[Biro]

I thinks this is a better comparison. Honestly, it seems like pentax is a little bit sharper....sigh...

Lumix GF1
021/2011 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Pentax k-5
Pentax Outing Nov - Marina Bay Night | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Honestly, suoersta, if you're going to compare the K-5 with a micro four-thirds camera, compare it against the Panasonic GH2 or G3, or the Olympus E-M5. The GF1 is still a great little camera, but it's very much first-generation micro four thirds.

I have a K-5, a G3 and an E-PM1. The little Olympus is great fun and very conveniently sized. But I use it to replace my old point-and-shoot cameras like the Panasonic LX3. Against competiiton like that, it's fantastic. But, even though it's almost new, the E-PM1 has the first-generation 12mp micro four-thirds sensor.

The G3 and the K-5 is more of a fair fight, as the G3 has the current-generation 16mp sensor and is designed to handle larger lenses a bit better than the GF1 or E-PM1. If not a G3, then perhaps a GH2. Don't care about a built-in viewfinder? Then maybe a GX1.

I think you're making yourself a bit crazy with all the pixel peeping. Relax, we've all been there. The Internet can do that to you. Either a Pentax APS-C DSLR system or a micro four-thirds system can give you great results. But - as others have said - you must pick up these cameras and hold them in you hands before you make a decision. But enjoy the process and good luck!

[suoersta]

Honestly, suoersta, if you're going to compare the K-5 with a micro four-thirds camera, compare it against the Panasonic GH2 or G3, or the Olympus E-M5. The GF1 is still a great little camera, but it's very much first-generation micro four thirds.

Thanks Biro, anyway,since you have 3 of them, in terms of IQ, which would you prefer ?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Hi Laurentiu Cristofor, thanks for dropping by. Please do have a look at the pic by clicking the link that i shared. Do you think m4/3 can take as crisp as the pentax kx ?? i like m4/3 so much but the photos look so much difference between both to me which i would say pentax is sharper. Please advise me. thanks

The question is not whether one system can take as crisp a picture as another but whether you can actually use a camera to take crisp shots on your own. Looking at other people's pictures doesn't mean that you will be able to reproduce their results. Instead of agonizing over this decision, just get a camera and learn how to use it.

What happened to your efficient decision process that led to dropping Canon and Nikon of the picture altogether? You made that after just a handful of responses:

Hi nikonians !! would you guys mind show me some sample photos taken by nikon d5100/ d7000 which without any Post processing posted on facebook ?? I am asking so because i got to know that nikon taken photos tend to fade in colour intensity so i just wanna how well it can perform with its SOOC photo's color retention. Please!! I promise i won't abuse you privacy, just take a look and leave, that's all. Please help meee !! Thanks !!! (cause i am deciding between canon & nikon)

Sounds like the more help you get, the more you need. Stop trolling around.

[Biro]

Thanks Biro, anyway,since you have 3 of them, in terms of IQ, which would you prefer ?

It's not an either-or kind of thing. It depends on what I'm using them for. But if it's low light, the K-5 is definitely the best. On the other hand, if you took a K-5 and a G3 on vacation and shot images outdoors with both cameras in the 3:2 format, you might have a hard time telling which camera was used for the vast majority of images. The lens you use will probably make a bigger difference in those kinds of situations.

But, okay, let's say there's a gun to my head and I have to decide. I'd say the K-5 has best image quality - but it tends to come out mostly in critical situations - such as low light or sports/action. In low light, the K-5's larger sensor and image processing gains you at least a full stop advantage over micro four-thirds. Plus it gives more dynamic range. For action, the Pentax's phase-detection auto focus will track a moving subject better as well.

Between the G3 and the E-PM1, the G3 is better. But that's not to say the E-PM1 is bad (it's certainly better than any point and shoot). But the G3's newer, higher-resolution sensor wins the day.

Now that's image quality only. When you take size (both camera body and lens) into consideration, micro four thirds is my choice fairly often. That's why I own both systems. If you need a camera that's pocketable, the E-PM1 with the Olympus 17mm or Panasonic 14mm pancake (the Panny is better but costs more) is hard to beat.

