[Rondec]

I'm just surprised that the 55-210 is sharper than the 50-135, considering the 50-135 is supposed to be as sharp as any of the 70-200s F2.8s.

*edit*
surprised as in, skeptical.

As someone else mentioned, it is easily possible that the apertures used are very different between these. I would imagine that at similar apertures, the 50-135 would be better, but in good light, stopped down, I wouldn't expect to see much of a difference.

[normhead]

Look at how this guy here set up his tests, and learn to understand why he did it that way... you'll produce more useful information...

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-01-forum/177763-k-01-vs-k-5-jpg-...e-samples.html

[Christine Tham]

Look at how this guy here set up his tests, and learn to understand why he did it that way... you'll produce more useful information...

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

If you try to compare two cameras with identical sensors and lenses with manual AF, manual exposure etc. then the resulting images should be identical and any differences can only be attributed to the operator.

It proves nothing about the way each camera works as a camera.

[JinDesu]

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

If you try to compare two cameras with identical sensors and lenses with manual AF, manual exposure etc. then the resulting images should be identical and any differences can only be attributed to the operator.

It proves nothing about the way each camera works as a camera.

Technically it was to find the difference between the k-5 14 bit sensor and the k-01 12 bit with new Prime processor.

[Christine Tham]

As someone else mentioned, it is easily possible that the apertures used are very different between these. I would imagine that at similar apertures, the 50-135 would be better, but in good light, stopped down, I wouldn't expect to see much of a difference.

The two lenses are completely different designs, with different MTF curves. Hence no point in trying to set the same aperture for both lenses. Program Auto is the best way to compare, because presumably each camera knows the MTF curve of their native lenses.

I am not surprised the Sony lens is sharper - it's no secret Sony has optimised sharpness (particularly in the centre) for their E-mount lenses, to the expense of other factors like CA and aperture (the E-mount lenses generally have smaller apertures wide open even compared to Alpha lenses). Why? A sharper lens means easier for Contrast AF to work and hence faster AF.

Second potential reason is the NEX-5N seems to have a weaker anti-aliasing filter compared to the K-5, which will naturally result in sharper images when pixel peeping. I have used K mount lenses on the NEX-5N and generally pictures come out slightly sharper on the NEX-5N than on the K-5.

[normhead]

If you try to compare two cameras with identical sensors and lenses with manual AF, manual exposure etc. then the resulting images should be identical and any differences can only be attributed to the operator.

It proves nothing about the way each camera works as a camera.

It proves which camera is capable of taking the sharper image, and in this case, the sensors aren't identical. And the consensus is the K-01 is sharper.

What you did was to shoot in bright sun, with one camera set to higher contrast than the other one. Settings across brands may not be comparable. Second, if your shots aren't stabilized with a two second delay and a tripod, your observation on sharpness are meaningless, because you can't guarantee that both images were taken with the same level of hand shake. If the NEX was thinking better than the K-5 it would have produced a better image of the Koala in the tree. The K-5 setting for that image is better because it is a lower contrast scene, so while the K-5 shot looks fine, the NEX shot looks flat. That's the problem with in camera presets, they may be good looking one way , but turn the other way and you need to change presets. Just shoot raw and you save yourself lots of menu flipping, if you want optimized photos.

Just on that basis your shots are completely predictable. Not only that, I could have produced both of the images, the NEX and K-5 just by manipulating the jpeg presets, on either camera. Or I could reverse them. It just so happened that for the day you shot, the NEX had the more appropriate preset. On a darker lower contrast day the K-5 images would shave looked better.

You have to understand, it doesn't matter what camera you use, you have to know what you're doing. YOu can try and avoid Post Production by shooting in jpg... but the problem with that is shooting in jpeg, you camera has all these presets, you can raise or lower contrast, you can raise or lower saturation, you can raise or lower sharpness, you need to make those adjustments before you make your shot, because your camera is going to process the image the way you tell it to. IN your photos, you told the Pentax to shoot with more contrast than the NEX was shooting with. Independant tests have shown the K-5 has more dynamic range than the NEX. SO how did that happen? What ever settings you had your cameras favoured the NEX, for this series of exposures... your camera settings blasted the K-5 highlights. With different settings the K-5 would have been better.

If the question was, can you mess up a K-5 so bad it will be out performed by a NEX, then the clear answer from this test is, yes you can... if I want the best possible picture and I'm willing to learn how to use my camera.. can I take shots where a K-5 will outperform a NEX? That question you didn't answer.

If your'e saying which camera produces the best bad images.... then that's a totally different question. How much ignorance needs to be involved? Take the camera out of the box... use whatever they set it to when it left the factory... take a couple jpegs , that shows what each camera will do out of the box. But should that be the most you can achieve with that camera? The better a camera is, the more control you have, so ya, any point and shoot will give you better images than you got with your K-5, pentax point and shoots as well. If you get a K-5 , you're going to have to learn how to use it to make the most of it. If you don't, don't blame the K-5. It wasn't made for "out of the box" type shooters.

[Christine Tham]

Technically it was to find the difference between the k-5 14 bit sensor and the k-01 12 bit with new Prime processor.

Technically according to who?

