[Rupert]

Gentlemen, why are you even providing these sample images when you know from the start that you've handicapped yourself?

- one is taken with a consumer zoom
- one is taken through a double pane window
- both are taken at ridiculously high ISO values

If you are trying to beat samples taken from a camera at ISO 1600-2500 with a high resolution prime lens, don't handicap yourselves by using consumer optics and going over the board with the ISO setting. And don't post just 800px images to match a 1300px sample. The bird shot lacks tonality in the wings and the raccoon shot is already very noisy when I check the largest size. None of them impresses me to want to buy the K-5. I have seen plenty of shots here on PF about how much better the K-5 is than the previous cameras at high ISO. I truly believe it is. But it is not that good that you can beat images taken at ISO 1600 when using it above ISO 10,000!

The K-5 high ISO score is 1162. That means that once you push over that ISO level, you are dropping below the IQ bar set by dxomark at 30db noise, 9EV DR, 18bit color depth.

Here's a link to the large 1300px XPro1 image that first caught my eye. It is taken at f/3.6, ISO 2500, with the 35mm lens. What I like about it is the way the crane pops out from the background as well as all the details captured in the shadows on the pavement or on the building. Maybe the K-5 can take a similar shot at ISO 2500 when paired with the FA 31, but you're not going to beat that image with ISO 10,000 or 25,600 from the K-5 paired with any lens.

At ISO 10,000 the K-5 is no better than my K-7 at 3200 except in DR, where it corresponds to the K-7 at 1600. At 25,600, it equals my K-7 at 6400 - 3200 in terms of DR. See for yourself. I don't use my K-7 at those levels, although I could definitely get some interesting 800px images from it. Why do you even think that the K-5 can produce competitive shots at such high ISO?

You are totally missing the point......Let me get out my Crayons and explain it to you.

You are E-mailing friends or family and telling them of the little Raccoons that come to your home every night to rob Otis' Squirrel feeder of leftover sunflower seeds. They say they would sure like to have a photo of one. So you need a little speed, a minimum of around 1/70 or so at 100mm because Raccoons are not trained Squirrels and won't "freeze on command". You need a fast lens, and a camera that can choose the ISO for you since you won't get a chance for a lot of "test shots"....Raccoons are not the kind to linger for your benefit. So you mount the DA*50-135 on the K5 and switch to Tav mode and through a dirty double pane window, you snap. (Tav is fantastic BTW!)

Wow! You have something to send them, and low and behold, you are pretty sure they will recognize it as a real life Raccoon! Now if old Granny just happens to have CS5 on her computer and goes in there to pixel peep, you may have a problem, but if not, she will probably love what you sent her....or more accurately, what I sent her, because if you don't have the K5 you most likely got nothing but a fuzzy dark screen to send old Granny.

Now I am not the best with Crayons, and may have got out of the lines a little, but I'm pretty sure you can get the picture?

Best Regards!

[dylansalt]

Not to sound pompous or inflammatory but the D7000 can churn out shot after shot at ISO 2500/2800 with ease even with a slowish zoom.

Paired with a 35 1.8G you will get as much separation as you need.

I can just imagine what it could do with the "pro" glass

At 2800 - jpeg from camera with slight contrast tweak - the hall was actually dark where this was shot

Taken with a consumer zoom and zero NR pp applied.



I'm quite positive the K5 can do the same

[dylansalt]

A quick ISO 3200 shot hand held at F2.8 1/50s - 35 1.8G



I can purchase 3 D7000 for the price of the Fuji

Personally I feel people get taken in with all the hype and "see" and convince themselves the image is better.

If I used Topaz denoise I would have an even better image to display

[Rupert]

A quick ISO 3200 shot hand held at F2.8 1/50s - 35 1.8G



I can purchase 3 D7000 for the price of the Fuji

Personally I feel people get taken in with all the hype and "see" and convince themselves the image is better.

If I used Topaz denoise I would have an even better image to display

I think you are also missing the point.....but I'm out of Crayons! I doubt that Fuji gave little or any thought to Nikon, Canon, or Pentax when designing and building the X-Pro......it is not a comparable camera to my K5 or your D7000...not at all. It is for a different audience, (Leica maybe?) and a different style of shooting. I don't see why DSLR shooters feel so threatened?

If I did still have my Crayons out, I would draw you a nice sports car (a DSLR...yours or mine) and a nice dump truck...and ask you why you were worried about racing the dump truck? It may carry more of a load, and get there slower, but it is not going to win that race...is it? However...we do need dump trucks, don't we?

Regards!

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I'm quite positive the K5 can do the same

Oh, I think my waterproof Lumix could do this too - at this size it would be no challenge.

To witness:



No NR magic here - just a JPEG from the camera with a small curve and a bit of sharpening.

So, I am confused now, what were we trying to demonstrate here?

[Rupert]

Oh, I think my waterproof Lumix could do this too - at this size it would be no challenge.

To witness:



No NR magic here - just a JPEG from the camera with a small curve and a bit of sharpening.

So, I am confused now, what were we trying to demonstrate here?

Maybe that we have a lot of damn nice cameras to choose from out there!
Best Regards!

Fuji X10
[IMG] [/IMG]

[eddie1960]

Price is irrelevant. If it sells then the price is right. If it doesn't then it's too high. Whether or not I can buy it with the 3 lens kit is another story.
As for it being a reach for a Fuji, well then you've never looked to hard at their medium format ILC RF history. they've never been about cheap cameras but they have always been about high quality. I see this as a spiritual successor to some of those cameras.
I too would have been a lot happier if the body and 35 were 1699, i don't see that happening any time soon though. the x100 is still selling pretty much at launch price a year later, the xpro1 will likely follow the same path (until something comes along to force a drop in price)

[violini]

Fuji lens elements are made of glass not plastics. The viewfinder of my x10 has glass elements and prism. In contrast, all the eyepieces of my Pentax autofocus film cameras (except maybe MZ-S) are made of plastics. The manufacturing cost of glass elements is much higher. I plan to sell most of my Pentax gear when X-Pro1 is available and well reviewed. I want a camera with short registration distance.

