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 GH2

Amin

Active member
I think the GH2 compares favorably up to ISO 800. Starts lagging behind slightly after that. At 3200 and above, K-5 is better w/o a doubt. Just my 2 cents.
The K-5 is just under a stop better in noise performance than the GH2. At ISO 3200 and above, it seems like the difference is much greater because the K-5 is applying on-chip noise reduction to the RAW file at those settings.

I know some folks here don't like DxOmark, but these data match up very well with my results using these three cameras (GH2, K-5, and D700):



The legend isn't quite right. The open circles are the "smoothed" K-5 performance (noise reduction applied to the RAW file).

wider range of sharp, fast autofocus primes (this is where Panasonic and Olympus need to fill the gap)
I think it depends on the focal lengths one wants. For me, the Panasonic 14, 20, and 45 cover those focal lengths. Therefore the question becomes not whether Pentax has more lenses to choose from but whether the equivalent Pentax lenses have better performance than the Panasonics. I've decided to give a couple more Pentax lenses a tryout and have the Pentax 21/3.2 and 35/2.4 on the way. It will be interesting to see how those compare to the Pana 14/2.5 and 20/1.7 respectively.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
The K-5 is just under a stop better in noise performance than the GH2. At ISO 3200 and above, it seems like the difference is much greater because the K-5 is applying on-chip noise reduction to the RAW file at those settings.

I know some folks here don't like DxOmark, but these data match up very well with my results using these three cameras (GH2, K-5, and D700):
I happen to like DXo mark overall as I have validated with my cameras ballpark of their findings, and they give full disclosure how they do things plus explain what they don't intend to cover.

The graph you show does show a stop better performance even coming ISO 1600 (1.3-1.5). At ISO 3200 as you say Pentax has noise reduction and while I would prefer the option of choosing it on or off, I think as long as they use some very low level data at the sensor level considering the results I am seeing I am not that worried because the results I am seeing seem pretty usable.

To give you an idea of what I mean, check this shot:



That's ISO 25600(!) at F2.4, 1/15th (no idea how my cat held that still, certainly seems IS helped considering this was a 105 mm equivalent focal length). This was the DA 70mm Limited.

There is no noise post processing on my part. Just a notch in the contrast and the white balance. No noise reduction tried, no Topaz nor LR 3.3 or Aperture or anything else. Oh I did apply sharpening. This was very low fluorescent light, very indirect and there's no banding.

So I really think as the ISO climbs there's a valid difference at least in some situations, but I like what I also see from the GH2.

- Raist
 

Amin

Active member
The graph you show does show a stop better performance even coming ISO 1600 (1.3-1.5).
At ISO 1600 on that graph, the line for the Pentax is skewed by the fact that DxO measured ISO 1600 is in between Pentax nominal ISO 1600 (raw RAW) and nominal ISO 3200 (smoothed RAW). If you compare the lines prior to the part affected by smoothing, there is a less than 1 stop difference. For example, the last non-smoothed K-5 data point on that graph is for a measured ISO 1417 and corresponding SNR is 29.2db. Drawing a line horizontally to the left from there, the measured ISO corresponding to 29.2db for the GH2 is ISO 817, less than one stop away from ISO 1417.

Personally, I generally feel comfortable shooting up to ISO 3200 on the GH2, 6400 on the K-5, and 12,800 (equivalent) on the D700. The main difference is that the on-chip smoothing on the K-5 means that I don't need to do any additional NR with the very high ISO K-5 files, whereas the other two cameras take a bit more effort in that regard.
 
Last edited:

Rich M

Member
I think it depends on the focal lengths one wants. For me, the Panasonic 14, 20, and 45 cover those focal lengths. Therefore the question becomes not whether Pentax has more lenses to choose from but whether the equivalent Pentax lenses have better performance than the Panasonics. I've decided to give a couple more Pentax lenses a tryout and have the Pentax 21/3.2 and 35/2.4 on the way. It will be interesting to see how those compare to the Pana 14/2.5 and 20/1.7 respectively.
Amin....the Panasonic 14, 20, and 45 are great lenses (actually the 20 and 45 are world class). In terms of full frame focal lengths, the Panasonic leave a gap between 40-90mm. That's kind of a big gap :D (Not to mention > 90mm primes).

