Testing out a Pentax K5

[ptomsu]

HI Godfrey
Well - a good jpg engine is designed around the sensor and the firmware, not something that Adobe / Phase / Apple do. Careful control of the settings together with experience can produce great results, sometimes ones not easy to reproduce with 3rd party RAW programs.

I always shoot RAW, but I recognise that lots of others don't, and produce splendid photographs - each to his own.

However, I rather dislike the snobbery which goes with the 'I always shoot RAW' philosophy - Don't you?

Jono,

my shooting RAW instead of JPEG goes back very long. I used to only shoot JPEG, even back in my E1 days, and I must even acknowledge that the JPEG output of the E1 was (is) stunning. Having said that I then started to really play around with RAW. I did this first with C1 then with LR and finally Aperture. I almost never used the camera vendor sold RAW software. And I found over the years that - what most others find - RAW gives you much greater freedom compared to JPEG. So this is the reason why I am using RAW exclusively today. Whenever I try JPEG out of camera, I immediately see artefacts etc, which I almost never do when processing JPEGs from RAWs from one of the above mentioned programs.

Why do it in camera with rather limited processing capabilities if you can do it much more sophisticated in post processing with much more capabilities. I consider it as an advantage that some companies rely just (or almost heavily) in post processing products, as this gives them a lot of experience (obviously) compared to the vendors, who might have for sure more experience with their own camera/sensor setup, but actually I can only say this for Hasselblad and Phocus and actually in this case you have again only RAW files coming out of the Blad.

I agree that here are some camera vendors who are producing excellent JPEGs but I think you can count them on the fingers of one hand And the same limitations for changing something in your images after they are out of camera are still there. Creative filters? Well ok, they are nice and I like to play around with them, but then again I can achieve all this and much more in post processing in PS. So why bother and waste my time with camera built in JPEG engines?

But of course everybody has different needs and preferences. In my case (and I think also in yours) the preference seems to be RAW anyway.

The one thing which strikes me is if there are tons of comparisons from out of the camera JPEGs, as I said already above, this outcome is (has) to be based on very limited resources from in camera. What one gets there can be good in certain conditions, but in general you are limiting the possibilities of a sensor and lens and camera combo significantly. Plus you tweak what will be the result in terms of different camera built in optimizations. And then you start comparing? All my history as an engineer tells me that this is wrong, because one saying is still true, even in the most advanced and digital days - "who measures a lot, measures just nonsense" translated to JPEGs "who plays around with camera built in processing and changes the output and then compares compares just nonsense".

Sorry for this lengthy reply, but one cannot just forget reality.

 

[ptomsu]

Hi Peter
Well, of course Thomas and I are not a statistical sample, and I agree there are some good reviews of this lens, but both Thomas and I found the 18-55 to be pretty uninspiring. Maybe we were unlucky with our samples?

On the other hand, I don't generally believe in magic, and a 28-80 equivalent lens for £100 which is really good seems to me to amount to magic!

Actually, I don't believe in a good quality 18-135 lens for £500 either!

So let me hope I am getting a better sample

Of course I agree that a standard kit zoom is very rarely a good solution - at least what my experience tells me - independent of which vendor you take.

But hope dies last will keep you updated.

 

[raist3d]

OT: Raw vs JPEG rant

I gotta admit, that I have grown really sick and tired of people that look at JPEG shooters as non professional, non serious or that they don't know what they are doing.

I could easily reply to such remark with "the problem with RAW shooters is that they don't' have the skills to shoot right and get it right the first time" but would be as silly and ignorant to say as the other. So I am going to assume this is said out of ignorance more than any condescending "I am right and you haven't seen the light."

Now, getting that out of the way, I want to mention a few brief things to dispel a bit of the myths presented. This is not a complete list, nor am I trying to persuade anyone to change what works for them, but I find compelled to debunk some of the implied propositions.

The first one is- three are indeed many pros that shoot JPEG. You can look around on the web and you will find them. I am not talking about amateur weekend photographer or such, I am talking about real professionals here making their living out of photography with published work.

The second- let's think this through for a moment: why on Earth would Nikon bother to put a JPEG engine in their USD MSRP $8,0000 full frame D3x? Likewise, why would Canon bother likewise to put one in the EOS 5 Mark II or Mark III (more expensive). Why would Olympus spend a huge amount of cash pushing the JPEG engine they have to do stuff like vector analysis along edges so the colors don't bleed into another while doing the Bayer Color Filtered Array interpolation on the E-3? Why bother no?

