Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 88 of 88

Thread: K5 versus the M9

  1. #51
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    Jono,
    I need to shoot more with the new firmware upgrade and the K5 before I post any further comments.
    I need to find out how/when noise reduction, focus, distance (seems close distance work better than medium distance), shake, SR, optics (and here also f-stop) influence IQ how much.
    I also have been shooting too much with the S2 which raises my standards/what I am used to see.

    And maybe I should get either the 16-50 or the 18-135 to have a more interesting alternative towards my S2/M9 with primes.
    I think so - seems that even though the little limiteds are great, they aren't going to compete with what you're getting with the S2 and M9, and the K5 needs to be for something different (to be honest, mine is more a replacement for the compact cameras I no longer use). I certainly use the K5 with zooms most of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    How good is your new 16-50 vs the 18-135? Have you compared?

    For some reason I would want the K5 to work for me.
    I'm not sure that the 16-50 is much better than the 18-135 - of course, it's faster, but that's not so much of a bother - and also it gives a brighter viewfinder, and it has the 24mm equivalent (much used here). But it's a lot bigger too - in your position I'd get the 18-135 and just play around with it, whatever else it's fun and compact combination.

    Apart from the 35 macro limited (which I have because of the macro) I've managed to hold off on the primes for the very reason that I don't need competition for the M9!

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Radcliffe View Post
    Back to the K5.....
    The K5 is a wonderful, small package of digital technology. I've had it almost a month now and still find myself returning to the manual to understand things, not that it is complicated, I'm just a bit slow in my old age but I do appreciate what the K5 offers on a number of levels over my previous cameras, including my M8.
    I quite agree - it's fab - lots of little nuances - I just found the bit to get the exposure to follow the focus point - very useful. Everything one could possibly need seems to be there if you look - and it's nicely organised as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Radcliffe View Post
    The bottom line on any camera is about what it produces and how much one enjoys using it and that is why so many camera arguments/discussions often lead nowhere. It is an individual thing.
    Exactly - my point with my GAS section above - there are no absolutes, just a sliding scale of preferences / priorities

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Radcliffe View Post
    I suppose what is "Good Enough" for me might be far less than what others would accept but fortunately that poses no problem for anyone.
    Well, different between people, but also between circumstances, conditions etc. but my contention is that unless you're doing commercial billboards, any of these cameras are 'Good Enough' for any of us.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  3. #53
    Senior Member Jim Radcliffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    627
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    my contention is that unless you're doing commercial billboards, any of these cameras are 'Good Enough' for any of us.

    all the best
    Yes, totally agree.

    And one more point.... While digital photography has been a wonderful development it has led to a level of pixel-peeping that borders on the absurd.

    Truth is that many files, once printed, look great while they may have looked awful at 200% magnification in Photoshop or Lightroom.
    Jim Radcliffe
    www.boxedlight.com

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,426
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Germane to this thread is a statement I once read. I remember neither the authorís name nor the exact quote, so I must paraphrase, poorly Iím afraid: No viewer remembers the technical aspects of a great photograph; no one remembers a photograph without great content, even if technically perfect.
    If anyone knows the exact quote, Iíd love the reference.

  5. #55
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    After all I do not understand such a thread.

    I mean how can one compare a M9 (or M8) with a K5 or any other DSLR - does not work feature wise, does not work IQ wise, does not work operational wise, does not work comparing any brands zooms to Leica M primes or even any brands primes to Leica M primes ....

    If you compare a K5 to other DSLRs that makes some sense, but to Leica digital M's - sorry but I do not get this one

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    After all I do not understand such a thread.

    I mean how can one compare a M9 (or M8) with a K5 or any other DSLR - does not work feature wise, does not work IQ wise, does not work operational wise, does not work comparing any brands zooms to Leica M primes or even any brands primes to Leica M primes ....

