Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 118

Thread: K5 versus the GH2

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    I don't know what to make of Carl Weese's comments here:

    http://workingpictures.blogspot.com/...tax-k5-no.html

    Not comparing K5 to GH2 but GF1. None the less, makes it sound like he had a faulty K5 but I don't think he would say that?

    Lee

  2. #52
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Who knows - I just read the article and found the results bizarre. Certainly different form my previous experiences with an EP-1 and a G1. While they were both nice cameras they certainly did not favorably compare to my K5 with the exception being their small size.

    Jim

  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 GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    I don't know what to make of Carl Weese's comments here:

    http://workingpictures.blogspot.com/...tax-k5-no.html

    Not comparing K5 to GH2 but GF1. None the less, makes it sound like he had a faulty K5 but I don't think he would say that?

    Lee
    I have the GF1 and the GH2 and the K5... and I have not touched the GF1 since the K5 arrived. The GH2 arrived shortly after the K5 and I have not had much time to use it but I will say that both the GF1 and the GH2 do a great job but I am not sure they surpass the K5 in any area but the quickness of the auto-focus.

    I plan on keeping all three but have found the K5 to be a pleasure to use and the files are very good (RAW). The JPGs are not so great but they are by no means terrible either. I just prefer RAW with the K5.

    On the other hand, the JPGs from the Panasonics are really quite good.

    The GF1 works well for me but the lack of a decent EVF was beginning to kill me on a number of occasions. The GH2 EVF is wonderful... actually one of the main reasons I bought the GH2. I'm not a video guy so that part of the camera's capabilities are not in the mix for me. Love the articulated LCD and wish the K5 had one as well.

    There are areas in which the Panasonics shine and the same can be said for the K5... once again.. I am keeping all of them.
    Jim Radcliffe
    www.boxedlight.com

  4. #54
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Radcliffe View Post
    There are areas in which the Panasonics shine and the same can be said for the K5... once again.. I am keeping all of them.
    That sums up how I feel as well.
    -Amin Sabet

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Radcliffe View Post
    I have the GF1 and the GH2 and the K5... and I have not touched the GF1 since the K5 arrived. The GH2 arrived shortly after the K5 and I have not had much time to use it but I will say that both the GF1 and the GH2 do a great job but I am not sure they surpass the K5 in any area but the quickness of the auto-focus.

    I plan on keeping all three but have found the K5 to be a pleasure to use and the files are very good (RAW). The JPGs are not so great but they are by no means terrible either. I just prefer RAW with the K5.

    On the other hand, the JPGs from the Panasonics are really quite good.

    The GF1 works well for me but the lack of a decent EVF was beginning to kill me on a number of occasions. The GH2 EVF is wonderful... actually one of the main reasons I bought the GH2. I'm not a video guy so that part of the camera's capabilities are not in the mix for me. Love the articulated LCD and wish the K5 had one as well.

    There are areas in which the Panasonics shine and the same can be said for the K5... once again.. I am keeping all of them.
    I feel exactly the same way. I have the E-PL2, GH2 and the K-5. Quite frankly, I haven't touched another camera since I got the K-5.

    There is no way I would get rid of the m4/3 gear....and all those adapted lenses....BUT right now the K-5 has a "better" RAW file than the GH2...more dynamic range, significantly higher ISO capability (ISO 6400 is a no-brainer), a wider range of sharp, fast autofocus primes (this is where Panasonic and Olympus need to fill the gap) in just about any focal length you want, a weather sealed body (and select lenses), whisper quiet shutter and all in a relatively small package.

    It's all about the photo, not the gear....but you have to have the gear that fits your shooting conditions and personal style.

    Right now, the K-5 matches up nicely.

    R

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Rich and Jim

    I am loving my K5 but having already had a G1 + lenses it was a tough call deciding on the K5 or the GH2. I went for the K5 because I felt I was seeing better shots with it, not least those on this forum. But, curiosity got the better of me and I have just plumped for a GH2 as well. I am not really sure if I can justify two systems, so we will see how I get on. Definitely K5 better at higher ISOs but at 1600 and below, GH2 is OK.

