[normhead]

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.

If I still had my text book I'd show you pages where exactly that point is made. They only tested up to 1/1000 but, hand shake is clearly visible in every image up to that speed when pixel peeping. As the focal length of the lens gets longer, the shake becomes more noticeable. No hand held image is immune from hand shake... and even some tripod mounted shots suffer from movement, because of mirror slap, tripod vibration in wind or because of the force of the shutter release. Many pros use a big heavy tripod with a sandbag attached to eliminate shake. SR is a great thing... but it's unpredictable.

[DreTAX]

EMACS:
I'm not quite blind, but I'd say the Pentax is generally rendering at higher contrast, with both deeper shadows and in most but not all brighter highlights. But there is also a difference in saturation and color rendition. Look at the first pair of pictures of a pelican - the one of the bird preening itself. In the Pentax image both the bill and the brick platform the bird is standing on are distinctly red, even a fairly deep red, whereas in the NEX images the bill is fleshy pink and the brick color is rather washed out. In the last pair of images, with two koalas in a tree, Pentax renders the upper animal's fur grey, the NEX adds a warmish, slightly brown tint. In the same shot, the leaves in the background between the tree branches are a pleasing deep green in the Pentax image, but are rendered rather yellowish and dull in the NEX image. Of course, a nudge of saturation/tint in PP might correct whichever color rendition was considered wrong. That is, unless you were entering the image in a wildlife photo competition where any detected PP usually means disqualification.
I will hasten to add, this is the way the colors look on my computer using a color profile determined by a Spyder. Different computer, separate monitor, different color profile and you may not see the same colors that I do.

Totally agree!

[DreTAX]

Thanks guys for the observations.

I deliberately didn't want to add my observations initially because I wanted to see what other people think. Some interesting comments and points of view.

My own observations (with the benefit of being able to pixel peep):

Sharpness: the Sony SEL55210 wins (at the pixel level) - no real difference at web resolution

Bokeh: the Pentax DA* 50-135 wins (shallower DOF in most of the photos, more pleasing softness in the background)

Exposure: I think NEX-5N wins - overall better exposure and control of highlights (as Emacs noticed) - the K-5 resulted in slight under-exposure AND blown highlights - the NEX-5N meters over the entire sensor readout and has DR optimisation which came into good effect in a number of shots HOWEVER I like the contrast in some of the K-5 shots - the DRO on the NEX-5N watered down the images IMHO

Colour rendition: some slight differences, but I'm calling it a draw

AF speed and accuracy: both seem to be about equally accurate, but I think the K-5 is faster at focusing

Usability (continuous): no doubt, K-5 wins hands down - it feels like a real camera I can take shots in rapid succession, the NEX-5N feels like a high end compact

Usability (viewfinder): again, K-5 wins - the optical viewfinder is gorgeous compared to the NEX-5N LCD, and easier to use in bright daylight

Usability (general, taking shots): given I deliberately did not adjust parameters, this is biased to the NEX-5N - the K-5 should have easily won with the control wheels and the portrait shooting controls on the grip (I used the portrait shutter button quite a few times), but the NEX-5N is better for dutch angles

Size: NEX-5N wins - I can carry it easily in my handbag

Weight: again NEX-5N wins - the K-5 plus grip and DA* 50-135 feels like a tonne of bricks

Price: the NEX-5N and lens combo is 1/3 the price of the Pentax gear, so the NEX-5N wins.

Which one would I use more often? The NEX-5N - Size/weight wins over usability and control for me - I'm rating image quality to be roughly equal (same sensor, and the differences in the image quality can be atrributed to the lens more than the camera). The K-5 is more usable for action shots I think, but the NEX-5N is not a bad performer, just not as nimble and fast.

Anyway, for the moment I am keeping both. I was entertaining selling the K-5 and buying Canon, but not so sure. I was thinking of buying the 5D Mark III but size/weight is going to be a problem - no point buying a camera that is so heavy and big that I will never use it.

Exposure: nex5n with DR optimisation, wouldn't that be simillar to using the K-5 with shadow correction and highlight correction? If so, this test shows nothing. Apples and oranges of in camera processing.

[Rondec]

Christine, I am just not certain what you are testing. Are you testing for the difference between these lenses, or are you trying to see which camera functions most like a point and shoot? Are you trying to see if SR is detrimental to normal shooting?

What I come down to is that you did a test to see which camera is able to function most like a point and shoot. Perhaps it is a useful test if that is how you use your SLR/MILC, but since I don't it isn't particularly helpful to me.

[dexmus]

I find it mildly funny that whenever someone does a user test, more often than not, people label the test meaningless. Giver her a break. If you want scientific tests, you can look at DxO - it will tell you that between 100-1600 ISO there is hardly any difference between k-5 and 5N sensor, except in DR.