These cameras I mentioned aren't low end (in particularly the Canon high end and Nikon high end model cited). Why would they even bother?

Now coming from my own experience because I get looks like "the problem is that you haven't shot RAW so you don't know what you can do yet" often, I actually shot RAW for the first year to year and a half (maybe two years) with my e-300 and then e-330. The e-300 because the JPEG engine was killing details, such was that engine. The e-330 was the "turn around point" where I realized for many shots, I was simply wasting my time. I could get what I wanted, right out there and then.

The implication that because I like shooting in JPEG I am not serious about photography is so misplaced that I don't know where to begin, but hopefully this post is a start.

Another very common misconception: "oh but JPEGS are 8bits and raws are 12, now 14 bits (for the Pentax, Canon, NIkon, not for Olympus/Panasonic). That's true but that completely ignores some very important details:

#1. JPEGS are non linearly encoded in those 8bits per sections/blocks that are fairly small. RAW data is linear. What this means is that say you have a gradient of 6 tones of red, on RAW you only have what you have for representing them at the bit level. Which 12 or 14 it is obviously quite a bit. For JPEG at first one may think "wow not enough" but since the JPEG encoding allocates those bits in that say "red region" of data, all of a sudden it just works.

#2. Think again this through: All the pictures that you are showing on the web that you are so proud of (if you are) from RAW, that people are going "ooh and ahh" are JPEGS. So certainly the format can take it/do it with probably what are extremely 0.001% mathematical case-exceptions, which are probably so far away from a photograph that are meaningless anyway.

Now, again, I am not trying to persuade anyone. I actually shoot still my weddings in RAW and depending on the camera - I do shoot them in RAW (like Panasonic LX5 and Sigma DP2, but not because of the format, but because of their JPEG engine). I started to shoot the E-620 in JPEG and wasn't too happy with the noise in shadows so now I shoot it in RAW for low light, in good daylight sometimes still jpegs.

I was doing portrait shots for an actor in LA once and I did two sessions. The first I shot all in RAW. The 2nd, seeing that I wasn't getting anything better out of the RAW was all in JPEG. And we all got what we wanted.

@Godfrey- about your comment about a computer being 1,000 times faster/better than the one in the camera- not so fast. The computers have general purpose processors. The cameras have custom processors. Try encoding AVCHD 1080p video at 60p in realtime like the new GH2 on an intel core 2 duo computer and see how fast that goes. Custom hardware can be many times faster than a general purpose CPU. Like Jono also mentioned, those engines and pipeline are tuned for the sensor (hopefully!). In the case of Olympus it sure seems like it.

So please let's stay from this "jpeg vs raw" and consider that different people have different preferences, wants and needs. In the end show your photographs and let that speak for itself.

----- END of RAW vs JPEG rant


So going back to the Pentax, I did try processing the DNG's. I find I can get say good color very easily with the Olympus RAW converter, I found myself with some of the shots having a bit of a harder time with the Pentax, but the shots that were posted recently look very promising. I want to make clear the shots that Jono posted are very helpful also because while some lack some of the "presence" I alluded to, they sure show great DR and tonal rang, plus dark deep shadows. Something I miss from Olympus in their current models (thus part of why i am looking at the Pentax amongst other reasons).

 

[raist3d]

Jono,

my shooting RAW instead of JPEG goes back very long. I used to only shoot JPEG, even back in my E1 days, and I must even acknowledge that the JPEG output of the E1 was (is) stunning. Having said that I then started to really play around with RAW. I did this first with C1 then with LR and finally Aperture. I almost never used the camera vendor sold RAW software. And I found over the years that - what most others find - RAW gives you much greater freedom compared to JPEG. So this is the reason why I am using RAW exclusively today. Whenever I try JPEG out of camera, I immediately see artefacts etc, which I almost never do when processing JPEGs from RAWs from one of the above mentioned programs.

Why do it in camera with rather limited processing capabilities if you can do it much more sophisticated in post processing with much more capabilities.

Because some of us get exactly what we want and need in JPEG. Why then for us to bother? I am glad a RAW workflow works for you. It's not the only valid workflow for people who consider their photography as serious.

I agree that here are some camera vendors who are producing excellent JPEGs but I think you can count them on the fingers of one hand

I agree but that doesn't change the validity of a JPEG shooter photographer.

And the same limitations for changing something in your images after they are out of camera are still there. Creative filters? Well ok, they are nice and I like to play around with them, but then again I can achieve all this and much more in post processing in PS. So why bother and waste my time with camera built in JPEG engines?