    If you compare a K5 to other DSLRs that makes some sense, but to Leica digital M's - sorry but I do not get this one
    In a max IQ (file quality) in an as small as possible form factor comparison, both systems "tick a lot of boxes", albeit not all of the same ones. Looking at it from this angle, the comparison makes sense to me.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Jim Radcliffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    627
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    8

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by tsjanik View Post
    Germane to this thread is a statement I once read. I remember neither the authorís name nor the exact quote, so I must paraphrase, poorly Iím afraid: No viewer remembers the technical aspects of a great photograph; no one remembers a photograph without great content, even if technically perfect.
    If anyone knows the exact quote, Iíd love the reference.
    While I do not ever remember hearing that quote, it bears the weight of truth. We must remember that many of the most memorable photographs from the last 100 years were taken with cameras far below the standards of today (technically speaking)...

    We, as photographers, seem to be overly critical and distracted by the technical qualities of images today rather than their actual content.

    I never take a photograph with technical attributes in mind but rather what the image conveys. In the end, no one really cares what gear was used to take the photo.. just that the photo "speaks" to them or not.

    To often we photographers rush to defend the gear we use rather than the merit of the photographs we take. I've seen amazing photos taken with plastic cameras (lomography). It's still about what the image invokes in the viewer that is the most important thing about a photograph, not its technical merit or qualities.
    Jim Radcliffe
    www.boxedlight.com

  8. #58
    Senior Member markwon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    17

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    For me, a rangefinder and a dslr provide very different types of shooting experiences, hence, they are different kinds of tools. One uses a dslr with a zoom for utilitarian purposes, and needs to compose and make the shot within the viewfinder. This is very useful when shooting macro, telephoto or action shots. This is where the dslr excels.

    But in the streets of nyc or any other place as crowded with movement and people, the RF excels. The point of using these prime Leica lenses is often for the purpose of zone focusing, which is actually faster "in practice" than a AF enabled top of the line DSLR. When shooting with my M8 and a 35 lux asph, I already have in my mind a sense of distance and frame in memory. It's another reason why I have narrowed down by Leica lenses to 24, 35, 90. Focal lengths I can virtually visualize in my mind before ever bringing the camera to my eyes. So I am constantly adjusting the aperture and focus ring without ever looking into the viewfinder to set up for a shot. At it's best, the RF is like a point & shoot with no shutter lag, much better IQ, and dof control.

    I think many people who jump into Leica M8/9 have buyers remorse because they go in thinking that the RF is just a compact large sensor camera, which it is not. The entire philosophy of the "tool" design is different. If one is into macro shots, telephoto action, and other things in between, a RF is not the right for you regardless of the cost. It is not simply about cost in my opinion. There are many people who would be getting better shots using a Canon Rebel than a M9, simply because they are not capitalizing on the design characteristics of the RF body/lens combo.

    If Zeiss or CV had a digital RF at half the cost, I would easily buy into that system, given that they offer comparable quality. The RF shooting experience is different and even better for certain kinds of photography.
    Last edited by markwon; 5th April 2011 at 07:11.

  9. #59
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    >We, as photographers, seem to be overly critical and distracted by the technical qualities of images today rather than their actual content.

    Yes, very much so. A sharp eye/imagination is more important than a sharp lens.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  10. #60
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by tsjanik View Post
    Germane to this thread is a statement I once read. I remember neither the authorís name nor the exact quote, so I must paraphrase, poorly Iím afraid: No viewer remembers the technical aspects of a great photograph; no one remembers a photograph without great content, even if technically perfect.
    If anyone knows the exact quote, Iíd love the reference.
    Hi there
    I have a mantra which I have (too often) said around here:

    If a photograph is interesting then nobody cares whether it's technically good
    If it isn't interesting nobody cares at all.


    I'm sure it wasn't me you were thinking of, but the principle seems the same.

    All the best

    Just this guy you know

  11. #61
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    After all I do not understand such a thread.

    I mean how can one compare a M9 (or M8) with a K5 or any other DSLR - does not work feature wise, does not work IQ wise, does not work operational wise, does not work comparing any brands zooms to Leica M primes or even any brands primes to Leica M primes ....

    If you compare a K5 to other DSLRs that makes some sense, but to Leica digital M's - sorry but I do not get this one
    Hi Peter
    I did the test because I use both cameras and I wanted to find out how much of a sacrifice IQ wise I made when I shot the K5. (reasonable?)

    I thought others might find the results interesting and that it might provoke an interesting discussion. It seems they did and it has.

    You are, of course, perfectly at liberty not to read it if you find it pointless

    It was certainly not intended to influence anyone on their camera buying decisions.

    Just this guy you know

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    I think Jono is being very brave with this thread. If I won the lotto I might get a Leica, just because I could and I'd be curious about what the fuss was about; and I have no doubt that the quality is outstanding.

    At the end of the day though, photography is a compromise. If we all cared about ultimate image quality we'd still be carrying large format plate cameras, or medium format. Maybe ... but life should be more fun than that.

    When I had my medium format film gear (Mamiya, including the '7' range finder) I thought it was great and I took some great shots with it - partly because of the quality of the equipment and the format but also, a mentality. I would say 'what is the point of having this great camera, this great format if you don't make the most of it?'. So, yes it was relatively easy to hand hold but to 'make the most of' meant tripod and slowing down and realising that you only had 10 shots ...

    I thought I could usually tell a medium format shot from a 35mm in a printed magazine too, so it *did* make a difference.

    And even the Mamiya was a lot less expensive than Leica ...

    Lee

  13. #63
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Hi Lee
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    I think Jono is being very brave with this thread. If I won the lotto I might get a Leica, just because I could and I'd be curious about what the fuss was about; and I have no doubt that the quality is outstanding.
    Not brave - maybe a bit ansty - worth emphasising that the Leica lenses can be considered as 'currency'; they hold their value very well, so if you can manage to hump to buy in the first place, then, if funds are short, you can often make a profit after a year or so.

    But I'm very clear why I'm using the M9 - it's because I love the rangefinder way of shooting, and because I like the lenses. It isn't so much about the quality, but more about the experience.

    I do always want an SLR as well, because it's such a different way of working, and because I like to do macro and telephoto sometimes, and the Leica isn't that great at it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    At the end of the day though, photography is a compromise. If we all cared about ultimate image quality we'd still be carrying large format plate cameras, or medium format. Maybe ... but life should be more fun than that.
    I agree so much about this - which is why I've fought off really big temptations to go to MF digital - from what I see it encourages people to take technically fine images, often at the expense of imagination and intuition. I don't ever use a tripod - because (for me at least) I've learned that it stops me casting about and makes me concentrate hard and think about what I'm doing (always the death of my imagination).

    For others that discipline is just what they want - it takes all types. I was at a local exhibition recently, and a guy had been travelling the world with his tripod and his MF gear - going to all the traditionally beautiful/interesting spots, setting up his tripod and . . . . taking the same shots as everyone else had taken when they were there! They were beautifully organised, technically perfect, wonderfully printed

    But I really don't want to fall into the trap of pigeon holing other photographers.

    Uwe has chipped in a little in this thread, and if you haven't examined his landscape shots, you really should go there - fantastic, inspirational work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    When I had my medium format film gear (Mamiya, including the '7' range finder) I thought it was great and I took some great shots with it - partly because of the quality of the equipment and the format but also, a mentality. I would say 'what is the point of having this great camera, this great format if you don't make the most of it?'. So, yes it was relatively easy to hand hold but to 'make the most of' meant tripod and slowing down and realising that you only had 10 shots ...

    I thought I could usually tell a medium format shot from a 35mm in a printed magazine too, so it *did* make a difference.

    And even the Mamiya was a lot less expensive than Leica ...

    Lee
    Well, as I say - my Leica gear is definitely 'on loan' and if the prices look like dropping, then it'll have to be converted back into funds.

    Just this guy you know

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,426
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi there
    I have a mantra which I have (too often) said around here:

    If a photograph is interesting then nobody cares whether it's technically good
    If it isn't interesting nobody cares at all.


    I'm sure it wasn't me you were thinking of, but the principle seems the same.

    All the best
    Hmm, it is possible that I am referring to your phrase. I hope not, as I have been on this forum only a short time and so should remember; additionally, I mangled the quote pretty badly. In any event, yours is a much more elegant expression of the same sentiment.
    It is easy to be distracted by the technical aspects of photographic gear, when what most of us are really seeking the exceptional photograph - much harder to obtain than the exceptional lens.

  15. #65
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Well, I have no interest in re-visiting Pentax system. I've had all their best lenses and enjoyed them thoroughly, the K5 seems a very good body commensurate with the lenses ... but I'm happier with the equipment I have now, don't need to spend a bunch to play with another system again.

    Another Leica M ... I miss my Leicas. When I can afford one, without thinking about it, I'll buy one. I have no illusions about how much better they make my photography: I just like working with them. I chose to sell my Leicas in 2002 to further my photography in the digital capture world long before Leica had any digital M cameras available, but I'll go back there some day when the moment is right.

    Meanwhile, I keep doing Photography with what I have.


    ..."Equipment often gets in the way of Photography." ...
    Last edited by Godfrey; 5th April 2011 at 16:58.

  16. #66
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    >Meanwhile, I keep doing Photography with what I have.

    And I think you do very well.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  17. #67
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    ashwinrao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA - USA
    Posts
    3,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    What a cool thread...in my opinion, I find the M9 files more robust and sharper at the per-pixel level (when using asph glass) than K5 files. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, I have found the K5 experience, especially with the KatzEye screen and older MF lenses, to be awesome. And the IQ coming from the modern FA and DA lenses is hard to discern macroscopically from shots I have taken with my Leica. One thing I love about the K system is lens interchangeability, and there's a lot of different looks one can achieve, and for cheaper prices (by far) than Leica, with great build and great satisfcation of use. I see the K5 as a keeper, and I am thrilled I made the switch from Canon land...
    Ashwin Rao
    Seattle, WA
    My Photography

  18. #68
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    ashwinrao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA - USA
    Posts
    3,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    But I'm very clear why I'm using the M9 - it's because I love the rangefinder way of shooting, and because I like the lenses. It isn't so much about the quality, but more about the experience.
    Jono, I am completely here with you on this one!

    Ash
    Ashwin Rao
    Seattle, WA
    My Photography

  19. #69
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    >I find the M9 files more robust and sharper at the per-pixel level

    The missing AA filter of the M9 is a big plus.
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  20. #70
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    ashwinrao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA - USA
    Posts
    3,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by ustein View Post
    >I find the M9 files more robust and sharper at the per-pixel level

    The missing AA filter of the M9 is a big plus.
    Agreed, Uwe...I wish one of the SLR companies would take a chance and eliminate the anti-aliasing filter to see what a CMOS sensor can do in terms of per-pixel sharpness...

    By the way, I adore your "California Places" series on your website...Stunning work!
    Ashwin Rao
    Seattle, WA
    My Photography

  21. #71
    Contributing Editor ustein's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,658
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    >Agreed, Uwe...I wish one of the SLR companies would take a chance and eliminate the anti-aliasing filter to see what a CMOS sensor can do in terms of per-pixel sharpness...

    I also would like to see this. But then there would also be more aliasing and moire.

    >By the way, I adore your "California Places" series on your website...Stunning work!

    Thanks. Here is the link:

    http://californiaplaces.com/
    Uwe Steinmueller
    -------------------

    Editor&Owner of Digital Outback Photo
    http://www.outbackphoto.com

  22. #72
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    I wanted to comment Jonos thread regarding the spontanity of shooting with different formats...and the sometimes "static" MF images.
    I agree that it can be a problem to start having the priority on technical image aspects and loosing some spontanity with MF, but I think it does not necessarly has to be the case.
    Specially with the S2 I feel very flexible (with maybe the exception of not having superfast continous AF and high ISO). I feel to see the subject very good which is important, I feel to be able to play a lot with shallow DOF when I want to, I feel the sensor allows to play with contrast/shaddow/light, the room for cropping (because of high resolution) lets me tking images quite fast without having 100% correct framing. Most of the images come out as I thought they would come out. Also an advantage of primes that I do know my lenses and which "look" I achieve with them.
    In comparison for example with the EP2 and a zoom my vision is not so clear, I can not see the subject as good when taking the image, I do not have such a good feeling which sky I can "catch" and which one I will blow out (or get to much noise in the shaddows), also with the many switches and menues I feel unsecure if I have all settings right.
    What I mean, as funny as it might sound, I feel faster and more spontanious with the S2 then with an EP2.
    There are times when I prefer a smaller camera like the x1, M9 or K5 or want the fast AF of a D700, but there are also times when I prefer the S2 even for subjects where I dont need the resolution and IQ - just because it works better for me as a camera.

    I dont know yet, but with the M9 and K5 I feel they are both spontanious cameras for me, with an advantage for the user interface of the M9 which I just know better, and the plus that I dont have to worry about lens quality, and more flexibility regarding f-stops vs. the K5 having more room regarding high ISO and Tele-lenses and AF (sometimes).

    What did I want to say again?
    I think I wanted to say: Jono, I am convinced that the S2 would not make you producing less interesting or less spontanious images So IMO more a question of the photorapher than a qeustion which gear he uses.
    Last edited by Paratom; 6th April 2011 at 03:01.

  23. #73
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    What did I want to say again?
    I think I wanted to say: Jono, I am convinced that the S2 would not make you producing less interesting or less spontanious images So IMO more a question of the photorapher than a qeustion which gear he uses.
    Hi Tom
    you said it very clearly, and your pictures (and for instance CEH's shots) show that to be the case - I think it's the great thing about the S2 . . . . you know how close I came to that particular brink! At least if I change my mind later I have a little Leica 'currency' to get me closer to it.

    I quite agree with you about the general run of the 'mirrorless' cameras - I find them hard to ignore, which is the beauty of the M9, it disappears when shooting - and the K5 also does that with some practice I think.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  24. #74
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: RF choices

    Quote Originally Posted by markwon View Post
    If Zeiss or CV had a digital RF at half the cost, I would easily buy into that system, given that they offer comparable quality.
    Ah, may the gods hear ye. Frankly I'm still puzzled as to Epson's lack of an upgrade to their excellent RD camera.

  25. #75
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by ashwinrao1 View Post
    What a cool thread...in my opinion, I find the M9 files more robust and sharper at the per-pixel level (when using asph glass) than K5 files. HOWEVER, and it's a big however, I have found the K5 experience, especially with the KatzEye screen and older MF lenses, to be awesome. And the IQ coming from the modern FA and DA lenses is hard to discern macroscopically from shots I have taken with my Leica. One thing I love about the K system is lens interchangeability, and there's a lot of different looks one can achieve, and for cheaper prices (by far) than Leica, with great build and great satisfcation of use. I see the K5 as a keeper, and I am thrilled I made the switch from Canon land...
    HI There Ashwin
    My feelings exactly . . . . although my Sony gear is still hanging on by a thread!

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  26. #76
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: RF choices

    Quote Originally Posted by m3photo View Post
    Ah, may the gods hear ye. Frankly I'm still puzzled as to Epson's lack of an upgrade to their excellent RD camera.
    Well - I agree with you, but I'm not so puzzled: I guess that they didn't really make any money from the camera . . . which was designed as a means of selling more voigtlander lenses, so that when Leica brought out the M9, there wasn't really any need for the R-D1.

    As for Zeiss, I'd imagine they see it the same way - basically, that there is a rather limited market for an M rangefinder, and that there isn't much money to be made from selling camera bodies after you've taken in all the R&D required, and as long as Leica keep making the bodies, they'll keep selling the lenses.

    Just this guy you know

  27. #77
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    K-5 equals what upgraded Oly E-1 could have been...what a shame!

  28. #78
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,925
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by ashwinrao1 View Post
    Agreed, Uwe...I wish one of the SLR companies would take a chance and eliminate the anti-aliasing filter to see what a CMOS sensor can do in terms of per-pixel sharpness...
    The Olympus E-5 has a virtually non-existent AA filter, if it has one at all.

    Detailing is incredibly good.
    There are occasionally situations where moire is a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by bbodine9
    K-5 equals what upgraded Oly E-1 could have been...what a shame!
    While Pentax has some very good lenses, Olympus lens line is much more consistently excellent. While the E-1 can't compete with the K5 on camera speed, pixel resolution and light sensitivity, I much prefer using it ... it makes excellent photos still. :-)

  29. #79
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    201
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    No argument from me on the E-1 ( I have an original issue also ) but just think if Kodak had continued working on their sensors and Oly had stayed with them...um, um, um!

  30. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    W. NY, close to Toronto, far from NYC
    Posts
    1,426
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    I wanted to comment Jonos thread regarding the spontanity of shooting with different formats...and the sometimes "static" MF images.
    I agree that it can be a problem to start having the priority on technical image aspects and loosing some spontanity with MF, but I think it does not necessarly has to be the case.
    Specially with the S2 I feel very flexible (with maybe the exception of not having superfast continous AF and high ISO). I feel to see the subject very good which is important, I feel to be able to play a lot with shallow DOF when I want to, I feel the sensor allows to play with contrast/shaddow/light, the room for cropping (because of high resolution) lets me tking images quite fast without having 100% correct framing. Most of the images come out as I thought they would come out. Also an advantage of primes that I do know my lenses and which "look" I achieve with them.
    In comparison for example with the EP2 and a zoom my vision is not so clear, I can not see the subject as good when taking the image, I do not have such a good feeling which sky I can "catch" and which one I will blow out (or get to much noise in the shaddows), also with the many switches and menues I feel unsecure if I have all settings right.
    What I mean, as funny as it might sound, I feel faster and more spontanious with the S2 then with an EP2.
    There are times when I prefer a smaller camera like the x1, M9 or K5 or want the fast AF of a D700, but there are also times when I prefer the S2 even for subjects where I dont need the resolution and IQ - just because it works better for me as a camera.

    I dont know yet, but with the M9 and K5 I feel they are both spontanious cameras for me, with an advantage for the user interface of the M9 which I just know better, and the plus that I dont have to worry about lens quality, and more flexibility regarding f-stops vs. the K5 having more room regarding high ISO and Tele-lenses and AF (sometimes).

    What did I want to say again?
    I think I wanted to say: Jono, I am convinced that the S2 would not make you producing less interesting or less spontanious images So IMO more a question of the photorapher than a qeustion which gear he uses.
    Hi Thomas:

    I understand you comments. I recently bought a 645D; it is my first ďserious ďdigital camera, i.e., it has replaced my film cameras. I am very comfortable with the 645D, it behaves much like a 645N: I can set the aperture on the lens, not the viewfinder and the viewfinder image is very clear, unlike the DSLR cameras Iíve tried. I understand the spontaneity aspect you mention as well. Here is an image taken with the 645D and 400mm FA. Nothing exceptional, but it could have been. The finder and autofocus of the 645D allowed me to capture it. A shot (handheld) of migrating mergansers who gather in a nearby harbor during their spring migration. Also a crop. A nearly impossible shot on my film cameras.

