Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

UnknownVT · 10-20-2012, 12:38 AM

straight 100% crops taken from the ISO100 "default" NR JPGs from the respective Imaging-Resource Studio shots
By enlarging just a bit beyond the 100% pixel level one can see the aliasing of the K-5IIS more clearly.

falconeye · 10-20-2012, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

But just a disclaimer. I found the DPReview (and FWIW the Imaging Resource) studio comparison test shots a complete waste when it comes to evaluate sharpness. Just don't do that.

Must be one of the least respected advices I ever gave, given the continuation of discussion. But don't say I didn't tell you ...

rawr · 10-20-2012, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

Must be one of the least respected advices I ever gave, given the continuation of discussion.

Don't despair!

It's just that the IR tests are available now for the K-5 II well before any users have access to the new bodies to personally evaluate them. And the IR/DPR tests are at least more methodical and credible than the tests most users could craft themselves. So the IR tests aren't all bad.

cali92rs · 10-20-2012, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by rawr

Don't despair!

It's just that the IR tests are available now for the K-5 II well before any users have access to the new bodies to personally evaluate them. And the IR/DPR tests are at least more methodical and credible than the tests most users could craft themselves. So the IR tests aren't all bad.

Good point...
For example, I personally would not even know where I could go to lay hands on a K-5II or any other Pentax product for that matter. I am not going to spend 500 bucks to hop on a plane to New York to test one out. Therefore people like me do rely on such testing, as flawed as they may be. We have no alternative but to check out the test shots and use our best judgement.

kh1234567890 · 10-21-2012, 11:59 AM

Real life images from the K5IIs posted on Flickr here and here

normhead · 10-22-2012, 06:48 AM

With all due respect falc

Quote:

Must be one of the least respected advices I ever gave, given the continuation of discussion. But don't say I didn't tell you ...

I have a real problem with people who say this kind of thing... empirical evidence always trumps theoretic positions. Theory has to describe reality, not the other way around. I give no credibility whatsoever to people who put forward theoretical positions with no empirical support, and even less to those who criticize empirical studies with no empirical support. That would just be bad science. To come in here and make a statement like that and ask folks to take your word on faith, I don't know dude. That's kind of like asking for god status or something. Now I can poke holes in the methodology of the Imaging Resource until the cows come home about how good or how bad this research might be, or if it even qualifies as research... but the simple fact is, in one set of circumstances these images have shown that the APS-c can hold it's own with FF in a situation where there is no researcher bias. . Now the proper course of inquiry at this point would be to determine what those circumstances are. And that is what has always bothered me about these theoretical constructs. They are applied , especially by FF advocates very un-equally. And any data that doesn't agree with doctrine is dismissed.

But in my world, empirical results trump theoretical discussions and assumptions every time. I would offer the reverse advice. Don't listen to those who claim to have some kind of theoretical knowledge of the effects of resolution on IQ etc... look at the pictures, find the camera that takes the pictures you like and go with that. I have yet to see any empirical evidence that FF out performs APS-c at resolutions up to the native resolution of the APS-c system. I have now seen empirical evidence that 1:1 APS-c can out perform FF. What I'm working for is an understanding of the point where FF becomes necessary in terms of image acceptability, and I have to say, going through almost every FF thread on this site..all I here is crazy stupid theoretical mumbo jumbo in which FF is always necessary.

So my advice would be don't necessarily listen to DPR review, but listen to them before you listen to those who present no empirical evidence to back up the points they make. And definitely don't accept single focal plane test charts as information you can use to evaluate 3d images.

As Pentax reps have always said, "we don't build our lenses to do well on test charts, we build to capture a 3d world." I personally doubt the 2d testers have a clue what they're talking about. And I'm almost certain Pentax lens designers do. And I buy my lenses from Pentax, not people who set up tests they claim are useful for rating lenses. I have never seen a debate or any information debated on this site discussing the relevance of resolution to IQ. But I have heard lots of discussions where resolution is equated with IQ. That , from the standpoint of photography as an artistc endeavour is just a misuse of science. If you can't make your case empirically, you don't have a case.. and any real scientist will tell you that.

falconeye · 10-22-2012, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by normhead

With all due respect falc

I have a real problem with people who say this kind of thing...

