The GetDPI Photography Forum

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

K5 versus the M9

jonoslack

Active member
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!
:watch:
 

emr

Member
Interesting, Jono! Unfortunately my Mac Unarchiver wasn't able to open the zip file for some reason. Any 100% crops for pixel peeping?

Also: where the heck did that silver K-5 come from? Did you return your black one? I had one on preorder for a while but the local importer said they were supposed to get some no sooner than late April - early May. I'm also still a bit hesitant if I can trust the teething problems are gone by now.
 

scho

Well-known member
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!
:watch:
Without pixel peeping it looks like a draw. I did the same sort of comparison between my 5DII and the K5 and decided that the 5DII was superfluous for my needs.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I was curious to look at the raw files, but the link returns a tiny zip file that can't possibly be correctly formed.
 

markwon

Member
until now i didn't know just how small the k5 really was! the K5 seems to hold its own. very impressive!
 

emr

Member
Jono's zip file was probably still being uploaded to the Dropbox cloud as we tried to download it at first. Now it's a proper 74.5MB file that opens just fine.
 

tsjanik

Well-known member
Interesting comparison Jono. Although I don't have a K-5 (or M9 for that matter), I've really enjoyed the posts and accompanying photos in all the K-5 threads. There are so many, it seems Pentax should have its own thread; anyone with an "other" camera must feel somewhat alone.
I'm surprised at the apparent number of posters who have both a M9 and K-5. I understand the similar appeal - size, primes, but to have both systems (unless zooms are used with the Pentax) seems redundant. As good as the K-5 appears to be, when would you choose it over the M9?
 

emr

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

EDIT: Aperture 3, more or less default settings
 

markwon

Member
Interesting comparison Jono. Although I don't have a K-5 (or M9 for that matter), I've really enjoyed the posts and accompanying photos in all the K-5 threads. There are so many, it seems Pentax should have its own thread; anyone with an "other" camera must feel somewhat alone.
I'm surprised at the apparent number of posters who have both a M9 and K-5. I understand the similar appeal - size, primes, but to have both systems (unless zooms are used with the Pentax) seems redundant. As good as the K-5 appears to be, when would you choose it over the M9?
That's a good point.

Personally, I was using my m4/3 system when I needed AF/video/macro/telephoto work. And also when shooting around with family at outings where things get messy. Also, when I was in Ethiopia, all the dirt and debris made me think twice before swapping out lenses on my M8. The whole time I was thinking I would have been better off with a fast zoom and rugged body. Thus the K5.

It will be my go to camera when I need a fast zoom and a body that I can bang around without worry. And while it is not the strongest feature, the HD video will be nice too when I want to use it.

For me, the primes (15, 31, 77) are more for fun and potentially video work. Other times I will be using a fast zoom (still trying to test them out before committing).

Last but not least, I'm a New Yorker but currently reside in SC where shooting with a rangefinder is too limiting. It's a place much more condusive to lanscape and telephoto work. When I return to NY someday, I'll probably be shooting mostly with my M8 again.
 

emr

Member
In examples #2 the halo isn't as much presented and the resolution difference seems less pronounced.
 

Godfrey

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

EDIT: Aperture 3, more or less default settings
The difference I see is between the lenses. The Pentax 16-50 zoom is no match for anything fitted to the M9. That zoom has a ton of chromatic aberration and generally mushy edge and corner rendering. (not to say that the Leica's 24mm lens is perfect either.)The DA35 Macro Limited is a lot closer to the Leica's 50mm performance, but the 50 still has an edge. I think the obsession with antialiasing filter strength is unwarranted.

IMO, as usual, the reason to buy a Leica M is superior lenses. Primes too ... feh on zooms.

(Okay, Jono: I'll take an M9. Anyone giving one away please send me a note ... ];-)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Obsession, nice. And the halo, is that from the lens too?
The "halo" you're seeing is an artifact caused by a combination of Aperture's default settings and the chromatic aberration in the Leica 24mm lens. I opened the files in both Lightroom and Aperture ... Aperture's default sharpening combined with the R-G CA shift creates a halo which is absent in LR's default rendering (LR shows the RG fringing only).

A small tweak of the R-G, B-Y CA adjustment controls in LR eliminates the fringing. In Aperture, doing a similar correction and changing the sharpening eliminates both halo and CA fringing.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I'm surprised at the apparent number of posters who have both a M9 and K-5. I understand the similar appeal - size, primes, but to have both systems (unless zooms are used with the Pentax) seems redundant. As good as the K-5 appears to be, when would you choose it over the M9?
Hi There
What a good question. The answer for me is that I actually do mostly use the K5 with zooms (I have the Sigma 10-20 f3.5, the 16-50 f2.8, the 18-135 for a walkabout and the 60-250).

