The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

K5 versus the M9

raist3d

Well-known member
Having now pixel peeped the images, it's clear that M9 has much more pixel level resolution - perhaps due to the lesser AA filter? The dynamic range seems very good on both. But where does this halo on the attached M9 picture crop come from? It's not a JPEG artefact as I saw it already on my computer, and there is none or much less on the K-5 picture. Is it from the AA filter difference?

EDIT: Aperture 3, more or less default settings
The M9 not only has 2 megapixels more, it has Zero AA filter :)

- Raist
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Godfrey


Carl
As you say, without pixel peeping it's close to a draw. I did this for myself, but I thought that there would be lots of people who might be interested in the results, and so it would seem!

all the best
As a general note Jono, most cameras in these conditions, including several recent and not so recent point and shoots will look great at these resolutions. I even have an LX5 shot that looks better than those to give you an idea :) Same with low light shots.

I don't think the so called "pixel peeping" here is bad- if you really want to compare what you are getting. I do believe comparing at this size is useful if your target platform is the web, iphone, ipad, etc. but for cropping/printing big, etc. it's useful to see what happens at the 100%.

- Raist
 

jonoslack

Active member
The M9 not only has 2 megapixels more, it has Zero AA filter :)

- Raist
Hi Ricardo
Exactly - and the M9/nocti lens costs about 6 times the K5/35 combo. There is no way that it's a fair fight - but I think the K5 comes out pretty well, and if you start putting price into the equation, then it's excellent.

Personally, i was trying to discover how much I'd lose if I decided to relax occasionally, and go out for the day with the K5 rather than the M9 (which will remain my main system). The answer is that I'll lose something - but not as much as one might imagine.

all the best
 

MPK2010

New member
I'm surprised at the apparent number of posters who have both a M9 and K-5. I understand the similar appeal - size, primes, but to have both systems (unless zooms are used with the Pentax) seems redundant. As good as the K-5 appears to be, when would you choose it over the M9?
Since I'm in that group I'll chime in -- I shoot primarily with the M9 but the K-5 made a lot of sense as a bad-weather backup and I bought one last fall. I used it quite a bit over the winter and was very happy with how it worked out in that role. I used primarily the 18-135 and 31 limited. Great color with both lenses, and the 31 had a really nice signature. Also tried a number of other lenses, mostly primes. The build quality of the camera and the quiet shutter were great too. And despite the justified hype over its high ISO performance I found it was the base ISO where the biggest IQ improvement over other APS-C sensors was to be found.

Ultimately I decided I am just not a huge fan of shooting in bad weather, so it did prove redundant and I sold it. I'm also trying to downsize what I have to carry and the K-5 was bulkier than the M9 combo I use, which is a tiny fraction of the M9 setup pictured above with the monster 50mm lens (not that I would mind owning one of those!), although when I used the 40 limited the K-5 felt similar in size, and of course it is much smaller than comparable SLRs.

My bottom line feeling is if you shoot outdoors in bad weather this camera is kind of a no-brainer, and even if you don't it still stands very well on its merits.
 

shadzee

New member
about leaving the SR off/on...

Many tests have been done, and no one has proven the benefits in either case. I just leave mine on all the time (NOT when on a tripod). That's why Pentax has gone from a hardware switch to software one.

HOWEVER, the previous models K-7 & K20 had major flaws in their implementation of SR at a certain shutter speed (I think 1/100 or 1/80), which introduced blur. Pentax seems to have corrected the problem with K-5 and K-r.

You can read Falk Lumo's blog for the technical aspects of issue, IF you wish ;-)
http://falklumo.blogspot.com/
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Interesting thread.
Personally I still dont fully understand the K5.
I get some images with very good IQ but then I often get slightly unsharp images which lack the last pop.
I really like the color and tones and unobstrusive size.

Compared to the M9 I see AF (faster but not more precise than the range finder), weather sealing, and advantages for tele and macro.
But then the M9 has the nicer viewfinder for 35mm lenses, many faster lenses (and of course its a different user interface)

If we are talking about a DSLR system however I see the K5 lacks the large viewfinder, fast continues AF, the many options for fast and special lenses and the reliable exposure and flash exposure metering of FF Nikons.

I have been trying to decide between Nikon and Pentax for some weeks now but just cant make up my mind.
 

JMaher

New member
It's funny, a friend recently purchased an M9 (and sold it a few days later). I had the opportunity to shoot with it for while during the time he owned it. There is no question that it produced great files but it wasn't the camera for me. I am spoiled by auto focus as was he.

I have a Canon 5D2 and a K5. I like them both but for the moment when I just want to take a camera it's the K5 (primarily with the 18-135) and I get great results (though I must admit its taking me a while to get used to it). When I want to take something for someone (a portrait, a product shot, etc) I tend to grab the Canon. Maybe its because I am more familiar with the Canon or that I have more lens choices, etc. On the K5 side of the equation is the small size, weatherproof body and that it just feels great in my hand.

I think that both take great photographs.

Jim
 

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Lee
Jono

Why is using the K5 'more relaxing'? Is it because the M9 is manual focus?.

Just curious.

Lee
I can't find where I said that - and I'm not sure what I meant.
But I don't think that shooting carefully is ever that relaxing.

But it is true that if I really want to concentrate and get the best results, then I'm likely to pick up the M9.
 

jonoslack

Active member
about leaving the SR off/on...