I sympathize with what you say. But I must say (and it is my fault certainly) that you read far too much into my little statement. I intendended to say nothing of the kind you assumed I would.

It is just that I found that both DPR and IR don't even seriously try to produce test shots intended to review sharpness. Ignore it or not, that's what I think. And there is no further hidden message. The mentioned test shots serve many purposes and so, aren't useless. Just to make sure...

And of course do real world samples matter. If you can find good ones. As it is far too easy to produce bad quality samples ... (which is why early samples tend to be worse to what your own experience would be).

kh1234567890 · 10-23-2012, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by falconeye

And of course do real world samples matter. If you can find good ones. As it is far too easy to produce bad quality samples ... (which is why early samples tend to be worse to what your own experience would be).

The trouble is that it is rare to be able to find a raw file from a given camera on the web, rather than just jpegs of unknown 'provenance'.

falconeye · 10-23-2012, 03:00 AM

Originally posted by kh1234567890

The trouble is that it is rare to be able to find a raw file from a given camera on the web, rather than just jpegs of unknown 'provenance'.

I understand how tempting it is to take the raws from DPR or IR and pixel peep them. This is why I posted my disclaimer of "just don't do" (and personally, I don't do it anymore indeed).

I did a comparison of D800 vs. D800E myself (posted on my blog) and it is very challenging to control all parameters well enough to actually see the effect of the Bayer-AA filter. E.g., even LiveView (manual focus or contrast AF) has too much variation to allow one to one comparisons. Still, the difference found in daily photography is obvious as statistics averages most variation away.

I actually recommend the K-5IIs DNG samples from Evil Homer from German DFN forum as they are currently being uploaded here by PF user Keiner in the samples thread. They are more useful than the DPR samples even if there are no 1:1 comparisons.

Class A · 10-24-2012, 01:13 AM

FWIW, I wrote a small article on the "Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-filter".

Alizarine · 11-19-2012, 04:43 AM

has anyone tried shooting studio shots of people with the k-5 IIs? i want to see how bad the moire can be if it can beat this one I produced with my K-x...

rawr · 11-19-2012, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Alizarine

i want to see how bad the moire can be if it can beat this one I produced with my K-x...

Aha.
So you want to start a contest to see who can produce the worst moire?
This should be interesting.

slip · 11-19-2012, 05:24 PM

really interesting thread... OK will Moire be an issue with a medium quality lens like my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5? or any less then stellar lens?

thanks

randy

Alizarine · 11-19-2012, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by rawr

Aha. So you want to start a contest to see who can produce the worst moire? This should be interesting.

Hey, why not

though probably more on "which camera..."

Actually I've been looking forward to "provoked moire" from the K-5 IIs, to see how bad things can get with it, compared to AA-filtered cameras like the humble K-x (though some say the one in it is weaker than the K-5 Classic/II). We all know its weakness lies in shots of fabrics and similar stuff, but I'm pressed hard looking for such photos online. Most of the samples I'm seeing are either landscapes or, as in the case of Mr. Wong in the DPR forums, shot at diffraction-inducing levels (f11 or higher).

Since I'm not a pure landscape shooter but want to experience the added sharpness of the IIs... I'm trying to justify (not) buying it. The money's there; but my heart isn't, yet. lol

vonBaloney · 11-19-2012, 11:12 PM

Originally posted by Alizarine

has anyone tried shooting studio shots of people with the k-5 IIs? i want to see how bad the moire can be if it can beat this one I produced with my K-x...

Is that in the full image at 100%, or is it just caused by bad jpeg compression?

10-21-2012, 11:59 AM	#110
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Real life images from the K5IIs posted on Flickr here and here Last edited by kh1234567890; 10-21-2012 at 12:11 PM.