Who said that JPEG shooters are using "creative filters" all the time or such?

But here's another reason too: because many of us get what we want and need, and prefer to spend time photographing rather than sitting in front of a computer post processing.

But of course everybody has different needs and preferences. In my case (and I think also in yours) the preference seems to be RAW anyway.

Exactly.

The one thing which strikes me is if there are tons of comparisons from out of the camera JPEGs, as I said already above, this outcome is (has) to be based on very limited resources from in camera. What one gets there can be good in certain conditions, but in general you are limiting the possibilities of a sensor and lens and camera combo significantly. Plus you tweak what will be the result in terms of different camera built in optimizations.

But that's certainly an issue for someone who is looking for a good JPEG engine right? I mean if that's one of the things they want, then it's valid comparison. It's not comparing the camera model potential, but it's comparing the camera model vs his or her needs (which in the end matter most).

And then you start comparing? All my history as an engineer tells me that this is wrong, because one saying is still true, even in the most advanced and digital days - "who measures a lot, measures just nonsense" translated to JPEGs "who plays around with camera built in processing and changes the output and then compares compares just nonsense".

I don't understand how you make a jump from the first analogy to the next. In fact, one could say that pointing out shooting a raw vs a jpeg goes more with someone who is measuring than someone doing art.

Sorry for this lengthy reply, but one cannot just forget reality.

Reality is, many pro photographers do shoot JPEG and they have valid reason. The only reality here is that for you a JPEG workflow is not good. Well yeah, keep shooting raw. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[raist3d]

For the record....

@ Raist

Maybe I did understand something wrong in your posts, but I understand you are most times using JPEG out of camera?

In this case you loose most of the capabilities of great DSLRs today. And actually then you do not need a DSLR, there are very good bridge & P&S cameras around which can do at least as good JPEGs as DSLRs.

Comparing colors from camera JPEG output - well this is not something serious - sorry.

Ever tried a decent post processing workflow - whatever you like - Aperture, Lightroom, Capture One etc ????

PS: I actually hope I am wrong with my assumptions ....

#1. I have tried Bible Pro, LightZone, Aperture (which I use and is my main DAM application), Olympus Master/Studio/Viewer, Silky Pix, OS-X built in RAW support (which is kinda like saying Aperture though more limited), Bible Pro 4 & 5, Light Room 2.x and latest 3.3+, dcraw, Raw Therapee, Sigma PP (though that's only for Sigma cameras but I use it), Capture One (a while back though), Nikon's "Jr. View" converter. Maybe I am missing one or two more.

#2. I am comparing both JPEGS (for the Pentax) and RAWS (DNG's).

#3. No, there aren't point and shoots that do as good of a JPEG engine as a DSLR. Unless you consider Olympus Pens point and shoots.

#4. I use most of the time JPEG out of the camera when I feel the JPEG engine in the camera is up to it. Traditionally this has been with the Olympus e-330, e-420, E-3. If I had an E-5 I would probably be using JPEG most of the time with some exceptions. If I had a Fuji S5 Pro I would be using almost near always JPEG. Their JPEG engine is even a notch better than Olympus' but they so far had thrown the towel on DSLR's. Crossing fingers that X100 has a good JPEG engine.

#5. I started to shoot in RAWS and over time switched to JPEG.

--- Hope that sets my context straight

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

Jono, I don't how how I missed it but this is more of the red I want to see (from a shot you posted previously):

(the shirt)

- Raist

 

[ptomsu]

@raist

I do understand most of your points, I even understand that you prefer shooting JPEG as I do shooting RAW - right?

I do not have any religion about RAW or JPEG, the only thing I cannot like is to compare the capabilities of cameras on behalf of their JPEG engines, which I BTW found is also common practice in many reviews, as we all know the limitations or better said already applied PP to images when they come out of camera. Sorry, but this is not a test for a camera.

I would rather like people say "this is a review of Camera xyz based on their JPEG" engine and compared to another cam and their JPEG engine. And then you could say "this JPEG engine is compared to this RAW ENGINE ..." ETC.

What I do not like in these comparisons is that you have to read through tons of lines (posts) etc in order to find out that someone has done a review (or a comparison) based ob just the JPEG engine.

This si basically all WRT to JPEG vs RAW for me.

BUT - I am willing to learn, I only had used the E1 JPEG engine I was satisfied with because then I started shooting RAW. I did not try most of the great JPEG cams you mentioned. Obviously you also have a Pentax DSLR? With a great JPEG engine?