Many tests have been done, and no one has proven the benefits in either case. I just leave mine on all the time (NOT when on a tripod). That's why Pentax has gone from a hardware switch to software one.
Hi Sam
Well, I read the blog, and I can see my personal results, and I don't really need to prove it to make it worthwhile switching SR off when shooting at 'safe' shutter speeds
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... But it is true that if I really want to concentrate and get the best results, then I'm likely to pick up the M9.
I just pick up the same camera I use all the time and concentrate to get the best results. It's the concentrating that matters, not the camera, once past a certain level of camera/lens quality.

By the time I'd gotten to the end of my Pentax use, I'd tried all the lenses and had my favorites. The bodies always worked well, even the *ist DS, but were always a little clunky. Compared to the Olympus and Leica lenses, and the E-1, L1 and now E-5 bodies, I was never quite as comfortable using the Pentax gear for whatever reason.

Different strokes. Cameras are more than the sum of their parts and specifications. The ancient E-1 continues to make photos that satisfy me, so what the heck. :)
 
I think the really important points here are being somewhat overlooked.


If you look at the size of these two cameras, there is not much difference.

If you look at the images they produce.. there is not much difference.

If you look at the cost of the two cameras.... well, now....

You see, the K5 and Ltd primes produce images that are very good. The K5 has the benefit of being both AF and MF. It is also weather sealed. It has numerous features the M9 does not. It also costs thousands less than an M9 body.. and you really have to ask one really important question....

Are the photos the M9 produces really $5000 better than those from the K5?
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I think the really important points here are being somewhat overlooked.
If you look at the size of these two cameras, there is not much difference.
If you look at the images they produce.. there is not much difference.
If you look at the cost of the two cameras.... well, now....

You see, the K5 and Ltd primes produce images that are very good. The K5 has the benefit of being both AF and MF. It is also weather sealed. It has numerous features the M9 does not. It also costs thousands less than an M9 body.. and you really have to ask one really important question....

Are the photos the M9 produces really $5000 better than those from the K5?
Well, to my eye, the Pentax 16-50/2.8 zoom lens is no match whatever for the Leica 24mm. Frankly, the image from it looks awful (mushy, ill defined, lots of CA, bleck) even without putting it next to the Leica output. The 35 Limited looks much closer to the quality of the Leica 50mm, but there's still a hefty gap in quality. Quality costs exponentially more once you get to a particular level.

I sold my Pentax 16-50 long before I got out of Pentax gear as I felt it simply didn't do the job I wanted at all. The FA43/1.9 remains my absolutely favorite Pentax lens, with the DA21/3.2 and FA77/1.8 Limiteds second in line after that.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Godfrey... You didn't answer the question. The point is the relative bang for the buck of the K5 and Ltd primes vs An M9.
The question is the value of that relative bang for the buck. And it is unanswerable in a general case.

There is a significant difference in the output of these two cameras. How to value that difference is what's at issue. Whether it influences the salability of photos, whether it improves the aesthetic experience ... etc ... all these things have to weigh into the context of that evaluation.

The ultimate question is "how good is good enough?" and every one of us, from the entire context of our use of this equipment to make the products of our labors, has to determine that for ourselves.

There's a photographers I know who owns $100,000 worth of photo gear. He makes pretty pictures. Arguably, you, using a $1000 camera, make better pictures. He's happy with the equipment, it makes him feel good, and he likes the photographs it produces. You're happy with your equipment, it makes you feel good, and you are happy with the photographs it produces. Is his $100,000 worth of equipment better or worse than your $1000 worth of equipment? Likely, technically, maybe.

But in the end, the question is irrelevant. This isn't a class in economics, of the Millsian utilitarian theory ... the greatest good for the least expenditure.

To an artist, no tool is ever good enough, no work ever really right or finished.
Artists are perfectionists, and perfectionism doesn't rest on "good enough" or "relative bang for the buck".

One of the magic tricks learned by the great artists is when to say "I'm done, it's good enough", in every context. So that they can go on to the next work...
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>Artists are perfectionists, and perfectionism doesn't rest on "good enough" or "relative bang for the buck".

How much of the perfection is related to the tools and how much to the content? Yes, photographers are into perfect tools. Not sure how much it helps to create more interesting content.
 
Godfrey, fair enough. Your answer is worthy of that of a politician. Once you bring in how a camera makes someone feel and being an artist...logic goes right down the old dumper.

We just look at such things differently...but the question is valid...and does have a real answer not based in intangibles.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Godfrey, fair enough. Your answer is worthy of that of a politician. Once you bring in how a camera makes someone feel and being an artist...logic goes right down the old dumper.

We just look at such things differently...but the question is valid...and does have a real answer not based in intangibles.
I get what Godfrey is saying and what you are saying. I say there are two answers.

Subjectively speaking is a M9 worth $5000 more than a K5? For me yes because it fits my needs and I don't feel I need anything more from a photographic standpoint(admittedly I haven't purchased my K5 yet but I will.) Objectively speaking do the pictures look $5000 better? H*** NO... but admittedly the M9 has it's limitations and I think the K5 is one of the most affordable photographic tools that satisfy my perceived shortcomings of the M9 (telephoto zooms, macro, weather sealing, AF, etc.)
 

MPK2010

New member
Are the photos the M9 produces really $5000 better than those from the K5?
This is well-put. However, I must respectfully suggest that there is another way to look at it.

I like the images from the M9 better than any comparably-sized camera, by a noticeable margin. Therefore, once I saved up for it, I bought it. End of story.

I respect the efficiency-based approach to decision-making, but I think it is fine to just go for what you really want sometimes. Life is short.

None of this is to suggest that the camera is most important. I think it is fourth, after subject, light and photographer. But the four cannot be entirely divided either.

And again, the K-5 is fantastic. I think it stands on its own without any reference to its price.
 
Last edited:
Top