10-22-2012, 06:48 AM	#111
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	With all due respect falc Quote: Must be one of the least respected advices I ever gave, given the continuation of discussion. But don't say I didn't tell you ... I have a real problem with people who say this kind of thing... empirical evidence always trumps theoretic positions. Theory has to describe reality, not the other way around. I give no credibility whatsoever to people who put forward theoretical positions with no empirical support, and even less to those who criticize empirical studies with no empirical support. That would just be bad science. To come in here and make a statement like that and ask folks to take your word on faith, I don't know dude. That's kind of like asking for god status or something. Now I can poke holes in the methodology of the Imaging Resource until the cows come home about how good or how bad this research might be, or if it even qualifies as research... but the simple fact is, in one set of circumstances these images have shown that the APS-c can hold it's own with FF in a situation where there is no researcher bias. . Now the proper course of inquiry at this point would be to determine what those circumstances are. And that is what has always bothered me about these theoretical constructs. They are applied , especially by FF advocates very un-equally. And any data that doesn't agree with doctrine is dismissed. But in my world, empirical results trump theoretical discussions and assumptions every time. I would offer the reverse advice. Don't listen to those who claim to have some kind of theoretical knowledge of the effects of resolution on IQ etc... look at the pictures, find the camera that takes the pictures you like and go with that. I have yet to see any empirical evidence that FF out performs APS-c at resolutions up to the native resolution of the APS-c system. I have now seen empirical evidence that 1:1 APS-c can out perform FF. What I'm working for is an understanding of the point where FF becomes necessary in terms of image acceptability, and I have to say, going through almost every FF thread on this site..all I here is crazy stupid theoretical mumbo jumbo in which FF is always necessary. So my advice would be don't necessarily listen to DPR review, but listen to them before you listen to those who present no empirical evidence to back up the points they make. And definitely don't accept single focal plane test charts as information you can use to evaluate 3d images. As Pentax reps have always said, "we don't build our lenses to do well on test charts, we build to capture a 3d world." I personally doubt the 2d testers have a clue what they're talking about. And I'm almost certain Pentax lens designers do. And I buy my lenses from Pentax, not people who set up tests they claim are useful for rating lenses. I have never seen a debate or any information debated on this site discussing the relevance of resolution to IQ. But I have heard lots of discussions where resolution is equated with IQ. That , from the standpoint of photography as an artistc endeavour is just a misuse of science. If you can't make your case empirically, you don't have a case.. and any real scientist will tell you that. Last edited by normhead; 10-22-2012 at 07:16 AM.

10-23-2012, 03:00 AM	#114
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by kh1234567890 The trouble is that it is rare to be able to find a raw file from a given camera on the web, rather than just jpegs of unknown 'provenance'. I understand how tempting it is to take the raws from DPR or IR and pixel peep them. This is why I posted my disclaimer of "just don't do" (and personally, I don't do it anymore indeed). I did a comparison of D800 vs. D800E myself (posted on my blog) and it is very challenging to control all parameters well enough to actually see the effect of the Bayer-AA filter. E.g., even LiveView (manual focus or contrast AF) has too much variation to allow one to one comparisons. Still, the difference found in daily photography is obvious as statistics averages most variation away. I actually recommend the K-5IIs DNG samples from Evil Homer from German DFN forum as they are currently being uploaded here by PF user Keiner in the samples thread. They are more useful than the DPR samples even if there are no 1:1 comparisons. Last edited by falconeye; 10-23-2012 at 03:53 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K5IIs sample?	pinholecam	Pentax News and Rumors	348	12-20-2012 12:00 PM
Official K5II and K5IIs sample is out with DA * lens	PentaxSX	Pentax News and Rumors	187	11-21-2012 07:03 PM
K5II and K5IIs samples	scunning14	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	5	10-02-2012 03:42 PM
10 things to know about the K5II/K5IIs	jpzk	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	16	09-24-2012 05:33 AM
Would you risk buying a brand new K5 without warranty?	vinceloc	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	17	08-15-2012 03:14 PM

10-20-2012, 12:38 AM	#106
UnknownVT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,812	straight 100% crops taken from the ISO100 "default" NR JPGs from the respective Imaging-Resource Studio shots By enlarging just a bit beyond the 100% pixel level one can see the aliasing of the K-5IIS more clearly.

10-20-2012, 03:26 AM	#107
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by falconeye But just a disclaimer. I found the DPReview (and FWIW the Imaging Resource) studio comparison test shots a complete waste when it comes to evaluate sharpness. Just don't do that. Must be one of the least respected advices I ever gave, given the continuation of discussion. But don't say I didn't tell you ...

10-20-2012, 06:14 AM	#108
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by falconeye Must be one of the least respected advices I ever gave, given the continuation of discussion. Don't despair! It's just that the IR tests are available now for the K-5 II well before any users have access to the new bodies to personally evaluate them. And the IR/DPR tests are at least more methodical and credible than the tests most users could craft themselves. So the IR tests aren't all bad.

10-20-2012, 08:02 AM	#109
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	Originally posted by rawr Don't despair! It's just that the IR tests are available now for the K-5 II well before any users have access to the new bodies to personally evaluate them. And the IR/DPR tests are at least more methodical and credible than the tests most users could craft themselves. So the IR tests aren't all bad. Good point... For example, I personally would not even know where I could go to lay hands on a K-5II or any other Pentax product for that matter. I am not going to spend 500 bucks to hop on a plane to New York to test one out. Therefore people like me do rely on such testing, as flawed as they may be. We have no alternative but to check out the test shots and use our best judgement.

10-22-2012, 07:17 PM	#112
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by normhead With all due respect falc I have a real problem with people who say this kind of thing... I sympathize with what you say. But I must say (and it is my fault certainly) that you read far too much into my little statement. I intendended to say nothing of the kind you assumed I would. It is just that I found that both DPR and IR don't even seriously try to produce test shots intended to review sharpness. Ignore it or not, that's what I think. And there is no further hidden message. The mentioned test shots serve many purposes and so, aren't useless. Just to make sure... And of course do real world samples matter. If you can find good ones. As it is far too easy to produce bad quality samples ... (which is why early samples tend to be worse to what your own experience would be).

10-23-2012, 01:04 AM	#113
kh1234567890 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Manchester, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,653	Originally posted by falconeye And of course do real world samples matter. If you can find good ones. As it is far too easy to produce bad quality samples ... (which is why early samples tend to be worse to what your own experience would be). The trouble is that it is rare to be able to find a raw file from a given camera on the web, rather than just jpegs of unknown 'provenance'.

10-24-2012, 01:13 AM	#115
Class A Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,251	FWIW, I wrote a small article on the "Pros and Cons of Omitting an AA-filter".

11-19-2012, 04:43 AM	#116
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	has anyone tried shooting studio shots of people with the k-5 IIs? i want to see how bad the moire can be if it can beat this one I produced with my K-x...

11-19-2012, 05:25 AM	#117
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Alizarine i want to see how bad the moire can be if it can beat this one I produced with my K-x... Aha. So you want to start a contest to see who can produce the worst moire? This should be interesting.

11-19-2012, 05:24 PM	#118
slip Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,535 Original Poster	really interesting thread... OK will Moire be an issue with a medium quality lens like my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5? or any less then stellar lens? thanks randy

11-19-2012, 07:53 PM	#119
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by rawr Aha. So you want to start a contest to see who can produce the worst moire? This should be interesting. Hey, why not though probably more on "which camera..." Actually I've been looking forward to "provoked moire" from the K-5 IIs, to see how bad things can get with it, compared to AA-filtered cameras like the humble K-x (though some say the one in it is weaker than the K-5 Classic/II). We all know its weakness lies in shots of fabrics and similar stuff, but I'm pressed hard looking for such photos online. Most of the samples I'm seeing are either landscapes or, as in the case of Mr. Wong in the DPR forums, shot at diffraction-inducing levels (f11 or higher). Since I'm not a pure landscape shooter but want to experience the added sharpness of the IIs... I'm trying to justify (not) buying it. The money's there; but my heart isn't, yet. lol

11-19-2012, 11:12 PM	#120
vonBaloney Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Albuquerque, NM Posts: 6,029	Originally posted by Alizarine has anyone tried shooting studio shots of people with the k-5 IIs? i want to see how bad the moire can be if it can beat this one I produced with my K-x... Is that in the full image at 100%, or is it just caused by bad jpeg compression?

K5IIs, is it worth the risk?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!