[suoersta]

Hey guys.....these few days while reading the comments here at the same time i have been browsing through the sample photos of the Olympus EM5 and Pentax K-5(i assume pentax k-30 has the same IQ as Pentax k5) in flickr......Honestly i like Olympus Em5 very very much especially its size and design(appearance). But I didn't want to lie to myself that ......the IQ of Pentax K5 seems to be more crisper and sharper than Oly EM5. No matter how many photos i compare, been through, i still think that Pentax K5 took crisper and sharper images. OMG...!! i am really confused right now .....i really wanted Oly EM5 so badly but the Pentax's IQ keep holding me back...T.T

[br.davidson]

The problem with comparing sample photos from Flickr is that you could be comparing photographers of vastly different skill levels. Not to mention variations due to post processing, lens choice, etc. The apparent sharpness of JPEGs comes down to sharpening choices and local contrast way before sensor-level sharpness comes into play.

If crisp and sharp images is what you're after, the OM-D will suit you just fine. My m4/3 shots are sharper on average than my Pentax shots because of the combination of contrast detect autofocus (slower, in general, but more accurate) and the designed-for-digital telecentric lens designs. If high ISO or dynamic range is your concern, the K-5 is better, but the EM5 is supposed to be darn good up to ISO6400.

How often will you shoot above ISO6400 with lenses that perform almost flawlessly from ~f1.7 and up?

[wombat2go]

Suo,
What kind of monitor are you using to compare the "crisper" .jpgs of the EM5 and K-5 ?

[twitch]

You will drive yourself mad doing the flickr comparision.

OM-D produces exceptional images, expecially with it's excellent primes. K-5 does the same although it has a slight edge in IQ and DOF flexibility. The OM-D is significantly smaller and lighter though. Cost is a wash.

I've said it on another thread, but I tihnk the K-5 is an excellent "compromise" camera for when you can't afford multiple systems. It's not the ultimate in IQ or performance (the FF cameras have that), and it's not the smallest or lightest (obviously m4/3s have that), but it's has still excellent IQ, decent performance, and is quite a bit smaller than the FF DSLRs.

---

Last edited by twitch; 06-04-2012 at 05:20 PM.

[wjjstu]

Do you understand that quoting LPMM measurements for different formats doesn't actually make much sense?

He or she probably missed the "Please note that the tests results are not comparable across the different test systems!" note that is on top of each system lens page.

[wombat2go]

Do the LensTip.com graphs cited by Jogiba show that the Pentax lenses are sharper or vice versa?
Do we have to view the M4/3 at 50% the size of FF and apsc at 66% the size of FF 135 on the monitor for these to be meaningful on a given FL?
I would expect that lenses for smaller sensors would have correspondingly higher lpmm but i don't know...?

[rfortson]

You will drive yourself mad doing the flickr comparision.

OM-D produces exceptional images, expecially with it's excellent primes. K-5 does the same although it has a slight edge in IQ and DOF flexibility. The OM-D is significantly smaller and lighter though. Cost is a wash.

I've said it on another thread, but I tihnk the K-5 is an excellent "compromise" camera for when you can't afford multiple systems. It's not the ultimate in IQ or performance (the FF cameras have that), and it's not the smallest or lightest (obviously m4/3s have that), but it's has still excellent IQ, decent performance, and is quite a bit smaller than the FF DSLRs.

More than one review site has said (and I agree) that the K5 is the best APS-C camera out there. If it's a compromise, then APS-C in general is a compromise.

[twitch]

More than one review site has said (and I agree) that the K5 is the best APS-C camera out there. If it's a compromise, then APS-C in general is a compromise.

Yes that's what I mean, K-5 is a superb crop DSLR camera.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Do the LensTip.com graphs cited by Jogiba show that the Pentax lenses are sharper or vice versa?

They show the MFT lenses as being sharper at wider apertures. dxomark shows similar results and they scale results to be directly comparable.

The graphs can be used to compare the sharpness simply by dividing the MFT numbers by the crop factor relative to APS-C (1.37), which makes the 60 lpmm results a bit higher than the 40 lpmm results for Pentax - 43.8. The lpmm measurement implies lines resolved per mm of sensor size.