    I may start a 'Fun with the GH2' thread but for now the obligatory cat photo:



    Taken with the 20mm pancake, 1600 ISO I think.

    Lee

  7. #57
    Member Armanius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    210
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    6

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Very nice shot Lee!

    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.

    I kept thinking that I'd get sharper files with the K5 starting at base ISO. I was pleasantly surprised at how the GH2 not only held its own, but appeared to provide sharper files at base ISO on a more consistent basis. I felt the same way with the GH2 vs. Sony A55. Perhaps the GH2's auto focus is more consistently accurate than the K5.
    Armanius
    My Flickr

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ithaca, NY
    Posts
    3,541
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Armanius View Post
    Very nice shot Lee!

    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.

    I kept thinking that I'd get sharper files with the K5 starting at base ISO. I was pleasantly surprised at how the GH2 not only held its own, but appeared to provide sharper files at base ISO on a more consistent basis. I felt the same way with the GH2 vs. Sony A55. Perhaps the GH2's auto focus is more consistently accurate than the K5.
    I'm thinking that the K5 AA filter is a bit more aggressive than we think. Certainly not as bad as my 5D2, but definitely doesn't have the biting sharpness of my old M8 and my IR converted G1 (sans AA filter). I no longer have the M8 for comparison, but I have compared the G1 vs K5 and the AAless G1 (using Pentax 35 macro) seems to produce images with more apparent fine detail.
    Carl
    Gallery

  9. #59
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Lee, have a great time with the new toy. M4/3 is always fascinating and I get to play with an Epl-2 and a 9-18 next week when I do a few day camera swap with a good friend.

    Jim

  10. #60
    Member Armanius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Posts
    210
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    6

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by scho View Post
    I'm thinking that the K5 AA filter is a bit more aggressive than we think. Certainly not as bad as my 5D2, but definitely doesn't have the biting sharpness of my old M8 and my IR converted G1 (sans AA filter). I no longer have the M8 for comparison, but I have compared the G1 vs K5 and the AAless G1 (using Pentax 35 macro) seems to produce images with more apparent fine detail.
    The M8 files were definitely very sharp. I had it for about two weeks before I was able to get a hold of a M9, and the M8 files were sharper.

    As for the K5, I thought I'd read somewhere that the AA filter on it was pretty weak. But I guess not as weak as the one on the GH2, perhaps.
    Armanius
    My Flickr

  11. #61
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Armanius View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich M View Post
    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.
    -Amin Sabet

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    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

  13. #63
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    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 by Amin; 16th April 2011 at 06:28.
    -Amin Sabet

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    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 (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

  15. #65
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich M View Post
    In terms of full frame focal lengths, the Panasonic leave a gap between 40-90mm. That's kind of a big gap
    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.
    -Amin Sabet

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    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 by raist3d; 16th April 2011 at 10:17.

  17. #67
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    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.
    -Amin Sabet

  18. #68
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: It's all about ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich M View Post
    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 ...

  19. #69
    Member Elliot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    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.

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

  20. #70
    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 GH2

    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!

    Just this guy you know

  21. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    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 by Sapphie; 16th April 2011 at 10:31.

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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

  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 GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    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.

    Just this guy you know

  24. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    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.

  25. #75
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    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

  26. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    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

  27. #77
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    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

  28. #78
    Member A.Sattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cleveland,OH.
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    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 by A.Sattler; 18th April 2011 at 10:42. Reason: added referenced posts.

  29. #79
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

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

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by raist3d View Post
    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,

  30. #80
    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 GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.Sattler View Post
    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!

    Just this guy you know

  31. #81
    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 GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post

    I don't think that helps anybody and my opinion subject to change.
    Well, maybe not - but it certainly impresses me with it's even handedness and intelligence

    Just this guy you know

  32. #82
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    OT Weather Sealing

    Quote Originally Posted by t_streng View Post
    Weather sealed are both bodies, Nikon and Pentax.
    Excuse me for jumping away from the subject for a moment. I've always been intrigued by Nikon's policy (?) of not confirming the extent of protection in their bodies against the elements. Is the D700 as safe from rain showers as, say the K-5? If so, what would their equivalent lens be to the Pentax WR 18-135?

