Testing out a Pentax K5

[raist3d]

So after looking long and wide...

Here's what I have noticed, compared in particular to where I am "coming from" which is Olympus 4/3rds

- Pentax k-5 has great tones, very deep dark to very nice whites. Less burn.
- Some shots I have seen have superb gradation.
- bags of DR

--- On the other hand:

I am finding some trouble finding color shots that really "wow" me- as in image jumps out and the colors are kind of "together" as part of the shot, not like a red jumping all at you bordering on some magenta/pastel.

I find Olympus seems to "get this "consistently more.

Also the lenses I find more or apparent more distortion in what I am seeing on the Pentax- but I am not seeing shots with their very top glass so I am not sure.

This is just a general assesment. I have found a few shots that show pretty good Pentax color output... I just wonder ... because I am seeing a certain consistent color profile JPEG or RAW/DNG...

This is incredibly hard to explain and convey but maybe I can try to convey this with one shot I took on my 420 + F2. 50mm lens:

Does this make sense? I am not trying to start a this vs that. I really like the K-5 in many areas already. The ergonomics are truly enticing as is the size + quiet shutter + weather seal + pancakes.

 

[raist3d]

This is a Pentax K-5 shot that shows more of that "presence" I am talking about:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtt92/5230492867/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mtt92/5231531905/in/photostream/

I think this is most likely the lens. Any shots with the DA* Gold upper range zoom or primes? Maybe I missed it.

Thanks

- Raist

 

[photogerald]

You sound like a man who doesn't have a K5 yet!
the high ISO really is splendid, it's not so much the noise (or lack of it) but the colour, which seems to stay good right up to 6400 (I haven't tried 12800 because I really don't seem to need it :ROTFL

all the best

You are right - I am still shooting with a K20D. But I do plan to upgrade to the K-5 next spring. I have looked at plenty of high-ISO images from the K-5, but it still amazes me!

 

[photogerald]

I agree.
I also switched NR to "0" when I converted this image from DNG to JPG in LR3

The image printed in DIN A4 size looks as good as on screen by the way-so not only when downsized for web.

In fact, it was the faint trace of noise in the hair that made me curious and check the EXIF info. I agree with Jono - it's not the lack of noise that is most impressive, but the integrity of the colours (especially the skin tones).

 

[photogerald]

Folks,

I am coming finally into the club

Ordered today a K5 with DA 18-55mm WR which was offered as kit at Amazon with €150.- rebate. So this gives the lens for free and I can test the K5.

Looking forward to receive delivery within the next 3-4 business days.

All the great discussions about the K5 and the rebate finally pulled the trigger for me. And as soon as I have the package I will see if I will buy other lenses and which ones - I am almost sure thsi will happen

I'm not sure if I should send my congratulations or if I should apologize. In any case, I hope it works out for you.

 

[photogerald]

Re: Any Ideas re the Stain on the Shroud Issues?

There are a few discussions on other websites about the stain on the center of the sensor. I wonder whether this is real or someone trying to create doubt about buying Pentax:


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=37101214

Knowing some of the folks who are reporting problems, this is most definitely real. But the issue is not as serious as it sounds. Of course, if I'd just spent $1600 on a new body I'd be complaining too. And fortunately, Pentax and their retailers are dealing with the matter appropriately.

 

[photogerald]

Re: So after looking long and wide...

--- On the other hand:

I am finding some trouble finding color shots that really "wow" me- as in image jumps out and the colors are kind of "together" as part of the shot, not like a red jumping all at you bordering on some magenta/pastel.

I find Olympus seems to "get this "consistently more.

Is this assessment based on the images from your Olympus at default camera settings, or after PP?

This is incredibly hard to explain and convey but maybe I can try to convey this with one shot I took on my 420 + F2. 50mm lens:

I'm not sure I quite get what you're saying, though I will say that the lens can make a big difference. I'll include some photos taken with my K20D which I feel have good colour and perhaps you could tell me if you see any "wow" here.

By the way, these are all either in-camera JPGs or were processed from RAW using default settings. The Pentax RAW converter (which is based on Silkypix) gives the same colours as in-camera JPGs. There is no additional PP, not even WB correction (camera was set to auto WB).

These first four were taken with the A*135/1.8 (my favourite lens):

The WB is a bit off on this next one - those pear blossoms should be whiter

This one was taken at f1.8 and ISO800 in crappy flourescent lighting - I didn't expect the auto WB to do as well as it did

This last one was taken with the Sigma 70-200/2.8 EX @ 200mm (original version, non-DG, non-macro, non-HSM)

How do these look?

 

[raist3d]

Re: So after looking long and wide...

Is this assessment based on the images from your Olympus at default camera settings, or after PP?

Sort of both. I normally don't do post processing, but mainly out of camera with different JPEG settings images just come out with great color. I do believe you are right when you say the lenses, yes, lens matters for sure for that contrast/sharpness and seems like Olympus got that nailed down.

I'm not sure I quite get what you're saying, though I will say that the lens can make a big difference. I'll include some photos taken with my K20D which I feel have good colour and perhaps you could tell me if you see any "wow" here.

No doubt, yeah, a lot of it has to be the lens.

By the way, these are all either in-camera JPGs or were processed from RAW using default settings. The Pentax RAW converter (which is based on Silkypix) gives the same colours as in-camera JPGs. There is no additional PP, not even WB correction (camera was set to auto WB).

Ok, much much appreciated.

[]

[/quote]
How do these look?[/QUOTE]

MUUUUUCH better. They have that "crisp 'here' presence" that I felt many of the other shots in a way were lacking (though Jono's DA 77 Limited shot of the Kid's portrait 'has it'). The color is much better too, though one color keeps bugging me:

It's that red/pink/magenta set of colors. Reds tend to be affected by sky reflections and tend to go magentaish (talking in general now, but looking at the colored hat, there's some colors there around the pink that seem a tad off somehow). If the hat was truly that way then fine.

