-26-2012, 02:27 AM	#20
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	mmmmmmmmmmmm so far my thoughts are if you need to pixel peep and strain your eyes to spot the slight differances then the differances are so slight its hardly worth taking into consideration. The top set of pics is interesting. The D4 wins with ease to my eyes. Even though I see a tad more detail in the K5 2 over the D7000, the D7000 shows a far more pleasing image for me. The K5 2 images just look flat and lifeless. I think just adding a little contrast would pull it back into line though. So my sumerisation for now is, its highly unlikely you will see any differance in a print. If you print big enough you will see an obvious differance with the D4 because its a FF of course. As sharpness goes, 12 million pixel is more than enough unless you have a specific purpose lol. Where AAless cameras usualy score well is there noisless high ISO ability. It would be far more interesting to see the same pics rated at 6400 ISO. Just about every camera these days perform well at 200 ISO so all this is just imaterial really.

10-26-2012, 04:45 AM	#21
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638 Original Poster	It is true, you have to pixel peep - however, the difference is there, and it is important to people who crop (like me). I find that the k-5IIs allows me to crop a lot more than the k-5II. As far as saturation and contrast, that's certainly a PP question and shouldn't be held against the sensor. And we know the k-5 is better than the D7000 at high ISO, so therefore the k-5II and k-5IIs will probably be as good or better. In fact, AA-less sensor will more than likely perform even better than the AA one, if by just a small margin. We don't know if Pentax has pulled off even more magic on their high ISO front.

10-26-2012, 05:04 AM	#22
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Originally posted by JinDesu It is true, you have to pixel peep - however, the difference is there, and it is important to people who crop (like me). I find that the k-5IIs allows me to crop a lot more than the k-5II. As far as saturation and contrast, that's certainly a PP question and shouldn't be held against the sensor. And we know the k-5 is better than the D7000 at high ISO, so therefore the k-5II and k-5IIs will probably be as good or better. In fact, AA-less sensor will more than likely perform even better than the AA one, if by just a small margin. We don't know if Pentax has pulled off even more magic on their high ISO front. mmmmm I think the differance is small enough to be irelevent personly cropping or not. It could well be a different story at high ISO though. Im just going by the Fuji x range here though. One of the best high ISO performers is the new FF Cannon 5, but the fuji is on a simlar level, which is outstanding. If the AAless Pentax performs that well then I think that would be the reason for most for paying that bit extra for the S. Thats just my personal opinion of course. I do think there is likely to be a large and notable differance in the 6400 and even higher ISO range. As you say.... Pentax does a good job in this department. So we could be in for greatness

10-26-2012, 05:08 AM	#23
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638 Original Poster	That would be my hope - the RAW files from Pentax have been amazing for their noise performance on the k-5, especially when compared to the D7000 and the Sonys that use the same sensor. If Pentax can get just a bit more out of it, that would be great.

10-26-2012, 06:14 AM	#24
westmill Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Stoke on Trent Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,146	Well you know me Jin lol I do not like FF cameras but I miss and want there higher ISO ability Fuji has shown APSC can match FF by removing the AA filter. Im seriously looking at the Fuji X pro 1 at the mo. Now I seem to be holding back a little as the Pentax could well be a viable option for me.

10-26-2012, 02:21 PM	#26
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	In terms of the comparison of the K5, II and IIs. Having to go to 100% is one thing, but at 100% what is the estimated percentage of increase across the images, everyone is seeing. Can you quantify the improvement you are seeing. Initially weeks ago, I was thinking perhaps on the order of 5% for IIs, however now I am thinking of 1% to 2% max - if that. You would need good glass and to be printing very large to really see the difference. Right now there is what - a $500 difference in price K5 vs the IIs. That's a difference of 35%. I am just as happy with the K5 - actually, I am ecstatic.. Yes, there is the improved AF low light capability, but I am up on a tripod anyway, manual focusing, so I think that I am good for certainly the next 3 years - at least. The K5 is one heck of a camera - it might be 2 years old, but it is holding its own very well....

10-26-2012, 04:29 PM	#27
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by wahid_satu At high ISOs the 2s just doesn't stand a chance against FF. Comparing again with the D4 (arguably the best FF in noise level at high ISO), at 6400 the 2s loses by at least a stop. Against the D600 it is a bit better, but just a bit. If theres one stop difference between the D4 and the K-5 then they are equal for the same image; ie same DOF and shutterspeed. You need to use one stop faster ISO on FF.

10-26-2012, 09:03 PM	#29
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	I know it is tempting but shots from Imageresource or Dpreview should never be used for sharpness comparisons. The creators will be the first to admit that they don't even attempt to achieve consistent focus between different cameras. These images aren't meant for sharpness comparisons and shouldn't be used for this purpose.

10-27-2012, 05:33 AM	#30
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	Originally posted by Class A I know it is tempting but shots from Imageresource or Dpreview should never be used for sharpness comparisons. The creators will be the first to admit that they don't even attempt to achieve consistent focus between different cameras. These images aren't meant for sharpness comparisons and shouldn't be used for this purpose. Yeah I was looking into image resource and I found someone who quoted the boss of image resource as saying it should only be used as a comparison between cameras in terms of jpeg color output....kind of lame in my opinion.