[stanleyk]

Not to sound pompous or inflammatory but the D7000 can churn out shot after shot at ISO 2500/2800 with ease even with a slowish zoom.

Paired with a 35 1.8G you will get as much separation as you need.

I can just imagine what it could do with the "pro" glass

At 2800 - jpeg from camera with slight contrast tweak - the hall was actually dark where this was shot

Taken with a consumer zoom and zero NR pp applied.



I'm quite positive the K5 can do the same

No offense intended but the bigger question here is why do you care what other people buy with their money. Personally I could care less what other camera someone is using. I buy the camera I want and focus on what I like about it. I don't really worry about the camera I didn't buy. I have never seen people getting so worked up about a stupid camera as I have about the X Pro 1. Just don't buy it. Nobody cares, seriously. Sorry if that sounded rude. I can assure you ABSOLUTELY nothing I read on this forum will convince me to cancel my pre-order because that's the camera I want. I like X100 so I'm sure I'll like the X Pro. I also like the D700 and I like the X10 and I like the GXR. In fact I like cameras in general, but I try to not focus on the negative. They all do things well. Wow...............

[JohnBee]

1/20 and 1/90 are not very low shutter speeds for focal lengths like 30mm and 50mm. You could take those shots very well without SR.

Speaking for yourself.
But as a low light shooter, I can assure you that these are very slow shutters. Especially if/when were dealing with moving subjects.

[JohnBee]

Here's a link to the large 1300px XPro1 image that first caught my eye. It is taken at f/3.6, ISO 2500, with the 35mm lens. What I like about it is the way the crane pops out from the background as well as all the details captured in the shadows on the pavement or on the building. Maybe the K-5 can take a similar shot at ISO 2500 when paired with the FA 31, but you're not going to beat that image with ISO 10,000 or 25,600 from the K-5 paired with any lens.

Definition for straw man argument:

Web definitions:A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man"...

It doesn't matter what the K-5 "could" do, if it doesn't actually do it. If you have any sample shots that look like that street scene or like this harbor scene, please don't keep them for yourself - share them here. I'd like to see what other cameras can get such detail at high ISO. It's not the lack of noise that impresses me, but the DR and the 3D aspect of these images.

I've seen several night scenes taken with K-5's that exhibited the same characteristics as the ones shown here.
Having said that, I don't think arguments of this nature are very useful given that they inevitably lead into specifics such as shooting details, area, colors etc etc which can never be substantiated.

At ISO 10,000 the K-5 is no better than my K-7 at 3200 except in DR, where it corresponds to the K-7 at 1600. At 25,600, it equals my K-7 at 6400 - 3200 in terms of DR. See for yourself. I don't use my K-7 at those levels, although I could definitely get some interesting 800px images from it. Why do you even think that the K-5 can produce competitive shots at such high ISO?

Given the vast range provided in this statement, I honestly don't know how we can justify the term "no better than..." or have I completely miss the point of the statement?

[dylansalt]

Oh, I think my waterproof Lumix could do this too - at this size it would be no challenge.

To witness:



No NR magic here - just a JPEG from the camera with a small curve and a bit of sharpening.

So, I am confused now, what were we trying to demonstrate here?

Sorry - nowhere near in the same league as the the K5 OR D7000 - maybe you are not into "detail"

The images I displayed look just as good at full size length wise on a 24 inch monitor.

What I was trying to demonstrate was that the Sony sensor namely in the K5/d7000 displays greater detail than the Fuji at high iso

Secondly when people say the fuji is better at high iso and has better IQ it has to be challenged especially when it costs substantially more and essentially is also handicapped in a number of areas.

Macy's - a great store

NY is an amazing place to walk around with a dslr in hand having just spent a week there.

[eddie1960]

Sorry - nowhere near in the same league as the the K5 OR D7000 - maybe you are not into "detail"

The images I displayed look just as good at full size length wise on a 24 inch monitor.

What I was trying to demonstrate was that the Sony sensor namely in the K5/d7000 displays greater detail than the Fuji at high iso

Secondly when people say the fuji is better at high iso and has better IQ it has to be challenged especially when it costs substantially more and essentially is also handicapped in a number of areas.

Macy's - a great store

NY is an amazing place to walk around with a dslr in hand having just spent a week there.

We haven't even seen a production samples images yet on the Fuji, never mind a comtrolled comparative

sorry but Argument isn't valid (not to mention the fuji is a different class of camera in many ways more deservedly it should be compared when the time comes to the epson and the leica m8.2 and m9 which is the category it is closest to. DSLRs are designed as jacks of all trades, and long term imp

[pingflood]

Fuji lens elements are made of glass not plastics. The viewfinder of my x10 has glass elements and prism. In contrast, all the eyepieces of my Pentax autofocus film cameras (except maybe MZ-S) are made of plastics. The manufacturing cost of glass elements is much higher. I plan to sell most of my Pentax gear when X-Pro1 is available and well reviewed. I want a camera with short registration distance.

Nothing wrong with plastic in lenses. Google "hybrid aspherical".

[violini]

No, nothing wrong with plastics. Nowadays all eye glasses are made of plastics. It's much cheaper to manufacture. Since it is softer than glass, one has to be very careful to clean it. Also the coatings is easier to wipe off.