[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1289650748' post='4147']
Dpreview has published raw and jpg test shots of d7000, K5 and 60D. What I found intersting is that the d7000 and k5 seem indeed to hold more detail in the shawdos than the 60d . This is however only apprent in the dark box in the photos which contains these wool threads. Otherwise all cameras (except the 50D) look more or less identical, with the D7000 being abit less noisey but also a bit less sharp than the 60D at high iso.
[/quote]
Which might lead us to conclude that all 3 are fantastic APS-C cameras in more or less the same class, with the Nikon losing some detail due to some sort of filtering, and the Pentax having progressed a lot in the ADC area?
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1289656653' post='4148']
Which might lead us to conclude that all 3 are fantastic APS-C cameras in more or less the same class, with the Nikon losing some detail due to some sort of filtering, and the Pentax having progressed a lot in the ADC area?
[/quote]
That could be a conclusion. But the photos made me very curious about the shadow detail performance of the d7000 and K5. If the advantage in this category of these two cams as shown in the dpreview test pics tranlates into real life , it could make a compelling argument for these two cams for low light work. But until I have seen and worked with raw files shot under avaialble light from all cameras its impossible to say whether there really is an advantge save under good "test" light.
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1289650748' post='4147']
Dpreview has published raw and jpg test shots of d7000, K5 and 60D. What I found intersting is that the d7000 and k5 seem indeed to hold more detail in the shawdos than the 60d . This is however only apprent in the dark box in the photos which contains these wool threads. Otherwise all cameras (except the 50D) look more or less identical, with the D7000 being abit less noisey but also a bit less sharp than the 60D at high iso.[/quote]
Errr... I think many folks are finding the K5 RAW files to be rather soft all the way from ISO 100 to 6400 when compared to the D7000, its closest counterpart. What do you guys think? The D7000 and 60D appear a lot more similar than expected (RAW of course).
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1289670116' post='4151']
Errr... I think many folks are finding the K5 RAW files to be rather soft all the way from ISO 100 to 6400 when compared to the D7000, its closest counterpart. What do you guys think? The D7000 and 60D appear a lot more similar than expected (RAW of course).
[/quote]
I agree, but the 60D has better detail than both 
Unfortunately dpreview's samples cannot be used to judge how much detail a camera can resolve.
For the K-5, the ISO1600 shot is sharper than lower ISO ones; obviously something happened, but I'm afraid this won't be investigated; it's so much easy to just say "K-5 level of detail is behind the competition"... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Of course, the 60D could still have better detail even if all things were equal; those 18MPs are not only for show <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> But I doubt the K-5 lags behind, even for pixel peeping.
[quote name='Kunzite' timestamp='1289673301' post='4153']
Unfortunately dpreview's samples cannot be used to judge how much detail a camera can resolve.
For the K-5, the ISO1600 shot is sharper than lower ISO ones; obviously something happened, but I'm afraid this won't be investigated; it's so much easy to just say "K-5 level of detail is behind the competition"... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Of course, the 60D could still have better detail even if all things were equal; those 18MPs are not only for show <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> But I doubt the K-5 lags behind, even for pixel peeping.
[/quote]You think they don't know what they are you? go into the Pentax forum and everybody in there knows everything and dpreview knows nothing
bottom line all three are great cameras.
Sorry, is that a kind of "they are right because they can't be wrong" kind of argument?
Two things were suggested, mainly:
- to use the same lens (e.g. the highly regarded Sigma 70mm macro)
- to better check where the focus is (and the difference can be seen, go and check yourself)
What was the response?
- it's much better to use different lenses, with "similar" design - even if they tested differently by the same site
- it's pretty much irrelevant if the focus is all over the place, so they won't bother.
Sorry, but I can't take that site seriously. Unless it's about the user interface, very nicely explained. Klaus is much more careful about the "small" details that matters, including critical focus; I'm looking forward to his K-5 review (and, hopefully, K-5 lens tests that would follow).
P.S. It should be obvious, but: this isn't about making the Pentax "win". It can "lose" and still be an excellent tool (and it's pretty much obvious by now that it is). But if it "loses", let it "lose" fair and square - same for the "winner", whichever camera it may be.
[quote name='Kunzite' timestamp='1289684702' post='4155']
Sorry, is that a kind of "they are right because they can't be wrong" kind of argument?
Two things were suggested, mainly:
- to use the same lens (e.g. the highly regarded Sigma 70mm macro)
- to better check where the focus is (and the difference can be seen, go and check yourself)
What was the response?
- it's much better to use different lenses, with "similar" design - even if they tested differently by the same site
- it's pretty much irrelevant if the focus is all over the place, so they won't bother.
Sorry, but I can't take that site seriously. Unless it's about the user interface, very nicely explained. Klaus is much more careful about the "small" details that matters, including critical focus; I'm looking forward to his K-5 review (and, hopefully, K-5 lens tests that would follow).
P.S. It should be obvious, but: this isn't about making the Pentax "win". It can "lose" and still be an excellent tool (and it's pretty much obvious by now that it is). But if it "loses", let it "lose" fair and square - same for the "winner", whichever camera it may be.
[/quote]
Yawn please stop this. Dpreview can just give HINTS about camera performance. If anything apparent from their test pics translates into real life can only determined by the individual photographer by evaluating real images with his own workflow. Please dont take these bloddy test pics as Gods final judgment on camera performance.
jenbenn, why on Earth do you believe I take dpreview's words as "Gods final judgment on camera performance"? Remember, I was talking about some inaccuracies in their tests; I wouldn't do that if I'd blindly trust them, would I?
bryan conner
Unregistered
Is there a such thing as a 100% completely accurate test of either a lens or of a body?
|
