http://www.photoradar.com/reviews/product/pentax-k-5-review?page=0%2C3&t=1290685059
Click on the ISO crops and you will get the original full pictures.
Well, all the sample pictures are not going to impress me for their Image Quality. Instead, what has impressed me, yet once again, is the image softness, altogether with blur and purple fringing, even for those base ISO images. Too bad.. :-(
For all other previous K-5 reviews that I have reported, see here:-
http://ricehigh.blogspot.com/search?q=K-5+Review
Friday, November 26, 2010
Logging you in...
Comments by IntenseDebate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Barbarosa · 746 weeks ago
d60 reviewed at F22!?!?!?!?!?!
Mabye im dumb but something smells funny here.
Erika · 746 weeks ago
Barbarosa · 746 weeks ago
Anu · 746 weeks ago
Softness is just the basic jpeg-setting and the aperture used - f/11, which means that there will be some deteriation for pixel peepers due to diffraction. A little sharpening does wonders - I just tried, and I am sure that adjusting the jpg-sharpness in camera for one's own taste does the trick too.
Oh, the crops are from an extreme corner.
Corners are not too good - the focus distance is very close and this does influence it with pretty much all lenses without floating elements.
I have a suggestion for you - try to be objective someday, it'd be a change from your normal routine, and might make good for your mental health, your happiness and so on. It would do good for you. Seriously, I am a bit worried (or maybe curiours is a better word) about your mental health. Years of seeing dirt all over a product range one used to be a fan of can not do good for one's mind. Maybe you suffer from depression?
RiceHigh 110p · 746 weeks ago
See the last K-5 Vs K-7 shootout by someone (which I have posted), both with the same 77 Ltd lens, it turned out to be the K-5 shows obvious purple fringing, for the same target and under the same shooting condition, but not the K-7. So, please explain, in accordance with you insisted "CA theory".
As for my health, I think it is still good. Thanks for your care and kind-heartedness but I would wish you the same, too.
Anu · 746 weeks ago
http://toothwalker.org/optics.html
The images in that sample have zero PF, but do have lateral CA. If you don't know what the difference is, do not make silly claims.
rhermans · 746 weeks ago
now the blur ... they are doing an ISO test , say it again an ISO test and what do they show the top left corner of the picture they take.
What has that to do with an ISO test, do the sides of an image have more noise with higher iso's.
So open up the images and look at the center part, and guess what that's not so soft ... (again why the left top of the shot
I can understand it, it they were checking out the sharpness of a lens and how much the fall of is, but not the ISO.)
Then the fringing ... it's there, get the full image zoom in on the corner and the max I found was 10pixels. Thats a lot.
Only for me it's lens related. If the sensor would be responsible for the purple fringe then it would be over the complete image (didn't find it in the center). Or is there a difference in the way a sensor acts in the center of an image compared to the egde.
But then the sensor has something to do with it, because use the same lens on a 6MP sensor and guess what that purple fringe will be less, only 6pixels. So for a pixelpeeper a 1MP sensor would be the best.
Yagoor · 746 weeks ago
Erika · 746 weeks ago
Every camera has its own advantages and disadvantages. Rice is clearly bothered about some of K-5 disadvantages. What is wrong with expressing opinion about particular camera drawback?
I, for example, now am quite convinced that Pentax does not shine in their QC department, because myself I got no so well calibrated k-x (which the shop refused to replace), also there are quite a few user reports where they say, that they had to go through 2 or 3 cameras (k10, k-x or other) until they got a decent one. The same applies to lenses.
That said - if you get a good copy (or get one fixed properly), then they work well.
jaad75 · 746 weeks ago
The only serious claim on strong AA filter of K-5 comes from Klaus from Photozone, and he says the same of 7D, which is proven to be completely wrong by LensTip/Optyczne.pl (like many things Klaus says).
BTW, K-5 has 3 different settings for sharpness only, not to mention different picture styles and contrast settings which definitely have an impact on sharpness perception. Plus default out of camera JPGs are nothing - they are there just in case for noobies/lamers and the most of advanced users shoot RAW anyway.
Erika · 746 weeks ago
I disagree. Those noobies/lamers probably buy nearly half of K5 stock (or even more). Most of them do not even try raw, so they judge camera by jpeg only. Because of this jpeg quality is quite important. Most advanced users shoot raw, thats true. However there are not that many of them. Besides, a good jpeg quality is a nice thing to have. It is not a tragedy for K5, as the jpeg's can be improved with some recommended settings and/or firmware update.
s@s · 746 weeks ago
2. Nikon D7000.... Our Score – 3/5
AND Pentax K-5... 4/5
So?
Read more: http://www.photoradar.com/reviews/product/pentax-...
Erika · 746 weeks ago
Barbarosa · 746 weeks ago
j viviano · 746 weeks ago
"Rice is clearly bothered about some of K-5 disadvantages."
Rice is always bothered about any disadvantage, either real or imagined. He would like a perfect camera. Such a camera does not exist. However, he also fails to LEARN or READ so his complains are completely foolish and often unsubstantiated.
While he fails to understand the basics of optics (w.r.t., CA, and PF), he also fails to understand the utility of a AA filter, which destroys colour moire before it infects your precious raw data (you ARE shooting RAW, aren't you Rice?)
The removal of colour moire (just like fringing) results in... loss of sharpness! So there you have it folks... either your subject's can have rainbow ties, or you can remove the coloured artifacts at the cost of sharpness. The AA filter does that for you automatically. There is no difference. In the real world, you would need to be shooting wall-sized prints to "pixel peep" as all you measurebaters do anyways. Besides... it looks to me like none of you take very interesting photographs (with any frequency). Rice, I DARE you to post a compelling photo.
Digital conversion requires anti-aliasing for optimal results. All of your favorite CD's have been anti-aliased, and none of them sound like less of a guitar or piano.
bandymelis · 746 weeks ago
Toomas Kadarpik · 746 weeks ago
It depends on lens a lot and little bit also for sensor UV sensitivity, if someone can see it with K5 and not with K20 it can be sensitivity of sensor at short WL, K-5 is very sensitive sensor and retains very high DR, this all can make difference. I have seen it also from cheap lenses with open aperture. Some limiteds are not good either because of the old design. But K-5 has DR and it senses much more of extremes of contrast images and can retain much higher sensitivity of sensor to see short WL. May be we need to try old film age UV filters with this sensors.
All tools are synthesis from natural world we understand as very abstract models, K5 has top APS-C sensor and it is normal that the physics plays some game here against. You can see similar reviews with MK IV owners as well.
mrflee70 1p · 746 weeks ago
Tom · 746 weeks ago
j viviano got it right: The K-5's AA filter is not too strong. It is stronger than that of the Nikon D7000 but let's thank Pentax for that. The D7000 produces colour moire and that's much worse than a slightly blurry 100% view that will respond to sharpening just fine.
Voice of Reason · 746 weeks ago
Rubbish · 746 weeks ago