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

ironlionzion · 10-27-2012, 05:36 AM

If you look at Adam's comparison pics - which are kind of preliminary at the moment - you see a much greater difference between the K5 and K5 iis than image resource shows

JinDesu · 10-27-2012, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by ironlionzion

If you look at Adam's comparison pics - which are kind of preliminary at the moment - you see a much greater difference between the K5 and K5 iis than image resource shows

Dunno - I was using the only available DNG files that I had to me. Of course, now that Adam's got both cameras, we should depend on his files

LeeRunge · 10-27-2012, 08:58 AM

I don't see that great of a difference between the two. I typically have my K5 and K7 sharpness settings boosted up a bit in JPEG and add some in PP in RAW. It seems like the K5IIs is a very subtle difference from what I'm seeing.

Hopefully the AF improvements are decent. I've been using center focus/manual focus on the K7/5 so much it's second nature at this point so what changes have occurred would have to be dramatic to make a difference.

It feels like sensor performance is not making the leaps and bounds lately now that we have good high ISO performance and plenty of megapixels. All the real dramatic changes are happening in the point and shoot market. Now that cell phones have higher quality cameras the manufacturers seem to be focusing on adding larger sensors/higher ISO to separate from the cell phone cam casual user to keep selling cameras. I would be very excited to see a NEX 7 offering with the RX100 menu interface in FF. Or just a FF RX200.

My RX100 is getting 90% of the shots these days, it's just that good.

**Pål Jensen** · 10-27-2012, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by wahid_satu

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

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

What I mean is the following:
Say, you shoot a sport event with your K-5. You need to use minimum F:4 to get enough DOF to get the subject in focus and 1/250s to to freeze the action. Say, at 1600ISO. In order to get the same image on FF; ie. minimum DOF and at least 1/250s to stop the action, you need to shoot at a minumum of 3200 ISO.

wahid_satu · 10-27-2012, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

Dunno - I was using the only available DNG files that I had to me. Of course, now that Adam's got both cameras, we should depend on his files

+1, and thanks for the disclaimer, Class A. We need that

wahid_satu · 10-27-2012, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

What I mean is the following:
Say, you shoot a sport event with your K-5. You need to use minimum F:4 to get enough DOF to get the subject in focus and 1/250s to to freeze the action. Say, at 1600ISO. In order to get the same image on FF; ie. minimum DOF and at least 1/250s to stop the action, you need to shoot at a minumum of 3200 ISO.

Well, you can use the same settings and lens (assuming it is compatible for both format) as on the K-5 and crop afterwards. But yea, shooting at ISO3200 with the Aperture dropped to F6.3 is okay too. You may well get the sharpest image the lens can offer and at 3200 there is still less noise on the D4 than on the K-5. That's what you get for spending more on an FF.

Class A · 10-27-2012, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by ironlionzion

If you look at Adam's comparison pics - which are kind of preliminary at the moment - you see a much greater difference between the K5 and K5 iis than image resource shows

Surely you must be referring to the first comparison he posted. If you look at the second comparison the differences are very subtle.

I truly appreciate the great work Adam puts into the forum and what he has done for Pentax over the years, but we need to bear in mind that Adam is not a professional tester.

Making proper comparisons takes an enormous amount of time and a meticulous approach. I'm pretty sure that the differences in the first comparison he made are way too high, whereas the differences in the second comparison are probably too low, caused by AF tolerances.

Look at the bottom right part of the image in the second comparison which actually shows the K-5 image having more detail than the K-5 IIs image. This is probably due to different AF results. Apparently they also used different lenses instead of one copy that is swapped between cameras.

Bottom line: One should never take Pentaxforums tests and conclusions as gospel.

Class A · 10-27-2012, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Pål Jensen

In order to get the same image on FF; ie. minimum DOF and at least 1/250s to stop the action, you need to shoot at a minumum of 3200 ISO.

True, but ISO 3200 on FF is as good as ISO 1600 on APS-C (due to the different enlargement factors).

Class A · 10-27-2012, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by ironlionzion

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.

I agree, but unfortunately its the reality.

Beats me why they didn't put an unambiguous focus target in the scene and then perform AF bracketing to pick out the best shot in a series for each camera. The images would be much more useful then.

ironlionzion · 10-27-2012, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Class A

Surely you must be referring to the first comparison he posted. If you look at the second comparison the differences are very subtle.

Yeah it's safe to say the difference is there, but relatively subtle. Definitely not enough for me to spend 1300 to upgrade from a K-x.

cali92rs · 11-02-2012, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by ironlionzion

What's kinda neat was the resolution of the Sigma DP1. From the imaging resource samples, it's around the D800 level.

That's correct, at base ISO...but anything higher and the IQ drops off dramatically.
Also, I've read (never handled one myself) that it is a real horrible handling camera.

Casion · 06-11-2013, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by JinDesu

Click for full size based on 100% crops of the center (or close enough).

Was a bit lazy and didn't align them perfectly. Clearest examples of the k-5IIs clarity is in the text on the bottle, and the pink leaf fabric pattern above and to the left of the bottle.

Only issue I have with imaging resources is that they may not be the best at making sure the focus is at the same point between pictures.

Images were taken from each individual camera's link - from their ISO 80 NR off picture. When I get home, I'll redo these with the DNGs, and then one more with digital sharpening to see how much more I can get out of the files.

Please do not use this strong JPEG compression next time, it makes your efforts for sharing useless.

normhead · 06-11-2013, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Casion

Please do not use this strong JPEG compression next time, it makes your efforts for sharing useless.

One of the reasons I don't do much of this, you do something, everyone becomes your boss and starts telling you what to do....

JinDesu · 06-11-2013, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Casion

Please do not use this strong JPEG compression next time, it makes your efforts for sharing useless.

I didn't use strong jpeg compression, as far as I know... if you are referring to the picture that you quoted - that's a crop of imagingresource's jpegs. I didn't make those jpegs, I only cropped and combined.

My edits are shown here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/203263-pentax-k-5-...ml#post2146889

Casion · 06-11-2013, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by JinDesu

I didn't use strong jpeg compression, as far as I know... if you are referring to the picture that you quoted - that's a crop of imagingresource's jpegs.

There are zero compression artefacts at imaging-resource.com.

To my surprise I didn't noticed two pages of discussion. All other samples are fine.

Originally posted by normhead

One of the reasons I don't do much of this, you do something, everyone becomes your boss and starts telling you what to do....

I am not saying that I am a boss of somebody.

10-27-2012, 10:59 AM	#34
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by wahid_satu I don't quite understand what you mean here, Pal, but here's how I got to my conclusion: What I mean is the following: Say, you shoot a sport event with your K-5. You need to use minimum F:4 to get enough DOF to get the subject in focus and 1/250s to to freeze the action. Say, at 1600ISO. In order to get the same image on FF; ie. minimum DOF and at least 1/250s to stop the action, you need to shoot at a minumum of 3200 ISO.

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

10-27-2012, 05:36 AM	#31
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	If you look at Adam's comparison pics - which are kind of preliminary at the moment - you see a much greater difference between the K5 and K5 iis than image resource shows

10-27-2012, 08:26 AM	#32
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638 Original Poster	Originally posted by ironlionzion If you look at Adam's comparison pics - which are kind of preliminary at the moment - you see a much greater difference between the K5 and K5 iis than image resource shows Dunno - I was using the only available DNG files that I had to me. Of course, now that Adam's got both cameras, we should depend on his files

10-27-2012, 08:58 AM	#33
LeeRunge Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 993	I don't see that great of a difference between the two. I typically have my K5 and K7 sharpness settings boosted up a bit in JPEG and add some in PP in RAW. It seems like the K5IIs is a very subtle difference from what I'm seeing. Hopefully the AF improvements are decent. I've been using center focus/manual focus on the K7/5 so much it's second nature at this point so what changes have occurred would have to be dramatic to make a difference. It feels like sensor performance is not making the leaps and bounds lately now that we have good high ISO performance and plenty of megapixels. All the real dramatic changes are happening in the point and shoot market. Now that cell phones have higher quality cameras the manufacturers seem to be focusing on adding larger sensors/higher ISO to separate from the cell phone cam casual user to keep selling cameras. I would be very excited to see a NEX 7 offering with the RX100 menu interface in FF. Or just a FF RX200. My RX100 is getting 90% of the shots these days, it's just that good.

10-27-2012, 02:24 PM	#35
wahid_satu Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Jakarta Photos: Gallery Posts: 96	Originally posted by JinDesu Dunno - I was using the only available DNG files that I had to me. Of course, now that Adam's got both cameras, we should depend on his files +1, and thanks for the disclaimer, Class A. We need that

10-27-2012, 02:38 PM	#36
wahid_satu Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Jakarta Photos: Gallery Posts: 96	Originally posted by Pål Jensen What I mean is the following: Say, you shoot a sport event with your K-5. You need to use minimum F:4 to get enough DOF to get the subject in focus and 1/250s to to freeze the action. Say, at 1600ISO. In order to get the same image on FF; ie. minimum DOF and at least 1/250s to stop the action, you need to shoot at a minumum of 3200 ISO. Well, you can use the same settings and lens (assuming it is compatible for both format) as on the K-5 and crop afterwards. But yea, shooting at ISO3200 with the Aperture dropped to F6.3 is okay too. You may well get the sharpest image the lens can offer and at 3200 there is still less noise on the D4 than on the K-5. That's what you get for spending more on an FF.

10-27-2012, 02:57 PM	#37
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by ironlionzion If you look at Adam's comparison pics - which are kind of preliminary at the moment - you see a much greater difference between the K5 and K5 iis than image resource shows Surely you must be referring to the first comparison he posted. If you look at the second comparison the differences are very subtle. I truly appreciate the great work Adam puts into the forum and what he has done for Pentax over the years, but we need to bear in mind that Adam is not a professional tester. Making proper comparisons takes an enormous amount of time and a meticulous approach. I'm pretty sure that the differences in the first comparison he made are way too high, whereas the differences in the second comparison are probably too low, caused by AF tolerances. Look at the bottom right part of the image in the second comparison which actually shows the K-5 image having more detail than the K-5 IIs image. This is probably due to different AF results. Apparently they also used different lenses instead of one copy that is swapped between cameras. Bottom line: One should never take Pentaxforums tests and conclusions as gospel.

10-27-2012, 03:03 PM	#38
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by Pål Jensen In order to get the same image on FF; ie. minimum DOF and at least 1/250s to stop the action, you need to shoot at a minumum of 3200 ISO. True, but ISO 3200 on FF is as good as ISO 1600 on APS-C (due to the different enlargement factors).

10-27-2012, 03:06 PM	#39
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	Originally posted by ironlionzion 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. I agree, but unfortunately its the reality. Beats me why they didn't put an unambiguous focus target in the scene and then perform AF bracketing to pick out the best shot in a series for each camera. The images would be much more useful then.

10-27-2012, 04:46 PM	#40
ironlionzion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 409	Originally posted by Class A Surely you must be referring to the first comparison he posted. If you look at the second comparison the differences are very subtle. Yeah it's safe to say the difference is there, but relatively subtle. Definitely not enough for me to spend 1300 to upgrade from a K-x.

11-02-2012, 10:48 AM	#41
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by ironlionzion What's kinda neat was the resolution of the Sigma DP1. From the imaging resource samples, it's around the D800 level. That's correct, at base ISO...but anything higher and the IQ drops off dramatically. Also, I've read (never handled one myself) that it is a real horrible handling camera.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2013, 08:53 AM	#42
Casion Senior Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 103	Originally posted by JinDesu Click for full size based on 100% crops of the center (or close enough). Was a bit lazy and didn't align them perfectly. Clearest examples of the k-5IIs clarity is in the text on the bottle, and the pink leaf fabric pattern above and to the left of the bottle. Only issue I have with imaging resources is that they may not be the best at making sure the focus is at the same point between pictures. Images were taken from each individual camera's link - from their ISO 80 NR off picture. When I get home, I'll redo these with the DNGs, and then one more with digital sharpening to see how much more I can get out of the files. Please do not use this strong JPEG compression next time, it makes your efforts for sharing useless.

06-11-2013, 09:04 AM	#43
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Casion Please do not use this strong JPEG compression next time, it makes your efforts for sharing useless. One of the reasons I don't do much of this, you do something, everyone becomes your boss and starts telling you what to do....

06-11-2013, 09:06 AM	#44
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638 Original Poster	Originally posted by Casion Please do not use this strong JPEG compression next time, it makes your efforts for sharing useless. I didn't use strong jpeg compression, as far as I know... if you are referring to the picture that you quoted - that's a crop of imagingresource's jpegs. I didn't make those jpegs, I only cropped and combined. My edits are shown here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/203263-pentax-k-5-...ml#post2146889

06-11-2013, 09:37 AM	#45
Casion Senior Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 103	Originally posted by JinDesu I didn't use strong jpeg compression, as far as I know... if you are referring to the picture that you quoted - that's a crop of imagingresource's jpegs. There are zero compression artefacts at imaging-resource.com. To my surprise I didn't noticed two pages of discussion. All other samples are fine. Originally posted by normhead One of the reasons I don't do much of this, you do something, everyone becomes your boss and starts telling you what to do.... I am not saying that I am a boss of somebody.