My priorities are like Mark's, so the primes are more for fun. But the Philosophy and size of the camera is pretty consistent, and a small kit is always possible. To be honest I wouldn't expect to be using the K5 for straight landscape, I'd normally have an M with me.

It's grand to have something which is robust, weathersealed, small and quiet, and the Pentax, unlike anything else, ticks all those boxes.
 

jonoslack

Active member
Godfrey
Thanks for the useful contributions - this is actually my fourth attempt at a 16-50, and although it's not perfect, it seems fairly good to me, it even has sharp corners if you stop it down a bit!

As you say, the comparison between the 35 and the noctilux is a bit fairer. On the other hand, the 15 limited I had was noticeably worse than the 16-50 at all apertures.

Mark
The K5 really is small - and perfectly formed. I'm not certain that the shutter is quieter than the M9, but it's certainly a much nicer noise, a delicious noise in fact.

For me the K5 is no replacement for the M9, but it's an excellent companion.

emr
Thanks for the explanation of the zip file - I'd forgotten how slow our internet is here in Cornwall

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

all the best
 

Sapphie

Member
Jono

Well, who'd have thought it: Pentax 'as good as Leica'! Of course, there's always more than one thing to consider in all of this and I admit to not having read all the posts yet in this thread but it is clear to me that as a fervent 'Leica fan', you are enjoying you K5 very much! Headlines now: "Leica and MFT users trade cameras for Pentax K5" ... :)

Regarding the silver K5, your picture is interesting as I think it shows the main difference in the grip to be in the lower half. Are you getting used to it?

I am also curious about your comment on SR maybe being detrimental sometimes. I have a suspicion about this too but am not sure I can 'prove' it. What have you seen? i would like some 'auto mode' where we can set a threshold for SR being activated, perhaps being based on a shutter speeds for corresponding focal lengths. i.e. if the shutter speed should be high enough, such as 1/250th for a 135mm focal length, then don't activate SR. It must be possible in firmware?

Lee
 

tsjanik

Well-known member
Mark, Jono, thanks for the replies. Now I understand, the existence of Pentax zooms allows the justification and rationalization, but then the Pentax primes prove irresistible :).

Tom
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI There Lee

Jono

Well, who'd have thought it: Pentax 'as good as Leica'! Of course, there's always more than one thing to consider in all of this and I admit to not having read all the posts yet in this thread but it is clear to me that as a fervent 'Leica fan', you are enjoying you K5 very much! Headlines now: "Leica and MFT users trade cameras for Pentax K5" ... :)
Yes - in your dreams! Of course, the reason I posted this was that I thought that the results were interesting, and had the scope of reassuring owners of both cameras (they reassured this owner of both cameras :))

Regarding the silver K5, your picture is interesting as I think it shows the main difference in the grip to be in the lower half. Are you getting used to it?
Yes - it's fine - but of course it's difficult to really compare until the black one gets back from Pentax. My gut reaction is that I still prefer the black.

I am also curious about your comment on SR maybe being detrimental sometimes. I have a suspicion about this too but am not sure I can 'prove' it. What have you seen? i would like some 'auto mode' where we can set a threshold for SR being activated, perhaps being based on a shutter speeds for corresponding focal lengths. i.e. if the shutter speed should be high enough, such as 1/250th for a 135mm focal length, then don't activate SR. It must be possible in firmware?

Lee
I wondered if anyone would pick up on that - I was shooting with the 60-250 in good light the other day, and was a little disappointed with foliage detail, especially away from the centre of the frame. As I was shooting in bright light with a fast shutter speed it just occurred that it might be worth turning off the SR - Hard to prove it's better, but it does seem to be quite a big improvement. Same for the 16-50.

I'd be interested in other people's experiences.

all the best
 

jonoslack

Active member
Mark, Jono, thanks for the replies. Now I understand, the existence of Pentax zooms allows the justification and rationalization, but then the Pentax primes prove irresistible :).

Tom
Tom
You hit the nail on the head!
The K5 provides the missing link without representing too much culture shock.

To me it's not often an alternative to the M9, but I use it more at a point when I might previously have taken out the LX5 or similar.
 
Top