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!

an unnecessary comparison

jonoslack

Active member
As both the K5 and the X100 are 'convenience' cameras, I thought I'd do a simple test between the
X100 - and the K5 with the 28-135 (not fair I know, but that's what I mostly use, and I wanted to see how much worse it was)>

I took a boring number of samples, but here are a couple.

All at f5.6, processed in Aperture,








 

ecsh

New member
The tail of your dog is missing in the second shot, LOL
On the first set of the grass, you framed both cameras almost identical, to what looks like a couple of mm's.
Joe
 

jonoslack

Active member
The tail of your dog is missing in the second shot, LOL
On the first set of the grass, you framed both cameras almost identical, to what looks like a couple of mm's.
Joe
Hi Joe
Sorry about the dog tail!
the first shots are cropped - hence the uncanny accuracy (not something I'm otherwise renowned for :ROTFL:)
 

Knorp

Well-known member
Goodmorning Jono,

what can I say: they both look almost identical.
To my eye the K5 looks more 'realistic' in both colour rendition and shadow detail.
I mean the X100 seems more saturated and has deeper shadows.
Despite the dog missing, I'd say there's more 'life' in the K5 shot.
And, well perhaps, the X100 does a slightly better job in the corner sharpness department ... :confused:

But then it could be all down to your PP of course ....

Anyway, I'd take both cameras :D
All the very best.
 

woodyspedden

New member
I just returned from comparing the K-5 with the 31FA and the X100. Simple real life images.

The colors were remarkably similar as shows with Jono's images as well.

I verified that in the extreme corners the X100 is slightly sharper.

So all in all the X100 acquitted itself very well for its price.

However i would not give up the versatility of the K-5 for it even given the slightly better corner performance. Of course the X100 is smaller but the K-5 is small enough that I have no problem carrying it around most of the day even at 74 years old.

I may hang on to the X100 just as a cult camera or give it to my wife to replace her old G3. She could do wonders for her kinds of shots (almost all of her grandchildren) with this rig and it would still fit comfortably in most of her handbags although larger than the G4

Just my thoughts after a brief run with it

Woody
 

woodyspedden

New member
Here are some shots for the comparisons. Please no comments on artistic merit. There is none! LOL

The K-5 shots are first and the X100 second.

Woody
 

DavidL

New member
"The grass is always greener" Sorry it had to be said.
Can't help you out with the fuji I'm afraid.
David
 

jonoslack

Active member
Here are some shots for the comparisons. Please no comments on artistic merit. There is none! LOL

The K-5 shots are first and the X100 second.

Woody
HI Woody
I guess the X100 was shot jpg? The sky colour is very different I feel, with the fuji having a cyan tint which Canon used (may still) to have. I'm not keen, but it goes away if you shoot RAW, so it's not of concern.

all the best
 

Sapphie

Member
As both the K5 and the X100 are 'convenience' cameras, I thought I'd do a simple test between the
X100 - and the K5 with the 28-135 (not fair I know, but that's what I mostly use, and I wanted to see how much worse it was)>

Jono

I was going to say that the 'look' of this shot from the K5 was exactly why I loved the K5 output from the start ... then I realised that this one was from the X100.

Wow, or LOL,

Lee
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono

I was going to say that the 'look' of this shot from the K5 was exactly why I loved the K5 output from the start ... then I realised that this one was from the X100.

Wow, or LOL,

Lee
Well, I did try and equate the colour somewhere in between the two, so maybe it's not so strange after all!
 

Sapphie

Member
Jono

I just think this shows ow subjective these comparisons are and difficult to truly compare on-screen via a web page!

BTW I eventually had some prints done, 12x8s, some from K5, some from GH2. It wasn't a fair comparison as the same shots weren't taken with each camera, so the scenes were mostly different or on different days, lighting etc. What was immediately apparent to me was that whilst the GH2 shots sometimes seemed sharper on-screen, when printed that didn't matter - the K5s, to my eyes, were much richer, fuller colour and tonality etc.

Must try the same with some X100 shots!

Lee
 

woodyspedden

New member
HI Woody
I guess the X100 was shot jpg? The sky colour is very different I feel, with the fuji having a cyan tint which Canon used (may still) to have. I'm not keen, but it goes away if you shoot RAW, so it's not of concern.

all the best
No Jono

Both were shot raw! I did nothing to change color except add a bit of saturation to punch things up a bit. So I can't explain the additional cyan in the X100 shots.

Woody
 
Top