  33. #83
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: OT Weather Sealing

    Quote Originally Posted by m3photo View Post
    Excuse me for jumping away from the subject for a moment. I've always been intrigued by Nikon's policy (?) of not confirming the extent of protection in their bodies against the elements. Is the D700 as safe from rain showers as, say the K-5? If so, what would their equivalent lens be to the Pentax WR 18-135?
    There is none. This is one of the strange things about Nikon. They don't say what lenses are weather resistant, but most of the pro grade lenses are. The pro lenses obviously don't have the reach of the 18-135.

    I remember the brochure for the F6, where they showed photos of the camera covered with dust next to a photo of a scene with rain pouring down. But try to find out what lenses that you can drench it with, and you have to do the research yourself.

    As far as i remember, some of the non-pro Nikkors have a rubber seal at the mount, but if that means that the rest of the lens is sealed, I don't know. There's only one way to find out I guess, and I'm not going to try

  34. #84
    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: OT Weather Sealing

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    There is none. This is one of the strange things about Nikon. They don't say what lenses are weather resistant, but most of the pro grade lenses are. The pro lenses obviously don't have the reach of the 18-135.

    I remember the brochure for the F6, where they showed photos of the camera covered with dust next to a photo of a scene with rain pouring down. But try to find out what lenses that you can drench it with, and you have to do the research yourself.

    As far as i remember, some of the non-pro Nikkors have a rubber seal at the mount, but if that means that the rest of the lens is sealed, I don't know. There's only one way to find out I guess, and I'm not going to try
    Hi Jorgen
    The difference is that if it says it's weather sealed and water gets in, they should repair it free of charge.
    Nikon lenses are probably sealed - but there's no guarantee.

    Actually, I don't know how good pentax would be, but Olympus were excellent about fixing any kind of water in any of their kit.

    Just this guy you know

  35. #85
    Member A.Sattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cleveland,OH.
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Hi Jono,

    Thank you for the reply.

    I've read of other "undesirable characteristics" in Nikon files, but nothing of a yellow cast. So, I was curious.
    Do you think it is a characteristic of the sensor or the processing? I also wonder, since they are using the same sensor in the D7000 as is in the K5, if some of the previous issues might be resolved and how much of a difference there is in terms of performance and image quality/feel between the two.
    I've never really considered Nikon before and I'm just trying to get a feel for what they offer.

    No free lunch is right! I've certainly come to that realization. Pentax seems to offer much of what I want. But the issues regarding lenses, QC, and software support(compared to Canon/Nikon) have caused me to hesitate.

    It's interesting about the unconfirmed weather sealing. I've always heard that they were, but never bothered to verify it.

    Thanks again Jono, and have a good day to everyone.

    Adam

  36. #86
    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 GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by A.Sattler View Post
    Hi Jono,

    Thank you for the reply.

    I've read of other "undesirable characteristics" in Nikon files, but nothing of a yellow cast. So, I was curious.
    Do you think it is a characteristic of the sensor or the processing? I also wonder, since they are using the same sensor in the D7000 as is in the K5, if some of the previous issues might be resolved and how much of a difference there is in terms of performance and image quality/feel between the two.
    I've never really considered Nikon before and I'm just trying to get a feel for what they offer.
    Hi Adam
    I don't think it's the sensor, as it seems to carry through from one generation to another.
    I think it's a side effect of the fact that they maximise their colour for flattering skin tones . . . and the nasty evening light is an unfortunate side product, but this is only a guess. I haven't wrangled with it since the D700, but I found it impossible to deal with in PP.

    But lot's of people have no issues.

    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  37. #87
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Adam,

    I shot Nikon cameras for many years and have seen (and hated) the same yellow cast that was mentioned. It was evident on a D2H, D40 and D700 from my personal experience. I have no idea why it is there but it is unmistakeable. Great cameras with very good support but all cameras have their plus and minuses. I borrowed a D7000 when I was thinking about the K5 and did not find it to suit my needs.

    Jim

  38. #88
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

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

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Even if there is no weather sealed lens comparable to the 18-135 I have to say that to me most Nikon lenses seem at least as solid as their Pentax counterparts.
    The 24-70 for example I would trust muc more than a 16-50 Pentax. And while the Penax 50-135 is great the 70-200/2.8 feels at least as solid.
    Overall I would rate weather sealing equal.