In addition to the ones you listed, the interesting Pentax lenses in that range are the DA35/2.8 macro, FA43/1.9 and the DA55/1.4. The DA100WR macro and the DA200 prime are both worthy of comparison to their Canikon equivalents.

It's a whole new world of opportunities out there and I have no desire to compare them to their Panasonic counterparts.....I just want to fill in the gaps.

I know you feel this way too....it's not what is better....GH2/K5...it's how lucky we are to have a whole new set of lightweight, high quality choices.

R
 

Amin

Active member
In terms of full frame focal lengths, the Panasonic leave a gap between 40-90mm. That's kind of a big gap :D
Yes and no. More specifically, yes to you and no to me ;).

With my Canon 5D, I mainly used a 28, a 50, and a 100. With the Nikon D700, I was very happy with just a 35 and an 85. Both of those systems had lots of other lenses available, but I had no desire or use for them.

I miss having a 21 or 65mm equivalent prime for Panasonic just as much as I miss having a 900mm lens or tilt-shift for Pentax, which is to say not at all.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
At ISO 1600 on that graph, the line for the Pentax is skewed by the fact that DxO measured ISO 1600 is in between Pentax nominal ISO 1600 (raw RAW) and nominal ISO 3200 (smoothed RAW). If you compare the lines prior to the part affected by smoothing, there is a less than 1 stop difference.
Ok, I see what you pointed on that end now, and I agree with you. However, do keep in mind that as the ISO goes up, the 4/3rds sensor will start to fall apart at a faster rate- regardless of what Pentax does with noise reduction. i.e. the sensor starts reaching its threshold point. What I find with the ISO 25600 for example, is still surprising dynamic range and color gamut, which as the sensor has significantly more DR to begin with than the 4/3rds one, makes sense the ISO will hold better.

Look at this other ISO 25600 shot, I was surprised how well the highlights and shadows held along with several of the colors:



In this example, at that point if the difference holds, I would expect the GH2 at ISO 12800 to deliver this kind of performance. From what I have seen it doesn't, but I am not 100% sure. If I had a GH2 though, I would still dare to shoot ISO 12800 for some B&W's.

The other thing that I find shocking is the K-5 is not showing banding at this ISO, even pushing the RAW further up. Sony really did a good job.

- Raist
 
Last edited:

Amin

Active member
Raist, I agree with you that for the very highest ISOs, the K-5 seems to pull even further ahead. I don't know how much this has to do with their on-chip NR, but for practical purposes I guess it really doesn't matter. The difference in ability to recover shadows at all ISOs is also dramatic.

I don't mean to underplay the very real sensor image quality advantages of the K-5 - only to help keep those difference in perspective.
 

m3photo

New member
Re: It's all about ...

It's all about the photo, not the gear....but you have to have the gear that fits your shooting conditions and personal style.
Exactly. Any good photographer can make a decent image with any camera but he also knows what the best tool is for the job, otherwise we'd all be still using Box-Brownies ...
 

Elliot

Active member
Great thread! I have been enjoying the comparison between these two excellent cameras.

I bought a K-5 body last month and find it an excellent piece of equipment. I have tried it with the 18-135, 40/2.8, 35/2.4, and SMC-M 50/2 lenses. However, it is too heavy (not too big) for my tastes, mostly because of a bit of arthritis in my wrist that seems to flare up when I tote around the K-5 (but not the m4/3 E-PL1). With only 231 actuations, I may look for a trade with a GH2 owner, since this thread seems to suggest an informed set of people who own -- or would like to own -- one or both of these cameras. I have used a G1 before that did not seem to affect my wrist, and so expect the GH2 would not, either.