This thread is a simple scenario where the user shoots the same scenes with two cameras. She never claimed in the opening post that she is looking to do a scientific test to establish the superiority of one or the other. The intent of this thread is to show you jpeg images from two very good cameras. To me, both the sets of images look alright. I don't think this is a 'meaningless' thread. And there is absolutely no need to preach about using raw images or fine tuning presets. I am sure she is well aware of that, else she won't have so many cameras in the first place.


Abhi

[DreTAX]

Yes, i find it mildly frustrating that whenever someone does a user test, more often than not, they will make claims that this is better than that, when there are so many obvious variables. If you set up test parameters, test and follow up with conclusions, it tends to look a bit scientific. Much better to just post the pictures and say this is what i got ... what do you think? And in this case i would say the K-5 could do with a little tweak and i personally don't like what the sony nex is doing to the images, at these settings.
Thanks for showing us the comparison images.

[Smeggypants]

I find it mildly funny that whenever someone does a user test, more often than not, people label the test meaningless. Giver her a break. If you want scientific tests, you can look at DxO - it will tell you that between 100-1600 ISO there is hardly any difference between k-5 and 5N sensor, except in DR.

This thread is a simple scenario where the user shoots the same scenes with two cameras. She never claimed in the opening post that she is looking to do a scientific test to establish the superiority of one or the other. The intent of this thread is to show you jpeg images from two very good cameras. To me, both the sets of images look alright. I don't think this is a 'meaningless' thread. And there is absolutely no need to preach about using raw images or fine tuning presets. I am sure she is well aware of that, else she won't have so many cameras in the first place.


Abhi

Well no, the comparison isn't meaningless. It's actually quite interesting. But no one could seriously claim any definitive results from it. I actually like the fact that the comparison is rough and ready and innaccuate in scientific terms. Photogpahy isn't about science it's about art. And art is subjective just as this compasion is subjective.

[bimjo]

Well, all I learned from Chris' noble efforts is to never post a comparison of anything on this site again. Thanks for the trying though.

[pinholecam]

I find it mildly funny that whenever someone does a user test, more often than not, people label the test meaningless. Giver her a break. If you want scientific tests, you can look at DxO - it will tell you that between 100-1600 ISO there is hardly any difference between k-5 and 5N sensor, except in DR.

This thread is a simple scenario where the user shoots the same scenes with two cameras. She never claimed in the opening post that she is looking to do a scientific test to establish the superiority of one or the other. The intent of this thread is to show you jpeg images from two very good cameras. To me, both the sets of images look alright. I don't think this is a 'meaningless' thread. And there is absolutely no need to preach about using raw images or fine tuning presets. I am sure she is well aware of that, else she won't have so many cameras in the first place.


Abhi

And someone without knowing more wanders to such posts and assumes that one is better than the other and this gets spread around?
Even worse, ppl with an agenda (eg. Ricehigh) uses limited bits from such a post to hammer down on the K5?

I always appreciate the hard work folks do to get any sort of comparison and the risks involved from posting them (ie. get hammered or asked to do extra validation as if its owed to them).
This is why I'd always avoid 'claim to know all' type one liners.


Its good to acknowledge the results AS IS as well as to discuss the points missed out in such comparisons.

[normhead]

Christine is to be thanked for a noble effort. Hopefully people who come through the thread will understand the issues...

from another post..

what I find is that most people get much more benefit from solid one-on-one instruction (e.g. workshops) than they do from upgrading their camera to the next number of megapixels. That's because they're not optimizing their picture taking actions, and thus suffer from that downstream. Getting more megapixels actually sometimes works against you, as it pulls out even more shot discipline problems and other issues you haven't mastered but now must deal with in the pixels you captured and wish to reproduce. My advice: if you haven't optimized your shooting with your current camera you can't make the assumption that more megapixels is going to help you get the results you seek.

So here's the thing... click here for whole article.

The point I'd make is, it isn't about pitting one camera against another... you can get it done with any good camera these days. The benefits come from learning how to use your camera. The guy who wrote this article was getting it done with a 12Mp D70. If you can't get it done with a 16 Mp K-5 you haven't learned how to make optimum use of your camera. Having a K-5 and a NEX doesn't help. Now you have two cameras to learn, instead of one. If you understand the concepts above and work with them... use the camera you like most, you'll get very similar results. Don't learn how to make use of the controls on your camera and it doesn't matter what camera you are using, your pictures will suck, most of the time. Every now and then your camera setting and your light will line up and give you a great picture. But as a general rule, the better the camera, the more opportunity there is to mess up... yes, you can buy too complicated a camera. You don't pay the big bucks for ease of use... you pay ultimately for the opportunity to achieve great picture quality.

But like all opportunities, you have to do what it takes to make that happen. You aren't going to find a camera at least not yet, that will give you great image quality and complete out of the box, knowledge-less operation.

