[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290546382' post='4368']
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 ...
[/quote]
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.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290587411' post='4377']
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.
[/quote]
Hi Klaus,
how are these measured? Bar-chart or MTF50 (Imatest)? Just curious.
Best wishes
Joachim
enjoy
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1290588724' post='4380']
Hi Klaus,
how are these measured? Bar-chart or MTF50 (Imatest)? Just curious.
Best wishes
Joachim
[/quote]
Yep.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290587411' post='4377']
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.[/quote]
Klauss, I don't think you need bother getting the camera serviced or replaced. The K5 has very strong built-in RAW NR. Pentax used to implement mandatory NR for RAW only at ISO 3200 and above. Now, they've really gone overboard... in their quest for 'seemingly higher DR' at low ISO. Sigh..
But it should not stop you from reviewing Pentax lenses, should it?
[quote name='joachim' timestamp='1290545440' post='4367']
Looking at these, I would not think the AA filter in the Nikon is substantially weaker than the Pentax.
As usual the dpreview samples suffer from the depth of field not being enough to cover the depth of their test target. Having the different cameras focussed in different places doesn't help comparing.
[/quote]
Absolutely NOT true. Firstly, at ISO 100, Pentax captures far less detail than the Nikon equivalent... regardless of where you look. Secondly, the review team has far more experience and is far more meticulous than your careless assumption. Thirdly, Nikon and Canon capture nearly equal amount of detail... everywhere.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290587411' post='4377']
A33 @ 14mp:
max. 2850 LW/PH (RAW)
max. 2500 LW/PH (JPEG)
[/quote]
Why do you have A33 and not A55? That's the same sensor as K-5.
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1290598983' post='4384']
Absolutely NOT true. Firstly, at ISO 100, Pentax captures far less detail than the Nikon equivalent... regardless of where you look. Secondly, the review team has far more experience and is far more meticulous than your careless assumption. Thirdly, Nikon and Canon capture nearly equal amount of detail... everywhere.
[/quote]
The EOS 7D has also a rather strong AA filter. It just resolves as much as the the A33 actually.
All tests were done based on DNGs converted with the same RAW converter version.
11-24-2010, 11:59 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-24-2010, 01:11 PM by Klaus.)
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1290599561' post='4385']
Why do you have A33 and not A55? That's the same sensor as K-5.
[/quote]
Because the A33 happened to be here. An A55 will probably resolve in excess of 3000LW/PH assuming it has the same/similar AA filter as the A33.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1290599823' post='4386']
The EOS 7D has also a rather strong AA filter. It just resolves as much as the the A33 actually.
All tests were done based on DNGs converted with the same RAW converter version.
[/quote]
That is very peculiar in view of what's shown on many other websites.
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1290598983' post='4384']
Absolutely NOT true. Firstly, at ISO 100, Pentax captures far less detail than the Nikon equivalent... regardless of where you look. Secondly, the review team has far more experience and is far more meticulous than your careless assumption. Thirdly, Nikon and Canon capture nearly equal amount of detail... everywhere.
[/quote]
show examples, you have both Pentax K-5 and Nikon D7000 ? I have both cameras - pentax captures same amount of details. What review team ? dpreview.com which are testing lenses instead of cameras ?