The flower shot as far as "presence" looks great. There still seems to have a hair of greenish cast (I have noticed this btw on many Pentax shots).

The shot of the kid holding the toy camera- the skin color seems a bit "Nikon brown" to me and the red seems to have this "dirty red" aspect to it which isn't quite right- but if this was tungsten light it's understandable. Though I will say I have seen this set of colors I told you more often than not with the Pentax. It's almost like in some colors it's a Panasonic variant (though it does better than Panasonic usually does).

But as far as "crisp presence" most of these shots "have it", this is what i was talking about. So where's that A* Pentax lens? Is that a film legacy lens?

If you are ok with this, could you send me one DNG/RAW file to play with- just a snap, not a masterpiece. Something with colors/contrast/light range like the purple flower or that hat, etc. If you can't / don't have time/ whatever I understand and I give you thanks for showing me these...

For the record, I do like Jono's also, but I kept noticing some colors seemed a bit odd to me.

- Raist

 

[raist3d]

Ok I was able to tweak some of the jpegs to match more the color I would like to see (flower & shot with hat). This is looking promising. Ah man system switch = $$$ But then E-5 = $$$.

 

[raist3d]

Oh and Jono, thanks.. you are making me lose some sleep

 

[raist3d]

Question for Jono and other Pentax shooters:

If I was pull the trigger I am thinking the following lenses:

- WR kit lens just to have something weather sealed and a starter standard telephoto. Eventually I would have to get whatever decent standard telephoto exists, and if that means the DA* Gold one, so be it (how's that one btw? Anyone knows? STAR 16-50MM F2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM)

- DA 70 F2.4 Limited (I find a bit of a bummer this can't also be a macro lens, ah well)
- Completely split between the DA 15mm F4 limited vs the 21mm F3.2 Limited.

Seems like the 21mm (* 1.5 = 31.5mm equiv) is closer to a normal standard street life lens. I don't see myself ever getting the F2.8 40mm DA Limited- too much of a "standard" view...

- Raist

 

[Paratom]

he kit zoom is soft IMO and I can not recommend it.
The 70 works very good for me.
Regarding 15 vs 21 - The 21 is faster, is better in the corners and shows less vignetting.
I own both but if I had to decide for just one I would prefer the 21.
I also find 21-70 a quite flexible combo.

Question for Jono and other Pentax shooters:

If I was pull the trigger I am thinking the following lenses:

- WR kit lens just to have something weather sealed and a starter standard telephoto. Eventually I would have to get whatever decent standard telephoto exists, and if that means the DA* Gold one, so be it (how's that one btw? Anyone knows? STAR 16-50MM F2.8 ED AL (IF) SDM)

- DA 70 F2.4 Limited (I find a bit of a bummer this can't also be a macro lens, ah well)
- Completely split between the DA 15mm F4 limited vs the 21mm F3.2 Limited.

Seems like the 21mm (* 1.5 = 31.5mm equiv) is closer to a normal standard street life lens. I don't see myself ever getting the F2.8 40mm DA Limited- too much of a "standard" view...

- Raist

 

[jonoslack]

Re: So after looking long and wide...

(though Jono's DA 77 Limited shot of the Kid's portrait 'has it').

HI Ricardo
I love taking credit, but don't have the DA77 limited so I think that may have been Thomas's shot.

 

[ptomsu]

@ 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 ....

 

[ptomsu]

he kit zoom is soft IMO and I can not recommend it.
The 70 works very good for me.
Regarding 15 vs 21 - The 21 is faster, is better in the corners and shows less vignetting.
I own both but if I had to decide for just one I would prefer the 21.
I also find 21-70 a quite flexible combo.

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

 

[jonoslack]

@ 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 ....

Peter
RAW is not a religion - there are plenty of good reasons to shoot JPG - I don't often do it myself, but there are lots of people (Raist included) who use the jpg settings in camera very skilfully to get exactly the results they want straight out of the camera without needing to do lots of post processing.

Comparing colours from camera jpg outfit can be very serious - lots of cameras have excellent jpg engines - if you are good enough to be sure of getting white balance / exposure / contrast / saturation right first time, why on earth would you want to rely on the vagaries of a RAW processing program to mess it up?

Conventional wisdom is a dangerous thing.

 

[jonoslack]

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

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!

 

[Godfrey]

... Comparing colours from camera jpg outfit can be very serious - lots of cameras have excellent jpg engines - if you are good enough to be sure of getting white balance / exposure / contrast / saturation right first time, why on earth would you want to rely on the vagaries of a RAW processing program to mess it up? ...

I rather think that there are more vagaries of an in-camera JPEG processing engine with its rather coarse control settings than of a sophisticated raw processing application running on a computer a thousand (or more!) times more powerful.

 

[jonoslack]

I rather think that there are more vagaries of an in-camera JPEG processing engine with its rather coarse control settings than of a sophisticated raw processing application running on a computer a thousand (or more!) times more powerful.

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?

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

There are two sides to using RAW vs jpeg. The visual quality of the jpeg can vary, and as Jono points out, there are some good in-camera solutions, Fuji and Olympus to mention two that I have been very happy with. From a purely visual point of view, I sometimes have to work hard to equal the qualities that they get out of a photo.

The other side is purely technical: resolution, white balance, colour balance and general rendering of details. A compressed jpeg, and out of the camera they are often not even the highest quality possible, is not an optimal starting point for large prints. Add to that the adjustment possibilities one loses when not having access to the RAW file, and the choice is rather easy for me, but this is very individual. People have different needs.