I will try the JPEG on my K5 and see if I still need RAW (DNG). Maybe it is a good hint to look again into JPEG.

Will see!

Thanks for the great exchange of thoughts!

 

[raist3d]

@raist

I do understand most of your points, I even understand that you prefer shooting JPEG as I do shooting RAW - right?

I do not have any religion about RAW or JPEG, the only thing I cannot like is to compare the capabilities of cameras on behalf of their JPEG engines, which I BTW found is also common practice in many reviews,

True and I agree. In fact I have been mentioning that on dpreview. But I am comparing the JPEGS of the Pentax because for me JPEGS are important, so I want to know how it does. You may notice that I am actually comparing both JPEG and DNG"s (raws, not just JPEG).

as we all know the limitations or better said already applied PP to images when they come out of camera. Sorry, but this is not a test for a camera.

For those who need or want to do PP that's cool. For me, I want to know how the JPEG does because If I can avoid doing PP, the better. As for comparing cameras it is *valid for my needs*. I am not trying to compare the technical potential of the camera or sensor- yes, if I was doing that I would do that in RAW. But since I am purchasing this camera for me & my needs and wants, I want/need to know how the JPEGS do (and I am not discarding how it does in RAW anyway. I am comparing both).

So yes, comparing the JPEG engine, as part of *my comparison* is entirely valid. You are not buying me the camera nor am I buying the camera for you.

BUT - I am willing to learn, I only had used the E1 JPEG engine I was satisfied with because then I started shooting RAW. I did not try most of the great JPEG cams you mentioned. Obviously you also have a Pentax DSLR? With a great JPEG engine?

No, I don't have a Pentax DSLR. That's why I am researching all of this. I can say though JPEG engines (Olympus) has come a long long long long way from the E-1's.

I will try the JPEG on my K5 and see if I still need RAW (DNG). Maybe it is a good hint to look again into JPEG.

Will see!

Just use what you want and like. I am not trying to convince you to stop using RAW. I would be willing to use RAW's on the Pentax if I have to, but would be nice to shoot a lot of JPEGS if I see the engine is up to it.

Thanks for the great exchange of thoughts!

Cool.

 

[raist3d]

Looks like this is *a lens to get*

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DFA-Weather-Resistant-100mm-F2.8-Macro-Lens.html

Like what I am seeing in those shots....

- Raist

 

[Paratom]

Thomas,

what do you call the kit zoom? Was it the

SMC DA 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AL WR ???

This is actually a newly designed lens and described as very sharp in lot of reviews. I will get it with my K5 anyway, so I will be able to let you all know my findings.

Peter

yes 18-55 WR. My sample soft specially at 50-55mm f5.6.
The sony kitlens which comes with the A55 for example seems much better.
The 16-50 at f4 is better than the 17-55 at f8 in my experience.
But maybe my copy was a bad sample.

 

[raist3d]

It's done.

Tomorrow I should have it along with the WR Kit lens + DA 70 for a start + case for the pancakes. My goal is to get the 21 and eventually 35mm macro DA limiteds.

For weddings I hope I an do with the kit lens for now- well see. If not that's a bunch of cash to spend for the DA* Gold. If there is a Tamron/Sigma equivalent that someone here trusts that is good (Tamron over Sigma), let me know.

I am doing this as also a trial. If it doesn't work for me, it's going back to the Amazon jungle

- Raist

 

[Paratom]

Re: It's done.

Tomorrow I should have it along with the WR Kit lens + DA 70 for a start + case for the pancakes. My goal is to get the 21 and eventually 35mm macro DA limiteds.

For weddings I hope I an do with the kit lens for now- well see. If not that's a bunch of cash to spend for the DA* Gold. If there is a Tamron/Sigma equivalent that someone here trusts that is good (Tamron over Sigma), let me know.

I am doing this as also a trial. If it doesn't work for me, it's going back to the Amazon jungle

- Raist

I am sure you will enjoyit.
I think the 35 macro DA is my favorite lens so far. You can do a lot with just that lens.
70 Limited is great too for portraits.

 

[raist3d]

Before I forget: thanks everyone for helping out...

getting data that I needed/wanted.

Thanks all of you.

going back to my reply: I am thinking eventually if I keep all this, the 35 DA Limited Macro, and the 21mm DA Limited. That way I have three primes with varying degrees of focal lengths and a macro.

I saw some shots of that macro and blew me away (pentaxforums). You are right, you can do landscape, macro, portrait with it and it apparently is mega sharp.