[Wired]

So strange... I thought the K5 was loosing out in terms of detail and color rendition in the first half. However, once we got to the second set with the albatross(?) I started to see the K5's color and detail starting to pop...

Anyway, I too have both cameras, but only have the kit zoom for the NEX5N. My K5 I got a good selection of lenses available. I do shoot in full manual, and for some reason if I shoot both with the same settings on the same subject the NEX blows everything out by quite a bit.

I don't have them uploaded anywhere, and the pics are on my desktop computer while i'm sitting here posting from work. But I did take shots of this jewellery box of my wifes with both cameras.

K5 / Tamron 90mm Macro - f4 1/10" iso400
NEX5N / 18-55 - f4 1/10" iso400

While the focal length difference between the two lenses is obviously huge (especially since the kit lens only does f4 when at 18mm) the change in exposure is at least a full two stops higher on the NEX. When I bring it up to f5.6 I find the exposures are about even. But the colors that the NEX produces are paler and softer. The K5 was much more vivid and more saturated...one of the things that brought me to Pentax.

I bought the NEX5N to be a portable shooter to take with me where the K5 would otherwise be just be too big. In an odd twist, I actually find myself brining along my MX & 28mm f2.8 around with me as it's just as pocktable as the NEX is. Once I get me that 16mm and 50mm primes I'll probably take it more places. I may also grab another J1 or Q if they go on sale for decent prices when I got the coin. The portability is just way too nice to pass up!

[Christine Tham]

If I still had my text book I'd show you pages where exactly that point is made. They only tested up to 1/1000 but, hand shake is clearly visible in every image up to that speed when pixel peeping.

The guideline used to be the shutter speed needs to be faster than 1/(focal length in mm):
http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/19102/where-does-the-shutter-speed-...hake-come-from

It's not a hard and fast rule (I prefer 1/(2*focal length))

In these photos the shutter speeds ranged from 1/250 to 1/400 - I would say at these shutter speeds one would have to be very unlucky to get shutter blur. Funnily enough on my Spotmatic the fastest shutter speed was 1/500 and I never had a problem with hand shake even on a 80-250 - but those were film days ...

I'm not noticing any blurriness on these photos when I pixel peep, but what do I know, since apparently some people think I don't know how to use the shooting controls on a camera? :-)

I did cheat a little - even though I explicitly did not control shooting parameters whilst taking shots, I did set the P-line to "Sports" and the Auto ISO curve to "Fast" - to encourage the camera to choose faster shooting speeds :-)

[Christine Tham]

Christine, I am just not certain what you are testing. Are you testing for the difference between these lenses, or are you trying to see which camera functions most like a point and shoot? Are you trying to see if SR is detrimental to normal shooting?

Isn't that obvious from the first line of my post? I said Pentax fixed the AF problem on my K-5, so it was time to do a comparison. So the test was to see if the K-5 AF problem was fixed.

I deliberately chose Program Auto, because I wanted to give the camera the maximum opportunity to optimise sharpness based on the MTF curve of the lens (which is programmed into the camera). And I chose Multi-AF again to give the camera the most information to evaluate AF. The Sony was used a reference, since I know AF is working fine on that camera, so naturally it too had to be set to the same settings.

And the answer is: as far as I can tell, the AF on the K-5 is working just fine.

A lot of people used the images to comment on the relative image quality of the two cameras. I jumped in with my own observations, which is that I think on some aspects the K-5 wins and on others the NEX-5N wins, but overall I would consider the image quality from both cameras to be roughly the same - any differences were more lens related than camera.

[Clavius]

I'm not noticing any blurriness on these photos when I pixel peep, but what do I know, since apparently some people think I don't know how to use the shooting controls on a camera? :-)

Nobody is saying that you don't know HOW to control the cameras. Personally, I have just observed that you DIDN'T control the cameras. The reason why, is unknown to me.

And no, it doesn't have to be scientific. But it's also silly to think you went through all this effort to produce a pointless comparison.

Again, the software inside the cameras does lots of post-processing. One might sharpen more then the other, and the other might saturate more. Your series of pictures clearly shows just that difference in inbody PP settings. But nothing more.

All I can see now is that the NEX5n produces flat images that are slightly softer then the K5. But from my own experiences with both K5 and NEX5n, I know that the NEX can produce images that are just as good as those of the K5. It just takes more work. More menus to go through. And more hit&misses before finally getting the shot.

[Emacs]

All I can see now is that the NEX5n produces flat images that are slightly softer then the K5.

As a former owner of K-5 and having 5N now I can definitely insist on the opposite: 5N images is sharper and has more 3D look (although the optics I use has both greater IQ and price). And the excellent peaking feature helps to achieve better hit ratio than it ever was with inferior K-5 autofocus. And the lack of defective pentax SR helps to get sharp photos at the speeds of 1/60-1/100
The only K-5 advantages are better sensor handling and better ergonomics.