    Tom

  31. #81
    Member vincechu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England - UK
    Posts
    213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post

    Woah, that needs to be censored admin - some serious camera porn there!
    Vince

  32. #82
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Hi Godfrey
    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    While Pentax has some very good lenses, Olympus lens line is much more consistently excellent.
    Quite agree - I'd kill for a lens like the 12-60 on the K5
    Not so interested in the big pro zooms, as if I'm going that big I'd rather use the Zeiss lenses on an A900 for the same price and weight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    While the E-1 can't compete with the K5 on camera speed, pixel resolution and light sensitivity, I much prefer using it ... it makes excellent photos still. :-)
    Hmmm using the K5 is an additive process - it gets better with experience. I still have and occasionally use my E1, and I agree it still makes excellent photos, but compared to the K5 it's bigger, noisier, slower . . .

    Just this guy you know

  33. #83
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by vincechu View Post
    Woah, that needs to be censored admin - some serious camera porn there!
    Don't tempt me Vince - I can do better than that . . . but then, you're a young man with prospects and I'm just a sad old bugger with too many cameras

    Just this guy you know

  34. #84
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post

    I remember looking at a spectacularly good website of landscape black and white shots taken with a 2.5 mp Kodak compact. I really don't think that one can connect kit acquisition with art, I really don't!

    all the best
    That wouldn't be the work of Jeff Alu would it?

    http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=483974

  35. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by ashwinrao1 View Post
    Agreed, Uwe...I wish one of the SLR companies would take a chance and eliminate the anti-aliasing filter to see what a CMOS sensor can do in terms of per-pixel sharpness...

    By the way, I adore your "California Places" series on your website...Stunning work!
    The Sigma SD1 when it arrives should blow away everything below medium format for sharpness and resolution unless it's delayed so long the others get 35MP sensors to market.

  36. #86
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    90
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Interesting test shots. I can't help feel that with a little less money spent on cameras you might have been better able to properly maintain the roof of your house....



    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi There

    [The Lackadaisical quality of the above photo (taken with an X1) is a good reflection of the lackadaisical quality of my testing.

    This certainly wasn't meant for public consumption - it was to give me an idea of the actual IQ compromises entailed when using the K5 as opposed to the M9. It wasn't so that I could come to any selling decision, simply to get a handle on things.

    To this end it seemed better to try and use perfect conditions - not high ISO or wide apertures or anything like that, I understand that pretty well.

    So, I went out armed with the two cameras.

    First of all a 24mm test - I used the DA 16-50 zoom for this, I'm certain it performs better than the 15 DA, and this copy seems to be a good one.
    With the M9 I used the 24 summilux at f8.







    Now the 50 mm test; here I used the Noctilux at f8, against the DA35 macro at f5.6 - a fairer test I feel. Anway, here are the results:







    I've put the 4 RAW files concerned into my dropbox folder, so that you can go do some real pixel peeping if it turns you on!

    Dropbox link to zip file

    Worth mentioning that I did NOT use a tripod for these shots (I felt that the shutter speed made it unnecessary).

    I also had IS turned OFF on the K5 - not to level the playing field, but I think that it has a detrimental effect on image quality when it isn't needed.

    So, there are problems here:
    1. no tripod
    2. careless test conditions
    3. matching apples and oranges
    4. pointless
    5. likely to start a fight!

    Still, it gave me an answer that I can get to grips with, and it was a fun walk getting to the old barn (the dog got very bored when I was taking the pictures).

    Enjoy!

  37. #87
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by davemillier View Post
    That wouldn't be the work of Jeff Alu would it?

    http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=483974
    HI Dave
    how the devil are you? well I hope? family all good?

    It was indeed Jeff Alu - I've just been looking at his website, not so convinced by the new work, but he's certainly taken advantage of those early black and whites:

    Here is his website

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  38. #88
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: K5 versus the M9

    Quote Originally Posted by davemillier View Post
    Interesting test shots. I can't help feel that with a little less money spent on cameras you might have been better able to properly maintain the roof of your house....

    Lovely to hear from you.
    Actually - we'd love to get our hands on this place, but there's no access, and it' s not for sale

    Just this guy you know

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •