Has DXOmark given up on Pentax?

Jonathan Mac · 11-30-2021, 04:44 AM

Originally posted by Michail_P

Yeah that does make sense I’m afraid. It shouldn’t but it does. So where could someone get a comparative perspective on the sensor of these models?

I suppose checking the sensors that go into similar cameras from other brands, but mirrorless cameras almost always come with AF pixels built into the sensors these days, which impact image quality, while for DSLRs this isn't as important as it's only used when focusing in live-view, which is in theory a "secondary" way of using the camera.

**StiffLegged** · 11-30-2021, 05:49 AM - **1 Like**

You could instead use the camera to make photos: I didn’t see any on DXO, don’t think they do that.

Or are we suffering from Fear Of Missing Out?

normhead · 11-30-2021, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Jonathan Mac

I suppose checking the sensors that go into similar cameras from other brands, but mirrorless cameras almost always come with AF pixels built into the sensors these days, which impact image quality, while for DSLRs this isn't as important as it's only used when focusing in live-view, which is in theory a "secondary" way of using the camera.

I have two EVs in relatively cheap cameras. I might have used them twice in 5 years. I think I've blindly pointed a wide angle at a scene hoping for the best as often as I've used the EVs.

**Rondec** · 11-30-2021, 07:12 AM - **1 Like**

I don't want to beat up DXO Mark's scores too much, but too much was always made of small differences in scores. 2 or 3 points difference really is unlikely to impact image quality. Base iso dynamic range seems to overstate the effect of numerous auto focus points on the sensor, as that introduces banding at lower isos. DXO Mark always knocked the effect that something like the accelerator brought to the table.

normhead · 11-30-2021, 07:24 AM

Quote:

I don't want to beat up DXO Mark's scores too much, but too much was always made of small differences in scores.

This was discussed years ago. Our consensus at that time was that images within 5 points of each other are indistinguishable. 5 points may make a difference to measuring devices... it make no difference to the human eye. As long as you go into the comparison with the mindset that less than 5 points difference is really a tie, you'll be good.

Especially wth interpretive numbers, that are derivations of the actual feature being studied, you have to understand the value of what you're looking at.

**Rondec** · 11-30-2021, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by normhead

This was discussed years ago. Our consensus at that time was that images within 5 points of each other are indistinguishable. 5 points may make a difference to measuring devices... it make no difference to the human eye. As long as you go into the comparison with the mindset that less than 5 points difference is really a tie, you'll be good.

Especially wth interpretive numbers, that are derivations of the actual feature being studied, you have to understand the value of what you're looking at.

When the K-5 came out, its high iso score was 20 or 30 points better than the D7000 score. Some people made a big deal about it at the time as Pentax had bragging rights as best APS-C sensor out at the time. The reality was that they had roughly the same sensor and while I like Pentax's rendering better, this tiny difference shouldn't make anyone's mind about what camera to get.

**ffking** · 11-30-2021, 07:39 AM

more of a shame is the ephotozine seem to have given up reviewing Pentax (or Ricoh has stopped feeding them samples?)- they always seemed fair and thus favourable

normhead · 11-30-2021, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by ffking

more of a shame is the ephotozine seem to have given up reviewing Pentax (or Ricoh has stopped feeding them samples?)- they always seemed fair and thus favourable

Maybe their Pentax guy retired?

normhead · 11-30-2021, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

When the K-5 came out, its high iso score was 20 or 30 points better than the D7000 score. Some people made a big deal about it at the time as Pentax had bragging rights as best APS-C sensor out at the time. The reality was that they had roughly the same sensor and while I like Pentax's rendering better, this tiny difference shouldn't make anyone's mind about what camera to get.

We used to talk about Pentax DR as better than Canons, but there I was at craft show beside a Canon guy, and he had some very good images. Some of which were better because he used the lack of DR to his advantage. A few years alter when I saw him again, he'd switched to Nikon as he was getting heavier into landscapes, but for what he shot before, flowers, grunge locations, decaying manufactured products, the Canon did just fine for him.

He was shooting with a DR of a little over 11 EV, I was shooting with close to 14 EV. My observation was, if you don't need the DR because your subject didn't exceed 11 EV of DR, the lower DR made for the appearance of higher contrast, and in some image, it really gave his images some punch.

**Rondec** · 11-30-2021, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by normhead

We used to talk about Pentax DR as better than Canons, but there I was at craft show beside a Canon guy, and he had some very good images. Some of which were better because he used the lack of DR to his advantage. A few years alter when I saw him again, he'd switched to Nikon as he was getting heavier into landscapes, but for what he shot before, flowers, grunge locations, decaying manufactured products, the Canon did just fine for him.

He was shooting with a DR of a little over 11 EV, I was shooting with close to 14 EV. My observation was, if you don't need the DR because your subject didn't exceed 11 EV of DR, the lower DR made for the appearance of higher contrast, and in some image, it really gave his images some punch.

I think the big thing was that curves looked pretty similar between Canon and Nikon after about iso 400. It wasn't as big a deal for non-tripod shooting because of that.

There is a point where it is difficult if you are a landscape shooter. The K-7 really was pretty miserable -- push the shadows much and you get serious banding. The only solution was multiple exposures and HDR. I'm glad that modern cameras don't require that as it could easily give an unnatural look.

normhead · 11-30-2021, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I think the big thing was that curves looked pretty similar between Canon and Nikon after about iso 400. It wasn't as big a deal for non-tripod shooting because of that.

There is a point where it is difficult if you are a landscape shooter. The K-7 really was pretty miserable -- push the shadows much and you get serious banding. The only solution was multiple exposures and HDR. I'm glad that modern cameras don't require that as it could easily give an unnatural look.

For me, the K-5 was the turning point.. and we still own and shoot two of them.

**acoufap** · 11-30-2021, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by normhead

So you're saying there are lens profiles for all my lenses somewhere? Because that was my complaint.

Hi normhead, that's reason why I recently purchased DXO PhotoLab in addition to Capture One Pro - look here and you may find what you're looking for - camera and lens profiles.

At least all the Pentax lenses I own are supported with the exception of the M lenses.

Some more words and this

house · 11-30-2021, 10:16 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rondec

I think the big thing was that curves looked pretty similar between Canon and Nikon after about iso 400. It wasn't as big a deal for non-tripod shooting because of that.

There is a point where it is difficult if you are a landscape shooter. The K-7 really was pretty miserable -- push the shadows much and you get serious banding. The only solution was multiple exposures and HDR. I'm glad that modern cameras don't require that as it could easily give an unnatural look.

Even when you have access to dynamic range it's quite difficult to manage it in a way that look natural imho. It's really quite the skill pushing a wide dynamic range into a smaller one whilst maintaining a natural looking image.

**Michail_P** · 11-30-2021, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by house

Even when you have access to dynamic range it's quite difficult to manage it in a way that look natural imho. It's really quite the skill pushing a wide dynamic range into a smaller one whilst maintaining a natural looking image.

I’m a fan of this process. I started playing with this inevitably, when I would shoot with my 8mp CCD ... only low iso , purely for nice strong light, limited DR (with today’s standards) gaining great shadows, punchy color palette and texture, with a realistic look. High contrast, high quality. Fun, authentic.
Sometimes a good photo is beyond the technically correct approach.

pschlute · 11-30-2021, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by house

Even when you have access to dynamic range it's quite difficult to manage it in a way that look natural imho. It's really quite the skill pushing a wide dynamic range into a smaller one whilst maintaining a natural looking image

I disagree. Today using modern software it is easy to produce a HDR image that looks natural with bracketed exposures.

11-30-2021, 09:12 AM	#27
acoufap Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Munich, Germany Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,187	Originally posted by normhead So you're saying there are lens profiles for all my lenses somewhere? Because that was my complaint. Hi normhead, that's reason why I recently purchased DXO PhotoLab in addition to Capture One Pro - look here and you may find what you're looking for - camera and lens profiles. At least all the Pentax lenses I own are supported with the exception of the M lenses. Some more words and this Last edited by acoufap; 11-30-2021 at 09:25 AM. Reason: Added some more words and this link.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
I have given up on Gurushots	Wasp	General Photography	24	12-13-2019 01:55 AM
What has happened to dxomark?	Igor123	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	16	09-07-2016 09:08 AM
Given up on old Q- is Q7/Q-S1 much improved?	SteveNunez	Pentax Q	39	11-06-2015 04:55 AM
DXOMark latest lenses on K50 compared to K5 has me really confused	Erictator	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	8	08-27-2013 01:28 PM
DXOMark has added more lens tests	audiobomber	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	11-25-2010 07:41 PM

11-30-2021, 04:44 AM	#16
Jonathan Mac Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 10,897 Original Poster	Originally posted by Michail_P Yeah that does make sense I’m afraid. It shouldn’t but it does. So where could someone get a comparative perspective on the sensor of these models? I suppose checking the sensors that go into similar cameras from other brands, but mirrorless cameras almost always come with AF pixels built into the sensors these days, which impact image quality, while for DSLRs this isn't as important as it's only used when focusing in live-view, which is in theory a "secondary" way of using the camera.

11-30-2021, 05:49 AM - 1 Like	#17
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,617	You could instead use the camera to make photos: I didn’t see any on DXO, don’t think they do that. Or are we suffering from Fear Of Missing Out?

11-30-2021, 06:15 AM	#18
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Jonathan Mac I suppose checking the sensors that go into similar cameras from other brands, but mirrorless cameras almost always come with AF pixels built into the sensors these days, which impact image quality, while for DSLRs this isn't as important as it's only used when focusing in live-view, which is in theory a "secondary" way of using the camera. I have two EVs in relatively cheap cameras. I might have used them twice in 5 years. I think I've blindly pointed a wide angle at a scene hoping for the best as often as I've used the EVs.

11-30-2021, 07:12 AM - 1 Like	#19
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	I don't want to beat up DXO Mark's scores too much, but too much was always made of small differences in scores. 2 or 3 points difference really is unlikely to impact image quality. Base iso dynamic range seems to overstate the effect of numerous auto focus points on the sensor, as that introduces banding at lower isos. DXO Mark always knocked the effect that something like the accelerator brought to the table.

11-30-2021, 07:24 AM	#20
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Quote: I don't want to beat up DXO Mark's scores too much, but too much was always made of small differences in scores. This was discussed years ago. Our consensus at that time was that images within 5 points of each other are indistinguishable. 5 points may make a difference to measuring devices... it make no difference to the human eye. As long as you go into the comparison with the mindset that less than 5 points difference is really a tie, you'll be good. Especially wth interpretive numbers, that are derivations of the actual feature being studied, you have to understand the value of what you're looking at.

11-30-2021, 07:33 AM	#21
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by normhead This was discussed years ago. Our consensus at that time was that images within 5 points of each other are indistinguishable. 5 points may make a difference to measuring devices... it make no difference to the human eye. As long as you go into the comparison with the mindset that less than 5 points difference is really a tie, you'll be good. Especially wth interpretive numbers, that are derivations of the actual feature being studied, you have to understand the value of what you're looking at. When the K-5 came out, its high iso score was 20 or 30 points better than the D7000 score. Some people made a big deal about it at the time as Pentax had bragging rights as best APS-C sensor out at the time. The reality was that they had roughly the same sensor and while I like Pentax's rendering better, this tiny difference shouldn't make anyone's mind about what camera to get.

11-30-2021, 07:39 AM	#22
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,038	more of a shame is the ephotozine seem to have given up reviewing Pentax (or Ricoh has stopped feeding them samples?)- they always seemed fair and thus favourable

11-30-2021, 07:42 AM	#23
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by ffking more of a shame is the ephotozine seem to have given up reviewing Pentax (or Ricoh has stopped feeding them samples?)- they always seemed fair and thus favourable Maybe their Pentax guy retired?

11-30-2021, 08:10 AM	#24
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Rondec When the K-5 came out, its high iso score was 20 or 30 points better than the D7000 score. Some people made a big deal about it at the time as Pentax had bragging rights as best APS-C sensor out at the time. The reality was that they had roughly the same sensor and while I like Pentax's rendering better, this tiny difference shouldn't make anyone's mind about what camera to get. We used to talk about Pentax DR as better than Canons, but there I was at craft show beside a Canon guy, and he had some very good images. Some of which were better because he used the lack of DR to his advantage. A few years alter when I saw him again, he'd switched to Nikon as he was getting heavier into landscapes, but for what he shot before, flowers, grunge locations, decaying manufactured products, the Canon did just fine for him. He was shooting with a DR of a little over 11 EV, I was shooting with close to 14 EV. My observation was, if you don't need the DR because your subject didn't exceed 11 EV of DR, the lower DR made for the appearance of higher contrast, and in some image, it really gave his images some punch.

11-30-2021, 08:21 AM	#25
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by normhead We used to talk about Pentax DR as better than Canons, but there I was at craft show beside a Canon guy, and he had some very good images. Some of which were better because he used the lack of DR to his advantage. A few years alter when I saw him again, he'd switched to Nikon as he was getting heavier into landscapes, but for what he shot before, flowers, grunge locations, decaying manufactured products, the Canon did just fine for him. He was shooting with a DR of a little over 11 EV, I was shooting with close to 14 EV. My observation was, if you don't need the DR because your subject didn't exceed 11 EV of DR, the lower DR made for the appearance of higher contrast, and in some image, it really gave his images some punch. I think the big thing was that curves looked pretty similar between Canon and Nikon after about iso 400. It wasn't as big a deal for non-tripod shooting because of that. There is a point where it is difficult if you are a landscape shooter. The K-7 really was pretty miserable -- push the shadows much and you get serious banding. The only solution was multiple exposures and HDR. I'm glad that modern cameras don't require that as it could easily give an unnatural look.

11-30-2021, 08:42 AM	#26
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Rondec I think the big thing was that curves looked pretty similar between Canon and Nikon after about iso 400. It wasn't as big a deal for non-tripod shooting because of that. There is a point where it is difficult if you are a landscape shooter. The K-7 really was pretty miserable -- push the shadows much and you get serious banding. The only solution was multiple exposures and HDR. I'm glad that modern cameras don't require that as it could easily give an unnatural look. For me, the K-5 was the turning point.. and we still own and shoot two of them.

11-30-2021, 10:16 AM - 1 Like	#28
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	Originally posted by Rondec I think the big thing was that curves looked pretty similar between Canon and Nikon after about iso 400. It wasn't as big a deal for non-tripod shooting because of that. There is a point where it is difficult if you are a landscape shooter. The K-7 really was pretty miserable -- push the shadows much and you get serious banding. The only solution was multiple exposures and HDR. I'm glad that modern cameras don't require that as it could easily give an unnatural look. Even when you have access to dynamic range it's quite difficult to manage it in a way that look natural imho. It's really quite the skill pushing a wide dynamic range into a smaller one whilst maintaining a natural looking image.

11-30-2021, 10:50 AM	#29
Michail_P Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2019 Location: Kalymnos Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,006	Originally posted by house Even when you have access to dynamic range it's quite difficult to manage it in a way that look natural imho. It's really quite the skill pushing a wide dynamic range into a smaller one whilst maintaining a natural looking image. I’m a fan of this process. I started playing with this inevitably, when I would shoot with my 8mp CCD ... only low iso , purely for nice strong light, limited DR (with today’s standards) gaining great shadows, punchy color palette and texture, with a realistic look. High contrast, high quality. Fun, authentic. Sometimes a good photo is beyond the technically correct approach.

11-30-2021, 12:50 PM	#30
pschlute Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Surrey, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,202	Originally posted by house Even when you have access to dynamic range it's quite difficult to manage it in a way that look natural imho. It's really quite the skill pushing a wide dynamic range into a smaller one whilst maintaining a natural looking image I disagree. Today using modern software it is easy to produce a HDR image that looks natural with bracketed exposures.