View attachment 42814
Pentax K-5 and SMC-M 50/2 lens
 

jonoslack

Active member
Yeah Yeah - I'm watching with interest as well.
I have no G2 to compare with; like Amin's 900mm T&S lens, it doesn't hold any interest for me, but the K5 is a revelation in that I now simply expect to get a good shot in any light where I can see - I'm not technical, and so as far as DxO is concerned, It's nice to be able to see that they agree about the dynamic range on the K5 . . . and to be honest, that seems to me to be the lynch pin.

I've owned and shot the D3 and the D700, and although I guess that technically the K5 isn't better - I just know that the high ISO shots aren't full of nasty brown stuff!
 

Sapphie

Member
Well, my 'jury' is still out on this one.



and



Both with GH2 with (da daaaa!!) Pentax 43mm Ltd, manual focus.

I don't think it proves anything but there you go ... both shots ISO 160, f/4, very high shutter speed.

Lee
 
Last edited:

raist3d

Well-known member
Yeah Yeah - I'm watching with interest as well.
I've owned and shot the D3 and the D700, and although I guess that technically the K5 isn't better - I just know that the high ISO shots aren't full of nasty brown stuff!
To me the important things of a K-5 on a Nikon D3/D700 comparison are (without taking away that those are really nice Nikons) - weight/size, price, weather sealed. The first two the key ones.

To me the K-5 is the "pro specced" e-420/620 I wanted Olympus to do, with the ergonomics, in spirt, of the E-1.

- Raist
 

jonoslack

Active member
To me the important things of a K-5 on a Nikon D3/D700 comparison are (without taking away that those are really nice Nikons) - weight/size, price, weather sealed. The first two the key ones.

To me the K-5 is the "pro specced" e-420/620 I wanted Olympus to do, with the ergonomics, in spirt, of the E-1.

- Raist
Hi Ricardo
absolutely - we have an E1 in the office with a 14-54 on it - such a lovely thing, but there are two noticeable surprises:
1. The K5 is smaller
2. The K5 is quieter

As for the Nikons - I've had so many: D100, D1x, D2x, D3, D700 (off the top of my head). But like Woody, fab though the lenses may have been, I was always bugged by a nasty yellow colour in evening light.
 

Sapphie

Member
Hi all

Well, I have had my GH2 + 14-140mm now for two days! yesterday was dull, today very bright and sunny. My first impressions (subject to radical reworking at a later date): When I opened the box I was surprised by the size and weight of the 14-140mm. It is much heavier than I expected and looks almost 'oversized' on the GH2 body. A nice fat lens for a slim camera. This combo is still lighter than the K5 + 18-135mm but perhaps in use the difference doesn't feel that much.

The EVF, well Amin was right - it *is* better than the one on the G1 but they are not poles apart. It does seem clearer and less grainy though and a little larger. I honestly do not understand those who say the EVF is *better* than a good OVF or that the view from the GH2 EVF is as good as an OVF. I think it all depends on the lighting, contrast levels etc. I find it harder to view through the EVF in bright sunlight and the unnatural 'look' draws me in less.

However, it doesn't 'wobble' as much when the view is magnified - much steadier than the one on the G1's. Manual focusing legacy lenses is therefore a pleasure - the magnified view providing much better accuracy than the green hexagon in the OVF, I think. On the other hand I have seen what Ashwin and Jono have done recently with manual focus lenses on their K5s!

Highlight recovery is harder than on the K5, you need to be more careful not to blow them. Shadows seem fairly amenable to being boosted, actually I was pleasantly surprised by this.

The 14-140mm optical quality? Well, we all know that Panasonic get up to software 'tricks' but then we have the option in Lightroom to apply lens corrections to Pentax lenses too. I was surprised to see yesterday some quite severe CA at the extremes when shooting a dark object against a bright background or vice versa, after boosting the shadows? I thought the 'software' was supposed to take care of that? On the other hand, I have seen something similar on the 18-135mm.