  39. #89
    Senior Member Amin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Posts
    1,809
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    I'll just chime in on the other side here and state that I was never troubled by a yellow cast when shooting with Nikon D5000 or D700. It may be my lack of observational skills, but I like to think it was related to my choice of RAW processors (Capture NX2 and Lightroom). I'm usually sensitive to yellow or green casts.
    -Amin Sabet

  40. #90
    Senior Member m3photo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    28

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Thank you everybody. I'll buy the K-5 then ...

  41. #91
    Member A.Sattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cleveland,OH.
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Hello everyone,

    Thank you for the input. I'll be going this weekend to take a closer look at the D7000. I'm pretty curious to see what the files look like.

    Jim,
    Would you mind sharing what you didn't like about the D7000? Especially in relation to the K5? There are quite a few similarities between the two.

    And finally, if you can find good copies, how DO the Pentax lenses stack up to other manufacturers?

    Thanks again.

    Adam

  42. #92
    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 GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Amin View Post
    I'll just chime in on the other side here and state that I was never troubled by a yellow cast when shooting with Nikon D5000 or D700. It may be my lack of observational skills, but I like to think it was related to my choice of RAW processors (Capture NX2 and Lightroom). I'm usually sensitive to yellow or green casts.
    Hi Amin
    Not the processor - I was using Capture NX2 Lightroom and Aperture, and it was universal - I only found it really troublesome when doing landscape in nice evening light, at which point it looked like yellow paint had been sploshed about. . . . . .but then I do quite a lot of landscape in nice evening light!

    Generally I think it was kind to skin tones (which, I suspect is the reason for it). It was certainly a landscape issue though, and it was certainly there with the D700.


    Of course, it could be mass hysteria, but I really don't think so!

    Just this guy you know

  43. #93
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

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

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by A.Sattler View Post
    ...

    And finally, if you can find good copies, how DO the Pentax lenses stack up to other manufacturers?
    ...
    Adam,
    If I compare the 50-135 to the 70-200VRII -> both seem very good, however the Nikon to be slightly sharpner and more contrast/pop IMO.

    The 16-50 I ad was not up to the Nikon 24-70/2.8 - I needed to stop down the 16-50 to get good sharpness, the 24-70 is fine even wideopen.

    Comparing the 70/2.4 lim to the Nikon 105 they are both fine, while the Nikon gives you more room to play with shallow DOF.

    Overall I would say the Pentax lim primes seem very good, with nice color (the da ones a little cooler than the fa ones), and nice smooth bokeh.
    But then they are on the slow side compared to Nikon primes.

    If you like small size, nice metal "retro" built and are not a "shallow DOF fan" the Pentax limited are great IMO (except maybe the 15 wich needs to be stopped down for sharp corners)
    On the other side for the speed I find the Pentax lenses pretty expensive.
    Nikon offers a much wider range of lenses.

    Regarding the chance to aget a good zoom I have had better success with Nikon more consistent quality.

    For me the K5 and lenses is about small size and "filmlike IQ"

  44. #94
    Senior Member JMaher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sarasota
    Posts
    942
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Adam,

    The 7000 is a very nice camera. However (in my opinion) it has too much of the feel of a consumer body rather than a body like the 700 or D3 where everything is laid out with all controls to hand instead of menus. It's the same reason I didn't like the D90 even though it produced very nice files for its day. The Pentax is more like picking up a D700 or my old D2H only in a smaller package.

    Outside of the subjective feel, the files I took with it were good but not as good as those from a D700 and seemed to be lacking in dynamic range compared to the K5 files (even though they share the same sensor). The K5 files seemed to have a richer feel to them. Add to all that the water resistance of the K5 and the allure of the small primes.

    All in all the D7000 is a great camera but the K5 felt better in hand. All very subjective.

    Jim

  45. #95
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Posts
    777
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Maybe this will show why I am having trouble making my mind up ...

