Originally posted by ogl First impressions:
The JPEG quality is terrible (in terms of pixel-level-sharpness).
The RAW quality is Okayish - 25% blur - which is significant. Based on these initial tests I'd conclude that it has a rather aggressive AA filter.
The max. LW/PH are barely higher than the ones of the K10D. So far for the fanboy criticism that I should have migrated earlier ...
Just to clarify (because the former comment is already cited out there).
K5 @ 16mp:
max. 2500 LW/PH (RAW)
max. 2050 LW/PH (JPEG ****)
For comparison:
A33 @ 14mp:
max. 2850 LW/PH (RAW)
max. 2500 LW/PH (JPEG)
Other than that the K5 seems to be a very fine camera from a user's perspective. Please note that I'm simply requiring a camera for a lab environment and the K5 is not substantially "better" for the lens tests (and only for the lens tests) than the old K10D.
Photozone - Pentax K5 ... ordered - ogl,
An MTF50 value of 2500 LW/PH for a 3264 pixel high sensor is a measured 10-90% edge rise width of about 1.30 pixels. As one can read in my Understanding Image Sharpness white paper, an ideal camera rendering perfect pixels would have 1.26 pixels exactly. So, the "25% blur is significant" comment is misleading. 26% "blur" is the mathematically perfect value. Therefore, the measured value is a very good balance between sharpening artefacts and detail. It can be shown mathematically that an image sharpened beyond the 1.26px blur width value must have aliasing artefacts (like jaggies).
Klaus uses relative aggressive sharpening parameters and it remains to be seen how sharp a K-5 image renders with normal sharpening parameters. As long as he doesn't communicate sharpening parameters and lens and f-stop used, the figures are meaningless anyway. Sharpening parameters must always be adapted to a cameras AA filter and I'm sure, Klaus is going to do that.