Noise? Well,certainly at base ISO, nothing to worry about. K5 will excel at higher ISOs no doubt but we don't know how much Pentax are 'cheating' with their RAW NR. Probably not cheating any more than Panasonic are with their lens corrections.

Today, however, in bright sunlight, I think it excelled. Overall IQ? Well, this is so subjective but I would say they appear to be much sharper than those from the K5. I don't know why. The images also seem to have a more 'clinical' look, not sure how to explain it.

Overall? I think I prefer the K5 body but the GH2 isn't bad. I prefer the dynamic range and overall 'look' to the K5 images but prefer the GH2 sharpness.

I was thinking maybe I don't need the 14-140, as the beauty of these cameras is the small feel and light weight. I may sell the lens but I will keep the GH2 for sure. On the other hand that lens does seem to be a great walkabout ... !!

I don't think that helps anybody and my opinion subject to change.

Lee

P.S. Battery life also seems short. I don't know if that's because I am using the LCD more, the IS in the lens drawing power or because I hven't done enough recharges yet.
 

raist3d

Well-known member
Hi all
Today, however, in bright sunlight, I think it excelled. Overall IQ? Well, this is so subjective but I would say they appear to be much sharper than those from the K5. I don't know why. The images also seem to have a more 'clinical' look, not sure how to explain it.
I actually expect the GH2 to out-resolve the K-5 at low ISO because I also expect it to have a weaker AA filter. Since it's also 16 MP in effective output, yes, I can see it out resolving the K-5 when both have good lenses.

Gotta admit I was very split about getting a K-5 vs the Panasonic, mainly because I could use all my Olympus lenses with it. Even now I still wonder about it, since I don't have to buy more lenses then- I already have all I need. I was still a bit worried about high ISO performance, but maybe considering it moved forward from what I had on the 620 and the new top pro, it would have been enough.

I understand Panasonic is going to come out with a battery grip that should take care of the battery life issue for more professional situations.

- Raist
 

Sapphie

Member
And yet, I still think there is a 'richness' and 'fullness' from the K5 images that the GH2 doesn't match, although it may generally be sharper. Maybe it's as much the Pentax 'glass' as the K5 itself. I don't know but I do feel that the web images from the K5 in these forums look much richer and fuller in tonality, almost silky and voluptuous. How they would look printed may be different. Maybe the GH2 images just don't come over so well when downsized.

Lee
 

raist3d

Well-known member
And yet, I still think there is a 'richness' and 'fullness' from the K5 images that the GH2 doesn't match, although it may generally be sharper. Maybe it's as much the Pentax 'glass' as the K5 itself. I don't know but I do feel that the web images from the K5 in these forums look much richer and fuller in tonality, almost silky and voluptuous. How they would look printed may be different. Maybe the GH2 images just don't come over so well when downsized.

Lee
It probably has to do with the extra DR, finer tonality. The shadows on the K-5 can be silk smooth, as I remember earlier DSLR's to be. The GH2 isn't too bad though.

- Raist
 

A.Sattler

New member
Yeah Yeah - I'm watching with interest as well.
I have no G2 to compare with; like Amin's 900mm T&S lens, it doesn't hold any interest for me, but the K5 is a revelation in that I now simply expect to get a good shot in any light where I can see - I'm not technical, and so as far as DxO is concerned, It's nice to be able to see that they agree about the dynamic range on the K5 . . . and to be honest, that seems to me to be the lynch pin.

I've owned and shot the D3 and the D700, and although I guess that technically the K5 isn't better - I just know that the high ISO shots aren't full of nasty brown stuff!


Hi Ricardo
absolutely - we have an E1 in the office with a 14-54 on it - such a lovely thing, but there are two noticeable surprises:
1. The K5 is smaller
2. The K5 is quieter

As for the Nikons - I've had so many: D100, D1x, D2x, D3, D700 (off the top of my head). But like Woody, fab though the lenses may have been, I was always bugged by a nasty yellow colour in evening light.