That was not stated as an intent in the post. And to quote the author the differences observed: "photos from K-5 are a tad bit (1/3 to 1/2 stops) brighter than those from K-01 at the same setting, and again, K-01 photos seem a bit sharper" are not related to 14 bit vs 12 bit.

[JinDesu]

Technically according to who?

That was not stated as an intent in the post. And to quote the author the differences observed: "photos from K-5 are a tad bit (1/3 to 1/2 stops) brighter than those from K-01 at the same setting, and again, K-01 photos seem a bit sharper" are not related to 14 bit vs 12 bit.

The 14 bit to 12 bit is to be inferred by dynamic range seen as ISO is increased. Not much mention of is by the OP, but a few poster mention that the darker shadow regions on the K-01 seems to lose out faster (a possible sign of the 12 bit vs 14 bit).

The sharpness of the pictures, given the lack of extra detail as mentioned by multiple users, is possibly attributed to the Prime M.

Yes, I understand that the OP didn't specifically state that he was testing for that, but when we are talking about a sensor that has only two differences from the original sensor, I don't think we are specifically looking for anything else.

[Christine Tham]

If you get a K-5 , you're going to have to learn how to use it to make the most of it. If you don't, don't blame the K-5. It wasn't made for "out of the box" type shooters.

LOL - thanks for an entertaining post. Mea culpa - I obviously offended you by deliberately not wanting to change or tweak camera settings in the comparison.

Maybe I should go back to taking "out of the box" pictures on my M-mount lenses.

[Clavius]

I think, because of the use of the green mode, this test is useless. (I understand why though: I would use the NEX5n in automatic mode too. Some animals might die of old age before you've dug through all the menus.) Nevertheless, there are differences in all the images:

The NEX5n clearly blows many highlights. The shadows are very flat. And so are the colours. Looking at the animal furs, the K5 seems sharper. (Or maybe there's just more structure and microcontrasts?) The images of the K5 are overall more contrasty, which makes the shadows darker.

These match my own conclusion. I still own my K5, but sold my NEX5n which I won in a fotocontest. For some reason it just isn't as sharp as the K5. (Noticed that when using the same manual lens on both K5 and NEX.) The bad usability, the sucky screen and the somewhat lower IQ made me sell the NEX5n. Which brings me to a negative of a different kind: a NEX5n doesn't keep it's value as well as a DSLR. I almost wasn't able to give it away. I'm guessing because people compare it to a point and shoot.

Back to the images in this thread. All these observations are influenced my incamera postprocessing due to the green mode. It would have been a fairer comparison if the unprocessed RAW images could be observed here.

[normhead]

Offend me, that's funny... , it was a teaching moment, I tend to get carried away by those, ask any of my ex-students.

Last time before I but out,
Your cameras were set in a manner that gave one camera and advantage over the other in different light settings... so your results are meaningless.
Comparing shots for sharpness without using a tripod and delay is meaningless.

Is that simple enough?

I used M lenses back when everyone used M lenses because that's all there was... does that make me a genius? Does it make everyone else from that era geniuses?

[Christine Tham]

The sharpness of the pictures, given the lack of extra detail as mentioned by multiple users, is possibly attributed to the Prime M.

More likely different anti-aliasing filter or different micro-lenses? The K-01 could be using the same sensor as the NEX-5N (which I have noticed appears to be "sharper" than the K-5 on the same lens - FA43 using a K mount adapter on the NEX-5N).

Anyway, I maintain that operator variance cannot be excluded as a factor in the differences and IMHO is the more likely explanation. For example, focus peaking on the K-01 could account for better focus, hence sharper pictures. Not trying to discredit the author - I'm sure he tried his best - we all do - just saying it's difficult to replicate exactly the same conditions across two cameras.

[JinDesu]

More likely different anti-aliasing filter or different micro-lenses? The K-01 could be using the same sensor as the NEX-5N (which I have noticed appears to be "sharper" than the K-5 on the same lens - FA43 using a K mount adapter on the NEX-5N).

I'd be HUGELY surprised if they removed the AA filter on the sensor without telling us. But I'm only reading the thread and not making much comment - my knowledge of all things technical is not up to par and I'd rather leave the discussion in that thread to people who know these things and I'll just follow along.

As far as this thread goes - I wish I could find more data on the Sony 55-210. I'm looking everywhere and there's practically no testing on it. Again, I'd be amazed if it was as capable as the 50-135, even at their best F-stops, considering the 50-135 is supposed to be the sharpest zoom Pentax has right now.

It's tricky because of this: Users on this forum have stated and shown that the 50-135 is as sharp as the Tamron 70-200 (if not better). Users of the Tamron 70-200 have shown that the Tamron 70-200 is almost (hair margin) as good as the Canon 70-200 V2, which is supposed to be the best of the best. For a 300 dollar lens (yes, it's about a stop slower) to match up in sharpness, that would be remarkable and I would wonder why we don't all have a similar 55-200 lens.

Heavens know our 50-200 sucks!

[Christine Tham]

Comparing shots for sharpness without using a tripod and delay is meaningless.

My apologies. I never realised it was possible to get hand shake blur when shooting pictures in broad daylight under the noon sun at fairly large apertures.

[Smeggypants]

Difficult to tell from these photographs at this size. Some are also out of focus.

In terms of sheer subjctivity, I prefer some from teh K-5 and some from the Sony