Math is easy:

Let M be the lpmm for MFT, A the lpmm for APS-C, WM the width of the MFT sensor, WA the width of the APS-C sensor. Then if you shoot the same scene with equivalent focal lengths, you need to compare the resolution given by the MFT sensor (M*WM) with that given by the APS-C one (A*WA) - i.e. how many lines the sensors could resolve overall.

M * WM compared to A * WA
is equivalent to: M compared to A * WA/WM
which is equivalent to: M compared to A * crop factor (23.7/17.3 = 1.37)
or A compared to M/1.37 - MFT numbers need to be divided by crop factor

Note that the crop factor of the MFT sensor compared to APS-C is smaller than that of APS-C compared to FF. I compared the widths of the sensors, assuming we crop the vertical of the MFT images to get the same format ratio that APS-C has. But the difference between these two formats is even smaller than the crop factor suggests.

Here is a comparison of sensor surfaces:

FF surface: 864
APS-C surface: 370
MFT surface: 225

FF to APS-C ratio: 2.33
APS-C to MFT ratio: 1.64

Source: Image sensor format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Here is a practical resolution example: full shot and 100% crop:

[suoersta]

The problem with comparing sample photos from Flickr is that you could be comparing photographers of vastly different skill levels. Not to mention variations due to post processing, lens choice, etc. The apparent sharpness of JPEGs comes down to sharpening choices and local contrast way before sensor-level sharpness comes into play.

What kind of monitor are you using to compare the "crisper" .jpgs of the EM5 and K-5 ?

You will drive yourself mad doing the flickr comparision.

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
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24674993@N07/7222387128/in/photostream/

this is by Pentax Kx
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ossy59/4995838386/in/photostream/

[ManuH]

Here is a comparison of sensor surfaces:

FF surface: 864
APS-C surface: 370
MFT surface: 225

FF to APS-C ratio: 2.33
APS-C to MFT ratio: 1.64

In theory this is correct. In practice the sensors don't have the same pixel pitch. 16MP on m43 is denser than a 16MP on APS-C. Moreover since they don't have the same image ratio, you get more vertical lines on m43 for the same total amount of pixels so they can look sharper and more detailed.

I just ordered a GH2 with kit lens (mainly for the video stuff) but I'm curious to compare a prime like the 20mm f/1.7 with the DA 21mm on the same sensor. Then a equivalent lens on the K-5.

Apparent sharpness is also misleading. For example I have a pocket camera, the Samsung EX1. Sharpness looks better than my K-5 but it's 10MP, and there is actually more details on the DSLR. Sharpness is also one parameter: Noise, DR and tonality are usually better on the bigger sensor.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

In practice the sensors don't have the same pixel pitch. 16MP on m43 is denser than a 16MP on APS-C.

It does not matter. The only thing that matters is how much more detail one camera can resolve than another for the same framing of a scene. And that is determined just by the lp/mm numbers and the sensor sizes. The lp/mm measurements already include any effect of pixel pitch - they show how much a specific sensor with a specific pixel pitch can resolve when using a specific lens.

Moreover since they don't have the same image ratio, you get more vertical lines on m43 for the same total amount of pixels so they can look sharper and more detailed.

Note that I already cropped the M43 image to the format of APS-C - you must crop a horizontal slice, not a vertical one - you reduce 4x3 to 4x2.66 to get the 3:2 ratio of APS-C sensors. So the M43 image is sharper when cropped. Of course, in practice no one crops their MFT images to get a 3:2 ratio, so there is more detail any way you look at it.

Bottom line: The tests quoted so far do show MFT resolving more detail. Whether that difference is noticeable by your eyes in regular prints is the question you should be asking.

[suoersta]

It does not matter. The only thing that matters is how much more detail one camera can resolve than another for the same framing of a scene. And that is determined just by the lp/mm numbers and the sensor sizes. The lp/mm measurements already include any effect of pixel pitch - they show how much a specific sensor with a specific pixel pitch can resolve when using a specific lens.

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

[suoersta]

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!