Hi Jono,

If you don't mind to much, could you elaborate on the nasty brown stuff/yellow color you were seeing from Nikon? I am contemplating getting a D7000(or K5) and could use some insight and opinion, negative or positive.
I would honestly appreciate any advise you'd be willing to offer.
Thank you.

Adam
 
Last edited:

Paratom

Well-known member
To me the important things of a K-5 on a Nikon D3/D700 comparison are (without taking away that those are really nice Nikons) - weight/size, price, weather sealed. The first two the key ones.

To me the K-5 is the "pro specced" e-420/620 I wanted Olympus to do, with the ergonomics, in spirt, of the E-1.

- Raist
i am also having a hard time to decide which system I shall let go.
Weather sealed are both bodies, Nikon and Pentax.
The Pentax is smaller as are the lenses, the Nikon therefore has a bigger viewfinder which is quite noticable.
Also while smaller size is less obstrusive and better to carry I find the buttons of the D700 better to find, fits better my hands, and feels more stable.

The D700 IMO is better in the shaddows at high ISO, better metering and better AF and better flash, Nikon also more lens options (Specially fast lenses and quite abit more room to play with shallow DOF, and more consistent lens quality.
I admit to also have not been 100% hapy with Nikon skin tones, but then it also has a lot to do with post. Nikon d2x profile for example looks considerable better to me than the standard profile.
Pentax K5 has a very film like look without much post, however I cant achieve consistent sharpness. The film like look is the thing which made me not sell the K5 so far. Conclusion? I dont have one.

Hard decission,
 

jonoslack

Active member
Yeah Yeah - I'm watching with interest as well.
I have no G2 to compare with; like Amin's 900mm T&S lens, it doesn't hold any interest for me, but the K5 is a revelation in that I now simply expect to get a good shot in any light where I can see - I'm not technical, and so as far as DxO is concerned, It's nice to be able to see that they agree about the dynamic range on the K5 . . . and to be honest, that seems to me to be the lynch pin.

I've owned and shot the D3 and the D700, and although I guess that technically the K5 isn't better - I just know that the high ISO shots aren't full of nasty brown stuff!


Hi Ricardo
absolutely - we have an E1 in the office with a 14-54 on it - such a lovely thing, but there are two noticeable surprises:
1. The K5 is smaller
2. The K5 is quieter

As for the Nikons - I've had so many: D100, D1x, D2x, D3, D700 (off the top of my head). But like Woody, fab though the lenses may have been, I was always bugged by a nasty yellow colour in evening light.
Hi Jono,

If you don't mind to much, could you elaborate on the nasty brown stuff/yellow color you were seeing from Nikon? I am contemplating getting a D7000(or K5) and could use some insight and opinion, negative or positive.
I would honestly appreciate any advise you'd be willing to offer.
Thank you.

Adam
Hi There Adam
Well, the 'nasty brown stuff' is not specific to Nikon in any way - just an observation of trying to shoot at high ISO with digital cameras.

the yellow colour is a bone of serious contention - many people feel that it's a figment of imagination - others (like Woody here) completely understand. Taking photos in evening light seems to leave a yellow cast which is really hard to get rid of, or to profile out (depending on your opinion). Of course, there are many many happy Nikon users who would completely disagree with this, but for me, and for some others, many years of Nikon use continues to bring up the problem.

However, there are no free lunches - QA on Pentax lenses seems to be a continual issue - I'm about to return the 4TH copy of the 16-50 f2.8; I did careful testing of brick walls to check that it was okay, and I was quite happy, but I've just looked at a set of images taken today which are impossibly and inexplicably soft on one side, at f5.

One can criticise the panasonic sensor okay - but they certainly seem to have sorted out their lens QA!
 
Top