Understand that's comparing these cameras today. In a year, the IQ differences between APS-C and micro four thirds might be noticeably reduced. Progress marches on.

---

Last edited by Biro; 06-05-2012 at 03:36 PM.

[suoersta]

ok...i think now i have to leave my decision until i hands-on both.....phewwww..........

Sounds like the more help you get, the more you need. Stop trolling around

I wasn't trolling around. I am comparing different cameras to find out which suite me the best as i am on budget. With the money i have, i can't make a single mistake. Moreover, I am stuck in a small town abroad with no shop i can hands on both the cameras until i get back to my country on july.Out of desperation, i can only do research online and finding out answer by asking. What else i can do ?? please be considerate.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I wasn't trolling around.

Then how did you manage to eliminate Canon and Nikon completely from your considerations, but you are now agonizing over Pentax and Olympus? Just apply the same thought process to these last two and you'll be done wondering.

[jct us101]

Compare the K-5 with the E-M5, then see what happens.

[wjjstu]

Heh I looked at LensTip and here's what it said right in the 20mm/1.7 review:

In the case of the newest Micro 4/3 cameras a high pixels density and a weak AA filter among other things make the results exceed the level of 70 lpmm. You must be aware that these high MTFs are not the result of an exceptionally good performance of the lens only, because even an optically weak device at some apertures would reach significantly over 50 lpmm here.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Heh I looked at LensTip and here's what it said right in the 20mm/1.7 review:

I assume that they meant that the weaker AA filter had a hand in those results too. But that is academic - the bottom line is that the images were sharper:

We can only praise the lens’s performance in the frame centre. Even at the maximum relative aperture we get a sharp image because the lens gets to the level of over 60 lpmm - much higher than the decency level. On slight stopping down we enter the area of really high values.

The edge of the frame significantly lags behind the results we saw at the centre. We can’t criticize the Panasonic here though because even at the maximum aperture the values are near 43 lpmm so a bit higher than our reference point. We haven’t seen such results at the edge of the frame in the case of any other system standard lens with comparable fastness.

But one thing I don't understand is that they seem to compare the results directly, rather than going through a scaling process. If it was just lenstip reporting such sharper results, I would have been skeptical, but dxomark does too (not for the 20/1.7, which they have not tested yet, but for other lenses).

[nickthetasmaniac]

First, the 'crispness' of an image is influenced by a lot of factors, and to be honest at lower ISOs the sensor itself isn't overly important... Things like lens choice and use (aperture), technique (use of a tripod and so on), in-camera settings and perhaps most importantly, post-processing, will affect the image far more than the body itself.

For example, from most of what i have seen, say an image of an ancient building in P*eniscola(not sure how to spell it but i remember its taken there) taken by an old Pentax stD, i can see each and every brick on the building so clear & detail. For olympus, not to say its not detail enough but it just seems like it is lack of something probably i would say it looks like washed out a bit........i don't know how to put that in words but almost every sample photos i saw in flickr shows the difference quite obviously. Hopefully i am wrong and as you guys said it was not the proper way to compare it like that. phewww.

let me show you guys here :
this is by olympus em5
Yarra River, Crown Casino at night | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

this is by Pentax Kx
*****cola 2010/09/04 #14 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I am genuinely confused. You keep saying that there is an 'obvious' difference between Pentax and Olympus files on flickr, and that the Pentax files look 'crisper'... Then to demonstrate the point, you link to two photos taken in completely different places, in a completely different manner, by completely different people. The EM5 picture you link was shot at f13 and 40". First, f13 is well into diffraction territory on a lens that wide, so it definitely won't be a good representation of the system's 'crispness'. Second - FORTY SECONDS!!! - which means that movement has blurred both the sky and water - I'm guessing this was probably the photographers intent. The Pentax on the other hand was shot at f4 and 1/8" - and besides, it's a fairly low quality picture anyway...

Here is a random selection of shots from the first few pages of the OMD group on flickr, all of which demonstrate the potential for outstanding image quality. At the end of the day, all of these cameras are going to be capable of taking a bloody good picture - to be direct you will be the limiting factor, not the body you choose.