Testing out a Pentax K5

[raist3d]

You said you aren't saying it's better but you sure say that it's like the best way to get the best results or something, and surely you can't comprehend why (apparently) anyone would chose JPEG.

Sorry but that sure reeks of "Raw is the best." It sure took several replies to acknowledge that this is after all best for you and your workflow.

Also the reason you still give for computer performance still completely ignores the difference in custom hardware acceleration or hardware made for a specific domain.

Maybe for example, if I said that focusing on getting it right instead of having to post process, is what develops the photographic eye, the photographic skills because after all, someone who is horrible with a camera in seeing light and composition can be a great retoucher and can't be called a great photographer. Now, if I said this, doesn't that comes across as perhaps suggesting that "JPEG is best?" (note, I am not saying I stand on this end per se, but I want to make a point here of what you are saying).

I mean for example I could also say "shooting in JPEG and getting it right on the camera provides a medium of compelling photography that, doing post processing other than creating digital art, makes post for a lot of situations a waste of time *-

*- assumes you have a decent jpeg engine and the skills as a photographer to pull this off"

That doesn't sound a bit weird to you if I said that?

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.

 

[raist3d]

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.
[quote[

So what you are saying is that for your needs and skills, you are with Godfrey. Cool.

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:

Looks like for some professional photographers that is the case. Apparently for several other professional photographers JPEGS more than fullfill their needs and requirements.

Looks like there are two sets of professional photographers on this- ones that shoot raw and ones that shoot JPEG. Oh another: ones that shoot both. Looks like all are valid paths depending on requirements, needs and preferences at the professional level.

- Raist

 

[Terry]

Please don't let this turn into a RAW vs JPEG fight as I don't want to have to lock the thread.

 

[ptomsu]

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.

Yesterday also ordered the DA70 - could not resist, was a pretty good price and I will need a portrait lens anyway

And XMAS is coming

 

[jonoslack]

Please don't let this turn into a RAW vs JPEG fight as I don't want to have to lock the thread.

Yes indeed - one thing we should all be wise enough to agree on is that these arguments go nowhere!

 

[jonoslack]

Yesterday also ordered the DA70 - could not resist, was a pretty good price and I will need a portrait lens anyway

And XMAS is coming

HI Peter
I hope you'll be very happy together (that's a brink I'm teetering on too). . . when does it all arrive

 

[ptomsu]

HI Peter
I hope you'll be very happy together (that's a brink I'm teetering on too). . . when does it all arrive

It should arrive all this week - camera kit and DA 70. I am looking really forward to this cam.

 

[jonoslack]

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:

Hi Jorgen
Ricardo is a professional as well.

However - enough of this silly argument - you have made a deep philosophical point here, which needs illustrating:

Picture of feet whilst pointing camera down trying to work out how to use the bloody flash.
FWIW this was taken in a vaporetto between Venice and Burano.

One of my favorites . . . . three points of difference:
1. I did see it before I pressed the shutter
2. it's not my feet - but the principle is the same.
3. it's not oof

 

[Bob]

Hi Jorgen
Ricardo is a professional as well.

However - enough of this silly argument - you have made a deep philosophical point here, which needs illustrating:

Picture of feet whilst pointing camera down trying to work out how to use the bloody flash.
FWIW this was taken in a vaporetto between Venice and Burano.

One of my favorites . . . . three points of difference:
1. I did see it before I pressed the shutter
2. it's not my feet - but the principle is the same.
3. it's not oof

Nice, Jono
Actually for those who have been there, the location is almost obvious.
-bob

 

[retow]

I'm with Godfrey here.
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:

Like this?

 

[jonoslack]

Nice, Jono
Actually for those who have been there, the location is almost obvious.
-bob

Thank you Bob - yes indeed, and the trip to Burano is something of a necessity too (not just for the colours, but also for the griddled squid).

 

[Terry]

Hey this one was a work of art....and they aren't my feet.

 

[jonoslack]

Hey this one was a work of art....and they aren't my feet.

I'm very pleased to hear it!

 

[raist3d]

It should arrive all this week - camera kit and DA 70. I am looking really forward to this cam.

Is this the pancake? (the one I just got?)

- Raist

 

[Godfrey]

Yes indeed - one thing we should all be wise enough to agree on is that these arguments go nowhere!

I agree. I am not interested in having an argument. Everything I've stated has been articulated clearly and specifically. If others choose to mis-interpret or mis-understand it in preference to promoting their opinion, that's their issue.

Don't mis-represent your interpretation as my statements.

 

[jonoslack]

Is this the pancake? (the one I just got?)

- Raist

I think so - how do you feel about it?

 

[photogerald]

Re: So after looking long and wide...

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.

Firstly, sorry it has taken a while for me to get back to you - things sort of got busy.

But anyways, this helps me better understand where you're coming from.

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

Yup.

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).

You obviously know your colours. I can't really comment on this, as I haven't bothered to calibrate my PC monitor. But you're probably right.

I will say that the K20D and K-7 are rather unforgiving of exposure errors - you can easily blow highlights and at the other end things will end up dull and the shadows noisy (if you try to boost the exposure in PP). However, when you get it right, you can achieve the results I've shown here. Obviously with the K-5 you will be able to achieve these results more consistently, thanks to its much improved DR (the DR of the K-5 @ ISO800 betters the DR of the K20D/K-7 @ ISO100!).

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).

You are right - the skin tone is definitely off on this one, and the red isn't that right either. Like I said, ISO800 and poor flourescent lighting (check out the exposure settings) - not a good example to back up my case.

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?

Yes, it's a legacy (manual focus) lens, but it was (and still is) the best 135mm Pentax prime. Yes, "crisp presence" is a good way of describing the results from this 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...

I'm not sure if you're still interested, given that you already got your K-5, but if want to play around I can gladly send you the RAW file for the flower hat shot.

 

[photogerald]

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 = $$$ But then E-5 = $$$.

Would you mind showing me these? I'm curious to see what you came up with.

 

[photogerald]

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)

You'll probably end up getting rid of the kit lens, but if you do get it with the body as a kit, you can sell it later and not lose money.

I'm personally not that enthused about the DA*16-50/2.8. See:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21353&page=2

I am liking what I see from the new DA18-135 WR DC, however. As well as the new DA35/2.4 (not to be confused with the DA35/2.8 Ltd Macro).

- DA 70 F2.4 Limited (I find a bit of a bummer this can't also be a macro lens, ah well)

I got this lens a few months back - I absolute love it.

- 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...

These both have their fans. I've seen some really nice results from the DA15 Ltd (there are some large threads on dpreview and pentaxforums with many sample images). Going by results on photozone.de, the 15 and 21 have about the same resolution, with perhaps the 15 being a bit better when you stop down. The 21 does have higher distortion, however, which seems counterintuitive. I guess it does come down to your needs WRT focal length.

 

[ptomsu]

Finally my K5 with Kit lens (18-55WR) arrived!

After setting it up and playing around for a little while I only can say so far - I AM OVERWHELMED!!!

1) I tried the lens, it needs no adjustments, feels very solid as the camera and seems to be a good sample.

2) I tried so far only DNGs and imported in LR3.3. Colors are outstanding, I understand now what you all mean by different to Nikon - although I must say I find colors also much better and different to Sony.

3) The camera is nice, small, feels very rugged and the menues are fine for me.

4) I set the AUTO ISO from 200-6400 and so far all ISO values including 6400 work VERY WELL:

I am so excited! Many thanks to all of you who followed with me through my rather demanding selection process. I think I did the right thing.

Will keep you all updated and for sure upload some samples.

Peter