The only reason I didn't order those is because- Amazon had the 21 and the macro at an absurd price. Saw BHphoto has a far more reasonable price (one of the lenses is $300 USD cheaper!!!!!). So if this initial combo works then I am ordering the other lenses.

 

[Godfrey]

HI Godfrey
Well - a good jpg engine is designed around the sensor and the firmware, not something that Adobe / Phase / Apple do. Careful control of the settings together with experience can produce great results, sometimes ones not easy to reproduce with 3rd party RAW programs.

Mostly irrelevant ... designing image processing around specific sensor and hardware constraints is usually beneficial in terms of producing good results quickly in the scope of limited computing resources. It generally does not provide image quality advantages.

I always shoot RAW, but I recognise that lots of others don't, and produce splendid photographs - each to his own.

However, I rather dislike the snobbery which goes with the 'I always shoot RAW' philosophy - Don't you?

Same here.

 

[raist3d]

Mostly irrelevant ... designing image processing around specific sensor and hardware constraints is usually beneficial in terms of producing good results quickly in the scope of limited computing resources. It generally does not provide image quality advantages.

Same here.

Then perhaps you may want to consider that what you are saying is what applies to you because again, there are pros/cons on both sides and they also vary per photography domain, wants and needs of each individual photographer. The whole "doesn't provide image quality advantages" can be even debated when you look at the impact shooting in one or the other does, but again that varies per individual/domain and need.

- Raist

 

[jonoslack]

Then perhaps you may want to consider that what you are saying is what applies to you because again, there are pros/cons on both sides and they also vary per photography domain, wants and needs of each individual photographer. The whole "doesn't provide image quality advantages" can be even debated when you look at the impact shooting in one or the other does, but again that varies per individual/domain and need.

- Raist

Right with you here Ricardo.
Each to his own . . . . and there are advantages all the way around.

 

[Godfrey]

Right with you here Ricardo.
Each to his own . . . . and there are advantages all the way around.

Sorry, I don't understand what his statement said as differentiated from what I said.

 

[jonoslack]

Sorry, I don't understand what his statement said as differentiated from what I said.

Well Godfrey. It seemed like you said " raw is best" and Ricardo said that it depended on what you wanted. That's fairly different?

 

[Godfrey]

Well Godfrey. It seemed like you said " raw is best" and Ricardo said that it depended on what you wanted. That's fairly different?

I didn't. I have said, in this thread and elsewhere:

- that a raw workflow has a finer degree of adjustability and more editabilty than in-camera image processing,
- that there is no substantive advantage in image quality to in-camera processing compared to the fine control possible in a more powerful computer *,
- that the advantages of in-camera processing with respect to tailoring to the sensor and hardware of the camera lie in optimizing for performance given the limited processing capabilities of camera hardware,
- that a raw workflow suits my photography best **,
- that others might consider the in-camera JPEG engine best for their particular needs/desires, for whatever reason.

* ...which presumes an image processing application of appropriate quality and adequate skill by the user to take advantage of it.
** I didn't go into details as to why I consider that to be the case in this thread.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I'm with Godfrey here. Apart from the time and skill needed to do proper post processing, I don't see any advantages shooting jpeg with any camera. With a RAW file, it's always possible to end up with a result that gives the same visual impression as the in-camera jpeg, but the technical quality will, as far as my experience goes, always be better when starting with an uncompressed RAW. In addition, one has adjustment options that are never available with jpegs.

But, sometimes, and now I include myself, getting to those results may require time and/or skills that are simply not available, and sometimes there is no point in spending the resources, since the OOC jpegs are good enough for the intended use of the photo.

This is all highly individual of course, but being me, and having done rather a lot of mistakes through 54 years of imperfect human life, I would never dream of taking a photo not in RAW (or even buy a camera that can't take RAW photos), but I do sometimes take both, particularly with a new camera with files that are unknown to me, or when I or a client need files ready for publishing faster than I can deliver them from RAW. But sometimes, if I know that the best possible results are needed, and particularly if the photos are taken under demanding or stressful circumstances, and even if a client asks for the jpeg files for convenience, I refuse to deliver other than RAW files, simply because I owe it to the customer and to my own reputation not to have imperfect jpegs floating around. This is of course in cases when the client has his own photo post processing staff.

I do see this from the point of view of a professional photographer, but any photo taken by any serious amateur or photo enthusiast may end up being published. So, I want any photo that i take to look its best, even if it's just an OOF photo of my feet, taken by accident while I'm trying to figure out why the bl***y flash doesn't work :cussing: