BobD2: You have some valid and interesting arguments there.
Originally posted by BobD2 First thing is from your description of doing the test, it sounds like you set out with the intent of making the images look the same ("I can get results that are very similar with appropriate settings in ACR"). I'm not saying that's a bad approach - it's a worthy comparison strategy, but if you set out to see if you could get the images to look the same, then you might be subduing the punchier color we claim the CCD sensor is capable of.
Quite right, that's what I was trying to do--but not just for the sake of comparison but because I always try to get my raw shots to look the way I like them. In the K10D days I routinely used to turn the saturation down a little because I found the 0 setting oversaturated for my taste in most shots. I don't do it (or do it to a lesser degree) with the K-5II.
Originally posted by BobD2 The second thing is that you scaled both images down to a smaller equal size, so differences other than color may be equalized. For example, I'm convinced that by packing 16 million pixels versus 10 onto the same size sensor and also working hard to keep noise levels low at high ISO settings makes for softer images at low ISO settings with the K-5 or K-5II. But if you scale both images down to 1000 pixels or less, however, the possibly softer image from the K-5II may tighten up and look very similar to the K10D image. I'm willing to bet if you did a 100% crop out of the middle of both test images, while the K-5II crop would show details at a larger size, it would also appear softer. From personally owning both cameras, I'm still convinced that what you gain in mega pixels you lose in sharpness, and that when pixel peeping, it's only when you scale down a K-5 image to the size of a K10D image do you see similar sharpness at 1:1 pixel ratio.
Now things are getting complicated. The first statement (about equalizing other differences) is no doubt true. But I don't buy the argument about the 10 MP sensor producing sharper images. This has a lot to do with the lenses you use: a lens that does not clearly outperform the 10 MP sensor will
appear sharper because the 16 MP sensor will not bring out more detail but rather the limitations of the lens. With a higher resolution lens things will look different.
Yesterday's test shots are not very well suited to prove my point, but we may nevertheless take a closer look (below). I'm not 100% sure that the distance was set identically in both shots as I was not testing for sharpness. But I have done such tests before and this were my conclusions: with the finest details that it can resolve, the 10 MP sensor may appear more crisp but if you look closer this is mostly due to aliasing effects rather than real detail. If you leave the 10 MP shot at its 100% resolution and scale down the 16 MP shot to the same size you get a lot more real detail.
However, I also made an observation that I did not sufficiently test for a clear conclusion: it may be that the corners with wide-angle lenses are
relatively less sharp with the K-5II. There are two possible explanations as far as I can see: either it is the same effect I just mentioned--that the lens resolution falls below the 16 MP sensor resolution and we really see the limitations of the lens; or that it has to do with the microlens/AA filter construction of the K-5II (in that case the K-5IIs should probably behave better).
Originally posted by BobD2 Lastly there's my own claim that CCD images from the K10D are more "film-like", which I love because I still love and still shoot film. My thinking there is that as noise does creep in with the K10D sensor, as long as you remove the color noise in ACR or equivalent, the luminance noise that's left is what's giving the images a more film-like look. I definitely know this is subjective, and I know some people would rather see less noise - period - regardless of the nature of that noise. But personally, I sometimes shoot at ISO 800 on the K10D in broad daylight because I like the film-like noise it will give my images.
I used to shoot for many years what must have been the most grainy 100 ISO slide film ever (Agfachrome CT 21) because I loved its colours. If you like noise you can get it from the K-5II too--but I agree that the K10D may be more "film-like" in its noise structure because the K-5II under some circumstances can produce noise with a more regular, raster-like appearance. However, I did not like the banding colour noise of K10D high-ISO shots which you cannot really get rid of. And I find that it is much easier with the K-5II to retrieve highlights that are blocked with the standard settings. With the K10D--at least with ACR--they tend to discolour, I assume because there is remaining usable detail only in one of the colour channels.
K10D, 100% crop
K-5II scaled to K10D resolution
K-5II, 100% crop