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showth...781#post309781

    Lee

  46. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphie View Post
    Maybe this will show why I am having trouble making my mind up ...

    http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showth...781#post309781

    Lee
    Lee....I can see why you are having trouble making up your mind.....but nobody said it HAS to be one or the other.

    R

  47. #97
    Member A.Sattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Cleveland,OH.
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    t_streng & Jim,

    Thank you for the input. I was able to get some "hands on" time with the Nikon yesterday. Didn't get to shoot with it, will try to do that and a head to head comparison with the K5 in a week or so. At first impression the D7000 seems more comfortable in my hand than the K5 did and I think I like the simpler layout better.
    The Nikkor primes didn't seem to be too big either. They were the GX series, I believe.
    I don't think I'll be able to compare them to the Pentax primes though. The store here only has the 50 & 55mm.

    Thanks again, and I hope everyone has a nice Easter.

    Adam

  48. #98
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Limerick, Ireland
    Posts
    134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    This thread was an interesting read from someone who owns neither the K-5 nor a micro-four-thirds camera... yet. I am considering the Panasonic GF1 and 20mm lens for only one reason -- size. The K-5 is miles ahead in terms of ergonomics, IQ, build quality, accessories, lenses etc. I don't think that should be much of a surprise given the form factors and how long Pentax has been ploughing this furrow.

    The m43 advantage of portability is lost with their zooms, which are too slow for my purposes in any case. Unfortunately that leaves only the two pancakes with only average optics. For excellence we have the Nokton and the Macro-Elmarit... but then we are neck-and-neck with the size of a K-5 setup. The diminishing returns of reduced size is a rule that cannot be broken.
    Listen to my new album "The Drones" free on BandCamp. Visit my Flickr images, website, or blog. Cheers!

  49. #99
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Hawaii
    Posts
    944
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    16

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by rparmar View Post
    The m43 advantage of portability is lost with their zooms, which are too slow for my purposes in any case. Unfortunately that leaves only the two pancakes with only average optics.
    Here's where I would disagree....the 20/1.7 is optically probably one of the finest lens in that focal length and form factor ever made. The Panasonic 7-14 is a world class ultra-wide.

    I agree that the zooms are slow, but the Panasonic 14-45 and 45-200 are grossly underrated in their performance. That four lens kit weighs less that a single Canon zoom and fits in a shoulder bag.

    I am saying this from the perspective of owning a K-5 (which I love) and a m4/3's system of bodies and lenses.

    Everything has its place and I think there is a place in every photographers kit for small form factor cameras.

    R

  50. #100
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Limerick, Ireland
    Posts
    134
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: K5 versus the GH2

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich M View Post
    Here's where I would disagree....the 20/1.7 is optically probably one of the finest lens in that focal length and form factor ever made.
    No, we don't disagree. It can be both "one of the finest lens in that focal length and form factor " and an average optic in the larger scheme of things. In fact the two go hand in hand, because it is impossible to make an excellent lens in that size and maximum aperture without charging maybe a grand. Instead Panasonic compromised on 3.3% distortion, 1.5px CA, significant vignetting and soft corners, betting on the automatic software correction to firm things up. But that by definition distorts the original optical image -- which is why the results lose a little "life".

    Panasonic/Olympus are caught by the inherent limitations of m43. They have to push focal lengths smaller and apertures wider to make up for a smaller sensor. Physics is physics. The 20/1.7 is only equivalent to 40/3.4 on FF. Or, more appropriately for this comparison, on APS-C it works out to something slightly wider and slower than the FA 31 Limited... but look at how much that costs!

    The zooms actually have significantly better IQ, since they are not trying to grab so much light.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rich M View Post
    Everything has its place and I think there is a place in every photographers kit for small form factor cameras.
    We agree again! That's why I am looking at what is possible in m43. But if the lens isn't small and light there is no point -- and this rules out most of the system.

    No doubt I will end up with the Vario 20/1.7 and live with the compromises. I would have preferred it to be an f/2 with more resolution. Likewise the Nokton is way too big. I would wish for something a stop slower and half the size.

    But numbers sell and apparently the m43 vendors are playing that game.
    Listen to my new album "The Drones" free on BandCamp. Visit my Flickr images, website, or blog. Cheers!

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
  •